Texas secedes

Page 2 of 3  


Room temperature. > 5 minutes. Other fluroescents have been worse (not the usual case).
At 10F some wouldn't light at all. Forget it at -20F.

Some of my bulbs never see a couple of hours lit.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

As I said, that 45 seconds was at 10F, not room temp. I have CFLs just about everywhere in my house and none of them has any noticeable turn on delay, and I mean *no* delay as in the light is on at 90%+ brightness at the same time you hear the wall switch click.
I don't use exotic CFLs, just generic stuff from Deopt, Lowe's, Sam's or Costco, so I don't know where these mysterious CFLs that people claim have huge turn on delays are coming from. I think the folks claiming all these supposed CFL issues really have mental issues, or else haven't actually tried a CFL since the very first ones that came out like a decade ago.
A friend of mine recently converted to pretty much all CFLs in his house and has not only had no complaints, rather he's thrilled with them and the $20/mo he says it has cut from his electric bill.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Wow! I don't know where to start.
First, the attitude that "if it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't exist" is pretty much Middle Ages thinking.
Second, to attribute those reports (including mine) to mental defect is just plain insulting to your fellow posters. It's almost nonsensical.
Third, you've already admitted you've only tried bulbs from several vendors. It's an AWFULLY big world out there. Mine are just a few years old.
Fourth, if I gave a damn about someone who's never met me impugning my mental state or that of friends here in AHR I know to be accurate reporters of the truth, I would cheerfully make a video of how long it takes my floodlight mounted N:vision Home Depot bulbs to ramp up to full brightness. But I don't care. Your denial says much more about you than it does about me or the others who have actually seen slow warm-up.
I simply know that it takes TOO long to see someone breaking into my car via my CCTV system with the Home Depot N:vision CFL floodlights so I installed a second floodlight fixture that uses plain old, comes-on-instantly incandescent floods so when I hear something and the lights are out, I can at least get instant light on the subject. That was a lot of work, and it made my wife unhappy to have yet another two-eyed floodlight stalk hanging off the house. But we agreed it had to be done to counter a very specific problem: slow startup of CFL floods, especially in cold weather. The one flood bulb we used inside for the plant box exhibited the same problems.
It *could* be that the bulbs are designed that way to avoid cracking the outer glass shell from too much heat applied too quickly in an environment where there may be snow, rain or ice on the outer shell, but warm up slowly is what they do. I'd bet you $5000 that these slow-warm-up bulbs exist because I own three. I watch two of them ramp up slowly every night I turn them on. If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is and give me a chance to double mine. It's easy money for me.
The whole palette of complaints - long warm up, bad dimming, incompatibility with home automation systems that require filament current leakage to operate, large size for high wattage, early burnout in bathrooms where they are switched on 20 times a day and very spectacular burn-outs emitting a cloud of acrid burned plastic smoke are quite real.
I would say you're the one in some sort of denial just because your extrapolating other people's experience based on the (apparent) experience of yourself and one other user. That doesn't constitute a large sample compared to the population of the US or even the readership of this group. An honorable man might offer up an apology for saying every person reporting these issues might have mental problems. Now you get to show us what you're really made of. Man or mouse?
In the meantime, educate yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?q ÏL+warmup+delays
Also consider why GE sells a halogen/CFL bulb to counter situations where it's dangerous to wait for a CFL to warm up (stairwells, for instance).
http://pressroom.geconsumerproducts.com/pr/ge/ge-unveils-unique-hybrid-halogen-179701.aspx
Slow warm-up is real. Consider yourself lucky if you've avoided or not perceived it so far.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

I've used many brands of CFLs over the past decade, and as I noted, not one of them has had a long warm-up time. I've known a number of other people who have switched to CFLs and none of them have reported any warm-up time issues either. No, it's not a giant sample size, but it's not tiny either and there isn't a single example of the claimed slow CFLs in the lot. Not one problem CFL out of the hundreds in the sample.

I'm pretty confident that those who are continually protesting the "slow" CFL tried one very early CFL, and have since talked themselves into a corner where they can not admit that current CFLs simply do not have the problem that they have fixated on. People certainly fixate on stupider things such as religion.

Several vendors? Where do you come up with that? I listed four stores, which is more than several right there. In my spare CFL stockpile at the moment I have CFLs branded GE, Sylvania, Commercial Electric and Lights of America. I'm sure there are a few others in some of my fixtures. Mine range from about a year old to about 8 years old.

Floodlight mounted? Do you mean encapsulated CFLs? As Don K. notes, those are the only type of CFLs that he's found have any warm-up time. None of the CFLs I use are encapsulated.

