| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:02:33 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... And while the dimmable doesn't last as long, 4/5ths of the life of a standard CFL isn't bad, and better than an incandescent by a LONG shot. You've been hoodwinked by FOX, like the Mercury in them, which is 100 to 600 times less than a fever thermometer. You haven't been able to buy a mercury thermometer for decades and one would last a lifetime. CFLs are consummables. Virtually every one of them will end up in the environment somewhere. No, they don't. And yes you can. Who sells a mercury fever thermometer? Notice, if you will, 13 states have them outlawed. That leaves 37 states that they still can be sold. That plus, do you think that everyone in those 13 states just got rid of the ones they had? http://tinyurl.com/br5pjjl And what about other thermometers that are in use? I know you may find some lab thermometers with mercury in them but they are even being phased out. And you are comparing a GOOD dimmable with the low priced, low performing, crappy lighting CFL's designed to be put in an ad to get you into the store. They are pretty much all made in China. \ If I do go for the Sylvania CFL the reliability numbers get worse. Their regular CFL is 12000 hours vs 8000 (66% )for the dimmable and it is still 13w vs 14. They are $3 and change each vs almost $10. You still need a special dimmer. (inductive load rated) I made no assumption or verse about where they were made. So, tell me, how does $3 versus $10 get you to the "7 times as much"? |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:26:00 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 09:02:33 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... And while the dimmable doesn't last as long, 4/5ths of the life of a standard CFL isn't bad, and better than an incandescent by a LONG shot. You've been hoodwinked by FOX, like the Mercury in them, which is 100 to 600 times less than a fever thermometer. You haven't been able to buy a mercury thermometer for decades and one would last a lifetime. CFLs are consummables. Virtually every one of them will end up in the environment somewhere. No, they don't. And yes you can. Who sells a mercury fever thermometer? Notice, if you will, 13 states have them outlawed. That leaves 37 states that they still can be sold. That plus, do you think that everyone in those 13 states just got rid of the ones they had? http://tinyurl.com/br5pjjl I ask again, where do you buy them? Just about anywhere. http://tinyurl.com/d66cc3b http://tinyurl.com/cbtcqmf http://tinyurl.com/d2l78hr http://tinyurl.com/bps8eub Need more? And what about other thermometers that are in use? I haven't even seen a mercury thermometer in 30 years. These days people use electronic ones. Once they are gone, they are gone. We are making about a billion new CFLs. 122 CFLs have as much mercury as one thermometer (using the cite you gave and .6g per thermometer vs .005g in a CFL.). Thermometers are just another of your straw men. See above. Strawman, eh? I know you may find some lab thermometers with mercury in them but they are even being phased out. And you are comparing a GOOD dimmable with the low priced, low performing, crappy lighting CFL's designed to be put in an ad to get you into the store. They are pretty much all made in China. \ If I do go for the Sylvania CFL the reliability numbers get worse. Their regular CFL is 12000 hours vs 8000 (66% )for the dimmable and it is still 13w vs 14. They are $3 and change each vs almost $10. You still need a special dimmer. (inductive load rated) I made no assumption or verse about where they were made. That was silly of you, wasn't it. Virtually all of them are made in China So? You also assume the $1.20 lamp is significantly worse than the $3 one. So, tell me, how does $3 versus $10 get you to the "7 times as much"? Because you can buy cheaper regular CFLs but I couldn't find the dimmables cheaper. I assume they have them. You still ignore the fact that most existing dimmers specifically say you can't use them with an inductive load. They may work, they may not, they might just burn up. Hopefully the fire will be contained inside the box ... or at least that is what U/L says. Oh, I get it, you just dreamed up a number! I still want to know how your $3 versus $10 gets you to "7 times as much". |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:17:42 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 14:12:00 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 00:52:42 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: It is just that politically correct "if it just saves one life" thing you lefties seem to embrace everywhere else. Right. I don't agree with a "greenie" code - so I'm a "lefty." Yup, you sure enough drank the kool-ade. It appears you are veering to the right when it might cost you money Get real. You can't even define "lefty" or "righty," so it's senseless to use them as epithets. But that's an effect of the kool-ade. I have been talking to you for a couple of years and you usually do not see a government intrusion you don't like. What "intrusions?" Government dropping the hammer on gun sales to criminals and whack jobs, which you think is just dandy? It's you who here defending the NEC, not me. You're ok with government imposing neutral wires on everybody's wall switches because YOU like using lighting controls. How precious. Outside of taxes, NEC is probably the biggest government enforced "intrusion" into peoples lives. What are these government "intrusions" you're talking about? Chlorinated water? Obsoleting inefficient incandescent light bulbs? An ordinance about riding your horse down the street? Sorry, none of that bothered me a whit. For Christ's sake, aren't you in a HOA? Is that the "government" you speak of? I'm not in a HOA. Won't have that. I value my freedom. Except for taxes, local codes generated by the likes of NEC, and car/traffic laws, I don't even know the government exists. Same for most law-abiding citizens. What problems are you having? You sound like a paranoid, or an outlaw. You should really take out the corncob. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Funny Stuff
Never did.
