Better start hoarding those 60-watt incandescents...

Page 1 of 7  
The era of incandescent light bulbs will soon be extinguished forever. Beginning Jan. 1, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will start to disappear from store shelves.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1257175-incandescent-bulbs-will-burn-no-more
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I saw a pile of 57 watt bulbs at a store.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 01:19 PM, Reggie wrote:

Somewhere, I remember seeing an odd-wattage bulb like that. It was meant for use in traffic lights.
BTW, most of those (traffic lights) seem to use LED arrays now. I suppose because they last longer.
--
12 days until the winter celebration (Thursday December 25, 2014
12:00:00 AM for 1 day).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/14, 2:07 PM, Bob wrote:

Maybe in Canada, but if the US Senate passes the current spending bill, there is an amendment in it that cancels the US ban on incandescents.
This from : http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/policy-riders-spending-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
"Old fashioned light bulbs still allowed: The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete. Consumers had complained about the new requirements."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 1:21 PM, Retired wrote: ...

...
Unfortunately, the ship has already sailed I'm afraid...it seems unlikely to me any manufacturer will pick up production from closed facilities presuming even the restriction riders do stand up (which I'd not put much faith in altho anything is theoretically possible in that regard)
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 11:21 AM, Retired wrote:

And those hypocrites didn't do a thing about the emperor's immigration dictate or Obama Care. They stand and tell us one thing and do another.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 12, 2014 6:29:10 PM UTC-5, Todd wrote:

What exactly would you have done? Go through another budget crisis and govt shutdown? How well did that work out for the Republicans last time? And right now, the GOP doesn't even have control of the Senate yet. The smart move on immigration is let it play out in the courts first, where it will likely be ruled unconstitutional. There is a good chance that the SC is going to effectively kill Obamacare, they have the case and will decide it in just 6 months. That's the smart play, not starting wars that you can't win and that will end in another humiliation.
And if you think it's a grand idea to try to block an entire govt budget over issues that you lost years ago, see how you'll like it when the libs start doing it too. If anything and everything you don't like is now grounds for refusing to pass a budget that funds the govt, then you'll have chaos. And you also have the simple fact that last time the GOP tried it, they failed, capitulated and polls all showed the GOP got the overwhelming part of the blame. Yet, you want to go there again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/13/2014 04:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Yes

They were cowards and did not get in the libs faces about it.

That will takes years and the courts are packed with libs that push their own agenda, like gay marriage. Court activists don't give a s*** about the law.

The emperor will just post another edict and we will still have Obama care

Every congress had done it. We need to get in American Pravada face about the biases reporting.

Baloney. Every time we have shut it down, Armageddon never occurred. And we never had a full shutdown, ever. That is American Pravda again.

They give in because they are cowards and they are also part of the problem. They spend like drunken sailors, just like the libs, except that drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of their own money. Cowards and hypocrites!
Sorry for venting. The republicans can be such wussies at times
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:10:13 PM UTC-5, Todd wrote:

If they were cowards a year ago, what makes them so different now? As I recall, they did get in the libs face about it, it's just that they had no end game plan. Which is exactly the problem this time. Mitch McConnel said exactly that and he's right.

I'd rather have a process that's been proven to work, has no risk and that doesn't end in a defeat. The court process was used to undo Obama's illegal recess appointments. He had made appointments when Congress was not actually in recess. The SC handed him a right proper unanimous smackdown. Yeah, it took a couple years, but I'd rather have that than a rerun of a total Ted Cruz fiasco right now, that goes nowhere.
The SC similarly has handed Obama defeats on about 10 other things. The claimed right of law enforcement to search everything on a cell phone without a warrant was a recent example where the SC in another unanimous decision said the administration was wrong.

Did he do that in the case of the recess appointments or the cell phone ruling? And if he did try it here, as you suggest, *then* the Republicans would have a legitimate issue. In the Obamacare case before the court, it would be virtually impossible for him to do some executive order that would fix it. The issue is at the very heart of the whole scheme, ie the legality of the feds subsidizing the states without their own exchanges. If that gets ruled illegal, the whole thing is broken.

