Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

Page 3 of 10  
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:35:55 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Hi Don,
That's my overall impression too. To get into the '90s, the CCTs are all in the range of 5,000 to 7,000K, and while that may be perfectly acceptable for tropical climates, it's way too cold for residential use here in Canada. And you're right about the marketing hype; the folks who aggressively promote another emerging lighting technology must have all cut their teeth selling "full spectrum" fluorescents because they appear to be cut from the same cloth.
A CFL with a CRI of 90 to 95 and a CCT of 3,000 to 3,500K would be the ideal and I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable premium for the better colour rendering.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

The Colortone 50 and Chroma 50 fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 94. I don't think that phosphor has made it into CFLs though, the high power density of the compact lamps is too hard on the fluorogermanate phosphor used to get the true red on the high CRI lamps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:02:29 GMT, James Sweet

Hi James,
One more to add to the linear list: the Philips TL930 and TL950 have a CCT of 3,000 and 5,000K respectively and a CRI of 95 and 98. I haven't any personal experience with either lamp, but from what I've read they're a good choice for colour critical applications.
See: http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5037-D.pdf
The downside is the one-third loss of light output, but that's pretty much a given when you reach this level of performance.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:23:12 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge

I like my old Philips TLD36W/92 here in Sweden. It still work perfect in my kitchen since 1990.
http://tekniken.se/misc/philips_tld36w-92.jpg
Specifications: 2700K, CRI 95, 63 lm/W
--
De rika borgarna r totalt galna.
De gr allt fr att sno t sig vra pengar.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi Ken,
Very nice specs. The only thing I know that would come close to matching that in CCT (and it may now be a discontinued product), is something Sylvania sold called "The Incandescent Fluorescent". It was a 40-watt T12 lamp with a CCT of 2,750K and a CRI of 89 or 90, if I recall correctly. In its day, the quality of the light it provided was a huge improvement over a standard warm white tube (52 CRI) and warm white deluxe (mid to upper 70s) -- so good, in fact, many photographers could use tungsten rated film with this lamp and get outstanding results. I liked this lamp a lot, but it only provided 1,500 lumens using standard control gear (~ 34 lumens per watt).
Bst hnsynen ! Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:23:12 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge

I like my old Philips TLD36W/92 here in Sweden. It still work perfect in my kitchen since 1990.
http://tekniken.se/misc/philips_tld36w-92.jpg
Specifications: 2700K, CRI 95, 63 lm/W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|>> |>> So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for |>> the few places I actually need them? |> |> Who knows, a new technology may have come along and no one may be making |>them due to lack of a market. | | I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming | and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a | compromise in light output).
What about spectral continuity? Are they going to even recognize the issue?
| I expect LEDs to continue their pace of advancement, increment by | increment in performance, cost, and new varieties. But as LED technology | has been incrementing itself along increment by increment, I expect that | to remain the story for the next 10-15 years. | LED technology appears to me to only be advancing about half as fast as | computer technology, maybe a little slower.
As CPU performance is forced to move to multiple process cores, software has a lot of catching up to do to make effective use of it. We'll be seeing a slowdown of what computers can do for several years.
| There are also metal halide lamps, another technology that has been | advancing somewhat and is still advancing, though not as fast as LEDs are | advancing.
How do they compare to FL/CFL?
| One area where LEDs (and to some extent in recent years other | technologies) are displacing incandescents is nightlights.
All my nightlights are red in color. I just use Christmas tree lights in them to achieve that. Red is nicer on the night vision, which is what I want the nightlights for. Once they start making LED nightlights in red, then I will buy (when I need more or need to replace).
| The old traditional model used a 7 watt incandescent, and often a shade | because 7 watt incandescents are rather bright for this job, and it takes | more effort to make an 120V incandescent of wattage much lower than 7 | watts - or at least it used to. | Past 15 years or so, 4 watt incandescent nightlight "bulbs" have been | common - still bright enough to usually deserve a shade.
I have the 4 watt ones. The nightlights are also the sensor type that cut off when there is light in the area.
| Now, there are many LED night lights available. With ineffeciencies of | safe voltage dropping at low cost, most current models of 120V LED night | lights are not more efficient than incandescents in photometric terms - | but they still achieve efficiency gains by having a spectrum more | favorable to making use of night vision when the lighting is dim (higher | "s/p ratio"), along with being dim enough to not need a shade. Power | consumption of these is mostly around 1/3 watt to 1 watt. | Better are green and blue models and the Feit Electric white C7 "bulb". | Most other LED light models using white LEDs will have light output | degrading significantly year-by-year or even a bit faster.
I want the red ones.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That may be true, however people have been saying that for at least the last 15 years and so far computing power in the average PC has increased by leaps and bounds every year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | |> |> As CPU performance is forced to move to multiple process cores, software |> has a lot of catching up to do to make effective use of it. We'll be |> seeing a slowdown of what computers can do for several years. |> | | | That may be true, however people have been saying that for at least the | last 15 years and so far computing power in the average PC has increased | by leaps and bounds every year.
But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but for a while not everything will.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs, which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards. I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They run cooler if you keep the speed a bit lower, and add cores.
IBM will be the winner. You'll see them in everything.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080618-game-and-pc-hardware-combo-tops-supercomputer-list.html?rel
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.arch.innovation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/mikeg/papers/2007_ieeecomputer.pdf
http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/1B2480A9DBF5B9538525723D0051A8C1 /$File/rc24128.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/mikeg/papers/cell_isca2006.pdf
http://beatys1.mscd.edu/compfront/2006/cf06-gschwind.pdf
http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sj/451/eicheaut.html
http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc17/2_Mon/HC17.S1/HC17.S1T1.pdf
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/alexe.publications.html /$FILE/paper-eichen-pact05.pdf
http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hpca/2005/2275/00/22750258abs.htm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070221-8896.html?rel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | |> |> But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and |> the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the |> software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but |> for a while not everything will. |> | | | More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs, | which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has | shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards. | I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors | are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than | ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end | workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance | slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.
You're not seeing the speed-UP that would have otherwise taken place had there been no limitation on making single CPUs faster and faster at the same rate they have been increased in the past. Processor speeds increments are slowing down around the 3 GHz point. There are faster ones, but the cost spread AND the heat spread are increasing. We should have been at 6 to 8 GHz CPU speed by now, otherwise.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at which data is supplied to it.
Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.
In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs Microsoft has produced.)
With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".
Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.
--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on | thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit | elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture | rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are | good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at | which data is supplied to it.
Many of these factors are why CPU speed is not increasing as fast as it used to. We are at a point where speed is an inverse function of size. So every speed improvement in a CPU now has to have a corresponding size decrease. That's harder than speed improvements in the past used to be.
| Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly | addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and | cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of | a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.
My 32-bit Linux system has no trouble accessing the 8GB of RAM it has. Your use of "directly" could mean that each actual running program would have its own such access, and there would be a 4GB limit in that case.
| In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 | bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs | Microsoft has produced.)
But you have to add a 64-bit layer. My 32-bit Linux gives me the advantages of 8GB of RAM (and I've only populated 4 of the 8 slots, so I could put in another 8GB, knowing that Linux can handle up to 64GB this way). Microsoft chose not to go this way with Windows (XP or Vista). Of course, 64-bit is the way of the future and I'll be doing some 64-bit stuff soon.
| With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the | BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the | one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".
There is a "sand castle" of features added on that make the whole architecture a big mess. I'm referring to the history of things from P&P to ACPI. None of these were truly clean (but clean would have meant a too disruptive change).
| Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better | input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.
Agreed. The applications will get better. We just don't have them all doing that right now. Some do, some don't. And some of the tools meant to help have some issues (for example POSIX threads did not provide a means to let threads keep separate current directory contexts ... Linux can do it, but if used, the pthreads library will fail). I'm looking at building my own thread library right now to handle some of the limitations the current models have.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Possibly in the x86 arena, but this idea originated elsewhere; Sun UltraSPARC IV predated it, and the earlier work of Afara Websystems which eventually led to Sun's original 8-core Niagra SPARC chip.

