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

Sure, why not? Rates will drop like a stone and we'll be awash in so much of the stuff that we'll run space heaters in our refrigerators just to keep it from spilling out on the floor.

Cheers, Paul

I see you would rather make a fool of yourself than discuss the issue.

You succeed rather well at your wishes. You are indeed a fool.

So, what about nukes? What is it that you're asking? I'll check back with you after I finish watching Bill O'Reilly. Thank you.

Cheers, Paul

In article , snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | On 24 Jun 2008 03:16:08 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | | >In article , snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul M. Eldridge) writes: | >| On 22 Jun 2008 17:16:51 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote: | >| | >| 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. | >

| >I get kind of confused when several variables change at once. :( | >Assume that I use the same ballasts I was using 20-30 years ago | >and also assume that I don't like the lower illumination from the | >60W tubes so I use the current more expensive 75W tubes. (Both | >assumptions happen to reflect reality. :) How does my energy usage | >today compare to my usage when I could get the cheap 75W cool white | >tubes? | | | Hi Dan, | | If your 75-watt replacement tubes are driven by the fixture's original | ballast, wattage remains the same -- again, about 180-watts in total. | | | >| 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. | >

| >Can I get energy saving magnetic ballasts to drive 75W tubes at higher | >efficiency or do they depend on using the 60W tubes? | | | You can; as is true of your current ballast, energy saving magnetic | ballasts are compatible with both 60 and 75-watt lamps.

Can you recommend a specific part? Mine are actually single tube fixtures so this would be for one F96T12 tube. I'm assuming that energy saving magnetic ballasts save energy by putting out less heat rather than, say, by not driving the tube as hard. Is there any downside at all to using them?

| However, if | you plan to replace the ballast, you might as well switch to an | electronic version and pop in a couple T8 tubes;

I tried electronic ballasts at one point but they generated too much RFI (interfering with, IIRC, low-band VHF television and AM radio) and they also caused problems for my X10 (power line control) devices. Based on more recent experience with neighbors' CFLs and even the "electronic transformer" on a reading lamp I'm a little skeptical about the value of the FCC label. :( Can I do anything useful with T8 tubes and magnetic ballasts?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Hi Dan,

There's really no downside as such, but not a whole lot of up either given that with the exception of the limited watts saved all the other limitations previously noted still apply. I'm afraid I can't recommend a specific part because I use electronic ballasts exclusively, but hopefully others in this group can offer their recommendations.

I haven't personally encountered any of the issues you mention and my firm installed several hundred of these ballasts at a major defence contractor, including their test labs where they use highly sensitive bench equipment (FWIW, we use only Osram Sylvania's Quictronic ballasts). I might suggest trying one out to see how it works, and if you're not completely satisfied exchange it for an ES magnetic; alternatively, give Sylvania a call at 1-800-LIGHTBULB and relay your concerns to them directly prior to making your purchase. Good luck!

Cheers, Paul

On 6/24/2008 4:49 PM krw spake thus:

Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the NYT *is* a certified fool.

>>>

Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you aren't always sure with the NYT.

|> 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. | | Where do you draw that line? ...other than the obvious fraud | involved.

I draw the line where the decisions affect the public in general, the nation, and the economy. For it to be a violation, there has to be regulations or laws in place. There are lots of little lines to draw, and I don't have all the answers. I just know that where thet are drawn now isn't good enough.

|> 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? | | You can jail them for fraud. How do you jail them for bad financial | decisions? Your answer is too simple to be of use.

See above. If the decision involves something that will have an impact beyond just the deciders finances, or the finances of his company, then it needs to be regulated/legislated. The specifics would depend on what is involved. There are lots (thousands) of little areas that might be subject to this.

What I'm proposing is the general idea. Specifics still need to be worked out.

|> 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. | | What do you propose to make illegal that isn't already?

I don't know, yet. If everything done by that executives that caused this mess really is already illegal, then lets put the bastards in jail. If we can't (now) then we need to explore why not and fix things so we can in the future (and make sure they understand these changes).

|> |> |> | 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. | | They may have merit but are irrelevant to the point being raised in | this thread. IOW, a strawman (or red herring - take your pick).

Well, for the original thread topic, yeah, China is irrelevant.

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 24 Jun 2008 17:20:49 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>| Hi Phil, |>| |>| Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply |>| opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogen? |>| ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt |>| incandescent and lasts up to four times longer. |>| |>| If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC |>| MR16 are some of the best available. |>| |>| See: |>|

|>

|>5000 hours? Not all that good. Half will be burned out in 3 years of |>regular use (about 5 hours a day). | | | Hi Phil, | | In the context of a regular A19 incandescent lamp with a nominal life | of 750 hours to 1,500 hours, 5,000 hours strikes me as pretty good | (since our original conversation pertained to standard household | incandescents, I limited our options to incandescent and halogen light | sources).

