re: "The OP mentioned inadequate light in a closet"
Actually, the OP (me) asked about running Wiremold from a box-extender
to a switch in order to replace the pull chain fixture.
Somebody else brought up the code related to the types of bulbs
allowed in a storage space, which led to a discussion regarding CFL
vs. incandescents, which reminded me that some CFLs take a while to
come to full brightness, which made me worry about wearing a blue
shirt with green socks.
If my concerns about a CFL taking time to come to full brightness
equates to "The OP mentioned inadequate light in a closet" then I
guess I did, but that would be a stretch.
The whole yellow vs. blue vs. white light is interesting, none the
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:16:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
My comment referred to your statement in a later post that "Meanwhile,
these old eyes make me grab a blue shirt and green socks cuz the light
is too dim.". Sorry, did not mean to misrepresent you.
Also sorry if this appears twice. I thought I sent it but can find no
evidence that I did.
But not by much. The two $12.60 bulbs from HD turned out to be
aesthetically unpleasing because the ballast shifts the center of the
illumination (the brightest point of the bulb) about 2 inches above
the old (incandescent) one. I failed to think about this at the time
so to remedy the problem I bought two 25 watt incandescent with medium
base at my local 99 cent store. Cost = $0.99 (duh); at the same store
a packet of two 60 watt bulbs also costs 99 cents. Now to be fair I
could have bought a packet of four 60 watts for the same 99 cents; I
presume there's a quality difference but I don't really know. However
even if CFL's followed the same premium my original HD purchase should
have only been $8 and change and I suspect if CFL's were to follow
most other products the premium should only be a fixed amount to cover
the slightly lower sales. IOW the mfgs are gouging the non-loss-leader
Yikes! Millions of people use candelabras. Just look around the
average lighting store including HD and Lowes.
But he's not and nor are you. I believe he works in the CFL industry
and his attitude, like yours, is "except for these special tasks like
refrigerators and stove lights... etc" not accepting that there are
far more applications that are not CFL-appropriate (e.g. my
candelabra, my crystal chandeliers, my instant-on closet lights, my
much more appropriate color rendition incandescents for make-up, etc)
If they're at eye level of course you do.
Nah, they're not appropriate for any fixture built for incandescent
lighting unless they're completely hidden and function the same as an
incandescent (time to full light, color temp, etc).
I have no dimmers. As I said before I match the lights to the
requirements for illumination. My kitchen, for example, has one four
bar fluorescent for general illumination; one two bar over the sink
used while washing up, one two bar over the laundry area used... well,
guess, one single bar in the range hood. and one square two U bar over
the kitchen/dining table (each bar is 32W). I also have a mess of
halogens under the top cabinets. No CFL's in the kitchen. When they're
all on you can do open-heart surgery <g>. My point is that by turning
on or off individual lights in the room you can produce an appropriate
level of lighting: you don't need dimmers.
Since the OP is bitching about us not addressing his issue I'll give
my two cents on that: you can easily get a $10 box-mount fixture with
an opalescent shade which will satisfy the one-in-a-zillion-years risk
of explosion of the bulb be it incandescent or CFL. Mount it above the
door and supply it with wiremold or other conduit or bury NM or AC in
the wall. Don't forget to use 90 degree rise cable for the last two
feet to cover that other one-in-a-zillion risk of fire. All these
depend on how strong the unions are in your locality. As to bulb, most
closets function fine on 40 watt incandescent within that $10 fixture.
The fact that it's incandescent automatically gives it a CRI of 1.00
(or 100, I forget which). You don't need to worry about degrees Kelvin
or other rubbish we pay others to look after for us.
On Sep 25, 10:30 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Turning on or off individual lights in the *bath* room isn't as easy
as in most other rooms, at least not in my case.
As I mentioned to aem above, I have always had dimmers in all of my
bathrooms. I've never had a bathroom big enough for "task lighting"
with multiple switches. It's either a couple of sconces next the
mirror in the main bath or couple of cans in the secondary one.
Dimmers allows us to have lots a light when we need it and just a
little for midnight bathroom breaks and romantic showers.
Kindly point out where I bitched about anything. My question about
using Wiremold was answered to my complete satisfaction in a post by
Wayne Whitney very early in this thread.
On Sep 26, 10:55 pm, email@example.com wrote:
re: "I took it as complaining"
That wasn't a complaint at all..it was just a time line.
When it was posted that the "OP mentioned inadequate light in a
closet", I simply pointed out that the OP (me) had actually asked
about Wiremold and that the thread had morphed into a discussion on
CFL's, etc. etc.
Not a complaint, just a clarification about what the OP (me) had
originally asked about - which had already been answered, so I had
nothing to complain about.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:56:34 -0400, Edward Reid wrote:
I used to think the yellowish light from standard bulbs was OK. That was
before I saw fluorescent lights that were actually white. The same thing
applies to the smaller lights that use LEDs. When I need to replace the
low voltage outdoor lights, I'll look for LED.
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:20:26 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Sorry if I missed something, but the statement seemed to be saying there
was something wrong with blue and green, but never said anything to
justify that. Maybe it was a personal preference, which does not apply to
There's nothing wrong with using Wiremold, it is a listed surface
raceway governed by NEC Articles 386 (metallic) and 388 (nonmetallic).
I don't see anything in those NEC articles that would restrict its use
in a clothes closet.
Just use all the proper fittings, boxes, etc. and follow the
manufacturer's directions for raceway size (based on the conductors
inside) and supporting requirements. Also check the box fill on the
ceiling box with box extender.
Oh, I see. If no one is watching then we don't have to follow the
Let try this logic...
As bizarre as the code might be in some cases, I kind of believe that
by following it we're somewhat safer than if we just nail some wires
to the ceiling and duct tape a switch to the wall. After all, who's
ever going to look in the closet, right?
If the NEC has something to say about extender boxes, Wiremold and
surface mount switches in a closet, that might be good to know, if
only for safety reasons.
Sometimes you have to rely on common sense. I personally don't need a
code book to tell me if something is safe or not. I do read the NEC
from time to time just out of curiosity, but I've not seen a whole lot
in it that i wouldn't have done that way anyway. And there are parts of
it that are down right ridiculous.
remove the "not" from my address to email
Value (of personal liberty gained by allowing everyone to pick and
choose which NEC requirements make sense and which can be ignored) <
Cost (in decreased safety of resulting electrical installations).
re: "Sometimes you have to rely on common sense."
re: "And there are parts of it that are down right ridiculous."
Are the parts that you find "down right ridiculous" ever in conflict
with what you would consider "common sense"?
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.