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

[Don Klipstein]

Hi Don,

I, for one, would happily trade-off some raw lumens for better colour
rendering. Do you know of any products available now or in the near
future with CRIs in the low to mid 90s?

In warm color CFL - I know of none.

I was thinking along the lines of making CFL equivalent of Philips
TL950/TL930.

There are Ott CFLs with correlated color temp. around 5000 K. However,
I find these to be pricier and I perceive hype that I suspect to be for
trying to justify a higher price that I feel is excessive. It appears to
me that a better basis for selling these would be higher CRI and
daylight-like color with less of what I personally feel is hype.

For example, I consider it hype to claim that replicating daylight is
best for plants, since plants have low utilization of most of the green
portion of the visible spectrum - ever notice the color and spectrum of
most plant-growing fluorescents, even more reputable ones (Sylvania)?

These are available at Home Depot. One that I plunked $$ on appears to
me to have CRI in the 90-"low 90's" range (along with compromised light
output compared to similar CFLs with CRI of 82). If I did not have to pay
so much for what I personally feel is hype, I would buy more of these for
use where I can use a cool color high-CRI white.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[[email protected]]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | [email protected] wrote:
|> |>
|> |> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
|> |> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|> |>
|> |
|> | Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
|> | policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.
|>
|> And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
|> places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
|> first place, if you need an example.
|
| The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout
| (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion.
| Let 'em sink.

Totally unregulated markets are known to have ups and downs that can sometimes
get way out of whack. The bailout is to avoid a sinking that would just make
it go even further out of whack, or take other markets down with it.

The regulation I would focus on is to have avoided the whole mess in the first
place, and provide for a stable growth. The MINIMUM regulation to achieve that
would be my goal.

The stupid businesses _should_ sink. But when it's a case of the sinking ship
taking other things down with it, that needs to be avoided.


|> | 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.

 

[[email protected]]

|>>
|>> So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
|>> the few places I actually need them?
|>
|> Who knows, a new technology may have come along and no one may be making
|>them due to lack of a market.
|
| I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming
| and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a
| compromise in light output).

What about spectral continuity? Are they going to even recognize the issue?


| I expect LEDs to continue their pace of advancement, increment by
| increment in performance, cost, and new varieties. But as LED technology
| has been incrementing itself along increment by increment, I expect that
| to remain the story for the next 10-15 years.
| LED technology appears to me to only be advancing about half as fast as
| computer technology, maybe a little slower.

As CPU performance is forced to move to multiple process cores, software
has a lot of catching up to do to make effective use of it. We'll be
seeing a slowdown of what computers can do for several years.


| There are also metal halide lamps, another technology that has been
| advancing somewhat and is still advancing, though not as fast as LEDs are
| advancing.

How do they compare to FL/CFL?


| One area where LEDs (and to some extent in recent years other
| technologies) are displacing incandescents is nightlights.

All my nightlights are red in color. I just use Christmas tree lights in
them to achieve that. Red is nicer on the night vision, which is what I
want the nightlights for. Once they start making LED nightlights in red,
then I will buy (when I need more or need to replace).


| The old traditional model used a 7 watt incandescent, and often a shade
| because 7 watt incandescents are rather bright for this job, and it takes
| more effort to make an 120V incandescent of wattage much lower than 7
| watts - or at least it used to.
| Past 15 years or so, 4 watt incandescent nightlight "bulbs" have been
| common - still bright enough to usually deserve a shade.

I have the 4 watt ones. The nightlights are also the sensor type that cut
off when there is light in the area.


| Now, there are many LED night lights available. With ineffeciencies of
| safe voltage dropping at low cost, most current models of 120V LED night
| lights are not more efficient than incandescents in photometric terms -
| but they still achieve efficiency gains by having a spectrum more
| favorable to making use of night vision when the lighting is dim (higher
| "s/p ratio"), along with being dim enough to not need a shade. Power
| consumption of these is mostly around 1/3 watt to 1 watt.
| Better are green and blue models and the Feit Electric white C7 "bulb".
| Most other LED light models using white LEDs will have light output
| degrading significantly year-by-year or even a bit faster.

I want the red ones.

 

[[email protected]]

|
| [email protected] wrote:
|> | In article <x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02>,
|> |>
|> |>
|> |>>
|> |>> 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?