If the ordinary bulb ratings are only that (I really haven't looked in ages, since I rarely need to buy them), then the numbers are different. What I read in the referenced PDF was that these 5000 hour ratings is a

50% remaining rate. That's NOT what I see for regular incandescent bulbs at 750 hours. Oddly enough, the bulbs that seem to burn out the most are the ones in various table lamps subject to lots of vibration. All the bulbs in all the hanging lamps and all the ceiling cans have not burned out in the 5 years I've been in this house (that my mother had built and my father now owns). Most of them are on all evening.

| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents | have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you | indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in | your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I | presume we can rule out metal halide as well.

That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen and shop).

| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the | generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg | into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg | contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure | landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas | the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately | pollutes our air, land and water.

But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house.

Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved.

That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability (provided it is done in the right way).

More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT are much more subtle.

I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen source may be a better option.

Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change that, at least not overnight.

With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we all know who that is, right?

Cheers, Paul

Hi Phil,

As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of:

Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a precaution.

Cheers, Paul

| As with the halogens I identified above, incandescent lamp life is | based on the same 50 per cent rule -- that is an industry-wide | standard. For a graphical representation of this, see page 2 of: | |

Then something's out of whack somewhere. I see far more than 50% of bulbs last beyond 750 hours of usage. That didn't catch my attention before as I did not assume something like the 50% basis.

|>| If long life is important, some of the new Philips T8s fluorescents |>| have a rated service life of up to 46,000 hours but, then, as you |>| indicated in another thread you refuse to use linear fluorescents in |>| your home due to potential concerns related to Hg. On that basis, I |>| presume we can rule out metal halide as well. |>

|>That's not my primary concern. It is a concern, and one that _may_ limit |>my use of them. My primary concern is the poor spectrum (not the color) of |>every fluorescent light I have ever seen. What I am referring to is that |>the spectrum is not as uniformly continuous as incandescent. These are |>therefore ruled out for critical task lighting areas (especially kitchen |>and shop). | | | Sorry for my confusion. When you said "What about long tube | fluorescent lights that I also refuse to put in my home for the same | reason?" in relation to our other discussion pertaining to Hg, I | understood the word "refuse" to be an absolute.

It might be absolute. I'm actually undecided at the moment. This applies to the design of my new home, which I have not timeline, yet, for building. I'm refusing to put fluorescent fixtures into that design unless and until I see some solid proof I should not be concerned with it.

| If your primary concern is good light quality, there are fluorescent | lamps with a very high CRI such as the Philips TL930 (95 CRI) and | TL950 (98 CRI), but if you require something better than that, it's | probably best to stick with an incandescent or halogen source. And if | you're concerned your access to these lamps may be restricted at some | future date, you can always stock up on whatever you use now as a | precaution.

My primary concern is an aspect of light quality that has nothing to do with the CRI rating. As I understand it, CRI refers to the balancing of color in the spectrum within the confines of how human eyes perceive it so the color of illuminated objects looks correct or natural. My concern is more with the way the spectrum affects contrast edges given that human eyes, and worse when corrective or magnifying lenses are involved, do not focus the light spectrum at a single point. Under a single visible wavelength, contrast edges always look as sharp as the viewer can see them. Under a broad continuous spectrum of white light, the edges will be slightly blurred, but will be uniform. But, under a the harsh light of 3 distinct single wavelengths, that edge will look like 3 distinct colored edges. That's the worse situation. Fluorescent light corrects this poorly because its spectrum has "hills and valleys" despite the color balance being a reasonable white. LED has the same issue but I think there may be more hope to correct this for LED than for FL (since FL has been around for so long and this hasn't been fixed). Some HID has less of an issue with it. MV and MH are bad, but HPS seems to be OK (though it has very poor color in the eye of many).

As for stocking up, I'm not worried. There will be a black market. There always is. It's not like they are going to put that much effort into this. It's not like pirating software/music/movies.

In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: | On 25 Jun 2008 07:10:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge wrote: |>

|>| Although it varies by state, if we use the U.S. national average, the |>| generation of those additional 6,100 kWhs would release 80 mg of Hg |>| into the environment. At least with the fluorescent lamp, the 1.7 mg |>| contained within can be recycled or properly disposed in a secure |>| landfill (thereby potentially reducing our exposure to 0 mg) whereas |>| the 80 mg of Hg released from the burning of coal indiscriminately |>| pollutes our air, land and water. |>

|>But at least those other releases of Hg are not released in my house. | | I've broken a number of fluorescent lamps over the years and when one | crashes to the floor I basically follow EPA guidelines; for me, it | hasn't been a concern. For those who are uncomfortable about the | prospect of cleaning up a broken CFL, an incandescent or halogen | source may be a better option. | |>Hg is not by primary reason for avoiding fluorescent lights. But it is |>one and would be the primary one if the light quality issue gets solved. | | Some are ok with the light, some aren't, and some of us are willing to | trade-off a bit of light quality for the other benefits they provide. | You have to decide for yourself what makes sense for you.

