On Nov 17, 3:35*am, aemeijers wrote:
On 11/16/2011 1:57 AM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Americans are the most stick-in-the-mud Westen society on earth. You
only have to see the rantings on here.
If something isn't happening in their back yard, it isn't happening at
all.
Especially technologywise.

And don't assume things are going to get "better". *They aren't. *You
need to be making arrangements right now. And CFLs is a small part of
it.

Must be comforting having your nanny-state government make all your
decisions for you.

--
aem sends...

Better than a fascist state run by retards.

Just been watching the parade of new republican retard presidential
hopefuls on the TV.
Several that think waterboarding is OK.
I wonder if they've had it done to them?
The PC sub-normal woman. (Relative of Palin-cow?)
The PC black guy with dementia who's never heard of Libya or Barak
Obama.
(We especially love him over here).
His interlude with dementia has been played to death on the news on
BBC, Aljazeera, Russian TV, France 24 TV and Euroland TV. He was
even on Chinese TV
And you wonder why the rest of the world thinksYanks are crazy?

Not one had a suggestion as to what had to be done to fix things. Just
bluster and aspiration.

Or, more likely, they are hiding the truth from you. Which is you're
all going to hell on a handcart. (So are we over here).


There is a reason for all this charade. It's so the votes will all be
channeled to the candidate that the wealthy fascist uppper class wants
in power.
Heh Heh. Compared with most of this lot, even Bush-evil-retard was an
intellectual giant.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"


You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.

Do you think most people give a **** what you want?
I can't burn leaves. Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up.
Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places.
Tough ****, I don't whine about that. I adjust.

The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use
of the bulbs you desire. You're free to stock up on incandescents.
Anybody is free to do that.
Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin.
But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining.
Nothing works for that.
You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht.
Nobody's stopping you. It's all available.
Look like you want the world to revolve around you.
News flash - won't happen.

Here's what you should do.
Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own
property. Turn them all on if you like. Nobody will stop you.
It'll make you feel righteous. Important.
I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark.
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull
out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
Feels good, real good. Nothing like ****ing in the toilet.
When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, ****ing on the
lawn, I'm the very center of the universe.
You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that.
Drink a beer if you need it.

--Vic

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.



It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).



Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Vic Smith writes:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"


You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.
....
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, ...

And here your post turned to art. Something all us men
can understand.

Bravo.

--
Dan Espen

On Nov 17, 12:31*am, harry wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:41 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well we've all seen where "free market" forces gets us.
And you want moreof it nincompoop?
The "free market" is not run for your benifit. Haven't you worked
that out yet?

But there's nothing preventing me from taking advantage of the free
market, no matter how it is constructed.

There is everything to prevent it.

Name two.

You are not a "leader" in the finance "industry" or in its upper
echelons.
You have insufficient money to buy a politician.

I don't know about, some of the Democrats go pretty cheap.

On Nov 16, 7:10*pm, "Tomsic" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 2:03 pm, "Tomsic" wrote:





"BobR" wrote in message

....
On Nov 15, 9:17 pm, "Tomsic" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:47:20 -0500, "Tomsic" wrote:

100 light bulbs would last me the rest of my life. Lighting is not a
significant part of my energy usage. We have task lighting where we
need it and motion detected lighting when we are walking around.
Most
of the time the house is pretty dark.

Lighting is about 12% of a home's energy use, so it doesn't stand out
on
the
electric bill. But, as we've seen, energy prices are rising and that's
not
likely to change anytime soon. So, those stocks of 100 watt bulbs get
increasingly expensive to operate every time one is put into a socket.
Already, in most places, it's cheaper to toss them than to use them..

I might believe that 12% number for those house that you can see from
space at night. It sounds awful high for my house.
I don't really have any 100 watt bulbs here. I do have CFLs where they
make sense but sometimes I just want an incandescent.

It's a number that I saw on the EPA Lighting web site, but I've seen
10-15%
other places. It depends a lot on where the house is located since the
biggest user of energy in homes is heating/cooling.
Incandescent bulbs have a quality of light that can't be matched (so
far)
with any energy-efficient alternatives. For certain kinds of lighting,
there's nothing better. I use them too, but energy efficiency is a
consideration -- from a cost standpoint if nothing else. There's some
new
halogen/incandescent technology coming out early next year in standard
bulbs
which doubles the lumens/watt from 15 to 30. I want some of those.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the EPA says it is so then it is the gospel truth and you
better believe it.
I think I am going to puke on that statement.

It would have been nice of you to consider the full statement. EPA's
number
was only one of several estimates that I saw -- all in the same 10-15%
range, so the EPA is probably right. Yes, I get it that you don't like the
EPA, but why turn every statement that refers to the EPA, even when
correct,
into a biased political rant?

Tomsic
The EPA was the only site that you quoted while making vague
references to others. *My first question to each would be who paid for
the study? *Its been my experience that most of the studies have a
predetermined figure that they then go out and find support to justify
while ignoring everthing else.

