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

Page 8 of 10  
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:54:42 -0700, Jim Thompson

Hi Jim:
If it's an inexpensive shop light from a big box retailer (the ones with the notoriously crappy magnetic ballasts), replace it with a good quality T8 fixture.
Lithonia offers inexpensive T8 channel and wrap fixtures that operate down to 0F. You should be able to pick one up for about $20.00.
See: http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/Library/Documents/LL/Contractor%20Select/Fluorescent-Wraps.pdf
For cold weather applications, stick with a standard 32-watt T8, as opposed to the 25, 28 or 30-watt energy savers -- GE, Osram Sylvania or Philips.
Cheers, Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I use 6 cfl floods and and 8 regular cfls outside on sensors at -10f last winter, cfls light ok, but the floods are not good for 5 minute on sensors, I use HDs bulbs, if lights are to be left on they are fine, but the colder it gets the longer it takes to get bright, the enclosed floods are the worst, I have the regular cfls unshielded and all survived rain and snow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
andesants should have limited use in todays world

I've converted two of my Maglites to LEDs. They're 'drop proof' too.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

That's how our first energy saving retrofit worked. In 1978, Thorn Lighting produced a 100W tube to retrofit into 125W 8' fittings. It used krypton rather than argon base gas fill. It just predated the move to T8 tri-phosphor tubes, which were used for all the shorter tube retrofits which followed on.
--
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

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. They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts. I have some 40W choke ballasts from over there but I haven't tried running a T8 with one yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 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.
--
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
|> |> |>> |>> 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.
--
|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:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
wrote:
|> |> |> |> |> |>> |> |>> 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?
--
|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

Yes, there's very little loss in an electronic ballast and it doesn't vary much by line voltage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
metspitzer wrote:

Poe is an idiot. Either the bulbs in question got here through Interstate Commerce or they miracled themselves into existence.
If the former, Congress has unfettered authority to regulate them; if the latter, "Let there be light" takes on a new meaning.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This thing sounds a lot more like a troll than a real message.
Of course I don't limit how stupid Congress can be, I can't see where there is a constitutional issue. The "facts" provided are weak at best. Frankly I would question any information coming from the same source.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, I was left wondering what kind of an idiot this Congressman is too. He's certainly free to object to the law that Congress passed regarding light bulbs and there is certainly some basis to do so. However, to drag constitutionality into it is silly. Congress has actually banned private ownership of gold and eliminated freon in air conditioning, etc. How can it suddenly be that it's unconstitutional?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasahol (10% Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration of consumers.
Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses fat more petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasahol mix actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded (I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasahol it now averages 12.5 MPg. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.
So: 1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulturated product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen 2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more gallons of same adulturated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen 3) My vehicle still burned 10 gallons of regular gasoline out the tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.
So I am ripped off $11.88 for what should have been 1/2 tank full. And the earth is further polluted.
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the "Big Oil" companies are making 8.3 cents per $1 of gas sold. Microsoft is making 27 cents per dollar of sales. Banks are making IIRC,15 cents/$1. US industry average is IIRC,9.x cents/$1
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net 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.
--
|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:

Yes it does not seem to make a lot of sense on a lot of levels.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

...and therefor engine efficiency.

Concentrating on getting the old smokers off the road will do far more good.

I've seen this in my own car. I get about 10% lower mileage with an alcohol mix than gasoline. ...enough to avoid the brands that use alcohol, even if the others do cost 10% more (they usually don't).

Which, as you pointed out, does nothing for a vehicle with a modern fuel system except reduce mileage and pollute groundwater with a nice carcinogen.

Some areas much more prevalent than others. AIUI, it's unavoidable in some areas.

Lose the subsidies and restrictions (including imported ethanol) altogether. Let the market decide.

...and "I've heard" that the only source worth using is cane. Ethanol is the best answer for the current fleet of cars.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasohol (10% Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration of consumers.
Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses far more petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasohol mix actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded (I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasohol it now averages 12.5 MPG. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.
So: 1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulterated product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen 2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more gallons of same adulterated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen 3) My vehicle still burned 10.8 gallons of regular gasoline out the tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.
So I am ripped off $11.88 for less than 1/2 tank full. And the earth is further polluted.
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RFI-EMI-GUY wrote: ...

That makes no sense. Ethanol has about 80% the energy of gasoline on a per unit volume basis. Hence a gallon of E10 blend has roughly 0.9*100 + 0.1*80 --> 98% of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.
Hence, for mileage to drop by more than a few per cent is unreasonable--you're quoting numbers as if the entire fuel were ethanol but as if it were only 10%.
If the vehicle actually is requiring much more than that extra 2% on E10, something's wrong w/ the vehicle; perhaps in the emission control system sensors.
--
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.