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

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 21 Jun 2008 15:04:27 GMT, [e-mail] wrote: | |>|>What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this. |>|>I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared. |>|>

|>|>I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess |>|>for the most part this doesn't really affect me. |>|>

|>|>We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs. |>| |>| 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. | | Hi Phil, | | Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply | opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen? | ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt | incandescent and lasts up to four times longer. | | If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC | MR16 are some of the best available. | | See: |

5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of regular use (about 5 hours a day).

I've been considering both MR16 (GU5.3 12v) and MR11 (what pin for 6v?) for various lighting fixtures in the home I'll be building. I may opt for the smaller ones so I can select the illumination level by turning selected lights on and off rather than dimming. My original idea was to go with 6 volt 12 watt lights if those are available in MR11 or some other kind of halogen form factor.

What I don't like about these lights is the pitch of the facet in the reflector. I would like the pitch to be about 10 to 20 times smaller. A frosted glass would, of course, help, too.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote:

| [e-mail] wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland |> wrote: |>

|>

|>

|>

|> There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with |> something. | |> As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the |> drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants |> (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular |> inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... |> and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power |> demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones |> powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC |> feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are |> not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... |> desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms. | | Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for | limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about | 700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency | for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and | nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles | basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not | counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it. | Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it, | might not be such a bad idea...

I'm not expecting these energy sources to be the complete supply (at least not for a few decades). But I do believe we need to build them, anyway, to help supplement the carbon-extraction process we depend on now.

|> My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to |> see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that |> has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last |> for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure |> is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at |> the rate we are growing in our use). | | What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level | of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable - | except for plants who would say "Yum!"

You really think that?

|> To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, |> then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that |> much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even |> criminal governments who |> are the current suppliers. |>

| | It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's | payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're | at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of | terror.

Huh?

We don't want to depend on others for our oil. We do depend on them now and it's a component of why we are at the mercy of their pricing. THEIR greatest fear is that WE don't want their oil anymore.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | Don Klipstein wrote: |> In article , HeyBub |> wrote in part: |>

|>> What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the |>> current level of 0.003% of the atmosphere, |>

|> Make that .038% by volume, .0575% by weight. | | | Ah, right. Thanks for the correction. | |>

|>> a doubling would be virtually undetecable - |>> except for plants who would say "Yum!" |>

|> Current level of CO2 accounts for anywhere from 9 to 26% of |> current "greenhouse effect" (warming of the planet from a level that |> would exist if not for any greenhouse gases at all including water |> vapor). | | |>

|> How well have plants fared now that atmospheric CO2 content is about |> 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels? It appears to me that the |> limiting factors are water, daylight and favorable temperatures more |> than CO2 content in the atmosphere. | | 36% above pre-industrial-revolution levels mean that the former levels | constituted about 0.029% of the atmosphere. So, during the time that CO2 | levels increased beyond a level detectable to an agrarian society, we've | gone to the moon, eradicated many diseases, trebled our life expectancy, and | invented pop-top beer containers.

Life expectancy has actually turned the corner and is going back down.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Phil,

A Philips F32T8XLL contains 1.7 mg of Hg and has a rated life of

36,000 hours when operated on instant start ballasts (3 hours per start). It provides roughly the same amount of light as two 100-watt soft white incandescent lamps (~ 3,000 lumens). With ballast losses, we might peg its power consumption at about 30-watts (0.88 BF).

Over the life of this lamp, it would consume 1,080 kWh, whereas the two equivalent incandescents would total 7,200 kWh -- a difference, in this case, of some 6,100 kWh.

Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately pollutes our air, land and water.

Cheers, Paul

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Phil,

In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good (since our original conversation pertained to standard household incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light sources).

If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

Cheers, Paul

[VWWall]

What we really need is new sources of *portable* energy. It's hard to beat gasoline where a single bucket, (10 L), contains ~90 KWh.

Portable energy is the kind that fuels our cars, trucks, aircraft, most boats and many trains.

Storing energy, from whatever source, requires many times the volume and/or weight of fossil fuels, and can't be carried in a "bucket".

Ethanol may be an exception, having about two thirds the energy content of gasoline, but as many have pointed out here, it has its own problems.

So far, political correctness doesn't seem to be one of them!

[Jim Yanik]

Chuck wrote in news:8A88k.69902$102.14133@bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

I don't believe geothermal IS "available everywhere",nor practical. (it has limits) I also doubt it's used in "many places around the world". Some,yes,"many",no.

Nuclear is reliable,clean,and safe,providing LOTS of electric power

24/7/365. France and Japan get most of their electric power from nuclear plants,and don't seem to have any problem with waste disposal.If they can do it,we can,too.