Good comment. *But there's not much incentive to fake such a number as home
energy use by category since it's so easy to check. *Lots of data come from
the California Energy Commission (it's paid for by the CA ratepayers on
their utility bills). *It's all on line for anyone to look at and critique.
In other areas, utilities, energy offices and environmental advocates do
studies. *Sure, consultants do some of the work - but there are good
consultants. *The DOE did a massive lighting energy use report in 2002.
It's being updated, but still a good reference for such things. *It's on
line hehttp://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf_es/275es.pdf

Tomsic-

Quite the contrary, how much of an inroad to the lighting market do
you believe the CFL's would have made if not for these studies and the
resulting big nanny government mandate on incadecent bulbs?
Seriously, you want to quote anything that comes out of the biggest
nanny state in the country...California or the DOE, a department
established Carter to end our dependence on foreign oil?

I hate to Ass-U-Me anything but assuming that the studies are correct
does that justify the government throwing out the millions of dollars
that manufacturers have invested in manufacturing facilities to make
good quality and inexpensive lighting products in favor of new,
unproven and very expensive alternatives that may or may not prove
better over the long haul. Has the governments actions been to the
consumer's benefit or has their passing laws that favor one product at
the expense of another guaranteed the consumer will pay far higher
prices for the CFL's that might have occured if they had to actually
compete for market share?

On Nov 17, 5:39*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"

You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.

Do you think most people give a **** what you want?
I can't burn leaves. *Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up.
Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places.
Tough ****, I don't whine about that. *I adjust.

The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use
of the bulbs you desire. *You're free to stock up on incandescents.
Anybody is free to do that.
Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin.
But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining.
Nothing works for that.
You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht.
Nobody's stopping you. *It's all available.
Look like you want the world to revolve around you.
News flash - won't happen.

Here's what you should do.
Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own
property. *Turn them all on if you like. *Nobody will stop you.
It'll make you feel righteous. *Important.
I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark.
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull
out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
Feels good, real good. *Nothing like ****ing in the toilet.
When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, ****ing on the
lawn, I'm the very center of the universe.
You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that.
Drink a beer if you need it.

--Vic

Which straw broke the camel's back, the first or the last? Which of
the unending list of government rules, regulations, and mandates will
finally get your attention that your back is about to break? Will it
be when one day they come to your house and arrest you for ****ing on
the lawn using evidence from DNA that they got from the ****?

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:32:33 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 17, 12:31*am, harry wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:41 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Well we've all seen where "free market" forces gets us.
And you want moreof it nincompoop?
The "free market" is not run for your benifit. Haven't you worked
that out yet?

But there's nothing preventing me from taking advantage of the free
market, no matter how it is constructed.

There is everything to prevent it.

Name two.

You are not a "leader" in the finance "industry" or in its upper
echelons.
You have insufficient money to buy a politician.

I don't know about, some of the Democrats go pretty cheap.

Street congresscritters?

BobR wrote:

Name two.

You are not a "leader" in the finance "industry" or in its upper
echelons.
You have insufficient money to buy a politician.

I don't know about, some of the Democrats go pretty cheap.

Like a stick of gum cheap.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.



It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).



Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.

On Nov 17, 3:54*pm, BobR wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:39*am, Vic Smith wrote:





On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"

You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.

Do you think most people give a **** what you want?
I can't burn leaves. *Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up.
Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places.
Tough ****, I don't whine about that. *I adjust.

The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use
of the bulbs you desire. *You're free to stock up on incandescents.
Anybody is free to do that.
Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin.
But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining.
Nothing works for that.
You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht.
Nobody's stopping you. *It's all available.
Look like you want the world to revolve around you.
News flash - won't happen.

Here's what you should do.
Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own
property. *Turn them all on if you like. *Nobody will stop you.
It'll make you feel righteous. *Important.
I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark.
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull
out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
Feels good, real good. *Nothing like ****ing in the toilet.
When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, ****ing on the
lawn, I'm the very center of the universe.
You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that.
Drink a beer if you need it.

--Vic

Which straw broke the camel's back, the first or the last? *Which of
the unending list of government rules, regulations, and mandates will
finally get your attention that your back is about to break? *Will it
be when one day they come to your house and arrest you for ****ing on
the lawn using evidence from DNA that they got from the ****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is there DNA in ****?

In article , HeyBub
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"


In that sense, it IS the end of the light bulb as you know it.
However, NOBODY is banning incandescent bulbs. You will still be able
to buy them anywhere. The difference between then and now is that you
will have to get used to rating their power in lumens, not watts. A
lumen rating of 1490-2600 is equivalent to the old 100-watt
incandescent light bulb, but the 1490-2600 lumen energy-efficient
incandescent model that will become mandatory on January 1 consumes
only 75 watts.


What if I WANT a 100-watt bulb that only puts out 200 lumens? I might need
it for my chick brooder where the heat is more needed than the light.

If (some) incandescent bulbs are not banned, why will I not be able to buy
them come January? What if I wanted one of the "lifetime" bulbs that faux
veteran's groups used to sell. You remember, the ones with a 10d nail as the
filament and that put out as much light as a candle while scoring over 100
watts? I won't be able to buy those any more due solely to legislative fiat
and that fiat is the result of my betters deciding what's good for the
country or the next generation.

Actually, the light bulb manufacturers themselves pushed for new
efficiency standards. They wanted to advance, but knew that marketing
would just be a race to the bottom without an imposed level playing
field. As long as one manufacture could sell cheap inefficient bulbs,
they all would have to in order to compete.

