brighter 3-way CFL?

I remember having a thread on these maybe a year or so ago and I thought someone had posted a link to a product that was brighter than the GE "150W equivalent" one, but now I can't find it (either the post or the CFLs) does anyone know of any? I found one that maxed out at 40W online that's slightly brighter than the 32W GE ones I'm using now (2450 vs. 2150 lumens) but that's less efficient, it's a no-name bulb (which I've grown to fear in CFL-land,) and also it's not brighter enough to be worth $12 plus shipping.
Is that really all there is out there?
Life was so much simpler when you could just walk into the store and buy pretty much any brand 200W (or even 250 or 300W - yes *those* are still available) 3-way bulb and just know it would work, and that it would be as bright as you wanted it to be... *sigh* (of course, you'd be drawing 200W just to light that one floor lamp, but still.)
thanks
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Your best option would probably be to rework the lamp to use more than one CFL, like many old fashioned floor lamps which had two or three bulbs before the 3 way ones came about. Certainly lamp parts are readily available to make such a modification.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I could just shove a "300W" CFL in it and not use the 3-way function; just wondering if there was a more elegant solution availalable. Primary use would be for a floor lamp plugged into a recep controlled by a wall switch (no ceiling light fixture in the room of concern) that would probably spend 90% of its time on the brightest setting, as it's used for general room illumination, and the walls are dark wood. It just bothers me when things don't work like they're supposed to :)
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of new cheap lamps have sockets rated for only 100W now? Guess if you want to use them for general illumination - and I've noticed this even w/ large floor lamps - you pretty much HAVE to use CFLs now.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never noticed max lamp power on most sockets on fixtures, just a stick-on label on the entire fixture limiting max wattage. OR, is that what you meant?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/13/2011 10:29 PM, hr(bob) snipped-for-privacy@att.net wrote:

that's what I meant, used to be it was typically 200W, 300W or more. Anymore it's usually 100W.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe folks are just getting more cautious due to all the frivolous lawsiuts that are now in vogue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

thought
the
online
I've
buy
still
be
drawing
readily
Hide quoted text -

Maybe folks are just getting more cautious due to all the frivolous lawsiuts that are now in vogue. ====================================================Not as many as you might think. Lawyers work on contingency and unless they are milking their clients for "expenses" they are not as quick to take on totally BS lawsuits as people might think. I'll think differently when I see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.
I, for one, appreciate caution and safety features that keep idjits from becoming vegetables and wards of the state where you and I end up paying for their upkeep. Of course, there's no guarding against stupidity as in the number of cases where idjit fry cooks leaned over a pot of boiling oil with a Bic lighter in their top pockets. The result (I recall at least 3 cases) is predictable. A giant ball of fire and a burned-off face. IIRC, Bic neither lost nor settled any of those suits because they were confident most juries would easily see who was to blame for the conflagration. And like McDonalds, they fear setting bad precedents by settling. Of course, McDonald's guessed wrong on their scalding coffee case.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If that's true it's because they can do a lot of damage when they fall out of the sky. IIRC general aviation has an alarmingly high rate of alcoholism which could also be a contributing factor in overall GA litigation (which I know next to nothing about).

Damn you Smitty, now I am going to have to do homework and research this thing. (-:

Not a very good idea. The Concorde had a nose that drooped for take-off and landing. A good lawyer would argue that was "state of the art" in airplane manufacture and it was the technology needed to avoid having to look out the side window. They would point to designs where what you describe is not the case. The would argue the plane needed a stilt wheel on the back to raise the tail. I've seen plenty of auto liability cases, and that's how they go.
I can see a Gerry Spence-type lawyer making that case to a jury and winning, especially going against the kind of buttwipe lawyer that's often on retainer to a small company. There's a time to big out the big hired guns. Even Michael Jackson knew that. You'd be surprised at how many companies laugh at lawsuits like that without realizing they could get outlawyered good. Many don't realize that once *one* person wins, the floodgates can open and a barrage of similar suits will appear soon after the losing verdict is in.
The incident you describe is something that can be sold to the jury simply. The aircraft maker knew there was a problem. Others had worked around it. This planemaker didn't. Someone died. A lot of these small companies didn't carry enough insurance to have their insurers care enough to hire the best, which they will do when they are under threat of enough loss. Shit does happen, Smitty, and to people who don't really deserve it. Not being able to see in front of you when taking off? Bad idea. Anyone 5' or shorter on the jury who's ever had to put a phone book on a car seat would vote against the plane maker. That's how they work. Could this happen to me? Would *I* want to be paid for harm? Ubetcha they would.

