Bad outcome
 

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.

Hank, I need to see you back that up.
I'm going to compare 100 watt incandescent against a 10 watt new fangled
low energy lighting device.
Assume you were using $55 for light per month and now you use $5.5.
55-5.5 = $49.5 or your $50 savings.

In order spend $55 on lights, @ $0.13 cents per kWh, you would need
to use 423kWhs. I'll assume an average of 10hrs per day per light for
convenience. That's 1 kWh per day of bulb usage, or 30 kWhs per month.
423kwhs / 30kWhs = 14 bulbs on 10 hrs per day for 30 days.

If your buying the bulbs, lets assume $5 per bulb times 14 bulbs, that
$90, so your payback is two months.


I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback
should certainly be less than one your for most people.

There only two, in my home know I don't believe I use that much light in
my house, I'd be surprised if I use 6 bulbs 5 hrs per day, but not 14
bulbs 10 hrs per day.

Ok, no need to back it up, it is better than I thought.

Anyone feeling energetic, can check my numbers and assumptions.

I'm all switched over to CFLs and one LED.

Hey turn that light off if your not using it!!

Mikek

I have an electric meter on my water heater.
When my daughter went to college the electrical use went down by
1/2. I thought it was a fluke the first month, but it continued
to stay that low.

BTW, have you seen the water heaters that use a heat pump?
http://energy.gov/energysaver/articl...-water-heaters

Price shock,
http://www.lowes.com/Plumbing/Water-.../N-1z0zp1j/pl#!

My contribution to thread drift.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/2014 12:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Next time you go to Home Depot or Lowe's, check out the LED bulbs I
mentioned. There are at least *two* color temps available, one is
"white" and the other is designed to be more of a warmer color.

You could run 6 of them for the cost of running one conventional 60 watt
bulb.

The CFLs are horrible.

Scientific American did an article a while ago about how "green" these
new bulbs are and they fail that test. You may be saving money but you
are polluting the planet. Fortunately it is Asia that is being
polluted
****'m.


We should all be careful of any product that requires special disposal
procedures when it fails. I'll bet 90 percent of the consumers ignore
them and just toss 'em in the trash.

Going back to LED lights for a moment ...

I just came back from our local hardware store to pick up an interior
lock set and noticed they had a new display of LED bulbs made by GE. The
price was only $6.99. One was of a conventional bulb size and I was
reading the specs on the packaging when the store manager came up to me.

The new rating system is lumens, not watts. No where on the GE
packaging did it say anything like, "Compare to 60 watt" or anything.

Turns out the one I was looking at for $6.99 was only 95 lumen. That's
about equal to a 2.5 watt conventional bulb. Worthless, unless purely
for decorative purposes. The store manager became curious and opened
one of them and tried it out in a light fixture. He agreed. Worthless.

The ones I recently installed (Cree) are rated at 800 lumens (ea.) Big
difference.

Yeah, but it's still only equal to a typical 60 watt bulb... I need the
lumens typical of a 100 watt incandescent (13-1500 lumens) to make a
bulb worth while and I can't find that in a standard base, cfl or
similar.... so far...

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/14, 1:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:50:53 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/20/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:

10 lights from dusk to dawn? Let me guess, the Stalag 17 look .

If you are burning 11,000 watt hours of light a day we can see your
house from space.
That is as much as my whole house air handler strip heaters use when I
have the heat on for an hour running full blast.

You need to reevaluate your lighting plan.



We have 8 60 watt bulbs burning outside from dark to dawn...two each in
two garage side lights, and two each in two front porch lights. Most of
our neighbors in our little subdivision do the same. The claim is the
lighting helps deter burglars but I think it just lights the locks so
they are easy to pick. Maybe the lights also make the houses look
occupied even when they are not. Break into an occupied house and you're
stepping up from burglary. Do it here and you probably will leave in a
body bag.

You are living in the 20th century.
Think about putting motion detectors on those lights and have a whole
lot more security.
If the light is on all the time, people close their shade or just look
away, If it is normally off and it turns on, they look to see why.
If you are just trying to illuminate a burglar 60 watts is way too
much. A 15 watt sign bulb would do just fine if it actually got dark
in your neighborhood.
Light pollution is a huge problem here.
We have lit the place up so much, I have no trouble running my boat in
the bay at night without resorting to spotlights. I have no problem
seeing crab pots and nav aids because it never really gets dark.

OTOH I may just have good night vision because I don't overload my
eyes with unnecessary light at night.


I'm usually inside when these outside lights are on.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/2014 1:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Next time you go to Home Depot or Lowe's, check out the LED bulbs I
mentioned. There are at least *two* color temps available, one is
"white" and the other is designed to be more of a warmer color.

You could run 6 of them for the cost of running one conventional 60
watt
bulb.

The CFLs are horrible.

Scientific American did an article a while ago about how "green" these
new bulbs are and they fail that test. You may be saving money but you
are polluting the planet. Fortunately it is Asia that is being
polluted
****'m.


We should all be careful of any product that requires special disposal
procedures when it fails. I'll bet 90 percent of the consumers ignore
them and just toss 'em in the trash.