 

[[email protected]]

|>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
|
|>| 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.
|
| 150 watt incandescent with a diode consumes about 88 watts, give or take
| a bit. The 2640-2780 lumens decreases to about 800-870 lumens (light
| output of "standard", "soft white" and even 1500 hour, maybe "double life"
| 60 watt incandescents).

What color temp?

 

[[email protected]]

| [email protected] 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.

 

[James Sweet]

Hi Don,

I, for one, would happily trade-off some raw lumens for better colour
rendering. Do you know of any products available now or in the near
future with CRIs in the low to mid 90s?

Cheers,
Paul

The Colortone 50 and Chroma 50 fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 94. I
don't think that phosphor has made it into CFLs though, the high power
density of the compact lamps is too hard on the fluorogermanate phosphor
used to get the true red on the high CRI lamps.

 

[James Sweet]

As CPU performance is forced to move to multiple process cores, software
has a lot of catching up to do to make effective use of it. We'll be
seeing a slowdown of what computers can do for several years.

That may be true, however people have been saying that for at least the
last 15 years and so far computing power in the average PC has increased
by leaps and bounds every year.

 

[James Sweet]

Would electronic ballast be the same efficiency on both voltage systems?

Yes, there's very little loss in an electronic ballast and it doesn't
vary much by line voltage.

 

[[email protected]]

|
|
|>
|> As CPU performance is forced to move to multiple process cores, software
|> has a lot of catching up to do to make effective use of it. We'll be
|> seeing a slowdown of what computers can do for several years.
|>
|
|
| That may be true, however people have been saying that for at least the
| last 15 years and so far computing power in the average PC has increased
| by leaps and bounds every year.

But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and
the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the
software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but
for a while not everything will.

 

[James Sweet]

But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and
the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the
software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but
for a while not everything will.

More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs,
which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has
shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards.
I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors
are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than
ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end
workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance
slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Mycelium]

More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs,
which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has
shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards.
I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors
are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than
ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end
workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance
slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.

They run cooler if you keep the speed a bit lower, and add cores.

IBM will be the winner. You'll see them in everything.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...rdware-combo-tops-supercomputer-list.html?rel

http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.arch.innovation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/mikeg/papers/2007_ieeecomputer.pdf

http://domino.research.ibm.com/libr...0A9DBF5B9538525723D0051A8C1/$File/rc24128.pdf

http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/mikeg/papers/cell_isca2006.pdf

http://beatys1.mscd.edu/compfront/2006/cf06-gschwind.pdf

http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sj/451/eicheaut.html

http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc17/2_Mon/HC17.S1/HC17.S1T1.pdf

http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm...blications.html/$FILE/paper-eichen-pact05.pdf

http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hpca/2005/2275/00/22750258abs.htm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070221-8896.html?rel

 

[StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt]

The dirty little secret behind sub-prime morgtages is that they were CAUSED
by government regulation.

They were CAUSED by GREED!

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

In warm color CFL - I know of none.

I was thinking along the lines of making CFL equivalent of Philips
TL950/TL930.

There are Ott CFLs with correlated color temp. around 5000 K. However,
I find these to be pricier and I perceive hype that I suspect to be for
trying to justify a higher price that I feel is excessive. It appears to
me that a better basis for selling these would be higher CRI and
daylight-like color with less of what I personally feel is hype.

For example, I consider it hype to claim that replicating daylight is
best for plants, since plants have low utilization of most of the green
portion of the visible spectrum - ever notice the color and spectrum of
most plant-growing fluorescents, even more reputable ones (Sylvania)?

These are available at Home Depot. One that I plunked $$ on appears to
me to have CRI in the 90-"low 90's" range (along with compromised light
output compared to similar CFLs with CRI of 82). If I did not have to pay
so much for what I personally feel is hype, I would buy more of these for
use where I can use a cool color high-CRI white.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Hi Don,

That's my overall impression too. To get into the '90s, the CCTs are
all in the range of 5,000 to 7,000K, and while that may be perfectly
acceptable for tropical climates, it's way too cold for residential
use here in Canada. And you're right about the marketing hype; the
folks who aggressively promote another emerging lighting technology
must have all cut their teeth selling "full spectrum" fluorescents
because they appear to be cut from the same cloth.

