On 1/20/2012 2:19 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
a) I'm unaware of anybody who has done same w/ an incandescent or is
even attempting to, and
b) Look up the amounts published(+) they did spend on the project before
finally pulling the plug
(+) I'd also expect that those numbers are only a fraction of the
actual investment made.
On 1/20/2012 6:26 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
I've not seen it.
Oh, the news article says the EcoAdvantage bulb is exclusively available
at HD. That explains not having seen one (and never will in all
likelihood as the closest BORG is 200 mi).
I see from the Philips page they're a halogen element and in looking at
the specs, they cut 25% of output to gain 28% in energy compared to a
standard incandescent. I guess it's just enough to slink in under the
specific way the regulations are written that marketing them as
replacements even when are close to the next lower standard rating is
good enough to get by.
GE apparently was really after a bulb w/ equivalent lumens but inside
the energy mandate and that, at least so far, seems unachievable.
The GE $$ invested in the program was in several news stories at the
time they announced they were dropping the effort--your google surely
must work as well as mine.
I suppose that answers the question, sort of. It doesn't say it was for
energy-efficient incandescent light bulbs, so I can imagine that research was
also done on other energy-efficient lighting including LED's
How about outside my front door, where I don't
want to wait 5 mins for it to put out light when it's
cold? Or how about a closet where I only use
it for 2 mins once a week and want light
instantly and a 20 cent bulb is more cost
effective than a $3 one? Or for a decorative
fixture where I think it looks better with the
light from an incandescent? Or for other
applications where I'm tired of the crap shoot
in buying CFLs, not knowing how fast they
will come up to brightness, how long they
will last before they crap out, which in my
experience for many is nowhere near the
number of years claimed. Or maybe I'm
just an environmental extremist and believe
the mercury in them will ruin the planet.
Any of them good enough?
this discussion is like talking to many seniors about forced direct
depoit of SS checks. They resist change even when its good for them.
one doesnt like direct deposit even after having a check lost in the
mail years ago. he said it took 2 months for replacement......
I'd say this discussion is like talking to folks that
can't understand there are some applications that
an ordinary old incandescent is well suited to.
Like my example of an outside location, where I
turn it on for 5 mins once in a blue moon and don't
want to wait 5 mins for a CFL on a cold night. And
where I'm not going to
pay $15 for an LED that's going to be exposed
to moisture, etc and will probably fail long before
that magical 40,000 hour number that some
folks will just swallow because it's printed on the
You COULD put a CFL in the porch light and have it driven by a
light-sensitive switch. Leave it on all the time. It would deter evil-doers
lurking in your yard, all the ready for mischief. It would welcome visitors
who would not stumble on your darkened steps.
'Course it would cost an itty-bit more, but what's a few bucks when we're
talking about your safety or that of your mother-in-law?
I've got TEN surrounding my duplex. So far, I've not been troubled by a
midnight goblin or a rickety mother-in-law.
How about a 50 watt incandescent bulb (halogen) that gives the same light
output that the 100 watt standard bulb did? I just saw some samples at the
Dallas Lighting Show. It's also rated for 1500 hours and will supposedly
sell for $2-3. I like the 50% energy saving for the same light output.
Excuse me fuckwit, but I have NOT rejected CFLs
All I have done is point out that they are not well
suited for ALL applications. And that when you
buy one, you really don't know what the light will
look like, how long it takes to warm up and put
out light, how much you can really dim it, etc.
It's amazing that some fuckwits think CFLs are
ideally suited to ALL applications and anyone who
dares raise objections is just stupid. Maybe it's because
all they have is one bulb in their trailer and don't give
a damn how it looks, how long it takes to put out
light, etc. These same fuckwits would probably
think it great if the govt decided they should all
eat tofu five times a week and forced that down
their throats too.
On 1/21/2012 8:07 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Isn't using 100 watt bulbs in a closet and in outside home light a
little risky? There was a house fire right down the road from us and
the cause was found to be a 100w bulb in a outside residential fixture.
I have found that the cheepo CFLs have all of the issues.
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.