Funny Stuff
 

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

Funny Stuff
 

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Another troll.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

Funny Stuff
 

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.

Funny Stuff
 

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...

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/13 7:26 AM, 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...


I have a couple of what I guess are CFL bulbs in places where changing
out a bulb is a pain in the ass. I don't like the color of the light
they produce, but they're okay in my opinion for the attic or in our
garage, which has a 16' ceiling.

Funny Stuff
 

We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim! They've come a LONG way in the technology, but of
course, somehow to the right wingers, that's a bad thing. I like them,
have them everywhere in the house except for some LED's.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/13 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:41:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

... But you said they would buy the more expensive bulb if the thrust
of the puffing was that they saved money.
Price is still king.
For purposes of the survey, the bulbs were priced the same. Price was
not a factor, only the pro-environment factor.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.
Know anybody like that? So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.
And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.
Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.
And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.
Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:12:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim!

I agree you can find a few CFLs that dim. I had to go 3 pages down in
the CFL list at Lowes to find the first one.

http://tinyurl.com/cr58szt

They cost 7 times what a regular CFL costs, last 80% as long and burn
7% more power for the same output. (actually worse than that dimmed)
You also do not get the color shift that most people want when you dim
them.
The reviews give a regular CFL 5 stars, the dimmable gets 3
In my experience they don't even last as long as an incandescent if
you keep them dim most of the time.

Please give cite to those numbers.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/13 2:47 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:09:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:41:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.


I think you are again overanalyzing. I posit that the reason the
conservatives didn't buy the energy saving bulbs is because they don't
give a damn about the environment.

... But you said they would buy the more expensive bulb if the thrust
of the puffing was that they saved money.
Price is still king.
For purposes of the survey, the bulbs were priced the same. Price was
not a factor, only the pro-environment factor.

I would like to see the actual study, Do you have a link to the
source data but I will agree some people are skeptical of "green"
products, simply because of their experiences with them.


I think the original article had a reference to the source material.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 13:26:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.

It has everything to do with CFLs and LEDs. They do not support line
powered switching devices. It is to allow smart switching devices so
lights turn off when you leave a room. I believe they are mandated in
the newer energy codes.

Know anybody like that?

Me, I have occupancy detectors all over my house.

So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.

and the energy code

And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.

This actually came from the IAEI (electrical inspectors) who were
concerned that installers were using the EGC (safety ground)
That was actually allowed if the standby current was 500 ua.

Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.

It applies to any circuit extension and all new construction.

And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.

Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

Maybe you should talk to the people who write the energy codes.

Which addition of the code is this in and what section? Does it specify
that the addendum was because of CFL's?

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 14:29:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 09:12:13 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

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.

Dimmable CFL's dim!

I agree you can find a few CFLs that dim. I had to go 3 pages down in
the CFL list at Lowes to find the first one.

http://tinyurl.com/cr58szt

They cost 7 times what a regular CFL costs, last 80% as long and burn
7% more power for the same output. (actually worse than that dimmed)
You also do not get the color shift that most people want when you dim
them.
The reviews give a regular CFL 5 stars, the dimmable gets 3
In my experience they don't even last as long as an incandescent if
you keep them dim most of the time.

Please give cite to those numbers.

Did you look at the link?

The dimmable is 14w v 13w for a 60w equivalent.
The dimmable is 8000 hours the regular 10,000 hours MBTF
The consumer rating is what it is.

I'm sorry, where does that say that the cost is "7 times what a regular
CVL costs"? 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.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 13:26:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:49:07 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

You can get CFLs in a number of different colors from cool white to a
warmer almost red/yellow. I use them where they will work but a lot of
my interior lighting is on occupancy sensors and they don't like CFLs.
The "off state" load is not enough to power the occupancy sensor
properly and you end up with a flickering light that burns out
quickly.
They had to change the National Electric Code on the last code cycle
to force people to bring a neutral to every switch so you could use a
3 wire switching device. That is another cost for this "saving".