I'd like to see a source for that. Prior to the GOP doing it recently, the last shutdown of any significance that I recall was 20 years ago, in the Clinton era.
I don't know who the "we" is that needs to get in the media's face. There are two parts to the problem. One is that by their very nature, most of the mainstream media is liberal. IDK how you propose to change that. And even if you could, it would take decades.
The second part of the problem is that the Republicans are totally incompetent in getting their message out, on focusing on what's important, delivering a consistent message, etc. When you listen to the Democrats about some controversial issue, everyone is using very similar soundbites, terms, etc. It's like they get a daily messaging memo and follow it, which they probably do. The Republicans are just all over the place. But, that's the army you have at the moment. I don't see the point in sending it off into a battle that it can't win, because there is no end game.

So, because it wasn't a total disaster, it's a good idea to play with fire again? The only reason it didn't result in Armageddon last time was that the GOP finally admitted a humiliating defeat and caved in. You want that again? If not, then if you push it far enough, something bad is going to happen. How about this... Due to the budget crisis and partial shutdown, something bad happens. An ATC screw-up that results in a plane crash, a security breach that results in a successful terrorist attack. The GOP poll numbers were a disaster last time, what would they be if that happened? And again, we agree that the media is in the tank for the Democrats, so how do you think that would play out?

So then why do you want the same bunch to go to war and repeat the same fiasco of the past? You think that is going to help in the critical presidential election that is 22 months away?
The GOP says "Kill Obamacare or we won't fund the govt". Kill the Exec Order on immigration, or we won't pass a budget. The Democrats, in control of the Senate say no, Obama says no. How exactly do you see that ending favorably for the GOP?

At times, yes. But this isn't one of them. They don't even have control of the Senate yet and you want to start the same war we lost last time, driven by the same loons, eg Ted Cruz. What they just did makes very good sense to me. They approved a budget for the whole year for everything except Homeland Security, which they funded through February. That leaves their options open to figure out what they want to do about the immigration order when the new Congress is seated. They can still decide not to fund it if they want to. And at least then, unlike now, they could get the Senate to take up bills, they could pass bills, put them on Obama's desk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/14/2014 05:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Hi Trader_4,
A quick quote from Newt:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/10/01/newt-news-media-ignorant-of-government-shutdown-history/
"There were 12 government shutdowns while Democrat Tip O'neill was Speaker. Why is media so one sided in its ignorance of history?"
— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 30, 2013
An article on the subject from the National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke
Here is American Pravda's run down on all of them:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/25/here-is-every-previous-government-shutdown-why-they-happened-and-how-they-ended/
I dearly hope you are correct about the courts. The totalitarian activists on the SC almost have a majority and that could easily change. In the lower courts, I see the totalitarian activists throwing out the EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE with all their gay right decisions. And the SC refused to hear the first appeal of that tyranny. So, I hope you are correct, but I fear for the country anyway.
You made a lot of excellent points in your letter.
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What exactly would you have done? Go through another budget crisis and govt shutdown? How well did that work out for the Republicans last time?
--
They won big next mid term.


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

some Malaysian factory will forego the possibility of selling items consumers want? BAH!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 11:39 AM, Reggie wrote:

Or the Chinese! Bulbs with a lifespan of two weeks and that smell like cat pee when hot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 05:31 PM, Todd wrote:
[snip]

Very hot, and give off unnatural yellowish light. You can get WHITE CFL and LED lights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 12, 2014 2:07:33 PM UTC-5, Bob wrote:

I bought a gross of 100, 60, and 40 when they started banning them, which should last my lifetime.
Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just bought a couple of 40 and 60 watt LEDs.
I would not be surprised if _each_ of those bulbs lasts my lifetime.
Beautiful light quality and no more bulb changing. What's not to like?
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 2:07 PM, Bob wrote:

No need for them. LED is far superior
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/12/2014 06:30 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Hi Ed,
They said the same thing about CFL's. In theory it is the case, except that they packed the crappies electronics they could find on them and the bulbs (the electronics, not the bulb) would go out in the same time as an incandescent, making them a ton more expensive to run.
White LED's require heat ventilation or they will slowly stop emitting light. Design that badly to cut costs and place crappy electronics on them and I can see LED burning out in record time, also making them a ton more expensive to run.
If anyone knows of a good LED brand that does not do this, I would love to hear.
-T
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's best the led runs just slightly warm. When they are attached to a heat sink, the led die usually is hotter than the heat sink. I always look at led truck or bus stoplights. Many of them fail. They can really run too hot in the sun.
I just put up an led fixture over the sink. It's supposed to be 60 watt replacement, but lumens is on the low end just over 600. It seems ok, as the whole fixture is some kind of metal, which is just slightly warm. As long as the control circuit keeps working, I expect long life.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

not for a room or closet you rarely visit.
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.