32 bit OS's have been accessing over 4GB memory for well over a decade. Even PC's, which were probably the last hardware platform to do so, introduced Intel's PAE with the Pentium Pro (1995?).

Databases and other applications accessing over 4Gb of data are not exactly rare.

OK, 64 bit Windows might be of limited use, but don't tarnish all OS's with such a claim. The x86/PC architecture allows 32 bit and 64 bit applications to run together on the same OS (OS permitting).

I don't think any PC OS's still use the BIOS once booted for at least a decade, and in some cases nearer 2 decades.

and better OS's (in multiple respects).
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I was referring to CPUs in common use in PCs. There have been a lot of special purpose CPUs, none of which has a large following. I recall one that didn't even have an increment instruction. Instead of x++ you used x=x+1! They claimed the addition instruction was faster.

By "directly" I meant having a register capable of holding the address of >4GB memory. There have been "segmented" memory programs since Bill Gates said 940KB was plenty for anyone.

PhotoShop in the last few releases, can, with a 64bit OS, use memory instead of writing to disk.

This is written using 32bit Linux, (PCLOS), on a 64bit AMD CPU. The same box multi-boots WinXP x64 as well as a couple of 64bit Linux distros, openSUSE 11.0 being the latest. Actually, Win XP x64 runs most of my applications better than the 32bit version. The few 64bit drivers available are an improvement.
I've been running Linux with kernels capable of >4GB memory use for some time. The lack of 64bit drivers in addition to applications, limits its usefulness. I had great hopes for Vists 64bit, but it looks like it's not doing much to encourage 64bit development.
Many of the less expensive motherboards cannot handle >8GB 0f memory. I have seen a couple, that had the slots, but slowed memory access when fully populated.

They've added LBA 48, ext 13, APCI. My old DOS debug still runs on it!

Someone once said the reason God could create the universe in six days was because it didn't have to be backward compatible! :-)
--
Virg Wall

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

That was 640 kB.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says...

Actually, it was 704K, but no one told Billy. ;-)
--
Keith

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

<snip>
I like that! :-)
There is a lot of truth there too. The desire for backward compatibility (or at least compatibility with the majority of commercial software already out there) has *got* to be holding a lot of innovation back. Sure, some high priced applications can be recompiled for a different architecture, but at what cost?
daestrom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
metspitzer wrote:

Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.
I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that *every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent. Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient, let them.
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.