|
Funny Stuff
Tim wrote:
On May 1, 5:10 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 5/1/13 12:58 AM, wrote: On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least. The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one. http://tinyurl.com/c6pmf4b A lot of people assume "save the planet" equates to "too expensive to sell on it's own merits" In the case of CFLs I think they were poorly marketed in the first place. People bought them for luminaires that they were not suitable for and they got a bad reputation. They don't "dim", they don't like living "base up" in an enclosed can and they don't work well in load powered switching applications like 2 wire motion detectors or timers. The ironic thing is these are the things energy aware customers are likely to have. The study demonstrated that conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy either bulb, but conservatives were less likely to buy the energy savings lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. *That* is the point here. I have a bunch of the newer bulbs. I have them all over my shop. about 16 100 watters. I don't know if they really save that much over an incandescent, but I don't have to change them out nearly as often. But the cost of the bulb over the cost of energy isn't really a savings. when you figure it costs somewhat more to make one than it does an incandescent it also costs more to buy, so... I really dont' think they're that great of an all around 'bargain'. over a standard or a florescent . But they work... 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. Look for "rough service" or "commercial duty". |
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:57:11 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... I ask again, where do you buy them? Just about anywhere. http://tinyurl.com/d66cc3b http://tinyurl.com/cbtcqmf http://tinyurl.com/d2l78hr http://tinyurl.com/bps8eub Need more? "Anywhere" is not an internet medical supply company and 3 of the 4 links are talking about lab thermometers. So? That means that somehow the mercury is different???? I am still not sure what this has to do with things we dump into the land fill on a regular basis. And what about other thermometers that are in use? I haven't even seen a mercury thermometer in 30 years. These days people use electronic ones. Once they are gone, they are gone. We are making about a billion new CFLs. 122 CFLs have as much mercury as one thermometer (using the cite you gave and .6g per thermometer vs .005g in a CFL.). Thermometers are just another of your straw men. See above. Strawman, eh? I know you may find some lab thermometers with mercury in them but they are even being phased out. And you are comparing a GOOD dimmable with the low priced, low performing, crappy lighting CFL's designed to be put in an ad to get you into the store. They are pretty much all made in China. \ If I do go for the Sylvania CFL the reliability numbers get worse. Their regular CFL is 12000 hours vs 8000 (66% )for the dimmable and it is still 13w vs 14. They are $3 and change each vs almost $10. You still need a special dimmer. (inductive load rated) I made no assumption or verse about where they were made. That was silly of you, wasn't it. Virtually all of them are made in China So? You also assume the $1.20 lamp is significantly worse than the $3 one. So, tell me, how does $3 versus $10 get you to the "7 times as much"? Because you can buy cheaper regular CFLs but I couldn't find the dimmables cheaper. I assume they have them. You still ignore the fact that most existing dimmers specifically say you can't use them with an inductive load. They may work, they may not, they might just burn up. Hopefully the fire will be contained inside the box ... or at least that is what U/L says. Oh, I get it, you just dreamed up a number! I still want to know how your $3 versus $10 gets you to "7 times as much". I gave you a $1,30 vs $9.99 from a store people might actually shop at. And YOU gave examples proving that is bull****!! |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:50:30 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:45:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will require that 3d wire we were talking about. Try to keep up There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING. Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only answer is a 3 wire device. Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's. They work fine with incandescents. They don't work with CFLs or LEDs. What else do you need to know. 2+2 is not his strong point. |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? |
Funny Stuff
On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:31:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? Maybe they could argue about how many basketball players are still in the closet. I say 12. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Funny Stuff
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On 5/3/2013 4:31 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? Why don't you just kill the thread? You don't know what they are talking about anyway. |
Funny Stuff
On 5/3/2013 5:19 PM, John H wrote:
On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:31:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? Maybe they could argue about how many basketball players are still in the closet. I say 12. John H. I doubt they care. It's Harry's topic of interest. Let him sort it out |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On 5/3/2013 5:43 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. It's Kevin aka, basskisser, loogie picker, nom de plume.... |
Funny Stuff
|
Funny Stuff
On Fri, 3 May 2013 17:43:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Come on...you've not lost your powers of observation. Compare this guy to basskisser, and you'll know immediately who it is. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Funny Stuff
In article , says...