That code change has nothing to do with CFL's. It's to cater to
lighting control freaks who think using a simple switch is too arduous.

It has everything to do with CFLs and LEDs. They do not support line
powered switching devices. It is to allow smart switching devices so
lights turn off when you leave a room. I believe they are mandated in
the newer energy codes.


Right. It's about lighting controls, not CFL's per se.
I run 95% CFL's on 2-wire. No problems, no extra cost.
And I'm not "forced" to do anything differently.
That's you political spinning.

Know anybody like that?

Me, I have occupancy detectors all over my house.


So you need 3-wire. I don't. Because you have lighting controls.
Can't help you with that. Your choice.

So basically it's your lighting desires which
might add costs to those who were happy just flipping a switch.

and the energy code


Oh, really? What energy code mandates lighting controls on residences?
3-wire on all switches is pure NEC.

And NEC was no doubt lobbied for the code change by the special
interests who will financially benefit from the code. NEC should stay
out of design, especially for this type of frill.

This actually came from the IAEI (electrical inspectors) who were
concerned that installers were using the EGC (safety ground)
That was actually allowed if the standby current was 500 ua.


Baloney. A code for lighting controls requiring 3-wire would fix that.
No need to make every switch 3-wire.


Further, nobody is being "forced" to use the neutral unless they're
having inspected switch work done, or they're putting in fancy lighting
control devices that need it. It doesn't apply to existing switches.

It applies to any circuit extension and all new construction.


Right. Padding the accounts of special interests, as I already said.

And some states have their own exceptions. NC excepts most residential.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.


Good for them in this case. Electricians generally think it's a stupid
code from what I've read. Steps over the "design" line.

Lighting control outside of commercial building timing and entertainment
venues is about the most prissy and self-indulgent crap I can think
of...wait...isn't there a toilet that costs about 5 grand and wipes your
ass? Maybe that wins.

Maybe you should talk to the people who write the energy codes.

Nothing to do with the energy code. Just NEC.
Besides, it doesn't affect me. And since I'll never buy new
construction or use lighting controls, it never will.

Funny Stuff
 

In article , says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.

You can't just throw them in the trash. They are hazardous waste.

http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/a...ial_detail.asp
?categoryID=36

Funny Stuff
 

On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:45 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 9:05 AM, True North wrote:
We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

Lowes had them on sale last year for $10. I bought about 40 of them. my
savings for a year were more than $300 in Elec. cost.

Funny Stuff
 

On Wed, 01 May 2013 21:35:15 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?

The switcher power supply in a CFL will store the minuscule current
the 2 wire line powered devices use and when the filter capacitor
reaches the point that the switcher generates a usable amount of
power, it flashes. This becomes a relaxation oscillator.
I have tried CFLs in a couple of my occupancy sensor locations and
they all flash. You can usually get by this by putting a small
incandescent in parallel with the CFL.
I have a 15' string of LED rope light on a SSR (triac) controlled
circuit and it never really turns off. You always see a dim glow
coming from it.
You sort of defeat the purpose of using a 13w CFL or LED if you have
to put a 15w light bulb in there to turn the switch off.

===

Good explanation, thanks. It seems intuitive to me that there must
be some way to fix that at the circuit design level but I'm just
guessing.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 8:29 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:45 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?


I'd like to know too. I have almost 40 LEDs working with 2 wires. There
are of course three wires in the fixture but one of them is ground and
not part of the circuit.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 9:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:03:28 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:10:24 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


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 understand that and I explained it. If you just say it helps the
environment without actually showing it saves money, people assume it
is more expensive.
There are also questions about just how much it "saves the
environment" when you start talking about mercury and the extra
manufacturing pollution. Fortunately for the US, that all happens in
China. (unless you were a light bulb factory worker here).
You still have the disposal problem and the issues with a broken bulb
in the home.
Maybe liberals simply blow all of that off because they are "saving
the planet". It says so right on the non-biodegradable bubble pack.