You're more familiar, obviously, with small planes. Are they still making planes like that? What happened there is the old "deep pocket" trick. Smart lawyers look for the wealthiest defendants because you can't get blood from a stone - and probably not very much from a stupid airport official who *should* have been solely liable for that accident.

I never said they were. I said:
<< [There are] Not as many [frivolous lawsuits] as you might think. Lawyers work on contingency and unless they are milking their clients for "expenses" they are not as quick to take on totally BS lawsuits as people might think. I'll think differently when I see a list of frivolous lawsuits where the plaintiff actually prevailed.>>
The issue here is that courts do not consider any incident where a person dies or is seriously injured frivolous. By definition. Fear of lawsuits makes manufacturers far more careful than they would be in a court-free world.
My dad did forensic investigation after retiring from the Navy. When someone died, smart companies pulled out all the stops because they knew how badly the dice could roll against them with a jury. They got the best investigators and lawyers they could find. I worked with him on 7 million dollar suit against GM with him where a car became airborne and both plaintiffs had been injured, one ending up a quadriplegic.
GM opened the taps, as lawyers say, and even drove a "new old stock" model of that then 8 year old car to DC from Detroit, where apparently they keep an inventory of every car they've ever made in showroom condition just for such occasions. We were able to disprove the ludicrous contention that the drive shaft broke before the crash and the whipping shaft launched the car airborne.
It was only because the Maryland State Police had so thoroughly photographed and documented the scene that we were able to prove to a jury that the plaintiff had hit a very sturdy metal road sign that bent over just enough to act as a launching ramp for the car that they determined had been traveling close to 100mph.
The jury was very sympathetic to the drooling driver in a puff-straw controlled wheelchair and his horribly scarred wife (she got the "glass necklace" treatment from going through the windshield). The post-crash photos (which our side tried to exclude as inflammatory and non-probative but failed) were some of the most gruesome things you'd ever want to not see. If the MSP, who has one of the best accident reconstruction teams in the US (perhaps the world), did not do the incredibly thorough job they did, GM would have lost that case just because the jury *wanted* to give these poor, battered and uninsured people some money out of charity. By the time a suit was filed, almost all the physical evidence at the scene was gone.
The opposing lawyers, tasting that potential multi-million dollar payday, worked very hard and were VERY good, but GM actually recreated the accident at their facilities in Detroit with yet another nearly identical car - I believe but can't recall - they bought it used because the plaintiff's car was used - and had a robotic driving mechanism fitted to the car which they drove into a similar sign. Guess what happened? You guessed it, the sucker launched into the air like a jet off a carrier. Was that suit frivolous? Probably, but I think the plaintiffs didn't think it so frivolous because the lawyers convinced their clients they could win.
What is a frivolous lawsuit? The Birther lawsuits were frivolous particularly because the plaintiffs could not prove they had been harmed. Civil justice is very much about harm and restoring or compensating for that harm. I believe the most famous of the BS's was brought by a lawyer acting as his own attorney (a sure sign that frivolity is near - the pro se filing). It's very often, but not always (I won a pro se suit!) an indicator that the suit has no merit. Where's the payout for a lawyer bringing a birther suit? How was the plaintiff harmed? (Oh, the nastygrams are on the way with this one. Just remember, that's what the judge said. I am merely repeating it.)
The judge, IIRC, banned the plaintiff reluctantly because limiting access to the courts is considered an extremely harsh penalty. But it's necessary with the "sue freaks" who sue everyone for everything under the sun hoping to squeeze out a settlement. I'll admit that's a serious court clogging problem and if you want to call them frivolous lawsuits, then I'll agree. Did I just reverse myself? (-: Maybe. What I won't agree is that very many of them ever get adjudicated in their favor and some litigants even get banned. Lots of businesses settle them, but it's like feeding trolls. It just makes them hungrier.