If I get past the Hg issue, I will put FL in some places but not in others. That is, unless the address the light quality issue that I am concerned about. Areas where I will be working for more than 20 minutes at a time will have incandescent/halogen lights.

|>That's not to say I like the idea of releasing Hg into the air. For every |>incandescent lamp used, we should depricate an equivalent amount of coal |>burned. I'm all for building lots more solar/wind/hydro/nuclear capability |>(provided it is done in the right way). | | I think we have to acknowledge the basic truth that incandescent lamps | use, on average, four times more electricity than their CFL | counterparts and that over half of the electricity currently generated | by U.S. utilities is coal fired and that more coal-fired plants will | be built to help meet future load growth. Nothing is going to change | that, at least not overnight.

If they come up with suitable replacements, I'm fine with using them. Maybe the Hg issue won't be much of one. I'm considering the fact that so far I have never broken an FL light outside of some intentional acts when I was a teenager. The spiral of CFLs seems to be a stronger glass than the long tubes, as well.

FYI, I also intend to avoid the E26 screw base in as many places as I can.

| With respect to utilities switching to cleaner sources of power, my | sense is that most folks support the idea in principle -- they just | don't want to pay for it by way of higher electricity rates. If | utilities are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in these | alternate sources (and, at the same time, write-off their previous | investments in dirty coal), someone is going to foot the bill and we | all know who that is, right?

We have a broad spectrum of people out there that range from wanting to have the lowest price at everyone else's expense, to those willing to pay triple and more to ensure they impact no one else. It will be interesting to watch.

I say "tax it". If you don't want certain things done and can show a good cause why (it impacts others in some way), then tax it. That comes down to electrical usage. Raise the tax on the _generation_ of electrical power that is made from coal. Or just tax the measured pollution produced (leaves open the possibility of developing better cleaning processes). I'm not concerned with the banning of A19/E26 white incandescent bulbs because there are plenty of alternatives. The yellow insect bulbs can be used for reptile warming. I can go with new fixtures that use bi-pin halogens, especially at low voltage.

If I were caught under the silliness of California's law that requires a certain amount of lighting be the high efficacy type, and focuses on the kitchen, where I need good quality task lighting the most (and generally for no more than an hour or two a day, except on 2 or 3 holidays a year), then you will see HPS lights (unused) dominating the kitchen while I still used localized halogen task lighting there.

In alt.engineering.electrical Doug Miller wrote: | In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: |>

|>David Nebenzahl wrote: | |>> Anyone who expresses a preference for the /National Enquirer/ over the |>> NYT *is* a certified fool. |> Not really. You always know the National Enquirer is lying, but you |>aren't always sure with the NYT. | | More to the point: the lies in the NE are obvious, whereas those in the NYT | are much more subtle.

The NE knows that everyone knows they are lying. They don't try to hide it. The NYT tries to make sure people don't know they are lying.

Hi Phil,

A couple possible explanations. One is that although a standard

100-watt incandescent has a nominal service life of 750 hours, the 25, 40 and 60-watt versions are typically rated at 1,000 hours. Secondly, manufacturers have been introducing products that are shifting the balance between higher lumen output and longer life further towards the latter, so you may have noticed the elogic lamps in the above link have a rated life of anywhere from 1,125 hours (95-watt) to 2,250 in the case of the 40-watt equivalent. Line voltage and the use of dimmers can also dramatically affect lamp life.

Fair enough.

If you're extremely fussy about spectral distribution, I don't see any clear winners. Philip's new MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps are arguably the very best the industry has to offer; you can see its distribution graph on page 2 of the following spec sheet and draw your own conclusions.

See:

The spectral performance of their TL930 and TL950 lamps can be found here:

Sounds reasonable.

Cheers, Paul

Exactly; taxes and tariffs and import controls for no reason other than to satisfy some lobbyist is why Canadian softwood lumber cost US builders more in the US than it does in Canada; due to protectionist tariffs and import restrictions! (About $2000 per house is one estimate!) Anyway; with the bottom dropping out of the US house market Canadian lumber producers have been market diversifying. Along with increasing demands from China and India but with increasing fuel/energy costs for cutting, sawing and transporting etc. the cost will no doubt be a lot higher if/when US demand returns! Unfortunately the blame game continues; in this instance the US government protecting the US lumber industry, (in the USA many woodlots are privately owned) versus claim that Canadian companies are also subsidized because they are paying too low stumpage fees for cutting on publicly owned forest land. China doesn't seem to care as long as it gets wood!

This sounds really odd north of that 'longest undefended' border. Where the USA, rightly or wrongly has a reputation of being one of the most protectionist states in the Americas; whether it is cheaper lettuce from say Chile or taxing imports from elsewhere to 'protect' US industry/agriculture or lumber! Maybe where defence is involved one can understand; the 'Eurofighter' may be a better aircraft but it may be better to have Boeing or Northrupp actually make them??? But the signs are there; other nations are going their own way and depending less on imports/exports from/to the USA as they diversify and rationalize their own industries and agriculture etc. BTW we use cheap light bulbs; about one dollar per pack of four (including our federal sales tax of about 13%) for 40, 60 or 100 watts, in part for heating. Our small bathroom heater rarely cuts in when the six 40 watters (total $1.50) above the vanity are on. And the el cheapo bulbs last for ages. Works fine because we never need (or even own) Air Conditioning.