You can't just throw them in the trash. They are hazardous waste.

http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/a...ial_detail.asp
?categoryID=36

How many people are going to drive 15-20 miles to drop off a light
bulb?
99.9% of these are going to end up in the land fill.


100%...

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:03:20 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 5/1/2013 9:05 AM, True North wrote:
We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

Lowes had them on sale last year for $10. I bought about 40 of them. my
savings for a year were more than $300 in Elec. cost.

I doubt I spend $200 a year on lighting total. That is 1.5 megawatt
hours here. (4.1 KWH a day) That is a lot of lights if you turn them
off when you are not using them.
The occupancy sensors pretty much insure the only rooms with lights
are on are the rooms we are in.
I like it because wherever I go, the lights are on.
We don't really light our house as brightly as most people anyway. We
use task lighting when we need it and otherwise it is fairly softly
lit.


The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 9:35 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:29:10 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:45 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?

The switcher power supply in a CFL will store the minuscule current
the 2 wire line powered devices use and when the filter capacitor
reaches the point that the switcher generates a usable amount of
power, it flashes. This becomes a relaxation oscillator.
I have tried CFLs in a couple of my occupancy sensor locations and
they all flash. You can usually get by this by putting a small
incandescent in parallel with the CFL.
I have a 15' string of LED rope light on a SSR (triac) controlled
circuit and it never really turns off. You always see a dim glow
coming from it.
You sort of defeat the purpose of using a 13w CFL or LED if you have
to put a 15w light bulb in there to turn the switch off.


Your life is too complicated by this stuff.

Funny Stuff
 

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:35 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

====

You're doing something wrong. You can get CFLs with just as much
light as a 100 watt bulb only using a fraction of the power. They
are "instant on" also. We use 60 watt equivalents on the boat
intsead of 110 volt incadescents. They make a huge difference in
power draw when we are running on the inverter batteries.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 11:25 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:35 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

====

You're doing something wrong. You can get CFLs with just as much
light as a 100 watt bulb only using a fraction of the power. They
are "instant on" also. We use 60 watt equivalents on the boat
intsead of 110 volt incadescents. They make a huge difference in
power draw when we are running on the inverter batteries.


I sit at a reading desk.. You can tell me all you want that 23 watt CFL
puts out as much light or lumens @.. etc.. but I know what I can see
with, and what I can't...

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:03:20 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 5/1/2013 9:05 AM, True North wrote:
We bought a pkg of 4 small chandelier type LED bulbs a couple months ago at Costco.
The wife likes running numerous floor type lamps and I balked at the energy use of the standard bulbs.
I believe they are about 4 watts but throw the light of a 60.
Anyway, now we're both happy...she gets her light and I save on our expensive electricity.

Lowes had them on sale last year for $10. I bought about 40 of them. my
savings for a year were more than $300 in Elec. cost.

I doubt I spend $200 a year on lighting total. That is 1.5 megawatt
hours here. (4.1 KWH a day) That is a lot of lights if you turn them
off when you are not using them.
The occupancy sensors pretty much insure the only rooms with lights
are on are the rooms we are in.
I like it because wherever I go, the lights are on.
We don't really light our house as brightly as most people anyway. We
use task lighting when we need it and otherwise it is fairly softly
lit.

That's hard to measure. I'm going on consistent monthly cost
differences compared to prior years.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 10:08 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:20:10 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 5/1/2013 8:29 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:45 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?


I'd like to know too. I have almost 40 LEDs working with 2 wires. There
are of course three wires in the fixture but one of them is ground and
not part of the circuit.

The 3 wires are at the switch and it is required if you use electronic
switching and don't power the circuit through the load.
That would be typical of any occupancy sensor or timer that is a drop
in replacement for a snap switch.
In some of my applications I use the regular motion detector heads you
use outside and they have a relay for the switch so they will run
anything but you need a neutral for them.