So they lobbied for the regulations. The government didn't force them
to do anything they didn't already want.

Bah!

Indeed. While you're at it, tell those damn kids to get off your lawn.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678387/k...ent-bulbs-are-
not-banned

Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com/

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:32:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:



Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

The 56kb was not a federal regulation it was simply the limitation of
one channel of a T-1 line (actually 64kb) minus the overhead necessary
to move data on it. That limit still exists on a dial up line. You do
quite a bit better with ADSL but that is a different breed of cat and
the data is not moving through the switched network. It gets split out
before you get to the switching equipment.

No, there is/was an FCC regulation disallowing 56K (53K max for V.92). The
56K "limit" isn't T-1 speed (1.5Mb) limited, rather audio channel limited
(8kHz x 16b).

I have been away from the ATM business for 20 years but I would be
surprised if they are still running on SDLC lines. I would expect them
to be on the network with the rest of the bank system and going out in
their broad band traffic. I really don't know for sure tho. I just
threw away a couple of old bisync modems a while ago because I
couldn't get a bite on Ebay. I also had a 9600 BPS modem that was
either bisync or async. All of them could either be leased or dialup.

Depends on the ATM, I'm sure. The ATM at the QuickieMart (I'm sure the vast
majority of them) are dialup. At one time they were 1200bps, but they could
easily be 2400bps, now. The issue is connect speed, so the lines can be
turned around quickly.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:40:23 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Nov 17, 3:54*pm, BobR wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:39*am, Vic Smith wrote:





On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"

You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.

Do you think most people give a **** what you want?
I can't burn leaves. *Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up.
Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places.
Tough ****, I don't whine about that. *I adjust.

The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use
of the bulbs you desire. *You're free to stock up on incandescents.
Anybody is free to do that.
Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin.
But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining.
Nothing works for that.
You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht.
Nobody's stopping you. *It's all available.
Look like you want the world to revolve around you.
News flash - won't happen.

Here's what you should do.
Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own
property. *Turn them all on if you like. *Nobody will stop you.
It'll make you feel righteous. *Important.
I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark.
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull
out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
Feels good, real good. *Nothing like ****ing in the toilet.
When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, ****ing on the
lawn, I'm the very center of the universe.
You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that.
Drink a beer if you need it.

--Vic

Which straw broke the camel's back, the first or the last? *Which of
the unending list of government rules, regulations, and mandates will
finally get your attention that your back is about to break? *Will it
be when one day they come to your house and arrest you for ****ing on
the lawn using evidence from DNA that they got from the ****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is there DNA in ****?

Sure. Cells are always sloughed off.

On Nov 17, 11:00*am, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:46:51 -0800 (PST), BobR





wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:10*pm, "Tomsic" wrote:
Good comment. *But there's not much incentive to fake such a number as home
energy use by category since it's so easy to check. *Lots of data come from
the California Energy Commission (it's paid for by the CA ratepayers on
their utility bills). *It's all on line for anyone to look at and critique.
In other areas, utilities, energy offices and environmental advocates do
studies. *Sure, consultants do some of the work - but there are good
consultants. *The DOE did a massive lighting energy use report in 2002.
It's being updated, but still a good reference for such things. *It's on
line hehttp://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf_es/275es.pdf

Tomsic-

Quite the contrary, how much of an inroad to the lighting market do
you believe the CFL's would have made if not for these studies and the
resulting big nanny government mandate on incadecent bulbs?
Seriously, you want to quote anything that comes out of the biggest
nanny state in the country...California or the DOE, a department
established Carter to end our dependence on foreign oil?

I hate to Ass-U-Me anything but assuming that the studies are correct
does that justify the government throwing out the millions of dollars
that manufacturers have invested in manufacturing facilities to make
good quality and inexpensive lighting products in favor of new,
unproven and very expensive alternatives that may or may not prove
better over the long haul. *Has the governments actions been to the
consumer's benefit or has their passing laws that favor one product at
the expense of another guaranteed the consumer will pay far higher
prices for the CFL's that might have occured if they had to actually
compete for market share?

CFLs started selling because they got cheap enough for the numbers to
look reasonable. If they are three times more efficient (using Harry's
number) a 60w equivalent bulb saves you *about .67 cents an hour at a
15 cent a kwh rate (about as high as it gets in the US, some places
are less than a dime). If the bulb costs 5 bucks you break even at
around 1000 hours.

Well, since my kwh rate is just a little over half that the payout has
been a lot longer in useful hours and none of the bulbs has lasted
that long anyway.

Since CFLs draw a lot more current when you turn
them on this may not really work out that well and if the bulb is
cycling a lot and it won't last as long.

You sure have that right.

CFLs also have a problem being mounted base up, particularly in a
recessed can.

I only have three lamps that are in use with upward mounted bulbs.
The house uses recessed lighting throughout and the CFL's don't last
nearly as long as advertised.

LEDs are an interesting product without he mercury problem but they
still have the early end of life problem that plagued CFLs when they
were new.

They still do as far as I can determine.

