Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

Page 12 of 16  

He **is** a comedian and does this frequently. Research "Edward Current"
wrote:
Did you read the comments? Atheists are pissed about it. Good advert fr religious addict.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Josepi" wrote:

He is very funny.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

We're supposed to grow up and yet still retain child-like faith. I'm not sure which of the two is harder to do. :^)

I didn't.

We're all experts on some things and ignorant of other things.

OK.
That's the problem. I can't give you hard evidence. Faith itself is the evidence. You claim not to have faith in God so I can't prove his existence to you.

If you knew where I've been you'd understand why I believe.

I don't control anything but myself. You're free to believe what you choose. I believe in God. You say you don't... for now.

I can see my PC. It's right in front of me. I don't need faith to believe it's there. However, when I go in the other room and close the door, I still know it's there even though I can't see it. Likewise, I know God is there even when I can't see Him.

I hope you change your mind about that some day.

There's evidence in the changed lives of people who decided to believe. There is evidence in every facet of creation. It's sort of like esoteric PC knowledge. If you understand it, it makes sense. If you don't it sounds like well... Santa Claus.

You're very wrong about that. Those who know God tend to become progressively dependant on Him. Sadly, those who don't are just as needy. They just don't know it.

I don't believe because I want to know God. I want to know God because I believe in Him.

Naah. You created the cat on Wednesday and forgot about it the next morning. :^)

Understood. The point is that faith itself is the evidence. Nothing physical is required. In fact, belief based on that which can be seen is not faith at all.

Keep going. While there is life there is hope.

The truth is, when you add faith to sight, it enhances your mind. Understanding is enhanced. It's like turning on a light in a dimly lit room. You always knew where the furniture was and where the door is. Add light and all of a sudden you can see every detail, including a lot of stuff you missed before. We could go on like this for a long while but that would just annoy a lot of nice people who prefer to talk about CFLs so I think I'll leave it at that.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hmmmmm. Faith is not evidence. I hope you don't test your alarm systems that way.
It has to be true because so many people believe... or pretend they do.
"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

We're supposed to grow up and yet still retain child-like faith. I'm not sure which of the two is harder to do. :^)

I didn't.

We're all experts on some things and ignorant of other things.

OK.
That's the problem. I can't give you hard evidence. Faith itself is the evidence. You claim not to have faith in God so I can't prove his existence to you.

If you knew where I've been you'd understand why I believe.

I don't control anything but myself. You're free to believe what you choose. I believe in God. You say you don't... for now.

I can see my PC. It's right in front of me. I don't need faith to believe it's there. However, when I go in the other room and close the door, I still know it's there even though I can't see it. Likewise, I know God is there even when I can't see Him.

I hope you change your mind about that some day.

There's evidence in the changed lives of people who decided to believe. There is evidence in every facet of creation. It's sort of like esoteric PC knowledge. If you understand it, it makes sense. If you don't it sounds like well... Santa Claus.

You're very wrong about that. Those who know God tend to become progressively dependant on Him. Sadly, those who don't are just as needy. They just don't know it.

I don't believe because I want to know God. I want to know God because I believe in Him.

Naah. You created the cat on Wednesday and forgot about it the next morning. :^)

Understood. The point is that faith itself is the evidence. Nothing physical is required. In fact, belief based on that which can be seen is not faith at all.

Keep going. While there is life there is hope.

The truth is, when you add faith to sight, it enhances your mind. Understanding is enhanced. It's like turning on a light in a dimly lit room. You always knew where the furniture was and where the door is. Add light and all of a sudden you can see every detail, including a lot of stuff you missed before. We could go on like this for a long while but that would just annoy a lot of nice people who prefer to talk about CFLs so I think I'll leave it at that.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Josepi" wrote:

Faith is indeed evidence when it comes to spiritual matters. Physical things like alarms don't require faith -- just knowledge of pertinent, observable behavior and repeatable results.

Some folks pretend to believe. Some pretend not to believe. Some are up-front about their beliefs. Most, I suspect, rarely talk about it in public. Having never been accused of being "main-stream," I'm pretty open about the subject. I differ from many "believers" in that I'm perfectly willing to listen to and accept someone else's ideas. In short, I'm certain enough that what I believe is true but not quite arrogant enough to be sure everyone else is wrong. :^)
This is an interesting thread but if it continues much longer we'll annoy those who want to keep the newsgroup on topic. Nuff said?
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in part:

<I snip to matter of signatures>

Dog-gone it, my Unix shell account's news software (or the composer that it invokes) does not recognize the dash-dash-space sig-separator as beginning of quoted material to exclude. Since I normally only use one line for signature, no wonder I failed to get into the habit of dash-dash-space.
Maybe I need to try more modern news software such as Thunderbird?
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except most people on Usenet use news or email/news software.
I have yet to find any, not even that included in Netscape 4.7, designed to favor top or bottom posting one way or another. This means go with the flow - post bottom or interleaved!

