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

The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion. Let 'em sink.

It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics and silly to think they should (not).

...or their own house.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

It would be like it is in most of Europe, choke ballasts with glowbottle starters. A bit more efficient than our autotransformer ballasts, but still less than modern electronic.

Reply to
James Sweet

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).

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.

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.

As a result, I expect displacement of incandescents to be a slow and incremental process that can take another 10-20 years to *mostly* accomplish. Heck, that process was already underway in the early 1980's, when most low-voltage-powered front panel indicator lights were LEDs, and before the mid 1970's those were at least 99% incandescent.

===============================

One area where LEDs (and to some extent in recent years other technologies) are displacing incandescents is nightlights.

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.

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.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Hi Don,

I, for one, would happily trade-off some raw lumens for better colour rendering. Do you know of any products available now or in the near future with CRIs in the low to mid 90s?

Cheers, Paul

Reply to
Paul M. Eldridge

as desired) the first stop was our Congressional delegation. It's difficult to convince consumers to buy a product they don't need. It's easier, with the help of a large PAC, to put a ring in the nose of legislators and in some cases compel the consumer to buy the product.

CFLs in some portions of the country have become a joke. Look at the cost of heating oil for next year and the cost of electrical energy. It's more economical to heat with electricity. Turn on all the incandescent lights and save money.

Boden

Reply to
Boden

150 watt incandescent with a diode consumes about 88 watts, give or take a bit. The 2640-2780 lumens decreases to about 800-870 lumens (light output of "standard", "soft white" and even 1500 hour, maybe "double life" 60 watt incandescents).

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Many of the ones exempt on basis of better color rendering do so with compromise in light output, *unless*: The CRI (color rendering index) is in the low-mid 80's! CRI around/above 90 "pretty much requires" significant to severe compromise in light output. Furthermore, if CRI is in the low-mid 80's the color distortions are often mostly *favorable* (main exception of reds being distorted slightly to orangish). Otherwise, color distortions are mostly to darker/duller for reds and greens, especially reds. The color distortions are less when CRI is around 90 or in the low 90's, but still usually largely in unfavorable directions.

As for F40 with uncompromised light output and color distortions mainly

*not* dulling/darkening - Philips "Ultralume". I think that Sylvania's "Interior Design"/"Designer" is fairly similar. Watch for color temperature rating - these come in more than one, especially Philips "Ultralume"!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

In warm color CFL - I know of none.

I was thinking along the lines of making CFL equivalent of Philips TL950/TL930.

There are Ott CFLs with correlated color temp. around 5000 K. However, I find these to be pricier and I perceive hype that I suspect to be for trying to justify a higher price that I feel is excessive. It appears to me that a better basis for selling these would be higher CRI and daylight-like color with less of what I personally feel is hype.

For example, I consider it hype to claim that replicating daylight is best for plants, since plants have low utilization of most of the green portion of the visible spectrum - ever notice the color and spectrum of most plant-growing fluorescents, even more reputable ones (Sylvania)?

These are available at Home Depot. One that I plunked $$ on appears to me to have CRI in the 90-"low 90's" range (along with compromised light output compared to similar CFLs with CRI of 82). If I did not have to pay so much for what I personally feel is hype, I would buy more of these for use where I can use a cool color high-CRI white.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |>

|> |> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like |> |> the idea of taxing cheap imports. |> |>

|> | |> | Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public |> | policy. Taxes distort the marketplace. |> |> And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few |> places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my |> first place, if you need an example. | | The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout | (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion. | Let 'em sink.

Totally unregulated markets are known to have ups and downs that can sometimes get way out of whack. The bailout is to avoid a sinking that would just make it go even further out of whack, or take other markets down with it.

The regulation I would focus on is to have avoided the whole mess in the first place, and provide for a stable growth. The MINIMUM regulation to achieve that would be my goal.

The stupid businesses _should_ sink. But when it's a case of the sinking ship taking other things down with it, that needs to be avoided.

|> | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in |> | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits |> | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who |> | also do what they do best. |> |> As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But |> it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a |> hand in the economies. | | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics | and silly to think they should (not).