Some of this can be blamed on power line surge problems. Harry
probably does not see as many thunderstorms as we have in Florida. I
know the UK people who come here in the summer are usually hiding
under the bed the first time they are in one of those summer squalls
with a couple of "flash/bang" lightning strikes a minute for a half
hour or so. They think the bloody bosch are bombing them again.

That sure paints a very funny picture in the mind. Same holds for
here in Texas where the tornado sirens help things along.

My neighbor lived here for 20 years and never really got used to it.

Not only used to them but in my own warped insane way, I enjoy them.
The power of nature is something to watch, not fear.

If you don't have extensive surge protection lots of stuff gets blown
up, including your CFLs.

Been lucky on that point thus far...knock on wood.

On Nov 17, 10:40*am, harry wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:54*pm, BobR wrote:





On Nov 17, 5:39*am, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"

You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.

Do you think most people give a **** what you want?
I can't burn leaves. *Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up.
Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places.
Tough ****, I don't whine about that. *I adjust.

The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use
of the bulbs you desire. *You're free to stock up on incandescents.
Anybody is free to do that.
Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin.
But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining.
Nothing works for that.
You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht.
Nobody's stopping you. *It's all available.
Look like you want the world to revolve around you.
News flash - won't happen.

Here's what you should do.
Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own
property. *Turn them all on if you like. *Nobody will stop you.
It'll make you feel righteous. *Important.
I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark.
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull
out my dick, and **** on the lawn.
Feels good, real good. *Nothing like ****ing in the toilet.
When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, ****ing on the
lawn, I'm the very center of the universe.
You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that.
Drink a beer if you need it.

--Vic

Which straw broke the camel's back, the first or the last? *Which of
the unending list of government rules, regulations, and mandates will
finally get your attention that your back is about to break? *Will it
be when one day they come to your house and arrest you for ****ing on
the lawn using evidence from DNA that they got from the ****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is there DNA in ****?-

YEP!

On Nov 17, 10:38*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.

It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).

Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. *The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. *I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to
forget. I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I
used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. Had
one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over
the communications lines. I did some of the first experiments with
multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using
mini-computers. Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to
reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. When they went
from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to
exchange to point billing they killed me. Communications costs went
up from 500% to 1000% overnight. Multiplexing helped some but the
costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold
the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and
closed down.

It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast
while the communications costs skyrocketed. As a result I was able to
setup my clients with their own systems including the software and
have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months.
My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the
business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off.
Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time
period.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:46:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:39:14 -0600, "
wrote:

The 56kb was not a federal regulation it was simply the limitation of
one channel of a T-1 line (actually 64kb) minus the overhead necessary
to move data on it. That limit still exists on a dial up line. You do
quite a bit better with ADSL but that is a different breed of cat and
the data is not moving through the switched network. It gets split out
before you get to the switching equipment.

No, there is/was an FCC regulation disallowing 56K (53K max for V.92). The
56K "limit" isn't T-1 speed (1.5Mb) limited, rather audio channel limited
(8kHz x 16b).


That is the whole T-1 and you can rent one but a dial up line only
gets one channel or 64kb of that.

Sure, but that's not the point. T-1 is a _result_ of the 8Kx16b voice
channel, not the other way around. The V.92 speed limit is caused by the
limitations in the voice channel.

The 56kb is really only coming towards you, Upload is still V.34
speeds.

True, (53K max down) for V.92. There are other modulation schemes that
balance it more. It doesn't matter much anymore because data over voice is
pretty much dead. Where it isn't, speed doesn't matter.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:31:24 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 17, 10:38*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.

It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).

Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. *The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. *I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to
forget.

Sorry. ;-)

I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I
used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. Had
one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over
the communications lines. I did some of the first experiments with
multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using
mini-computers. Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to
reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. When they went
from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to
exchange to point billing they killed me. Communications costs went
up from 500% to 1000% overnight. Multiplexing helped some but the
costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold
the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and
closed down.

It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast
while the communications costs skyrocketed. As a result I was able to
setup my clients with their own systems including the software and
have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months.
My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the
business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off.
Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time
period.

Adtran in Huntsville, AL made a pile of money in those days, building all
sorts of widgets to combine links. Evidently there's still money to be made
because they're still at it and have gotten quite big.

On Nov 17, 7:25*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:31:24 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 17, 10:38*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.

It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).

Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps..

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. *The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. *I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to
forget.

Sorry. *;-)



That doesn't look too sorry to me. The times weren't too bad though.
It was really pretty good times to be on the cutting edge of an
emerging technology. Much more exciting than today with advances
being made at breakneck speed.




I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I
used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. *Had
one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over
the communications lines. *I did some of the first experiments with
multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using
mini-computers. *Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to
reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. *When they went
from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to
exchange to point billing they killed me. *Communications costs went
up from 500% to 1000% overnight. *Multiplexing helped some but the
costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold
the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and
closed down.

It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast
while the communications costs skyrocketed. *As a result I was able to
setup my clients with their own systems including the software and
have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months.
My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the
business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off.
Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time
period.

Adtran in Huntsville, AL made a pile of money in those days, building all
sorts of widgets to combine links. *Evidently there's still money to be made
because they're still at it and have gotten quite big.- Hide quoted text -


The amount of data being transferred was miniscule by today's
standards but even with the advances in bandwidth the amount of data
has still maintained the lead and they will always be playing catchup.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:31:31 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 17, 7:25*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:31:24 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 17, 10:38*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.