Most Usenet posts I read are done by those with signature line count 5 or less, maybe majority have signature line count of 1. Usenet ettiquette sources advise to limit signature line count to 5 or 4.
Meanwhile, top-posting gets more complaints than long signatures. Top-posting often gets the new material not appearing adjacent to the material that it is in response to. Combine this with lack of a quotation symbol ("greater than symbol") added at the beginning of each line being quoted, and it makes reading your posts even more of a chore.
Now I gotta add below the ones you don't like to in order to make faster reading easier!
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

There is an infamous bellicose bore who posts to some of the other groups I peruse and this particular fellow has an obnoxious signature that takes up a page or more. He accuses anyone who disapproves of his sig or the contents of his posts of obsessing about him. It makes him so much fun to tease but he also occupies many kill files and kill filters.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:41:10 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
[snip]

Also, some newsreaders will recognize quoted material (requiring the '>') and show it in a different color, so it's easier to find theoriginal stuff. To make that easier, it helps to put blank lines before and after original material.
[snip]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some people are doomed to stay inside for most of their lives because of their sensitivity to UV. So saying CFL's aren't any more harmful than the sun is actually confirming they are indeed harmful to those people.
There are any number of biological systems that depend on light. The full-spectrum light boxes you wrote about are thought to work via the eye and brain, simulating summer light in the winter months and (hopefully) reducing depression that's well known to be more of a problem in the winter months than in the summer. Some people believe SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) is due to the overall reduction in daylight hours, others believe it's the absence of the very bright, white light of summer that does the trick. The people I know that use them, swear by them. A case could be easily made the benefits are purely placebo effects, but I doubt it. Since we share so many genes with so many other animals, it's not hard to believe, that we, like them, are sensitive to daily and seasonal changes in light.
A brief search through the Merck manual at:
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec18/ch214/ch214c.html
lists the following drugs as having potential photosensitive effects:
Xanax Quinolones Sulfonamides Tetracyclines Trimethoprim Tricyclic antidepressants Antifungal drugs (taken by mouth) Antihyperglycemics Sulfonylureas Antimalarial drugs Antipsychotics Phenothiazines Diuretics Lasix Thiazides Chemotherapy drugs Dacarbazine Fluorouracil Methotrexate Vinblastine Drugs used to treat acne (taken by mouth) Isotretinoin/ACCUTANE Heart drugs like Amiodarone & Quinidine Skin preparations Antibacterials (chlorhexidine, hexachlorophene)
Most of us have taken at least one of them; others, many more. For a long time, nearly everyone poo-pooed the idea that CRT's were harmful to some people and caused serious skin ailments. But anyone who has owned a CRT has likely noticed that they are often the dustiest item in the room. It turned out that once the Swedes, notorious for their stringent consumer protection laws, actually did the research, they found the claims credible. They discovered that sitting in front of a CRT with its high voltage components acting as a attractant, caused people's hands, arms and faces to be showered with microscope dust particles and those, in turn, clogged skin pores with all sorts of airborne irritants, resulting in sometimes serious skin ailments.
I mention this only to point out that there are many things that seem highly unlikely until someone bothers to design the proper experiments to prove or disprove a contention. Another thing to consider is the manufacturing process. It's pretty obvious to me, at least, that Chinese manufacturers vary greatly in their adherence to quality control principles. Bearing that in mind, what happens to the UV output of a fluorescent bulb with a thin, defective or non-existent phosphor coating? It spikes tremendously. Why? Because fluorescent bulbs are designed to emit short wave UV radiation that strikes the phosphor coating, causing it fluoresce and converting the UV to visible light waves. With bad or thin phosphor, there's less material to impede the UV emissions. So I'm not at all surprised that the research varies tremendously. The items under investigation do, too.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You would also need to factor in extra cooling in summer which likely offsets the winter heat gain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the