Going back to LED lights for a moment ...

I just came back from our local hardware store to pick up an interior
lock set and noticed they had a new display of LED bulbs made by GE. The
price was only $6.99. One was of a conventional bulb size and I was
reading the specs on the packaging when the store manager came up to me.

The new rating system is lumens, not watts. No where on the GE
packaging did it say anything like, "Compare to 60 watt" or anything.

Turns out the one I was looking at for $6.99 was only 95 lumen. That's
about equal to a 2.5 watt conventional bulb. Worthless, unless purely
for decorative purposes. The store manager became curious and opened
one of them and tried it out in a light fixture. He agreed. Worthless.

The ones I recently installed (Cree) are rated at 800 lumens (ea.) Big
difference.

Yeah, but it's still only equal to a typical 60 watt bulb... I need the
lumens typical of a 100 watt incandescent (13-1500 lumens) to make a
bulb worth while and I can't find that in a standard base, cfl or
similar.... so far...


I think you will in time. When LED bulbs first came out they were only
in the 50 to 200 lumen range, max. Phillips and Cree broke that barrier
with the 800 lumen (60 watt equiv) and Cree recently announced a 75 watt
equiv. version. Problem is price. The 60 watt equiv. that has been
around for a while is $12.99 and the price is dropping. The newer 75
watt equiv. version is over $20.

Bad outcome
 

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




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?

I'll put it a different way. Thank God your President and Democratic controlled Senate know better.

Bad outcome
 

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:12:04 AM UTC-5, Hank wrote:

Lots of chaff here today. why bother trying to make something of it?

You could always add mud, and make bricks.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/2014 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:40:03 -0500, Hank wrote:

On 1/20/2014 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:25:35 -0500, Hank wrote:

I'm saving about $50 a month on my electric bill without changing any
thing except light bulbs

Saving $50 a month?
Bull**** ... unless your house is lit like a used car lot all the
time.
That is 333 KWH per month (at 15c a KWH)
Assuming you turn the lights off when you go to bed that is about 2000
watts of light you save every HOUR (based on 5,5 hours between sundown
and bed time)

You really had 2500 watts of light on all evening? (your LEDs and CFLs
still draw something around 20%)

I think you have fallen for the hype.


I have 10 lamps that burn dusk to dawn. We use some lighting during the
daytime also.

I have spreadsheeted my KWH, Cost per KWK, and total cost. I'm
comfortable with what I stated

10 lights from dusk to dawn? Let me guess, the Stalag 17 look .

If you are burning 11,000 watt hours of light a day we can see your
house from space.
That is as much as my whole house air handler strip heaters use when I
have the heat on for an hour running full blast.

You need to reevaluate your lighting plan.

Are you using a calculator, or are you counting on your fingers?

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/2014 1:09 PM, amdx wrote:

I think your numbers are slightly exaggerated, but not a lot. Payback
should certainly be less than one your for most people.

I don't know how you arrived at this number but I'm in agreement with
your conclusion

Bad outcome
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 1/20/2014 8:17 AM, KC 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.


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


Wouldn't you be interested in reducing your electricity bill by up to 13
percent/month for the next 10 years or more? I was.

We are burning most of the household energy these days with the ipad,
iPhone, printer, PC chargers that are plugged all the time.

Bad outcome
 

On 1/20/2014 1:10 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2014 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:00:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Next time you go to Home Depot or Lowe's, check out the LED bulbs I
mentioned. There are at least *two* color temps available, one is
"white" and the other is designed to be more of a warmer color.

You could run 6 of them for the cost of running one conventional 60
watt
bulb.

The CFLs are horrible.

Scientific American did an article a while ago about how "green" these
new bulbs are and they fail that test. You may be saving money but you
are polluting the planet. Fortunately it is Asia that is being
polluted
****'m.


We should all be careful of any product that requires special disposal
procedures when it fails. I'll bet 90 percent of the consumers ignore
them and just toss 'em in the trash.

Going back to LED lights for a moment ...

I just came back from our local hardware store to pick up an interior
lock set and noticed they had a new display of LED bulbs made by GE. The
price was only $6.99. One was of a conventional bulb size and I was
reading the specs on the packaging when the store manager came up to me.

The new rating system is lumens, not watts. No where on the GE
packaging did it say anything like, "Compare to 60 watt" or anything.

Turns out the one I was looking at for $6.99 was only 95 lumen. That's
about equal to a 2.5 watt conventional bulb. Worthless, unless purely
for decorative purposes. The store manager became curious and opened
one of them and tried it out in a light fixture. He agreed. Worthless.

The ones I recently installed (Cree) are rated at 800 lumens (ea.) Big
difference.

Yeah, but it's still only equal to a typical 60 watt bulb... I need the
lumens typical of a 100 watt incandescent (13-1500 lumens) to make a
bulb worth while and I can't find that in a standard base, cfl or
similar.... so far...

If you used a little ingenuity you could pair up 2 800 lumen led's and
have the equivalent of a 100 watt or better incand. Forget the CFLs.
They are worthless, and dangerous.