It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).

Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. *The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. *I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to
forget.

Sorry. *;-)



That doesn't look too sorry to me.

Sorry. ;-) ;-)

The times weren't too bad though.
It was really pretty good times to be on the cutting edge of an
emerging technology. Much more exciting than today with advances
being made at breakneck speed.

Advances are still being made, just not there.

I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I
used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. *Had
one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over
the communications lines. *I did some of the first experiments with
multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using
mini-computers. *Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to
reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. *When they went
from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to
exchange to point billing they killed me. *Communications costs went
up from 500% to 1000% overnight. *Multiplexing helped some but the
costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold
the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and
closed down.

It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast
while the communications costs skyrocketed. *As a result I was able to
setup my clients with their own systems including the software and
have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months.
My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the
business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off.
Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time
period.

Adtran in Huntsville, AL made a pile of money in those days, building all
sorts of widgets to combine links. *Evidently there's still money to be made
because they're still at it and have gotten quite big.- Hide quoted text -


The amount of data being transferred was miniscule by today's
standards but even with the advances in bandwidth the amount of data
has still maintained the lead and they will always be playing catchup.

Not so sure about that. At least the best Internet speeds are outstripping
the content (I'm still stuck 768K). OTOH, disk space has outstripped
everything else in the computer. It's past the point where hard disks might
just as well be write-once. I've had a 500MB external (two, including the
backup) for over four years. It's not close to being full (though I'll likely
replace them soon).

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:19:54 -0600, "
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:31:31 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 17, 7:25*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:31:24 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 17, 10:38*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:41:40 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:11:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The earlier decades of the USA, we had fairly close to free
market. I wasn't alive then, but I'm guessing it was better
off than now.

It's a moving target.

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, an individual could not OWN a
telephone. Long distance calls were upwards of a dollar a minute and
that was when a dollar was real money. When telephone modems first
came out, they were limited to 27,000bps because not everybody had
hard-wired lines that could support the higher speeds and it
wouldn't be "fair" for city dwellers to have better service than
those who got their POTS via a strand of barbed-wire.

Eventually the government got out of (most of) the telephone
regulation business. Only because of inertia has the government been
slow to react to the internet, but the FCC has bestirred itself with
new rules on "net neutrality" (in the interests of "fairness" for
the unwashed).

Bub, you must be young. The original modems were 300 BPS
As late as the 80s, the standard business modem was 1200 or 2400 BPS
and the 9600 BPS modem was leased line only.

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

I wish I was young. An actual federal regulation prohibited modems from
working at the speeds over (if I remember) 56K.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols
needed to get to 56K bps.

Even today, most modems operate at 2400 BPS. And there are millions of them.
(Think ATM machines).

Right. *The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for
the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. *I
would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to
forget.

Sorry. *;-)



That doesn't look too sorry to me.

Sorry. ;-) ;-)

The times weren't too bad though.
It was really pretty good times to be on the cutting edge of an
emerging technology. Much more exciting than today with advances
being made at breakneck speed.

Advances are still being made, just not there.

I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I
used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. *Had
one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over
the communications lines. *I did some of the first experiments with
multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using
mini-computers. *Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to
reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. *When they went
from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to
exchange to point billing they killed me. *Communications costs went
up from 500% to 1000% overnight. *Multiplexing helped some but the
costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold
the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and
closed down.

It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast
while the communications costs skyrocketed. *As a result I was able to
setup my clients with their own systems including the software and
have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months.
My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the
business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off.
Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time
period.

Adtran in Huntsville, AL made a pile of money in those days, building all
sorts of widgets to combine links. *Evidently there's still money to be made
because they're still at it and have gotten quite big.- Hide quoted text -


The amount of data being transferred was miniscule by today's
standards but even with the advances in bandwidth the amount of data
has still maintained the lead and they will always be playing catchup.

Not so sure about that. At least the best Internet speeds are outstripping
the content (I'm still stuck 768K). OTOH, disk space has outstripped
everything else in the computer. It's past the point where hard disks might
just as well be write-once. I've had a 500MB external (two, including the
^G dammit!
backup) for over four years. It's not close to being full (though I'll likely
replace them soon).

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:58:34 -0500, "Tomsic" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Opinion piece on the demise of the 100-watt bulb.

"Because the end of days is drawing nigh. Not in the Biblical sense, but
in the Environmental Protection Agency sense: there were only a scant
eight weeks (now only seven) before the end of the light bulb as we know
it. As of January 1, 2012, Americans will have their freedom of light
bulb choice snuffed out by an omnibus 2007 law requiring that
general-purpose bulbs be 25% more energy-efficient than the current,
justly-beloved, incandescent bulb."

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-end-of-t...-as-we-knowit/

Seems to me to be a fuss about very little. They might be a little harder
to find and who knows about the price, but even standard 100 watt bulbs are
not going to disappear from the market -- at least for the next couple of
years -- since Canada has pushed back its phase-out date. Just order what
you want on line or arrange to buy some in Canada.