A CFL with a CRI of 90 to 95 and a CCT of 3,000 to 3,500K would be the
ideal and I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable premium for the better
colour rendering.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

The Colortone 50 and Chroma 50 fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 94. I
don't think that phosphor has made it into CFLs though, the high power
density of the compact lamps is too hard on the fluorogermanate phosphor
used to get the true red on the high CRI lamps.

Hi James,

One more to add to the linear list: the Philips TL930 and TL950 have a
CCT of 3,000 and 5,000K respectively and a CRI of 95 and 98. I
haven't any personal experience with either lamp, but from what I've
read they're a good choice for colour critical applications.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5037-D.pdf

The downside is the one-third loss of light output, but that's pretty
much a given when you reach this level of performance.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Roy]

Ref: Maglite LED Kit
From: (charles)
I got them from a UK stockholder - "CPC". They were both Maglite kits.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 --------------------

I already found an authorized vendor in the US. Thanks anyway.

Roy Q.T. ~ US/NCU ~ E.E. Technician
[have tools, will travel]

 

[Ken]

Hi James,

One more to add to the linear list: the Philips TL930 and TL950 have a
CCT of 3,000 and 5,000K respectively and a CRI of 95 and 98. I
haven't any personal experience with either lamp, but from what I've
read they're a good choice for colour critical applications.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5037-D.pdf

The downside is the one-third loss of light output, but that's pretty
much a given when you reach this level of performance.

Cheers,
Paul

I like my old Philips TLD36W/92 here in Sweden.
It still work perfect in my kitchen since 1990.
http://tekniken.se/misc/philips_tld36w-92.jpg
Specifications: 2700K, CRI 95, 63 lm/W

 

[krw]

| In article <[email protected]>, phil-news-
| [email protected] says...
|> | [email protected] wrote:
|> |>
|> |> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
|> |> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|> |>
|> |
|> | Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
|> | policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.
|>
|> And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
|> places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
|> first place, if you need an example.
|
| The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout
| (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion.
| Let 'em sink.

Totally unregulated markets are known to have ups and downs that can sometimes
get way out of whack. The bailout is to avoid a sinking that would just make
it go even further out of whack, or take other markets down with it.

Perhaps true, but irrelevant.

The regulation I would focus on is to have avoided the whole mess in the first
place, and provide for a stable growth. The MINIMUM regulation to achieve that
would be my goal.

I agree, but also irrelevant.

The stupid businesses _should_ sink. But when it's a case of the sinking ship
taking other things down with it, that needs to be avoided.

Agreed, but also irrelevant. The *point* is that bailing out those
who made bad bets allows them another chance to do so and telegraphs
a terrible message to everyone else. *THAT* is distorting the
market.

|> | 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.

 

[krw]

They were CAUSED by GREED!

....by those feeding off the national teat in Washington.

 

[krw]

Pollution increase - maybe not, likely not - ethanol has been added to
decrease pollution.

Nitrogen oxide emissions tend to be decreased since dilution by ethanol
decreases the combustion temperature.

....and therefor engine efficiency.

CO emissions are decreased when fuel is diluted (for leaner burn) in
cars not making heavy use of oxygen sensors to adjust fuel/air mix.

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

But energy/power from a gallon of fuel is much less with ethanol than
with undiluted gasoline.

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).

Gasoline - from an old figure in the 1961 edition of the CRC Handbook -
20,750 BTU per pound, 6.152 pounds per gallon - multiplies out to 127,654
BTU/gallon.

Ethanol - 327.6 kcal/mole, 327.6 kcal per 46.07 grams, 1,300.029
BTU/46.07 grams, 1,300.029 BTU/58.368 ml, 22,273 BTU/liter, 84,311
BTU/gallon.

MTBE was another agent to "oxygenate" gasoline (I would say "dilute"
with "partially oxidized fuel").

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.

I suspect ethanol addition to gasoline is largely nationwide.

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

I don't mind biofuels - but the current big Federal program is for
specifically ethanol specifically from USA-grown corn. I think that we
need to lose the restrictions to ethanol from plant species favored by
lobbyists!

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

I have been hearing good things about ethanol from switchgrass! Also,
biofuel is not limited to ethanol despite what is said by lobbyists from
the cornbelt and especially the ones for Archer Daniels Midland!

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