So again, for such applications, why are you so fixated on incandescents? Halogens work better for those uses and are more efficient than regular incandescents. Those halogen lamps are also not going away.

Again, you are referring to a special case of lamps for outdoor use, where there is no push for CFLs anyway. Also the CFL based outdoor fixtures such as the floodlights that use 65W flat CFL units don't have the problem either.

I have CFLs in my bathroom and most everywhere else in my house, a number are in enclosed fixtures such as in the shower stall. I put these CFLs in when I moved here in July 2004, today it is July 2011 and to date I have replaced two CFLs that dies of natural causes and one that was inadvertently killed by a half wave dimmer. None have had any melt down burn outs either, not even those in enclosed fixtures.

A lot more than one other user, I only noted the one friend who converted to CFLs about three months ago, not the other friends who did years ago.

It constitutes hundreds of lamps of various brands bought in various states and used in various environments. It's not an exhaustive sample, but it's quite sufficient to note the lack of the issues people here like to cry about.

Whoop-dee-doo, another special purpose lamp for cold environments. There are similar HID/Halogen lamp assemblies designed to provide immediate light after a power hit since HIDs require a cool down before re-strike unless they have expensive ballasts. Been around for years and does not in any way negate the value of HID lighting.

http://pressroom.geconsumerproducts.com/pr/ge/ge-unveils-unique-hybrid-halogen-179701.aspx
I've avoided CFLs with slow warm ups and so have all my friends using CFLs for the past decade. Neither I nor my friends have had any short CFL life issues either, our CFLs last 5 years or more in daily use, yet there are those who claim their CFLs last a month or two. There people with CFL issues are very much the exception, not the norm, and there are almost certainly explanations for their issue that are not the fault of the CFL lamps.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:4e10c155$0$24700

or
all
is
Hundreds? Your sample size grows and grows like Pinocchio's nose. How many CFL bulbs do you think are in service, Pete? Billions. China is producing almost half a billion bulbs annually. Don't take my word for it, read the Wall Street Journal and extrapolate. You claim to be good at it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124654276439485945.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If you read that article, you'll learn that all those different manufacturers you tout as being part of some sample of alleged statistical significance are very likely made by the same manufacturer:
<< TCP already is the largest manufacturer of CFL bulbs sold in the U.S., according to industry players.It produces 300 to 400 million CFL bulbs per year in China, selling many under brands such as GE Lighting, Osram Sylvania and Philips Lighting.>>
So much for your broad sample of many manufacturers. Let the debunking proceed.

just
My, my. What a scientist you are. You base your conclusions on the tiny percent of all bulbs sold on the experience of you and a few buddies. You posit a scenario with no proof whatsoever it's true and expect people to believe you. Can't you see how silly that makes you look? Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Then you might know a little more about confidence and how to calculate it. You draw conclusions "ex nihilo"* and expect rational people to believe them. That's laughable. And sad.

vendors.
Oh my, you need an education in English too. Remember, you asked for this, Pete by slandering rational observers of a well-known weakness in CFL's:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several
a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many
So you're wrong again. The errors just keep on a' comin'. Why don't you just apologize and get it over with? Soon, you'll earn the sobriquet "Easy Meat Pete" because your conclusions are so laughably easy to disprove.

Good for you. How does that in any way mean that others haven't experienced slow starts? It doesn't. You're just trying to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself by extrapolating your tiny sample to the real world of perhaps a billion CFL bulbs. Do I have to look up the word "pathetic" for you, too?

reporters
brightness.
about
Good for you again. You've now disproved your own bogus theory by quoting someone else who has seen slow warm-up in CFLs. Does Mr. Klipstein have the mental defect you attribute to anyone that's had a negative warm-up experience? You're weaseling, now, Pete, because you know you "misspoke" in your earlier post. Somehow encapsulating a CFL makes it not a CFL in your very strange world. What is it then, if not a CFL?

via
installed a

can
it
hanging
specific
one
Oh, Pete, you're going make your momma cry. Do you know what the word incandescent means? This is worse than shooting fish in a barrel. You should have apologized for your dumb "mental" remark and ended it. Now people will have to step outside to see for themselves if you tell them the sky is blue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp
A halogen lamp, also known as a tungsten halogen lamp, is an incandescent lamp with a tungsten filament contained within an inert gas and a small amount of a halogen such as iodine or bromine.