And, if you look, you can find virtually any type of electric light bulb
that's ever been made including replicas of Edison's carbon filament lamps.
It's always been true in lighting that no new light source has ever
completely replaced any of the older sources. Whale oil is a bit hard to
find these days, but candles are cheap and plentiful as are gas and kerosene
lanterns. Just buy what you want.

But, who wants to use 100 watt bulbs that burn out frequently, fail when
jiggled, are hot enough to burn skin and suck energy? I changed to CFLs 7
years ago for table and floor lamps. They work fine and there have been no
failures and no problems -- even with the CFL 3-way in the reading light. I
use some reflector halogen and a couple of rough-service incandescents in
the garage door openers and there is no planned or even proposed legislation
to get rid of those.

So, go ahead, argue the politics although why you do that on alt.home.repair
is beyond me. But, from a home repair/lighting standpoint, I don't see that
much will change come 2012.

Tomsic



I'm in the process of building a still to manufacture black market,
100w lightbulbs during the bulb prohibition.

They will be called Moonshiner 100s.

The bulbs will be made in my USA still, and sent to a foreign country
to be placed inside of full bottles of imported whiskey, where they
will be well hidden. After you drink the contents of the bottle,
you'll be able to see your way well enough to remove your head from
the toilet when you sober up.

This is called American progress!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why
should my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the
alter of "efficiency?"


In that sense, it IS the end of the light bulb as you know it.
However, NOBODY is banning incandescent bulbs. You will still be able
to buy them anywhere. The difference between then and now is that you
will have to get used to rating their power in lumens, not watts. A
lumen rating of 1490-2600 is equivalent to the old 100-watt
incandescent light bulb, but the 1490-2600 lumen energy-efficient
incandescent model that will become mandatory on January 1 consumes
only 75 watts.


What if I WANT a 100-watt bulb that only puts out 200 lumens? I might need
it for my chick brooder where the heat is more needed than the light.

If (some) incandescent bulbs are not banned, why will I not be able to buy
them come January? What if I wanted one of the "lifetime" bulbs that faux
veteran's groups used to sell. You remember, the ones with a 10d nail as
the filament and that put out as much light as a candle while scoring over
100 watts? I won't be able to buy those any more due solely to legislative
fiat and that fiat is the result of my betters deciding what's good for
the country or the next generation.

Bah!

Well, again, read the law. All the odd-ball bulbs will still be available
including those with funny filaments and shapes. They're not affected.

Tomsic

On Nov 20, 5:50*pm, "Tomsic" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why
should my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the
alter of "efficiency?"

In that sense, it IS the end of the light bulb as you know it.
However, NOBODY is banning incandescent bulbs. You will still be able
to buy them anywhere. The difference between then and now is that you
will have to get used to rating their power in lumens, not watts. A
lumen rating of 1490-2600 is equivalent to the old 100-watt
incandescent light bulb, but the 1490-2600 lumen energy-efficient
incandescent model that will become mandatory on January 1 consumes
only 75 watts.

What if I WANT a 100-watt bulb that only puts out 200 lumens? I might need
it for my chick brooder where the heat is more needed than the light.

If (some) incandescent bulbs are not banned, why will I not be able to buy
them come January? What if I wanted one of the "lifetime" bulbs that faux
veteran's groups used to sell. You remember, the ones with a 10d nail as
the filament and that put out as much light as a candle while scoring over
100 watts? I won't be able to buy those any more due solely to legislative
fiat and that fiat is the result of my betters deciding what's good for
the country or the next generation.

Bah!

Well, again, read the law. *All the odd-ball bulbs will still be available
including those with funny filaments and shapes. *They're not affected.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd like to see a definitive reference that says the vintage look
decorative
Edison bulbs will still be available. Here is an example:

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R.../dp/B003SEM81O


I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.


I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.


I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can also
make a profit on. They also have a problem: the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. Now, they have to figure out how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now have
more listings than ever before. The California and Federal legislation both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending right
now that proposes to change that. Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX) A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. ''(XXI) A T shape lamp (as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. ''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. ''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and ''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape, operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". They also know that people are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:06:26 -0500, "TKM" wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.


I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can also
make a profit on. They also have a problem: the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. Now, they have to figure out how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

No company "works like that". Companies don't intentionally limit profit.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now have
more listings than ever before. The California and Federal legislation both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending right
now that proposes to change that. Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:

Exactly the opposite of gfretwell's conspiracy theory. Makes sense.

PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX) A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. ''(XXI) A T shape lamp (as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. ''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. ''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and ''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape, operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". They also know that people are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

1000bulbs.com is doing well, I'm sure. I just sent them another order for 100
100W E26 bulbs (I already have 3-400 60W clear bulbs). Maybe *they're* behind
the law! ;-)

On 11/21/2011 6:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

1000bulbs.com is doing well, I'm sure. I just sent them another order for 100
100W E26 bulbs (I already have 3-400 60W clear bulbs). Maybe *they're* behind
the law! ;-)

WTF are you going to do with all those bulbs?

Sit on them for a year and then Fleabay 'em?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:28:28 -0500, Bernt Berger
wrote:

On 11/21/2011 6:35 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

1000bulbs.com is doing well, I'm sure. I just sent them another order for 100
100W E26 bulbs (I already have 3-400 60W clear bulbs). Maybe *they're* behind
the law! ;-)

WTF are you going to do with all those bulbs?