Not necessarily. The days are (usually) much longer in the summer, so the need for inside lighting is far less than in winter. CO2 and other emission savings are dependent on a lot of things, like whether dirty or pricey power plants come on line to handle peak loads, whether the electricity would be generated anyway, etc. and whether excess can be transferred or sold.
Remember, when building your model, to factor in the line loss involved in transmitting power far away from its point of generation. Also remember that at night, voltage in most systems is at its highest because of the excess generating capability, at least compared to the daytime load. Does having 122VAC at your outlet instead of 110VAC really translate into a substantial emission savings? I doubt it, but it's one of the ways power plant operators cope with varying demand.
When people simply equate the money they save by using fluorescents into a directly proportional amount of emission reduction, that's not a valid comparison. Electricity used at night, during "off-peak" hours is usually cheaper for a reason. It's partly because electricity has to be used when generated or it's lost. Each plant is different. Some have to keep those baseload generator turbines spinning, still outputting CO2, mercury, etc. to be ready to cope with increased demands or generator failures. How can someone really calculate accurate savings without factoring all these elements into their models?
You can't simply shut down a 200 ton turbine: if they aren't kept spinning their main shafts will deform and become unbalanced and they'll shake themselves apart. You can't slow them down to lower the output. When they are generating electricity they have to run at a fixed RPM (3600, IIRC) to create 60Hz AC power. You can run them at lower torque, but they still need to spin because some turbines are so massive that it takes hours to get them up to speed and operating temperature.
Many power system guidelines specify that a significant percentage of their operating reserve must come from spinning reserves. Why? Because spinning reserves are more reliable, have fewer issues related to "cold starts" and can respond to demand changes immediately. There are often considerable delays getting non-spinning reserve generators on line and the only options for the operator may then be to import the needed power or turn to brownouts.
So power savings, when it comes to generation, have to be calculated in terms that account for a lot of things that are conspicuously absent from the models and claims of those who believe they are saving the earth with CFL bulbs. Even shunting excess power to other parts of the grid has to be examined closely because there are Joule heating losses that increase the further away the power is shipped. Do these savings model accurately account for the cost of heating the air around the transmission lines when shunting excess capacity to another part of the grid? Doubtful.
Then there's the power factor issue to consider. Are you really saving money when the power company boosts the voltage at night to compensate for the lower demand? When I see statements that say CFLs will save precisely X amount of dollars and create precisely X fewer emissions, I'm pretty certain there's a lot of slop in those estimates. Perhaps so much slop that the claims come pretty close to meaningless guesses and wishful thinking.
As you examine each input to the model, you'll see that it grows incredibly complex in a short time. So much so that when you see a hard, fast number you can be assured that someone made an awful lot of assumptions to get there. At night, when CFL bulbs are typically on, the issue is how much less carbon and mercury is being emitted through CFL use? It could be as much as the greenest greenie claims or as little as next to nothing.
So far, I've not seen a study that even begins to account for all the known inputs. At their most primitive, studies simply compare watts and claim the savings in kilowatt hours translates into equivalent drop in emissions. But that's totally fallacious without considering all the other elements of the equation.
I will give you one common sense test. How many power plants have been shut down because of the allegedly tremendous savings we've realized by switching to CFLs? By the sound of the claims, you'd expect to see at least one or two dozen, wouldn't you?
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While you have a lot of good points these ones are absolute crap.
I have been inside shut-down 200 tonne turbines and they didn't fall apart. This is done on a regular basis to make sure they stay healthy.
Power compmaies do not turn up the voltage at nights. The voltage rises due to less VA draw online and the line losses become a smaller factor of the delivered voltage.
Excess generating capacity has nothing to do with voltage, at any time. The voltages are maintained (regualted) at the generator, at the high tension line receiving point, at the dustribution station and manually at your yard trensfomer somtimes. The government specs are plus or minus 10% at any voltage level.
Yes some utilities do reduce the voltage during over peak times. This is to keep the peak load down to a manageable level to avoid having to drop customers off, preserving the system from failures. It is still done withint the 10% rule mandated.
Also remember
that at night, voltage in most systems is at its highest because of the excess generating capability, at least compared to the daytime load. Does having 122VAC at your outlet instead of 110VAC really translate into a substantial emission savings? I doubt it, but it's one of the ways power plant operators cope with varying demand.
You can't simply shut down a 200 ton turbine: if they aren't kept spinning their main shafts will deform and become unbalanced and they'll shake themselves apart.
Then there's the power factor issue to consider. Are you really saving money when the power company boosts the voltage at night to compensate for the lower demand?
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It looks like the answer will be too install incandescent in the winter when we can use the heat efficiently and CFLs in the summer when we get enough sunlight anyway...LOL
I still wonder about the effects of staring at the TV with flourescent lighting behind it night after night. I have just ordered a new LED backlit unit. This could be the new lighting / behaviour study coming with the CRT units disapearing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except CFLs still cost in the winter when the main home heating is by something more cost-effective than resistive electric heating, as in heat pump or non-electric heating.

Spectra of CRT monitors has about the same coverage/reception by all known and suspected photoreceptors in the human eye as spectra of higher color temp. CFLs. I own some diffraction gratings BTW...
As in ones thatare nothing but diffraction gratings, besides the ones that most people have some of and that can also show spectra (CDs and DVDs).
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Please explain your comment about diffaction gratings. I don't understand the usage here for light spectrums. Do they function similar to prisms to difract the spectrum for analysis? TIA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Although the physical principles are different, the effect of a diffraction grating is similar to that of a prism.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If memory serves, a diffraction grating is a series of very tiny prisms, adding up to the effect of being a very large prism, but some how made flat.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.