I'll have to take your word for it. I wasn't aware that a ground is used
to complete a live circuit. Sounds hokey to me but I won't argue with you.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/1/2013 11:25 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:35 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

====

You're doing something wrong. You can get CFLs with just as much
light as a 100 watt bulb only using a fraction of the power. They
are "instant on" also. We use 60 watt equivalents on the boat
intsead of 110 volt incadescents. They make a huge difference in
power draw when we are running on the inverter batteries.


LEDs use half the power of CFLs They last much longer too. You can get
them to replace most 12V lamps. Do your CFLs have to warm up to achieve
maximum brightness?

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...


"2 wire" snap switches or electronic switching?


Simple snap switches - that are probably +95% of all residential
switches.


Baloney. A code for lighting controls requiring 3-wire would fix that.
No need to make every switch 3-wire.

That is exactly what they did.

Nope. What they did is require a neutral where it's not needed in the
vast majority of cases.

l.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.


Good for them in this case. Electricians generally think it's a stupid
code from what I've read. Steps over the "design" line.

Most electricians say the same thing about AFCIs, some say it about
GFCIs and a few even say the required small appliance circuits in the
kitchen should be a design issue.
I agree the code has become a vehicle for companies to sell hardware
but it is sold as safety.
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.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:44:14 -0400, Hank©
wrote:


Your life is too complicated by this stuff.

Once you get a good array of motion and occupancy sensors in place,
you start wondering why you didn't do it sooner.
This actually started over a quarter century ago when I saw my wife
and daughter using the open refrigerator as a night light.

You gotta be kidding. Even 100 year-old houses are wired with wall
switches by the door. Have you ever heard of flashlights and nite-
lites?

That was my first indoor motion detector, turning on a small light
that lit up the kitchen, dining room and hallway. Now everywhere you
go around he house, inside or out, the light follows you.
The only places that don't have detectors are the bedrooms.
Inside it is really just 5 strategically located detectors and some
low level lighting.

I bet my dogs would be shocked as they wander around the house.
Wonder what all that on/off does for bulb longevity. We have one small
CFL in the range hood that provides almost whole house night light.
Illuminates enough to avoid tripping everywhere, including the bedrooms
if the door is open. My basement isn't wired up for lighting, so I just
keep a 3 dollar LED flashlight on a shelf at the foot of the stairs to
get to the one wall switch 20 feet away in the dark. Haven't even
changed the batteries in about 4 years.
Different strokes.

Funny Stuff
 

My house..built 71 years ago in the middle of WW2 when this city was booming supplying Britain with badly needed supplies had the same basic basement when we bought in 1985.
I ran plugs, electric lights and electric baseboard heaters everywhere.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 17:02:02 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

Please give cite to those numbers.

Did you look at the link?

The dimmable is 14w v 13w for a 60w equivalent.
The dimmable is 8000 hours the regular 10,000 hours MBTF
The consumer rating is what it is.

I'm sorry, where does that say that the cost is "7 times what a regular
CVL costs"?

At Lowes
The dimmable is $9.98 each. You can get 18 regular CFLs for $25. Do
the math.

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.


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.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:53:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Which addition of the code is this in and what section? Does it specify
that the addendum was because of CFL's?

What are you talking about?

The required neutral is specified in NFPA70 (NEC) article 404.2(C).

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.
You need a neutral for a 3 wire device and these electronic bulbs
require a 3 wire switching device of you want automatic operation.

That automatic control ends up being encouraged by several energy
codes including the ICC codes and LEEDs.

Some of the ICC references for occupancy sensors


505.2.1.1 Classrooms and meeting rooms.
A control device shall be installed in classrooms (except shop
classrooms, laboratory classrooms, and preschool through 12th grade
classrooms), conference/meeting rooms and employee lunch and break
rooms that automatically turns lighting off within 30 minutes of all
occupants leaving a space. These spaces are not required to be
connected to other automatic lighting shutoff controls.