If litigants actually lose frivolous lawsuits filed against them, they hired themselves some idjit lawyers or they didn't take the threat seriously enough. That happens probably more often than people think based on the sickening number of trials I had to sit through in my life and the lawyers who were so freaking awful that some of them actually got sanctioned and one got disbarred.
Just a couple of weeks watching the old CourtTV would convince anyone that the wrong lawyer could get even the most innocent of clients the death sentence. Maybe we need to change the saying to "The DA could indict a ham sandwich and Joe Blow, Esq, the world's worst defense attorney could get that sandwich the electric chair." (-: (Vic, are you reading this?)
I know one poor idjit who, after a fight with his wife, got charged with attempted murder. His first lawyer, after squeezing every bit of cash the guy had anywhere, told him to cop a plea, and he took 20 years. Only later did he find out the prison system here doesn't keep guys as old as him in much past 65. He was 62. (They actually kept him until age 67 when he had his first heart attack.)
He eventually fired that lawyer, got one used by area crack dealers who probably could have gotten him off but she couldn't crack the plea deal his first lawyer convinced him to enter into, not bothering to tell him he would never, ever serve 20 years or life, even if he lost at trial. He got the worst outcome possible by hiring a lawyer that came "highly recommended" but who was a money-grubbing dork. He could have copped a plea "pro se" and saved himself $150,000. You read right. One Freaking Hundred and Fifty THOUSAND smackeroos, just to do what he could have done for free: cop a plea.
Never cop a plea, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER. Witnesses die, people forget and if you can get out on bail, you can motion your way into at least two extra years of freedom. If you lose, you can always appeal, all the way up the Supremes. When you cop a plea, that's it, you're done. Yes, they'll tell you a plea gets you 10 years but a trial *could* get you life. A plea gets you 10 years for sure, but a trial *could* get you zero time. And yet so many people are cowed into taking pleas. After OJ and Robert Blake walked, anyone who takes a plea and doesn't "spin the wheel" with a jury is an idjit.
What's this got to do with 3-way bulbs anyway?
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suspect when the Concorde was designed that many of the cheap, tiny cameras on the market didn't exist yet. HF cameras probably wouldn't stand up to crossing the sound barrier (or maybe even crossing the street!), etc.
But a cheap, modern cam like the one I have in my van, which has a terrible blind spot in back, would solve some of the taildragger problems. IIRC, the latest airliners have a very thorough CCTV system inspired, in part, by a fire in the luggage compartment that downed an Air Florida jet. Now the pilots can use the cameras to see what's happening in areas where there's no flight crew. I believe the cameras are not only in the luggage area, but in the space above the pilot's cabin where electrical fires tend to break out since a alot of the plane's wiring terminates there.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I'd take a plexiglas bubble skylight, cut a hole in the cockpit floor and mount foot stirrups so the pilot could hang upside while taking off or landing. Sort of like the domes used for ball turret gunners. It would be an extra encouragement to keep the plane from landing so hard it collapses the landing gear.
I gotta admit when I saw that drooping nose I thought - I'll bet there are a few more "failure points" in the Concorde than in normal-nosed airplanes. Oddly enough, in its mostly fatal crash, the pilot ran over something on the runaway. Something they probably couldn't see.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I thought it was a can of WD-40 used to grease the nose-drooping mechanism.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the case of the NatWest Three, steam-rollered into it by the US "Justice" system. Extradited from the UK, first thing you discover is that if you resist extradition, you are counted as a fugitive under the US "Justice" system, so no bail.
Second thing is that, because the alleged offence took place in the UK (and the UK authorities had declined to prosecute), all the documentation and potential witnesses were in the UK. And guess what. You're then in jail, awaiting trial, and unable to mount a defence because you can't subpoena anyone.
Third, because in the US judges are elected (daftest thing I ever heard of), it means some of them have hobby-horses. And their trial judge let it be known that if found guilty (see above about ability to mount a defence), they'd be likely to get 40 years.
So they copped a plea and got three years. What would you have done?
You don't get justice in the US, you get law. And plenty of it.

Sod all.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:
...

