Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

...and therefor engine efficiency.

Concentrating on getting the old smokers off the road will do far more good.

I've seen this in my own car. I get about 10% lower mileage with an alcohol mix than gasoline. ...enough to avoid the brands that use alcohol, even if the others do cost 10% more (they usually don't).

Which, as you pointed out, does nothing for a vehicle with a modern fuel system except reduce mileage and pollute groundwater with a nice carcinogen.

Some areas much more prevalent than others. AIUI, it's unavoidable in some areas.

Lose the subsidies and restrictions (including imported ethanol) altogether. Let the market decide.

...and "I've heard" that the only source worth using is cane. Ethanol is the best answer for the current fleet of cars.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

Hi Ken,

Very nice specs. The only thing I know that would come close to matching that in CCT (and it may now be a discontinued product), is something Sylvania sold called "The Incandescent Fluorescent". It was a 40-watt T12 lamp with a CCT of 2,750K and a CRI of 89 or 90, if I recall correctly. In its day, the quality of the light it provided was a huge improvement over a standard warm white tube (52 CRI) and warm white deluxe (mid to upper 70s) -- so good, in fact, many photographers could use tungsten rated film with this lamp and get outstanding results. I liked this lamp a lot, but it only provided

1,500 lumens using standard control gear (~ 34 lumens per watt).

Bäst hänsynen ! Paul

Reply to
Paul M. Eldridge

In article , snipped-for-privacy@trashmail.net (James Sweet) writes: | | | > In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes | > at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume | > they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption | > from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?) | > | > Dan Lanciani | > ddl@danlan.*com | | | Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot | cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.

And 75W F96 tubes, though they cost a little more than the dirt cheap CW versions did. I guess this is great if you like a high color rendering index, but I'm still not clear on how it ultimately helped with energy conservation or efficiency. Now if they had gone on to produce 34W F40 and 60W F96 tubes that put out as much light as the older 40W and 75W versions I could see the justification for the higer costs, ballast replacements, and such in the meantime. But as it is, aren't we pretty much back where we started (from an energy usage point of view)?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

*sigh*

There is a *VERY* simple way to deal with energy consumption, greenhouse gases, climate change and human impact on the environment in general.

Instead of throwing all taxes into a collective pot, tax items at their cost to clean up... at their cost to the environment.

Some examples...

Gasoline: Using gasoline causes greenhouse gases and air pollution in general. Remove all general taxes from it's sale and add a single "cost of use" tax. A gallon of gas would be taxed on what it costs to clean the noxious pollution from the air.

Tires: They pollute the roadways with cast off rubber. The worn out tires need to be processed before recycling or being disposed of. Tires would be taxed based on their mileage rating and treadwear. Basically, take the expected milage of a tire and divide it by amount of material cast off of the tire during it's life.

i.e. 100,000 mile tire, 10 lbs of rubber cast off during it's life: 10/100= tax rating of .1

50,000 mile tire, 10 lbs of rubber cast off during it's life: 10/50= tax rating of .2

Garbage collection: Operating expenses are $xxx per year for garbage collection. It also costs $yyy per pound to process garbage. In a perfect world, you'd pay a yearly "garbage" tax to cover operating expenses and then you'd pay another tax to cover the amount of garbage you produced. Unfortunately, keeping track of the amount of garbage used by each property isn't easy, so taxes would be based an average.

Users would have the option to use a private company to collect and process trash and would be exempt from the government trash tax.

... This could be applied to most government taxation, fees, etc. In the long run it would simplify taxation and cause consumers to consider their impact to the environment. To lower taxes, consumers would opt for items that cost lest to "clean up after".

Reply to
Calab

Hi Dan,

Twenty or thirty years ago, a conventional two-tube F96T12 fixture would draw about 180-watts. Today, with 60-watt lamps and energy saving magnetic ballasts, that number falls closer to 135 or

140-watts, so there's been at least some improvement.