On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? I guess we could argue about who has bragged about having money but in reality has tax liens and bankruptcies. |
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. |
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... On 5/3/2013 5:43 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. It's Kevin aka, basskisser, loogie picker, nom de plume.... Yes!! KevinHarryLoogiePlumeBassBoater!!! Look, behind you.... BOO! |
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. If you want to use occupancy sensors with CFL's on 2-wire, upgrade your sensors to a Leviton or other that doesn't require a neutral. So you've got a sensor issue, not a CFL/LED issue. Sensor/dimmer manufacturers have already passed up the stupid NEC code and solved the neutral issue with low power IC's and microcontrollers. So if I wanted to I could light control with my 2-wire. Anybody can. Or pull your own damn neutrals. You'll still need new modern sensors for CFL/LED. Apparently you prefer government intrusion of NEC code inspectors requiring neutrals for every ****ing light switch in America to solve your problem, even if they don't use sensors or dimmers on their lighting. And even if that won't solve your antiquated sensor issue. Or just use incandescents with your current gear. They're readily available and not outlawed, as many dumb-asses seem to think. Citing codes as a specific reason for not using CFL's is crazy! Writing and re-writing codes is in itself a very lucrative engineering industry and the WANT to find reasons to edit and revise codes. That's how they make their money. |
Funny Stuff
In article , says...
On Fri, 3 May 2013 17:43:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Come on...you've not lost your powers of observation. Compare this guy to basskisser, and you'll know immediately who it is. John H. The dope smoker from Georgia. |
Funny Stuff
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. |
Funny Stuff
On 5/4/13 4:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. Smartass! :) |
Funny Stuff
True North wrote:
Never did. How insightful! Thank you for your contribution. |
Funny Stuff
wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2013 19:33:20 -0400, Earl wrote: Tim wrote: On May 1, 5:10 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 5/1/13 12:58 AM, wrote: On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least. The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one. http://tinyurl.com/c6pmf4b A lot of people assume "save the planet" equates to "too expensive to sell on it's own merits" In the case of CFLs I think they were poorly marketed in the first place. People bought them for luminaires that they were not suitable for and they got a bad reputation. They don't "dim", they don't like living "base up" in an enclosed can and they don't work well in load powered switching applications like 2 wire motion detectors or timers. The ironic thing is these are the things energy aware customers are likely to have. The study demonstrated that conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy either bulb, but conservatives were less likely to buy the energy savings lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. *That* is the point here. I have a bunch of the newer bulbs. I have them all over my shop. about 16 100 watters. I don't know if they really save that much over an incandescent, but I don't have to change them out nearly as often. But the cost of the bulb over the cost of energy isn't really a savings. when you figure it costs somewhat more to make one than it does an incandescent it also costs more to buy, so... I really dont' think they're that great of an all around 'bargain'. over a standard or a florescent . But they work... 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. Look for "rough service" or "commercial duty". Lowes.com says they have 100w A19s in stock at my local store. 8 for $3 http://tinyurl.com/d8m6n4j I guess that light bulb ban was as effective as the 1994 high cap magazine ban. They keep finding "pre ban" old stock to sell. The alternative reason might be that they changed the specs a little to avoid the ban, again, just like the 1994 clinton AWB law. Exactly. |
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason but I am done. None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it is, because it isn't happening. I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not true. Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true. I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language too. It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now somehow don't. You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000 posts? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. Exactly! And there is color in the night sky. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com