"Lifetime" buy. Engineers do this sort of thing all the time. When
government sticks its nose in my business I'll react.

Sit on them for a year and then Fleabay 'em?

If no longer needed.

On Nov 21, 6:06*pm, "TKM" wrote:
wrote in message

news




On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. * The devil is always in the
details. *In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. *I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. * *If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. *When was the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). *Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. *Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. *In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can also
make a profit on. *They also have a problem: *the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. * They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. *Now, they have to figure out how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now have
more listings than ever before. *The California and Federal legislation both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending right
now that proposes to change that. *Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX) A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. *''(XXI) A T shape lamp (as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. *''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. *''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and ''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape, operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. *They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". *They also know that people are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does
not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks
like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to
manufacture.

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R.../dp/B003SEM81O

There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in
the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks
like
they are banned?

wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 6:06 pm, "TKM" wrote:
wrote in message

news




On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was
the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how
to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can
also
make a profit on. They also have a problem: the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. Now, they have to figure out
how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now
have
more listings than ever before. The California and Federal legislation
both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending
right
now that proposes to change that. Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent
lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX)
A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including
a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. ''(XXI) A T shape lamp
(as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. ''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and
ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an
oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp
as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra
screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. ''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that
uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006,
Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and
''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity
diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram
that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from
the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape,
operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps
because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if
bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay
attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". They also know that people
are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does
not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks
like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to
manufacture.

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R.../dp/B003SEM81O

There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in
the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks
like
they are banned?

No, I don't think the vintage reproduction lamps are affected because they
are not "general
service incandescent lamps".

Tomsic

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:46:41 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 21, 6:06*pm, "TKM" wrote:
wrote in message

news




On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. * The devil is always in the
details. *In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. *I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. * *If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. *When was the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). *Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. *Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. *In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can also
make a profit on. *They also have a problem: *the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. * They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. *Now, they have to figure out how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now have
more listings than ever before. *The California and Federal legislation both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending right
now that proposes to change that. *Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX) A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. *''(XXI) A T shape lamp (as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. *''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. *''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and ''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape, operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. *They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". *They also know that people are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does
not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks
like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to
manufacture.

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R.../dp/B003SEM81O

Here is another source (looks to be a bit cheaper).
http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/antique-light-bulbs/

There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in
the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks
like
they are banned?

Stop being a lazy American. Just buy a new fixture, like a good little
socialist, and stop whining.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:32:36 -0500, "." wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 6:06 pm, "TKM" wrote:
wrote in message

news




On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the
details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was
the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how
to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can
also
make a profit on. They also have a problem: the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. Now, they have to figure out
how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now
have
more listings than ever before. The California and Federal legislation
both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending
right
now that proposes to change that. Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent
lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX)
A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including
a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. ''(XXI) A T shape lamp
(as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. ''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and
ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an
oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp
as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra
screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. ''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that
uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006,
Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and
''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity
diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram
that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from
the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape,
operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps
because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if
bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay
attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". They also know that people
are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does
not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks
like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to
manufacture.

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R.../dp/B003SEM81O

There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in
the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks
like
they are banned?

No, I don't think the vintage reproduction lamps are affected because they
are not "general
service incandescent lamps".

They are, though. They have the E26 base and thus are "general service
incandescent lamps". The law would be trivial to get around otherwise.

Meh. Wal-Mart is just giving their customers what they demand: the cheapest products possible, regardless of their cost to our souls.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:43:29 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
How is Americans have to be hauled kicking and whinging into the
present?

You're making an assumption that 'Murrica can be hauled into the present. Prosecution Exhibit 1 that we haven't: our refusal to adopt the Metric system.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:21:44 AM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:
It's the silliness of government trying to solve the wrong problem, which,
if they stayed completely out of it, wouldn't be a problem at all.

In the instant case, the difficulty is not too many incandescent bulbs; the
problem is too few power plants.

Fair enough—I'm willing to bet our tech sucks up more electricity than our light bulbs.

But let's be clear: the problem is our inability/unwillingness to create the least environmentally detrimental power system. Oil and coal plants generate mega-tons of pollutants and toxic metal by-products (with no "half-life, by the way: mercury is still toxic millennia later); nuclear plants' fuel is dangerous, as is the general construction of them in, oh, I don't know, earthquake- and tsunami-prone areas; hydroelectric dams interfere with the natural flow of fish and other water life; solar requires too many acres/miles^2 to generate too little wattage; and wind farms fluctuate too much (not to mention they're going to attack us someday: http://xkcd.com/556/)

There are two ways to tackle the issue, kinda like a home budget - increase revenue/generation or decrease spending/consumption. At least light bulbs are a step in one direction.

On Nov 22, 6:32*pm, "." wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 21, 6:06 pm, "TKM" wrote:





wrote in message

news

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write
the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these
bulbs can no longer be manufactured. * The devil is always in the
details. *In this case, it's in how the new law is actually
interpretted
and enforced. *I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be
available. * *If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows
what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this
may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they
have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat
****. Buy a new lamp holder..

