On 1/20/2014 2:57 PM, wrote:
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.


That's the first intelligent thing you've said in months.

On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote:
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

Math.

Where did I lose you.

I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents.
I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style.
If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now.
Mikek

On 1/20/2014 2:32 PM, wrote:


the EPA calc is $7.23 a year to run it.
That is less than 60 cents a month.

Do you know what the EPA uses as the cost for aKwh?
How many hours per day do they use?
Mikek

On 1/20/14, 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:02:11 -0500, Hank wrote:

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?

A calculator.
$50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH
Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day

The only variable is what is your cost for power, more accurately what
is the incremental cost, minus the fixed charges that you pay anyway.
I bet it is less than 15 cents ... unless you are in California.
I pay 13 cents top line to bottom line and using less power would
actually make that more per KWH because the fixed charges stay the
same..



The last time I looked, the rates around here were 8.15 cents to 9.74
cents, so, you're paying about a third more for electric than we are.
Interesting. Must be higher quality electricity.

On 1/20/2014 2:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:02:11 -0500, Hank wrote:

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?

A calculator.
$50 at 0.15 a KWH is 333.33333333 KWH
Divided by 30 is 11.111111 KWH a day

That's 11- 100 Watt bulbs for 10 hours per day.
More than I use, but not beyond belief.
Mikek

On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote:
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

Math.

Where did I lose you.

I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents.
I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style.
If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now.
Mikek

Awesome.

On 1/20/2014 3:26 PM, Hank wrote:
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.

Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... Just want
to put lamps up, that lamp....

On 1/20/14, 4:14 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:40 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 2:17 PM, Hank wrote:
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

Math.

Where did I lose you.

I used the cost of a kWh as 13 cents.
I assumed the new bulbs use about 10% as much energy as the old style.
If you saved $50, you must have spend $55 before and $5 now.
Mikek

Awesome.


All this higher math...I need to find my college abacus.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:34:30 -0500, Hank wrote:

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.

LOL! I guess I was just flabbergasted.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:36:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

Nah, 15 rounds is plenty.