In terms of operating efficacy, a 75-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) is rated at 6,420 initial lumens and powered by a standard magnetic-core ballast (0.88 BF), we obtain about 63 lumens from each watt. A 60-watt Sylvania F96T12/D41/SS/ECO (4,100K/70 CRI) at 5,600 initial lumens and driven by a newer energy saving magnetic ballast would bump that up to perhaps 71 or 72 lumens per watt.

Things do improve considerably once you move to T8. A 59-watt Sylvania F096/841/XP/ECO (4,100K/85 CRI) has a nominal rating of 6,100 lumens and a two tube fixture with a 0.88 BF electronic ballast draws approximately 110-watts -- that puts us in the range of 97 or 98 lumens per watt.

In addition to better colour rendering and higher system efficacy, there's also a 50 per cent improvement in lamp life (18,000 hrs. versus 12,000 at 3 hrs per start), plus no flicker or ballast noise; lumen maintenance is also notably better at 93 to 95 per cent versus

80 to 85 per cent. As an added bonus, T8s typically offer better cold weather performance (e.g., Sylvania's F96T8 lamps have a 0F starting temperature when used with Quictronic ballasts).

Cheers, Paul

Reply to
Paul M. Eldridge

RFI-EMI-GUY wrote: ...

That makes no sense. Ethanol has about 80% the energy of gasoline on a per unit volume basis. Hence a gallon of E10 blend has roughly

0.9*100 + 0.1*80 --> 98% of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.

Hence, for mileage to drop by more than a few per cent is unreasonable--you're quoting numbers as if the entire fuel were ethanol but as if it were only 10%.

If the vehicle actually is requiring much more than that extra 2% on E10, something's wrong w/ the vehicle; perhaps in the emission control system sensors.

--

Reply to
dpb

Right. Greed is good.

A great worthy once said "If not for greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."

Reply to
HeyBub

My vehicle as do many others uses the oxygen sensor in a closed loop to maintain the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio. My understanding is that the ethanol tends to make the system believe it is running to lean and thus compensates by richening the mixture. Whatever the process, this ethanol is causing a lot of extra fuel to be burned by some if not many vehicles and it does not make good fiscal sense. I called my dealer's service manager to ask if he was getting complaints, he said he was getting a lot of complaints and there was no adjustment to the vehicle to compensate.

Reply to
RFI-EMI-GUY

Yes it does not seem to make a lot of sense on a lot of levels.

Reply to
RFI-EMI-GUY

The oxygen sensor in the fuel injection loop is probably seeing to much oxygen and is compensating by richening the fuel air mixture.

I have gas receipts going back at least two years to present so the numbers are real. The drop in economy happened when the new fuel was introduced. I have an OBD II reader plugged into the vehicle at all times, no error codes. The air cleaner is new, the vehicle well maintained. There could be other issues like water in the fuel supply from the dealer tanks.

Reply to
RFI-EMI-GUY

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net | says... |> In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: |> | In article , phil-news- |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> |> In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: |> |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> |>

|> |> |> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like |> |> |> the idea of taxing cheap imports. |> |> |>

|> |> | |> |> | Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public |> |> | policy. Taxes distort the marketplace. |> |> |> |> And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few |> |> places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my |> |> first place, if you need an example. |> | |> | The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout |> | (and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion. |> | Let 'em sink. |> |> Totally unregulated markets are known to have ups and downs that can sometimes |> get way out of whack. The bailout is to avoid a sinking that would just make |> it go even further out of whack, or take other markets down with it. | | Perhaps true, but irrelevant. | |> The regulation I would focus on is to have avoided the whole mess in the first |> place, and provide for a stable growth. The MINIMUM regulation to achieve that |> would be my goal. | | I agree, but also irrelevant. | |> The stupid businesses _should_ sink. But when it's a case of the sinking ship |> taking other things down with it, that needs to be avoided. | | Agreed, but also irrelevant. The *point* is that bailing out those | who made bad bets allows them another chance to do so and telegraphs | a terrible message to everyone else. *THAT* is distorting the | market.

NOT bailing them out just exacerbates the market decline. The correct thing to have done would be to separate the bad decision makers from any benefits of the bailout. Unfortunately, laws are not in place to do that effectively.