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. *When was
the
last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a
new
lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?

The light bulb industry doesn't work like that (I've had 40 years of
experience with it). *Light bulb companies are in the business of selling
light bulbs. *Some just source and sell; the "big 3" (U.S.) make much of
what they sell and want to sell as much as they can because they know how
to
make bulbs at high volumes at low cost and high quality. *In other words,
they want to sell any bulbs that they can make or source that they can
also
make a profit on. *They also have a problem: *the new CFLs and LEDs last a
long time, so their business is changing from a frequent replacement
business to a "sell it once and you're done" business. * They know how to
sell replacement bulbs on a regular basis. *Now, they have to figure out
how
to get that initial sale because there won't be another for many years.

So, manufacturers want their odd-ball lamps to remain available because
they're still the high-replacement types and even with some types of
high-volume incandescent standard bulbs disappearing, lamp catalogs now
have
more listings than ever before. *The California and Federal legislation
both
inclue long lists of "excluded" bulb types and there's nothing pending
right
now that proposes to change that. *Here's the excluded list from the 2007
federal law:
PUBLIC LAW 110-140-DEC. 19, 2007 --- ''(ii) EXCLUSIONS.-The term 'general
serviceincandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent
lamps:
''(I) An appliance lamp. ''(II) A black light lamp. ''(III) A bug lamp.
''(IV) A colored lamp. ''(V) An infrared lamp. ''(VI) A left-hand thread
lamp. ''(VII) A marine lamp. ''(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. ''(IX)
A
mine service lamp. ''(X) A plant light lamp. ''(XI) A reflector lamp.
''(XII) A rough service lamp. ''(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including
a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). ''(XIV) A sign service
lamp. ''(XV) A silver bowl lamp. ''(XVI) A showcase lamp. '(XVII) A 3-way
incandescent lamp. ''(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. ''(XIX) A vibration
service lamp. ''(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more. *''(XXI) A T shape lamp
(as
defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40
watts or has a length of more than 10 inches. *''(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F,
G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and
ANSI
C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.''; and (B) by adding at the end the
following: ''(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.-The term 'appliance lamp' means any lamp
that- ''(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance,
has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an
oven
lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and ''(ii) is designated
and marketed for the intended application, with- ''(I) the designation on
the lamp packaging; and ''(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp
as
being for appliance use. ''(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP.-The term
'candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses candelabra
screw
base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases,
common designations E11 and E12. *''(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT
LAMP.-The term 'intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that
uses
an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006,
Specifications
for Electric Bases, common designation E17. ''(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM.-The
term 'modified spectrum' means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an
incandescent lamp that- ''(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and
''(ii)
when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the incandescent lamp-
''(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the
Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity
diagram
that lies below the black-body locus; and ''(II) has a color point with
(x,y) chromaticity coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity diagram
that
lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from
the
color point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape,
operated
at the same rated voltage and wattage.

Those who pushed for the light bulb legislation (energy advocates, some
electric utilities, particularly in California, and energy conservation
organizations) aren't particularly interested in the odd-ball lamps
because
they don't use much energy and they know the fuss that would result if
bulbs
disappeared for sweepers, garage door openers, appliances, night lights,
etc. *They don't get off without being criticized too and they pay
attention
to it -- it's called "checks and balances". *They also know that people
are
riled about the bulb thing and they're being careful about picking their
battles.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does
not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks
like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to
manufacture.

http://www.amazon.com/Watt-Vintage-R...filament/dp/B0...

There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in
the last few years for the unique look. *Do you agree that it looks
like
they are banned?

No, I don't think the vintage reproduction lamps are affected because they
are not "general
service incandescent lamps".

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The National Resources Defense Council which helped
write the bill, says they believe they are banned. They are
not on the list of bulbs that are exempt. And I can see
environmentalists like the above making the claim that
they are general service incandescent lamps. They provide
some of the area lighting in some restaurants, for example.
And they actually use a lot more energy than even an
ordinary incandescent for the amount of light output.

Ultimately it will be up to whichever agency has enforcement
to decide. Or maybe hte Supreme Court, if some
environmental group wants to challenge it.

On 11/23/2011 8:15 AM, Kyle wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:43:29 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
How is Americans have to be hauled kicking and whinging into the
present?

Prosecution Exhibit 1 that we haven't: our refusal to adopt the Metric system.

Most professionals do use the metric system...because it's better.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:17:21 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:14:38 -0500, Moe Gasser
wrote:

On 11/23/2011 8:15 AM, Kyle wrote:
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:43:29 AM UTC-5, harry wrote:
How is Americans have to be hauled kicking and whinging into the
present?

Prosecution Exhibit 1 that we haven't: our refusal to adopt the Metric system.

Most professionals do use the metric system...because it's better.

I have a tape measure with both on it. I use one or the other,
depending on what I am doing.

If you are dividing a given distance into equal parts, metric beats
the hell out of the english system.
You also find out pretty fast that 1/2" plywood is really 12mm so you
are forced into metric.

Except that it's 48" x 96". ;-)

Forced into metric? No, 15/32" is good enough. The thickness isn't precise
anyhow, so anything critical has to be hand-fit.