Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[Josepi]

Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid. Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either.

Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per transformer. These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL

(f*ck your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some)

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news: [e-mail]... | In article , David | Nebenzahl wrote: | >On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus: | >

| >> Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining | >> of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the | >> environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in | >> the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution. | >

| >You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times. | >

| >Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination) | >contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead | >of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns | >"cleaner", with less mercury emitted. | | Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity. | | >If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same | >mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it | >than if you use an incandescent bulb. | | That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and | hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related | operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to | load.) | | >Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting | >power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's | >start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one | >could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that | >hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of | >coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants. | | CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents | that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the | population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were | replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be | even worse. | | | | - Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to.

In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.

Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.

That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).

[Robert L Bass]

It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that she can see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith *is* the evidence of things unseen. :^)

Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're supposed to have "faith like a little child."

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as instruction.

That one's over my head. :^)

I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:

1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths no matter how many children believe in them.
2. God is real if you believe.
3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is unseen -- that one proves God's existence.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe. I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect your right not to believe.

[Robert L Bass]

That is not at all what the gentleman is saying. CFLs use less electricity than incandescant bulbs. The rest should be obvious.

[salty]

Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[Mark Lloyd]

And never grow up. Growing up would be inconsistent with Christian teaching.

OK, although I do wonder why people make that assumption.

Actually it depends on some specialized knowledge, about computer programming. If you understand it, it's funny. If you don't understand it, don't worry about it. I know what it means, and found it an interesting thing to include in my list of quotations.

And God will always be a myth no matter hop many people believe in him. Where's the evidence of any difference here?

Of course, it's real. A very real part of your imagination (The same way Santa and the others are real if you believe). What would be wrong would be the idea that somehow YOU control the external reality that all people depend on.

Also, I can see my cat right here. There's no need for (the non-serious form of) belief, as there is for God.

Most likely true, considering what and where God is.

Do you really think there's evidence in there? You said "that which is unseen". Of course, unseen things can be real. Where is the evidence to suggest this one is? Where is the evidence that even a little bit useful to anyone who could use it?

That "evidence" no more points to God than to Last Thursday's Cat*.

Notice the only people this "proof" works on is those who don't need it. That's one of the characteristics of a scam.

To me belief is something serious, "wanting" has nothing to do with it. That would be fantasy, not belief. That's a good thing, a personal one. I hope it stays personal. =========

• in case you haven't heard, someone said, "My cat created the universe last Thursday, along with everyone's false memories. There's no way you can prove she didn't.".

BTW, I am not questioning Gods existence, but human behaviors such as belief with no evidence.

BTW2, I have, for a long time, suspected there was something to this "God" thing. I have never found anything, and have never given up.

BTW3, The other reason I get involved in this sort of thing is that I have respect for people, and don't like to see them entangled in these mind-destroying delusions. It's quite stressful so I can't do it very often.

[Josepi]

Certainly puts things into perspective and formulates opinions, quickly. OK, your LEDs are great, now. LOL

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass" [e-mail] wrote: I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:

1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths no matter how many children believe in them.
2. God is real if you believe.
3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is unseen -- that one proves God's existence.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe. I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect your right not to believe.

Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to "magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to grow up.

[Josepi]

Your Easy-Bake Oven will never work again, either.

The lighting load is argued about 5% of the overal system load and redcuing that by 50-75% doesn't make that much difference. But it's a start.

Where are everybody's solar PV and thermal panels? I have mine.

In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.

Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total* usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.

That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).

[Josepi]

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

(messed up interlaced posting left a mess)

And never grow up. Growing up would be inconsistent with Christian teaching.

OK, although I do wonder why people make that assumption.

Actually it depends on some specialized knowledge, about computer programming. If you understand it, it's funny. If you don't understand it, don't worry about it. I know what it means, and found it an interesting thing to include in my list of quotations.

And God will always be a myth no matter hop many people believe in him. Where's the evidence of any difference here?

Of course, it's real. A very real part of your imagination (The same way Santa and the others are real if you believe). What would be wrong would be the idea that somehow YOU control the external reality that all people depend on.

Also, I can see my cat right here. There's no need for (the non-serious form of) belief, as there is for God.

Most likely true, considering what and where God is.

Do you really think there's evidence in there? You said "that which is unseen". Of course, unseen things can be real. Where is the evidence to suggest this one is? Where is the evidence that even a little bit useful to anyone who could use it?

That "evidence" no more points to God than to Last Thursday's Cat*.

Notice the only people this "proof" works on is those who don't need it. That's one of the characteristics of a scam.

To me belief is something serious, "wanting" has nothing to do with it. That would be fantasy, not belief. That's a good thing, a personal one. I hope it stays personal.

=========

[Gary H]

[snip]

Santa is OK.

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting "We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have, spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and public events."

THAT would be bad.

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

True, there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. No energy-efficient light is going to solve that problem.

[Josepi]

Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same letters?

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting "We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have, spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and public events."

THAT would be bad.

[Robert L Bass]

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

[Robert L Bass]

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.

[Josepi]

hahahaa...good one!

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

wrote:

[Josepi]

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.

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.

[Harry L]

They had to. The heat from the incandescent lights was melting the illusion :-)

BTW, Heaven has been lit with LEDs since March 13, 1777.

[Sam E]

[snip]

I was feeling depressed until I saw that. All the laughter really helped!

[The Daring Dufas]

Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished that question.

TDD

[Josepi]

Did you read the comments? Atheists are pissed about it. Good advert fr religious addicts.

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.