There needs to be certain regulations on this. Where bad decisions can only affect ones own profits, the government really has no need to be involved. But where bad decisions can affect the whole economy, the government has a genuine interest to be involved.

Generally, bankruptcy proceedings can separate a loser from his losses. Those who own a losing business get to lose their business that way. That may well be an adequate remedy for situations like this. But if more is needed, maybe jail time for the bad actors?

I did suspect this housing mess needs to have some people put in jail. But the laws may not have made it sufficiently clear to do it this time around. To the extent that is so, the laws need to change.

|> |> | As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in |> |> | Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits |> |> | when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who |> |> | also do what they do best. |> |> |> |> As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But |> |> it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a |> |> hand in the economies. |> | |> | It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics |> | and silly to think they should (not). |> |> How the governments in places like China are managing their economy compared |> to the USA is a big contrast. It puts the USA in a weak position. | | Also true, but irrelevant.

You sure to consider a lot of things to be irrelevant.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote: |> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:48:26 -0500, "HeyBub" |> wrote: |>

|>>

|>> The dirty little secret behind sub-prime morgtages is that they were |>> CAUSED by government regulation. |>

|>

|> They were CAUSED by GREED! | | Right. Greed is good.

Greed is good only to the extent it motivates people to act within the law. The law is good when it ensures that greed has no negative impact on the society as a whole.

| A great worthy once said "If not for greed, no man would marry, build a | house, or father a child."

Lots of non-greedy people accomplish these things.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: |>> snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>>>

|>>> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also |>>> like the idea of taxing cheap imports. |>>>

|>>

|>> Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote |>> public policy. Taxes distort the marketplace. |>

|> And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in |> a few places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to |> mind as my first place, if you need an example. | | The dirty little secret behind sub-prime morgtages is that they were CAUSED | by government regulation. The government required a significant percentage | of banking and morgtage business to take place in "deprived" or | "under-served" areas. Absence of a branch bank, for example, on a street | where the only other retail services were hookers and dope-dealers was | evidence sufficient of discrimination!

There's a whole lot more than that involved. Some mortgage companies were not affected by this beyond the extent to which the whole economy was. Lots of falsified origination took place. Then these instruments were sold improperly to organizations that didn't properly check them out.

| True, and we can take advantage of their foolishness. If Bangladesh wants to | subsidize the manufacture of sneakers by 6-year olds such that we end up | with really swell tennis shoes for two bucks, then I'm all for it.

That's the un-level playing field that can decimate the industries of other countries.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical James Sweet wrote: | | |> |> But only recently the CPU speed increases have slowed down quite a bit and |> the advances are more in the form of more cores. The point being that the |> software doesn't take good advantage of more cores. That will change, but |> for a while not everything will. |> | | | More cores sure do help when running multiple simultaneous programs, | which is far more prevalent than it was a few years back. Also load has | shifted to coprocessors like the powerful GPUs on modern graphics cards. | I'm not seeing any slowdown in the technological advancement. Processors | are still getting faster, hard drive capacity is growing faster than | ever, a $1,000 PC today provides performance far superior to high end | workstations of 5-10 years ago. As for the increases in performance | slowing down, I'll believe it when I see it.

You're not seeing the speed-UP that would have otherwise taken place had there been no limitation on making single CPUs faster and faster at the same rate they have been increased in the past. Processor speeds increments are slowing down around the 3 GHz point. There are faster ones, but the cost spread AND the heat spread are increasing. We should have been at 6 to 8 GHz CPU speed by now, otherwise.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| As for CFLs being made in China, so what? New sources of American Energy are | nukes (blocked by environmentalists) wind energy (blocked by | environmentalists) solar energy (blocked by environmentalists) and | coal-based energy (blocked by environmentalists).