[krw]

How about nukes instead?

Would rather read the National Enquirer.

[krw]

I agree somewhat[*], but that wasn't my point.

[*] This isn't a binary decision. The note-holders can be left to choke in their own sludge. Buy up the mortgages from the failing mortgage holders for nothing, turn around and sell them for more than they're worth. It might take a while, but the real estate market *will* come back. When it does, the Fed makes out like a bandit. In the mean time, let the people (the ones who actually occupy the houses) stay for the $$ on the original note. There are a billion ways to skin this cat, making sure the next guy doesn't take useless paper and perhaps turning this sow's ear around.

Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud involved.

You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

[krw]

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

[krw]

It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their=20 obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social=20 Security for two generations already.

--=20 Keith

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

Cheers, Paul

[krw]

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the issue.

You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

So, what about nukes? What is it that you're asking? I'll check back with you after I finish watching Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.

Cheers, Paul

[Dan Lanciani]

In article , [e-mail] (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | | >In article , [e-mail] (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | >| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | >| | >| Hi Dan, | >| | >| Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture | >| would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy | >| saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or | >| 140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement. | >

| >I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( | >Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago | >and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the | >60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both | >assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage | >today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white | >tubes? | | | Hi Dan, | | If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original | ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total. | | | >| In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO | >| (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a | >| standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens | >| from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) | >| at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic | >| ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt. | >

| >Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher | >efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes? | | | You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic | ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.

Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say, by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?

| However, if | you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an | electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;

I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio) and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices. Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the "electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical about the value of the FCC label. :( Can I do anything useful with T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Dan,

There's really no downside as such, but not a whole lot of up either given that with the exception of the limited watts saved all the other limitations previously noted still apply. I'm afraid I can't recommend a specific part because I use electronic ballasts exclusively, but hopefully others in this group can offer their recommendations.

I haven't personally encountered any of the issues you mention and my firm installed several hundred of these ballasts at a major defence contractor, including their test labs where they use highly sensitive bench equipment (FWIW, we use only Osram Sylvania's Quictronic ballasts). I might suggest trying one out to see how it works, and if you're not completely satisfied exchange it for an ES magnetic; alternatively, give Sylvania a call at 1-800-LIGHTBULB and relay your concerns to them directly prior to making your purchase. Good luck!

Cheers, Paul

[David Nebenzahl]

On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the NYT *is* a certified fool.

[Michael A. Terrell]

>>>

Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you aren't always sure with the NYT.

[phil-news-nospam]

|> There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only |> affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved. |> But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a |> genuine interest to be involved. | | Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud | involved.

I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the nation, and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be regulations or laws in place. There are lots of little lines to draw, and I don't have all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good enough.

|> Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses. |> Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way. |> That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if |> more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors? | | You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial | decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

See above. If the decision involves something that will have an impact beyond just the deciders finances, or the finances of his company, then it needs to be regulated/legislated. The specifics would depend on what is involved. There are lots (thousands) of little areas that might be subject to this.

What I'm proposing is the general idea. Specifics still need to be worked out.

|> I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But |> the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around. |> To the extent that is so, the laws need to change. | | What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

I don't know, yet. If everything done by that executives that caused this mess really is already illegal, then lets put the bastards in jail. If we can't (now) then we need to explore why not and fix things so we can in the future (and make sure they understand these changes).

|> |> |> | 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. |> | |> | Also true, but irrelevant. |> |> You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant. | | They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in | this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Well, for the original thread topic, yeah, China is irrelevant.

[phil-news-nospam]

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 24 Jun 2008 17:20:49 GMT, [e-mail] wrote: | |>| Hi Phil, |>| |>| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply |>| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen? |>| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt |>| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer. |>| |>| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC |>| MR16 are some of the best available. |>| |>| See: |>|

|>

|>5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of |>regular use (about 5 hours a day). | | | Hi Phil, | | In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life | of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good | (since our original conversation pertained to standard household | incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light | sources).

If the ordinary bulb ratings are only that (I really haven't looked in ages, since I rarely need to buy them), then the numbers are different. What I read in the referenced PDF was that these 5000 hour ratings is a

50% remaining rate. That's NOT what I see for regular incandescent bulbs at 750 hours. Oddly enough, the bulbs that seem to burn out the most are the ones in various table lamps subject to lots of vibration. All the bulbs in all the hanging lamps and all the ceiling cans have not burned out in the 5 years I've been in this house (that my mother had built and my father now owns). Most of them are on all evening.

| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents | have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you | indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in | your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I | presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen and shop).