05.2.2 Automatic lighting shutoff.
Buildings larger than 5,000 square feet (465 m2) shall be equipped
with an automatic control device to shut off lighting in those areas.
This automatic control device shall function on either:
1. A scheduled basis, using time-of-day, with an independent program
schedule that controls the interior lighting in areas that do not
exceed 25,000 square feet (2323 m2) and are not more than one floor;
or
2. An occupant sensor that shall turn lighting off within 30 minutes
of an occupant leaving a space; or



505.2.1.2 All other spaces.
Each control device shall be activated either manually by an occupant
or automatically by sensing an occupant and be capable of overriding
any time-of-day scheduled shut-off control for no more than four hours
in accordance with Section 505.2.2.1. Spatial control shall be limited
as shown in Table 505.2.1.2:


Folks out there in the Peoples Republic of California have even
stricter "Title 24" requirements.
The familiar T12 florescent tube has been banned for years.

And has NOTHING to do with CFL's. NOTHING.

Funny Stuff
 

In article ,
says...

On 5/1/2013 11:25 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:35 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

====

You're doing something wrong. You can get CFLs with just as much
light as a 100 watt bulb only using a fraction of the power. They
are "instant on" also. We use 60 watt equivalents on the boat
intsead of 110 volt incadescents. They make a huge difference in
power draw when we are running on the inverter batteries.


I sit at a reading desk.. You can tell me all you want that 23 watt CFL
puts out as much light or lumens @.. etc.. but I know what I can see
with, and what I can't...

It's the color spectrum you have to look at when buying bulbs.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/2013 2:01 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 23:25:46 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:35 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

The CFL's are bull****. I have to run two lamps in most rooms to get any
decent light...

====

You're doing something wrong. You can get CFLs with just as much
light as a 100 watt bulb only using a fraction of the power. They
are "instant on" also. We use 60 watt equivalents on the boat
intsead of 110 volt incadescents. They make a huge difference in
power draw when we are running on the inverter batteries.

I have not seen any "instant on" but they do come up in a second or
less


Yes Wayne, what I am doing wrong is not dropping the last digit from the
wattage comparison... it's not a 60 watt CFL, it's a 6.0 watt.. Now I
get it...

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/2013 1:52 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


"2 wire" snap switches or electronic switching?


Simple snap switches - that are probably +95% of all residential
switches.


Baloney. A code for lighting controls requiring 3-wire would fix that.
No need to make every switch 3-wire.

That is exactly what they did.

Nope. What they did is require a neutral where it's not needed in the
vast majority of cases.

l.

There are a lot of states that cave in to builders and write code
exceptions.


Good for them in this case. Electricians generally think it's a stupid
code from what I've read. Steps over the "design" line.

Most electricians say the same thing about AFCIs, some say it about
GFCIs and a few even say the required small appliance circuits in the
kitchen should be a design issue.
I agree the code has become a vehicle for companies to sell hardware
but it is sold as safety.
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.


Why would you want to have neutral on a snap switch unless it is
illuminated?

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/2013 2:05 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2013 00:48:31 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 5/1/2013 10:08 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:20:10 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 5/1/2013 8:29 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:05:45 -0400, wrote:

This came about because the 2 wire devices do not work with LEDs and
CFLs. They work OK with incandescents.

===

For us laymen, can you explain why that is?


I'd like to know too. I have almost 40 LEDs working with 2 wires. There
are of course three wires in the fixture but one of them is ground and
not part of the circuit.

The 3 wires are at the switch and it is required if you use electronic
switching and don't power the circuit through the load.
That would be typical of any occupancy sensor or timer that is a drop
in replacement for a snap switch.
In some of my applications I use the regular motion detector heads you
use outside and they have a relay for the switch so they will run
anything but you need a neutral for them.


I'll have to take your word for it. I wasn't aware that a ground is used
to complete a live circuit. Sounds hokey to me but I won't argue with you.