Yes, there are environmentalists blocking nuclear power plants. I happen to be one of the environmentalists that is NOT blocking them. Instead, what I am "blocking" is stupidity by corporate executives and managers. Nuclear power _can_ be safe. But in the hands of corporations that will cut costs by reducing safety, then nuclear power _can_ be very unsafe. Letting the government run them would be no better and probably worse. What we need is a set of strong regulations and regular inspections with public reports.

| America needs 30 new power plants to up the capacity and replace aging | plants. Europe has been using nuke energy for a long time, and they have no | problems with it. But enviromentalists in this country object to it. America | has a few windmill farms, but environmentalists object to them because birds | fly into the vanes, and the NIMBYs object to the view. Solar energy is being | tried in a few places, but the environmentalists object to the space they | demand and the resulting encroachment on habitat. And, we have lots of coal | fired power plants, but environmentalists object to the coal mines and the | soot that is produced.

Europe also runs things differently. They have stronger regulations and actually do inspections by people that have a genuine concern for safety.

We'll never eliminate all environmentalist objections. Europe hasn't, either. But we can find people who do have genuine environmental concerns and do also recognize the need for more power. We need these kinds of people to oversee the whole thing. These people will be neither left-wing nor right-wing on the political spectrum.

| The American Southwest looks like it will be building new homes within the | next decade that are Zero Net users of electricity. These homes will be | built with solar collectors on the roof that will be able to generate | upwards of 10kW, and this will be more than the home needs for most of the | year. Each home will actually generate power that goes to the grid and the | home will get credit on the electricity bill. The credit will then be drawn | against on days when the air conditioner is used, resulting in an overall | zero pull from the grid for most homeowners. I'm sure the environmentalists | will figure out a complaint to lodge ...

There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with something.

By having some "sensible environmentalists" who don't do such silliness, things like this, and building nuclear plants, and solar farms, and wind farms and such, can all be accomplished. Part of the problem, though, is that the way the environment is dealt with by so many corporations (basically shunning all environmentalists as a whole) ends up putting all environmentalists on the same side together. Instead, what we need, is a certainly level of cooperation to meet in the middle. Then the environmentalists that remain to object (who probably object to everything) will be fewer in number.

As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the drilling for oil. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants (under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ... and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC feeders). I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ... desert spaces should be OK). I'm in favor of building wind farms.

My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that has been naturally sequestered. Also, known oil reserves won't last for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at the rate we are growing in our use).

To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas, then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even criminal governments who are the current suppliers.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at which data is supplied to it.

Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs Microsoft has produced.)

With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

Reply to
VWWall

We don't punish motivations. Likewise, the law DOES punish those who, with the best of intentions, have a "negative impact" on society. It is the result of the motivation that counts.

Consider Albert Sabin as he hovered over the microscope looking for a polio vaccine. The many thoughts running through his mind probably included many emotions that people reject: GREED ("If I can whip this, I can do the kind of research I want!), PRIDE ("People will shake my hand and say nice things about me"), ENVY ("And I'm tired of Jonas Salk getting all the praise"), and a whole lot more.

The result, of course, of these despicable emotions was that polio has been eradicated in my lifetime.

Right. The point being that "greed" is not the issue nor should it be punished.

Reply to
HeyBub

In alt.engineering.electrical HeyBub wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>>

|>> Right. Greed is good. |>

|> Greed is good only to the extent it motivates people to act within |> the law. The law is good when it ensures that greed has no negative |> impact on the society as a whole. | | We don't punish motivations. Likewise, the law DOES punish those who, with | the best of intentions, have a "negative impact" on society. It is the | result of the motivation that counts.

Those with good intentions should only make good (make whole) for their errors. If they intended to profit from good intentions, and failed to do so, then they have learned their own lessons. They will act smarter the next time.

Those with bad intentions should also pay more. If not, they may well try again to see what they can get away with. That payment can vary from extra payment beyond making whole, to jail time, depending.

Note, that I do include as bad intentions things like advertising untruths, and mistakes that could have been avoided were it not for cost cutting.

| Consider Albert Sabin as he hovered over the microscope looking for a polio | vaccine. The many thoughts running through his mind probably included many | emotions that people reject: GREED ("If I can whip this, I can do the kind | of research I want!), PRIDE ("People will shake my hand and say nice things | about me"), ENVY ("And I'm tired of Jonas Salk getting all the praise"), and | a whole lot more. | | The result, of course, of these despicable emotions was that polio has been | eradicated in my lifetime.