Drifting away from the topic and hoping no one will notice? Nice try but no ceegar. Even if this was remotely relevant to your nonsensical claims of mental deficiency, halogens are going to be banned by the EU and may soon be banned in the US. The EU countries were the leaders in banning the common tungsten filament light bulbs. We merely rode their coattails and probably will again. I wouldn't be so sanguine about those halogen bulbs being around for long.
< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6142118/Spotlight-and-downlighter-bulbs-next-to-be-banned-by-EU.html >
" Energy saving experts are currently drawing up recommendations for the new rules on so-called "directional" light bulbs, which focus and reflect light in a single direction, but the ban is expected to include incandescent spotlights and mains voltage halogen reflector bulbs."

environment
slowly
turn
me
What do you mean there's no "push?" Do you make this stuff up as you go along? The skyrocketing cost of electricity is the push. The CO2 emissions caused by incandescent is the push. When I want to run the floods for hours at a time, the long warm up of CFL's is acceptable. It is NOT acceptable when I hear a noise near the cars in the driveway. Hence the incandescent floodlights which still cost considerably more than CFL floods to operate.

flat CFL units don't have

I'm sure homeowners will be rushing to replacing their existing floodlight fixtures to remedy a problem that you don't believe exists because in your sample of .0000001 (generous!) you haven't personally seen it. So many are already SO thrilled at being forced to replace their tungsten bulbs they'll just jump for joy at the need to replace all their outside floodlights.
Sounds like you're finally admitting that there ARE CFL bulbs that have a very long warm up time, doesn't it? Sounds like your claim that people reporting such observations are mentally defective is a lie based on your own very obvious prejudice and lack of experience. To claim that people who've seen CFLs take a long time to warm up are mentally ill is fuc&ing offensive, Pete, even though you either don't know it or can't admit to it. You should have simply apologized for it. Instead, you're squirming around, being evasive and looking sillier and sillier.

incompatibility
they
Here we are, back again at Pete's Law: "If it didn't happen to me, it doesn't exist" world. Good for you. Your minute sample is in NO WAY representative of the rest of the world. It's an unscientific, personally biased sample of one in millions and maybe tens of millions if we give you credit for the number of friends that grows with each new posting.

experience
Yes, I know. The gargantuan sample size of several, a word whose meaning is apparently not known to you. If you don't know what words mean, what else can we extrapolate that you don't know? That would be a much more logical projection than your assumption of mental defects.

Ah, the last refuge of a cornered Usenetter: call in the imaginary army of friends to bolster your still ludicrous position that if it didn't happen to me or my closest friends, it doesn't happen. That's STILL what you're saying whether you know it or not. It's just as scientifically and statistically invalid as when you first tried to hide behind it.

group.
It's totally insufficient because you apparently don't know that there's a very high likelihood that all your "various" brands were likely made by one Chinese company. Once again:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124654276439485945.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
You CAN'T know statistics. Hundreds of samples out of BILLIONS of bulbs sold in the last ten years is meaningless. Utterly. Even you, who appear to be numerically challenged should know that.

reporting
you're
I suppose I always knew the answer to that question, mus musculus. Too bad you couldn't just man up and admit you made a very bad choice of words, Pete. It's costing you your credibility.

where
No, another refutation of your ludicrous claim that people who report slow CFL warm ups are mentally ill. I learned about the hybrid from a gentleman here in AHR that needed a bulb that countered the CFL slow warmup on his stairway. I don't recall a cold environment entering into it.
Read up on all the reports of slow warm-up:
http://www.google.com/search?q=slow+warm-up+of+CFLs

Mus musculus, indeed. You made statements you can't back up based on personal bias based on a sample size so small that if you ever had a stat course, your professor might die of shame. Now you're trying to take the focus off your incredibly offensive "mental" statement off into the ozone somewhere. Who was talking about HIDs? We were talking about your remarkable "mental defect" statement, which you apparently have no intention of retracting despite mountains of evidence, including your own, to the contrary.

http://pressroom.geconsumerproducts.com/pr/ge/ge-unveils-unique-hybrid-halogen-179701.aspx
We're back to the "all my friends" scientific method. What do you do in real life? It can't be based on science, math, statistics or common sense. You posit "other explanations" but offer none. Proof of intellectual bankruptcy.
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy !Robert Burns
-- Bobby G.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo (if you don't know what "several" means, I assume "ex nihilo" is way, WAY beyond you.)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

<yada dada dada *snip*>
Have fun with your anti-CFL campaign, I'm going to continue happily using my instant start CFAs and enjoying the energy savings and greatly reduced replacements that they provide.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The issue isn't you enjoying your life, rather you forcing others to do what *you* think is in their best interest, no matter what their interests really are. Classical leftist.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<Serious snippage to edit 4 space>

