On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.

It seems we have another luddite in our midst.

On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.


Because there were lots of "friends of Al Gore" with their hands out for
contracts...

On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have
any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do
not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become
superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.



I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when
dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets
darker.

The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not
romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a
LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or
hundreds of millions across the country sure is.

Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity
consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED
equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the
past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights
we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop
as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did.

The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are
$12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year
warranty and consume 9.5 watts.


Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for
one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see ****
half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow
you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs...

On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have
any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do
not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become
superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.



I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when
dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets
darker.

The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not
romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a
LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or
hundreds of millions across the country sure is.

Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity
consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED
equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the
past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights
we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop
as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did.

The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are
$12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year
warranty and consume 9.5 watts.

I just realized that the gov't. ban on incands. was created to guide the
thrifty among us to stop making phony excuses for an inferior product.
I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any
thing except light bulbs. And that's not counting replacement cost. My
replacement cost last year was $10. (one bulb)
You need to relinquish your "Luddite" status. There are those here more
deserving.

On 1/20/2014 8:20 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They
are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have
any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed
for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do
not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become
superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.



I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when
dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets
darker.

The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not
romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a
LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or
hundreds of millions across the country sure is.

Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity
consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED
equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the
past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights
we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop
as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did.

The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are
$12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year
warranty and consume 9.5 watts.


Yeah, but what's 800 lumen? How many do you need to run to make up for
one 100 watt incandescent? I have CFL's in our home and I can't see ****
half of the time. Most of the lamps are rated for wattages that alllow
you to see with real bulbs. Not so much with the fake Chinese bulbs...

CFL's suck. There's not much more you can say about them.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:19:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool.

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government.

Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big
time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that
have been flooding Holland since the borders went away.

Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed.
Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes.

My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous
variety of ways - including raw.


Been there, done that.

On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an
extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was
devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various
sauces, and so on. What a pig out!

One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got
hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a
hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to
fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket.

But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally.


No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on
the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms
of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement,
health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera.

My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but
smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They
work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many
Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their
military means there are funds for programs for people.

Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap
closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with
your education.



The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and
without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to
admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the
military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of
men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black.

We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start
cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it
in half again.

As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American
schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second
language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were
in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take
four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but
among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera.
Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter
because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice
with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby.

Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance
of China in today's world.

Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better.


Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign
languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United
States win WW II all by itself?

On 1/20/2014 8:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:19:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:28:07 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 6:16 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:09:44 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:41:26 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 1:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:43:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 11:45:03 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 11:12 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.

That is absurd if you are talking about more than a few people hiding
out in a cabin.
Our military has not been very successful in stopping asymmetrical
warriors whether it is Vietnam, The Middle East, Africa or South Asia.
They kill a lot of people and win most of the battles but they lose
the war. (much like the Brits in the latter 18th century American
war)..


Hey, there's always hope a large number of righties will start an
insurrection in the United States and get wiped out...it'll definitely
improve the gene pool.

I do not actually believe that we would ever allow a government to get
that oppressive before we enacted a political solution but it would be
the left who ended up organizing the revolution if it did.
I do believe it would come out of a massive financial collapse and the
well intentioned desire to find a strong leader with an agenda that
sounded good in the beginning and then descended into a dictatorship.
Bear in mind every dictator of the last 100 years started with a
socialist agenda. Most have the word "socialist" in the title of their
government.
The only way socialism can exist as a governmental policy is if you
have an overbearing government. (be it the Cubans, Venezuela, the
Soviets or the Nazis)



My Northern European buddies in socialist countries report no problems
with overbearing government.

Your buddies don't even complain of the overbearing taxes? Wow, mine has started doing that big
time. He's also not very happy with providing housing to all the Moroccan and Turkish folks that
have been flooding Holland since the borders went away.

Funny, fifteen-twenty years ago he was very happy with his 'socialist' country. Times have changed.
Good to know your buddies don't mind oppressive taxes.

My Norwegian friend who was seriously
injured in an offshore drilling platform accident was financially
supported and retrained as a teacher and is quite happy with how things
turned out. He didn't lose his house or his healthcare or his pension,
and his kids went to college. In the USA, he'd be out on the street.

Norway would be a great place for you to live. You could get herring prepared in a tremendous
variety of ways - including raw.


Been there, done that.

On a motorcycle trip to Stockholm, we took a ferry from Kiel, Germany to Gotenberg, Sweden. For an
extra 25 Deutsche Marks, we got the buffet on the ferry. One whole counter, about 15 feet long was
devoted solely to herring in its many forms = fried, pickled in various sauces, raw with various
sauces, and so on. What a pig out!

One of our group didn't want to spend the money. The next day, about halfway across Swededn, he got
hungry. We stopped at a little highway diner where he paid about the same amount of money for a
hamburger, fries, and soft drink. Sweden may be a socialist heaven, but it cost me almost $50 to
fill my motorcycle tank and about $5 for a wrapped (the cheap kind) loaf of bread at a supermarket.

But they put on a pretty good motorcycle rally.


No question that prices are higher in Europe for many things, but, on
the other hand, a lot of that comes back to ordinary citizens in terms
of guaranteed vacation time, guaranteed sick leave, a decent retirement,
health care coverage, education, retraining if necessary, et cetera.