All these things led in the right direction in his case. It is a case of greed (or pride or envy) leading to something that benefits everyone (or at least doesn't impact anyone).

Something I learned about in business many years ago was the difference between "creating value" and "diverting value". Creating value is when you create something that benefits at least someone while not harming anyone. Profiting from it is quite reasonable. Diverting value is when you profit in some way that takes away from someone. There is a wide scope of this and not all are obvious. This can include price gouging, false advertising, anti-competetive actitivties, etc.

|>> A great worthy once said "If not for greed, no man would marry, |>> build a house, or father a child." |>

|> Lots of non-greedy people accomplish these things. |>

| | Right. The point being that "greed" is not the issue nor should it be | punished.

A"greed" :-) Greed is orthogonal. It can be good or bad depending on how it is applied or used. Misapplication should be punished.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| Beyond a certain CPU speed, other factors have a greater influence on | thru-put. Connection lengths become important, as do parasitic circuit | elements. AMD first exploited this in emphasizing CPU architecture | rather than brute speed. Multiple CPUs and cache memory on chip are | good examples of this. A CPU cannot operate faster than the rate at | which data is supplied to it.

Many of these factors are why CPU speed is not increasing as fast as it used to. We are at a point where speed is an inverse function of size. So every speed improvement in a CPU now has to have a corresponding size decrease. That's harder than speed improvements in the past used to be.

| Present 32bit operating systems are not even capable of directly | addressing over 4GB of memory, even as memory is becoming faster and | cheaper. There are very few applications that can use the advantage of | a 64bit OS, even when it's limited to using more memory.

My 32-bit Linux system has no trouble accessing the 8GB of RAM it has. Your use of "directly" could mean that each actual running program would have its own such access, and there would be a 4GB limit in that case.

| In Windows XP x64, MS resorted to WoW, (Windows on Windows), to allow 32 | bit application to work properly. (It's still one of the better OSs | Microsoft has produced.)

But you have to add a 64-bit layer. My 32-bit Linux gives me the advantages of 8GB of RAM (and I've only populated 4 of the 8 slots, so I could put in another 8GB, knowing that Linux can handle up to 64GB this way). Microsoft chose not to go this way with Windows (XP or Vista). Of course, 64-bit is the way of the future and I'll be doing some 64-bit stuff soon.

| With the present crop of PCs, the eventual bottleneck may become the | BIOS. It's been twiddled, patched, augmented but still is much like the | one produced by IBM for the first "personal computer".

There is a "sand castle" of features added on that make the whole architecture a big mess. I'm referring to the history of things from P&P to ACPI. None of these were truly clean (but clean would have meant a too disruptive change).

| Getting our computers to do more faster, will depend more on better | input-output mechanisms and better applications, rather than on faster CPUs.

Agreed. The applications will get better. We just don't have them all doing that right now. Some do, some don't. And some of the tools meant to help have some issues (for example POSIX threads did not provide a means to let threads keep separate current directory contexts ... Linux can do it, but if used, the pthreads library will fail). I'm looking at building my own thread library right now to handle some of the limitations the current models have.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Possibly in the x86 arena, but this idea originated elsewhere; Sun UltraSPARC IV predated it, and the earlier work of Afara Websystems which eventually led to Sun's original 8-core Niagra SPARC chip.

32 bit OS's have been accessing over 4GB memory for well over a decade. Even PC's, which were probably the last hardware platform to do so, introduced Intel's PAE with the Pentium Pro (1995?).

Databases and other applications accessing over 4Gb of data are not exactly rare.

OK, 64 bit Windows might be of limited use, but don't tarnish all OS's with such a claim. The x86/PC architecture allows 32 bit and

64 bit applications to run together on the same OS (OS permitting).

I don't think any PC OS's still use the BIOS once booted for at least a decade, and in some cases nearer 2 decades.

and better OS's (in multiple respects).

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.