At this point, this sounds to me like an application for incandescents that will survive the 2012-2014 USA "ban" on incandescents.
Namely, reflectorized floodlights/spotlights.
http://donklipstein.com/incban.html
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@donklipstein.com)

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

My experience is that, by-and-large, only CFLs with outer bulbs take more than 1-1.5 minutes to reach full brightness.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@donklipstein.com)

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

That could be, I use virtually no encapsulated CFLs.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ban..."
determines
to
it.
CFL
conservative.
It
That wasn't my point. Sorry I was unclear. I meant that the Feds could step in using the Commerce Clause to claim jurisdiction if Texas had to import any part of the bulb from outside the state to make it. My mind's drawing its usual blank, but I do recall cases where the Feds had to back off on trying to regulate a wholly intra-state activity. At least I think I recall them. The great cruelty/irony of memory loss is that you know you knew something but you don't remember what you knew, only that you can't remember it.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, that certainly wouldn't be the worst "interpretation" of the commerce clause. Some are really pushing the edge even for an Omamunist. Given enough twisting anything can be (and has been) "justified" under the commerce clause. That wasn't its intent, however.

My mind is drawing a blank too, but there was one where some ag product was determined to be "interstate commerce" even though the people growing it were consuming the stuff themselves; not "commerce" at all. The ruling was that if they didn't grow it, it *would* have required going to the market, therefore their actions altered the interstate commerce in the commodity; and argument Obama would love.

Must be scary. My thoughts are with you.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/11 11:19 AM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Some cut.

Maybe I should help you two rickety old guys out. I'm close to it myself. This particular court case was about wheat: http://tinyurl.com/3kltvk and http://preview.tinyurl.com/3e76dw6
By the way, has anyone seen my motorcycle keys?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

commerce
enough
clause.
back
think I

was
were
that if

therefore
argument
can't
Thanks. Now I remember. I think it was a bum decision, ceding too much power to Congress and trampling the rights of individuals. What I was actually trying to remember was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
<<In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.>>
Realistically that same logic applied to poor Filbrun/burn. Different Justices, different outcomes. I think of any 5/4 ruling as "subject to change without a lot of notice" when the court makeup shifts ideologically speaking. I read an interesting article that said although the justices claim they evaluate each case free of political bias their block voting record disproves that contention. Their votes along ideological lines makes that claim something like 1 in 44 quintillion to be true. The Supremes are just as biased as anyone else, only they like to lie and pretend they're not.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/11 3:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:

You've probably heard of the Montana gun law: http://tinyurl.com/mwcgl2
There are people saying Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas should possibly sit out the Obamacare case when it gets to them.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Court of

the
ideologically
makes
are
Yes, that one did come to mind but I thought that the BATF said "we're going to enforce Federals laws no matter what you pass" as the DEA did with California pot laws. Has it gotten any traction?
I think that the Feds might leave Texas alone if it decides to manufacture its own lightbulbs, but they may act just to avoid a landslide of other states following suit. Hard to say. The CFL laws are incredible unpopular both here and in Europe, with people seeing it as a case of needle-dicked bug raping.

Kagan, possibly, because of her previous job, which leads me to believe Obama made a bad choice picking someone who would have to recuse herself as often as she has done. Why Thomas?
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/11 9:52 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Thomas' wife is/was tied to groups opposing Obamacare. A bit here: http://tinyurl.com/3mhrshv
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dean Hoffman wrote:

There's an easy response Thomas could use.
Years ago in Texas, an incumbent US Senator was criticized by his opponent for not releasing his wife's tax records. The wife was a very successful D.C. real estate broker. The response? (paraphrasing):
"There's a good reason why my opponent never married - he has a jaundiced view of the American woman. Long gone are the days in which the "man of the house" demanded anything of the "little woman." I don't tell my wife what to do and I would never think of ordering her to do anything. My opponent obviously thinks a wife should act differently."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Maybe they just went to different law schools?
I had the following conversation with my advisor: "The main purpose of law school is not to teach law - because the law changes every day. The purpose of law school is to teach you to think like a lawyer. What's your academic background?"
Me: "Uh, I have a master's in math."
Him: "Oh you won't have any trouble with law school. You already know how to think deductively. In general, we find that those who come to us from the hard sciences, math, or engineering, make the best law students. Those from the soft sciences, like psychology, or from business administration are your average students. Those who come from the liberal arts - history, drama, cello - have the most difficulty."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/3/2011 4:45 PM, HeyBub wrote:

That explains it, you remind me of my PhD math professor friend from Texas who taught at the university. He and I were part of a group of friends from disparate backgrounds who hung out together. It always made for interesting conversations.
TDD
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.