My Norwegian friends are middle class. Most of them have nice but
smaller houses than most of us have, and they make do with one car. They
work hard and they are sans the awful worries that plague many
Americans. *Not* spending upwards of $700 billion a year on their
military means there are funds for programs for people.

Thank God the USA whipped the Germans, eh? And it's probably a good thing we kept the Fulda Gap
closed for all those years afterwards. I suppose learning Chinese would be no problem for one with
your education.



The United States along with many allies "whipped" the Germans, and
without the sort of military budget this country has today. I have to
admit, the Cold War against the Sovs was a wonderful way for the
military establishment and contractors in both countries to keep lots of
men in uniform and lots of corporations in the black.

We're spending far, far too much on the military. We should start
cutting it in half over a 10 year period, and then see if we can cut it
in half again.

As for learning Chinese, it would be a wonderful idea for American
schools and American kids to have as mandatory the teaching of a second
language. It was that way back when I was in high school...if you were
in the "college prep" high school divisions, you were required to take
four years of foreign language. I don't recall all the offerings, but
among them were German, Russian, Italian, French, Spanish, et cetera.
Many of us took two languages. I took Latin and Russian, the latter
because many of my relatives here spoke Russian and I could practice
with them. I remember the Russian teacher, a fellow named Mr. Crosby.

Chinese would be a very worthwhile addition, considering the importance
of China in today's world.

Good night, Harry. Believe what you will. Hopefully your kids know better.


Know better about what? Is there something wrong about learning foreign
languages? Are we not spending too much on the military? Did the United
States win WW II all by itself?

Come on John. Spit it out.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:36:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote:
k

He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old
A19, non halogen.

But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb.
It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them
at least for now.
Mikek

The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this
"ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless.
I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and
regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly.

Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they
"banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to
buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so
there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre
ban light bulbs)
There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the
next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that
expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load.

Like this?

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1150085

On 1/20/14, 8:36 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:36:15 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:01:21 -0600, amdx wrote:

On 1/19/2014 6:05 PM, wrote:
k

He said "incandescent" That is an incandescent bulb. Your trusty old
A19, non halogen.

But as I said, it's not a standard 100 Watt bulb.
It is a 130 Volt bulb, there's an exception for them
at least for now.
Mikek

The point BAO was trying to make was bans work. It sounds like this
"ban" is so full of exceptions that it is meaningless.
I only buy 130v bulbs anyway. My line voltage cruises around 124v and
regular 120v bulbs burn out pretty quickly.

Just for a real world example of meaningless bans. In 1994 they
"banned" large capacity magazines. The government was not willing to
buy back all of the existing ones (that pesky 5th amendment thing) so
there was a gray market for "pre-ban" magazines. (much like the pre
ban light bulbs)
There never seemed to be a lack of pre-ban magazines for sale for the
next decade until the law expired and they weren't even that
expensive. I believe they were coming in by the truck load.

Like this?

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/c...aspx?a=1150085



There must be a way you can find and attach a 9 mm model of one of those
to your new SIG, eh? Might be difficult fitting the assembly in your
pocket, though. Maybe not.

On 1/20/2014 7:51 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 5:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/19/2014 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:44:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I installed two, 60 watt LED bulbs in my loft studio ceiling. They
are
shaped like regular old light bulbs and illuminate in the same,
non-directional pattern. I like them. Plenty of light, doesn't have
any
funny color and I have them controlled by a regular dimmer designed
for
incandescents. No problems dimming them although it doesn't like
controlling only one. Not enough load.

The LEDs may be OK. But the mini fluorescent. More expensive, do
not last
any longer and are toxic waste. Ow many land fills will become
superfund
sites with the bulbs?

My problem with LEDS and CFLs is they do not change color when you dim
them. The warmer colors you get from a dimmed incandescent is the
whole point.
I know they could do this with a color changing LED but at what cost?

If I am happy with a $1.50 lamp that will last almost forever running
at 75% power, why would I want a $50+ LED that uses almost as much
power "dimmed" as it does full bright and may actually fail sooner.



I never noticed that the LED bulbs are not "warmer" color-wise when
dimmed. I guess that's not very important to me. The room just gets
darker.

The whole idea behind these types of bulbs is energy conservation, not
romantic lighting. Replacing one 60 or 75 watt incandescent bulb with a
LED bulb of equivalent lighting may not be huge, but replacing tens or
hundreds of millions across the country sure is.

Lighting makes up about 13 percent of average residential electricity
consumption. Replacing the old bulbs as they burn out with LED
equivalents makes sense to me. We've slowly been doing that over the
past year or so and also replacing any of those stupid CFL type lights
we have with LED types. The built-in ballast used in CFLs seem to pop
as often or even more so than the incandescent filaments did.

The LED bulbs I bought are made by Cree. They don't cost $50. They are
$12.95. 800 lumen, dimmable, 25,000 hour life expectancy, 10 year
warranty and consume 9.5 watts.


I bought a few of those Cree bulbs at Home Despot. They seem to be
working well. Haven't noticed any difference in the color of the room
lighting.


I confess I was a bit of a skeptic until I tried one. They work fine,
to me. Proof will be in the pudding in terms of how long they work.