...
The plaintiff doesn't need to win to cause liability insurance rates to beccome totally astronomical and force potential defendents to find other ways to invest their money than to continue in a litigation-prone area.
I had an uncle w/ longterm management experience w/ Cessna/Wichita and was there when they made the corporate decision to leave the single-engine market. That decision (along w/ that of Beech, etc.), was entirely driven by the fact that the liability was seen as too great for the potential return in the environment at the time.
One of the stories was the one of the guy who had bought a used 150 of 30-some years' age; failed to have an updated air certification done, had only a few hours of flight time after getting his ticket.
His first landing he nosed it into ground, caught prop on runway and flipped it. Widow sued Cessna for manufacturing and selling the aircraft as it was inherently a flaw that the prop could do that.
The cost of defending even nonsense litigation got to be so expensive just was not financially viable business any longer at the time.
There has been a shifting of courts not taking _quite_ so many truly frivolous lawsuits to trial any longer and the manufacturers have restructured their handling of the expenses associated since but it still is a significant cost of the airplane just as liability drives medical costs to be far higher than otherwise would be if were only covering the actual service cost plus reasonable fee structure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:
...

...
Hadn't thought of this in years...more/better recollection after the initial posting--actually, he hit the ground so hard he collapsed the landing gear and that was what caused/allowed the prop to contact the ground and cause the flipover. The claim was that the gear were inadequate or similar nonsense...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

But you can sure burn its face off. The Bic "fry cook" injuries were on a par with some of the worst facial injuries I've seen coming from AfRaq, especially if the lighter is full when it explodes. You can see for yourself by throwing one in a fire. Whoosh! In most "fry cook" cases people were too slow to react and be much use because they were so stunned (and because they were burger joint workers!) Was it a frivolous law suit? Yes, because there was no way a Bic could be made "boiling fry oil proof" lighter. But someone was injured badly and the courts always give them the courtesy of hearing them out.
There's a class of lawsuits that did cause great grief to Bic (and victims) when (IIRC!!) a series of newly designed lighters had a valve that did not thoroughly close under all circumstances. Women would slip the lighter into their purse and the butane would all leak out into the purse. When they went to flick their Bic again, they were engulfed in a huge fireball. Most were able to simply drop the purse but not all.
While the injuries didn't match those of the fry cooks - those lighters exploded like tiny napalm bombs on contact with the oil, flashing upward and spewing boiling oil everywhere - they were very, very serious and some women had to have multiple cosmetic surgeries to look human again. Although it was clearly a defective design, Bic avoided changing it for 15 years by making secret settlements with those who had been burned until one plaintiff refused their lowball offer and won near $4M at trial. That changed the whole ball game.
Bic, like almost all defendants, had no reservation about trying to blame the end user. For the first few suits, anyway. Then they learned that tactic "inflamed" juries who said, after trial, that it caused them to want to through the book at Bic.
Once that single plaintiff prevailed in open court, the floodgates opened and Bic had to redesign the lighters or else the suits would never stop. Verdicts were in the multi-million dollar range which really isn't much for Bic, but it still troubled them mightily.
Here's a page about it from the NYT archives:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/10/business/lawsuits-and-worry-mount-over-bic-lighter.html
LAWSUITS, AND WORRY, MOUNT OVER BIC LIGHTER By TAMAR LEWIN Published: April 10, 1987
The Bic Corporation is facing mounting lawsuits on behalf of people who have been burned - and in some cases killed - by fires they say were caused by defects in the company's disposable butane lighters. Although claims began to trickle in soon after Bic introduced its throwaway lighters in 1972, the company has until recently been able to keep the cases quiet by settling them out of court, usually making secrecy one of the terms of the settlement.
But last fall, in what was apparently the first lighter case to go to trial, Bic settled for $3.25 million after the jury found the company liable for the extensive burns suffered by Cynthia Littlejohn, a Philadelphia woman who was on a camping trip when the Bic lighter in her front pocket ignited, engulfing her in flames. Lawyers say others have fared worse: Ethel Smith of Tower City, Pa., caught fire on July 13, 1985, when the Bic lighter she was using to light her cigarette exploded, according to a lawsuit filed by her husband, Francis H. Smith. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Proof once again that smoking is hazardous to your health!
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.