|
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 11:11 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:15:27 -0500, Hank wrote: 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. I have a pretty good mix of different types of lamps in my house. I am OK using CFLs or LEDs in places where they are appropriate but that is not everywhere. Lighting is not that big a part of my electric bill anyway. I use motion lights virtually everywhere and we don't have that many lights on around here if we are not right there. Other than specific task lighting, it is pretty dark here compared to what I see at most people's house. The most prevalent bulb here is a 15w "sign" bulb and most are on a dimmer. http://cdn3.volusion.com/pgvz3.tq439...os/L-107-2.jpg As we age, mu wife and I both need more lighting to see better. We save about $50 a month since switching to LED Seasonally it's 15 to 30%. To me, that's significant. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 9:16 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 9:00 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: 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. The package I have says it will last 22.8 years at three hours a day until the bulb burns out. In 22.8 years, I suspect the bulb between my ears will dim, if not burn out entirely. I read somewhere...maybe it is a false memory...that you shouldn't put two of these bulbs in a multi-bulb fixture. But there's nothing on the packaging that says that. I'd like to find some "candleabra" LED bulbs. We have a zillion of them in the house and in our outdoor garage and porch fixtures. Your 22.8 years has expired. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:04:57 -0600, Califbill wrote: We seem to have a lot more gun violence these days is very correct! Why more these days? Maybe because we have turned in to a welfare society? Because we opened a war on drugs, and made drugs very, very profitable? Actually we "seem" to have more gun violence because the media has raised it to the lead story every night. The reality is that crime is down, gun or otherwise with a lot more guns out there. Crime may be down, but more gun violence in that remaining crime. I also look at it from a 70 year olds viewpoint. Back to my youth, and we had fist fights not gun fights. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 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. 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. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 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. I found this little equivalency chart. Don't know if it is reasonably accurate: Lumens to watts table for incandescent bulbs light bulb watts Fluorecent / LED lumens incan Flourescent 375 lm 25 W 6.23 W 600 lm 40 W 10 W 900 lm 60 W 15 W 1125 lm 75 W 18.75 W 1500 lm 100 W 25 W 2250 lm 150 W 37.5 W 3000 lm 200 W 50 W The three way LEDs are really expensive. As in, Yikes! |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 12:50 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 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. 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. That's not bad but still like having a 1500 watt space heater on for a third of that time. If you replaced them all with the 800 lumen LEDs your total power consumption would drop to that of a single, 75 watt bulb. We haven't gone crazy with replacements at our house but when a bulb burns out or a CFL dies, we replace it with an LED. |
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. |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
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 |
Bad outcome
|
Bad outcome
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. :) |
Bad outcome
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 |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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.... |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
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. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 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.. Heres my avg monthly kwh for the past 5 years 2078 2301 2326 2089 1784. Have fun with those numbers. |
Bad outcome
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:04:34 -0500, "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. I honestly don't think shutting my lights off completely would reduce my bill by 13%. We seldom have more than five lights on at a time, and that includes the porch lights. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote:
Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 4:24 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk Remember the movie "Wild Wild West," with all the steam powered contraptions and gadgets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Wild_West The gadgets and contraptions were steampunk. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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. He's got some crazy ideas about souping up his guns. Don't listen to a word he says. |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:30 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 1/20/14, 4:24 PM, Hank wrote: On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk Remember the movie "Wild Wild West," with all the steam powered contraptions and gadgets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Wild_West The gadgets and contraptions were steampunk. Amazeing! Is there anything that you don't know? |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 4:31 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote: 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. He's got some crazy ideas about souping up his guns. Don't listen to a word he says. I do? What might they be? |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 4:24 PM, Hank wrote:
On 1/20/2014 4:15 PM, KC wrote: Sure, but I don't want my lamps to look like SteamPunk... :) Just want to put lamps up, that lamp.... What is steampunk https://www.google.com/search?q=steampunk&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=kJ bdUvK6MIWHrgHO_ICACg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=104 7&bih=511#q=steam+punk+machines&tbm=isch |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
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. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek |
Bad outcome
On 1/20/14, 4:40 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/20/2014 3:18 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: 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. You're not that old, you probably had a TI-30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-30 Note the Red LEDs. Mikek I believe the HP-30 and most other scientific calculators appeared after I had received my M.A. We had a couple of clunky desktop calcs in the math labs and our trusty K&E sliderules. In those days, you actually had to know how to do the math, not that I was ever a whiz at math, but I did ok. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com