How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical Don Klipstein wrote: | In article , Joseph Meehan wrote: |>>

|>> 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote: | | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel wrote: |> | In article , |> | James Sweet writes: |> |> |> |> |> |>> |> |>> T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and |> |>> provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear |> |>> used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different |> |>> control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length. |> |> |> |> |> |> A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some |> |> 4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are |> |> electrically different than the UK lamps. |> | |> | Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for |> | a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC. |> | Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between |> | US and elsewhere. |> | |> |> They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts. |> | |> | They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as |> | preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts |> | available for many years, but not when they first came out. |> |> I wonder what it would be like in the USA if we wired our fluorescent lights |> to 240 volts instead of 120 volts. Virtually all homes have it (or at least |> 208 volts). Of course we'd need 2-pole switches. But at least it's still |> only 120 volts shock potential relative to ground. |> | | | It would be like it is in most of Europe, choke ballasts with glowbottle | starters. A bit more efficient than our autotransformer ballasts, but | still less than modern electronic.

Would electronic ballast be the same efficiency on both voltage systems?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical Don Klipstein wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge | wrote: | |>| Hi Phil, |>| |>| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output |>| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example, |>| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens |>| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white). |>

|>So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the |>power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts. | | 150 watt incandescent with a diode consumes about 88 watts, give or take | a bit. The 2640-2780 lumens decreases to about 800-870 lumens (light | output of "standard", "soft white" and even 1500 hour, maybe "double life" | 60 watt incandescents).

What color temp?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical RFI-EMI-GUY wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical RFI-EMI-GUY wrote: |> |> | You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell |> | has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves |> | Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell |> | oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and |> | later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can |> | continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a |> | barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip |> | off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If |> | the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps |> | deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the |> | government. |> |> So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy |> per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven. |> |> |> | Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the |> | butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away |> | about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would |> | you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida |> | and elsewhere with the gasoline. |> |> I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too. |> Show some proof. |> | | Its simple; I have a ton of gasoline receipts from the period before and | after the Ethanol blend was mandated. I was suspicious after I started | noticing the fuel economy drop in my vehicle. I have monitored the gas | mileage and done the calculations. Its all very simple. The vehicle is | well maintained and I have an OBDII reader attached to the computer to | monitor gas economy and vehicle performance. Do your own research, | Google for gas mileage and Ethanol fuel and come to your own | conclusions. As far as pollution out the tailpipe, that is simple logic. | If I have to burn 12 gallons of fuel to go the same mileage as 10 | gallons once carried me and 90% of that fuel is gasoline and 10% is | ethanol, I have a worsened pollution situation in that I am now dumping | byproducts from the 10.8 gallons gasoline plus 1.2 gallons of ethanol. | | If you don't beleive me, look up the BTU energy of gasoline and Ethanol. | Ethanol has significantly less energy than gasoline.

So basically you are saying that because of the added ethanol, you have to burn 10.8 gallons of gasoline where once before you only needed to burn 10. If that 10.8 gallons does in fact produce the same pollution (maybe it is a different mix and doesn't) per gallon, then, yeah, there is an issue with it.

I already know ethanol has a lower energy per volume or weight. But the big questions are how it affects pollution and foreign oil dependency. If you have to burn 10.8 gallons of gas that is otherwise the same as the 10 gallons burned before, then there is an issue with it.

And that's even before we figure in the cost of producing the ethanol, and the impact on the economy of the higher price for certain food products.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.

Reply to
James Sweet

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.

Reply to
James Sweet

Yes, there's very little loss in an electronic ballast and it doesn't vary much by line voltage.

Reply to
James Sweet

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote: | | |> |> 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.

Reply to
James Sweet

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.

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
$File/rc24128.pdf
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
$FILE/paper-eichen-pact05.pdf
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Mycelium

The dirty little secret behind sub-prime morgtages is that they were CAUSED by government regulation. The government required a significant percentage of banking and morgtage business to take place in "deprived" or "under-served" areas. Absence of a branch bank, for example, on a street where the only other retail services were hookers and dope-dealers was evidence sufficient of discrimination!

In many cases, the only way a lender could fluff up their percentage of minority business was to offer bizarre financial instruments. This they had to do to meet the requirements of the regulators who had set minimum minority participation requirements. To simply tell the regulators such antics were bad business would be met with the same retort as was given to Dagny Taggart when she pulled the rolling stock out of Mexico: "The deserve the best we have!"

True, and we can take advantage of their foolishness. If Bangladesh wants to subsidize the manufacture of sneakers by 6-year olds such that we end up with really swell tennis shoes for two bucks, then I'm all for it.

Reply to
HeyBub

HomeOwnersHub website 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.