They used the ground for the electronics in some of the old designs
and the U/L standard was 500ua.

That would still be 1/10th of what it takes to trip a GFCI so it was
not seen as a safety issue.

Sounds like you'd have some pretty confused electrons running around if
you used many of those sort of devices.

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/2013 2:18 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:44:14 -0400, Hank©
wrote:


Your life is too complicated by this stuff.

Once you get a good array of motion and occupancy sensors in place,
you start wondering why you didn't do it sooner.
This actually started over a quarter century ago when I saw my wife
and daughter using the open refrigerator as a night light.

You gotta be kidding. Even 100 year-old houses are wired with wall
switches by the door. Have you ever heard of flashlights and nite-
lites?

That was my first indoor motion detector, turning on a small light
that lit up the kitchen, dining room and hallway. Now everywhere you
go around he house, inside or out, the light follows you.
The only places that don't have detectors are the bedrooms.
Inside it is really just 5 strategically located detectors and some
low level lighting.

I bet my dogs would be shocked as they wander around the house.
Wonder what all that on/off does for bulb longevity. We have one small
CFL in the range hood that provides almost whole house night light.
Illuminates enough to avoid tripping everywhere, including the bedrooms
if the door is open. My basement isn't wired up for lighting, so I just
keep a 3 dollar LED flashlight on a shelf at the foot of the stairs to
get to the one wall switch 20 feet away in the dark. Haven't even
changed the batteries in about 4 years.
Different strokes.


Different strokes for sure. My solutions are almost 100% LED right down
to nightlights. I have even replaced most of my always on LED
nightlights with photoelectric models. Probably a bit overkill but it
makes me happy ;-
)

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/2013 7:48 AM, True North wrote:
My house..built 71 years ago in the middle of WW2 when this city was booming supplying Britain with badly needed supplies had the same basic basement when we bought in 1985.
I ran plugs, electric lights and electric baseboard heaters everywhere.

Are you still running Knob and tube?

Funny Stuff
 

On 5/2/13 11:27 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2013 01:18:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 22:44:14 -0400, Hank©
wrote:


Your life is too complicated by this stuff.

Once you get a good array of motion and occupancy sensors in place,
you start wondering why you didn't do it sooner.
This actually started over a quarter century ago when I saw my wife
and daughter using the open refrigerator as a night light.

You gotta be kidding. Even 100 year-old houses are wired with wall
switches by the door. Have you ever heard of flashlights and nite-
lites?

That was my first indoor motion detector, turning on a small light
that lit up the kitchen, dining room and hallway. Now everywhere you
go around he house, inside or out, the light follows you.
The only places that don't have detectors are the bedrooms.
Inside it is really just 5 strategically located detectors and some
low level lighting.

I bet my dogs would be shocked as they wander around the house.
Wonder what all that on/off does for bulb longevity. We have one small
CFL in the range hood that provides almost whole house night light.
Illuminates enough to avoid tripping everywhere, including the bedrooms
if the door is open. My basement isn't wired up for lighting, so I just
keep a 3 dollar LED flashlight on a shelf at the foot of the stairs to
get to the one wall switch 20 feet away in the dark. Haven't even
changed the batteries in about 4 years.
Different strokes.

I guess I like things a little more convenient than walking around
with a flashlight.
Human nature is to turn on the light but not to turn it off. I see it
every night when I am walking the dog around the neighborhood. I know
there are only 1 or 2 people in the house and it is lit up like an
office building, even after I know they are probably in bed.
If you are just passing through, turning off the light requires a 3
way or 4 way loop that probably was not put there by the builder and
would be tough to do after the drywall is up. A $20 occupancy sensor,
strategically located, connected to a light or two in the right place,
fixes all of that.


We don't have problems remembering to turn off the lights when we leave
a room. I do, however, have the outside lights on the front porch and on
either side of the garage on timer switches, and the floods around the
house on motion detectors.