Home Page link

Dimmable CFL

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 5 of 9       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Dimmable CFL Tony Hwang 04-26-2008
---> Re: Dimmable CFL =?ISO-8859-1?Q?...04-27-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by on April 28, 2008, 9:44 am
> =A0d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
> > I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a
> > 230 volt incandescent being powered by 120 volts
>
> Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
> operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
> of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?
>
> I recall that, some >30-years ago, I acquired one or more 130V-rated
> incandescent lamps from one of the local, "city sales" wholesaler. =A0I
> don't remember following-up on the lamp's lifespan, but it was an
> attempt to increase the operating life of a hard-to-reach lamp.
>
> My biggest road block to converting to compact fluorescent lamps is that
> all but one of my most-used light fixtures is controlled by a dimmer
> switch that gets USED.
>
> I need FILAMENTS to illuminate my home. =A0A governmental mandate -
> un-funded, I might add - to force me to convert to CFLs (beginning in a
> couple years) =A0is unconstitutional.
>
> The federal government may NOT legislate the forced conversion to a
> replacement technology unless it can be PROVEN that it is a superior
> technology in ALL ways but, most importantly, retrofit CO$T.
>
> This is the twenty-first century! =A0We can (and should) no longer avoid
> harvesting our own energy resources within our own lands.
>
> Our air and water are cleaner than they have EVER been, yet, during that
> same time, we've been growing and prospering as a society. =A0We've
> learned from our mistakes in the past. =A0When we have an oil spill, it's
> often reported by the gallon instead of the barrel to prop-up the all
> important NUMBER.
>
> A modern oil drilling operation has a surprisingly small footprint. =A0
> When they are done at that location, they restore the site to
> before-drilling conditions.
>
> We need to build more oil refineries domestically then go get more of
> OUR OWN oil. =A0This would certainly slow the RISE in the price of
> gasoline.
>
> We also need to start building more nuclear-powered, electricity
> generating stations. =A0No thanks to prohibitive legislative and
> environmental enactments, it takes YEARS just to do the paperwork for a
> new nuke. =A0That needs to be whittled-down to a couple of years at most.
>
> It's only 2008 and we apparently can't WAIT to forget about 9/11. =A0(2001=

> for those of you that forgot.)
>
> Next March 28, it will be thirty YEARS since the TMI2 (Three Mile Island
> Unit 2) "accident" and we can apparently NEVER forget.
>
> Which event killed more people?
>
> Carbon footprint? =A0When compared to a nuclear power station, an
> equivalent coal-fired operation has a *HUGE* footprint. =A0It's fuel is
> delivered 2-3 times a week by the >100-car TRAINLOAD. =A0It adds to the
> MOUNTAIN of coal that a station keeps on hand.
>
> Omaha has such an operation along the Nebraska side of the Missouri
> river. =A0The railroad tracks bisect the city.
>
> We also benefit from Fort Calhoun (nuclear) Generating Station somewhat
> further north upriver from OPPD's North Omaha (coal-fired) Station.
>
> My utility is currently building a second, coal-fired unit outside
> Nebraska City - about 60 miles south of Omaha along the Missouri river.
>
> I would LOVE another nuke.
>
> But, I digress. =A0Back to Thomas Alva Edison's most earth-changing
> invention: =A0The light bulb.
>
> The federal mandate to phase-out the common incandescent lamp is an
> unconstitutional encroachment on the private sector.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. But I'd like to see on
what basis you think this is unconstitutional. There are vast
numbers of laws on the federal books that ban all kinds of things.
The ban not too long ago on freon is probably the closest example.
Back in the 30's they even banned private possession of gold, which is
extreme, and no one successfully challenged that on any constitutional
grounds.






>
> Banning ourselves (huh?) from harvesting huge fuel resources within our
> own lands is absurd at least. =A0Considering the price of gas, it's become=

> stupid, too. =A0
>
> We really need to grow a BRAIN and a backbone about energy: =A0The BRAIN
> to build it (refinery, drill site or nuke power station) and the
> BACKBONE to OVERCOME all the hand-wringing and shrieks of anguish from
> the crybaby left while it happens - clean, safe and quite overdue.
> --
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 :)
> JR


Posted by Wayne Boatwright on April 28, 2008, 11:00 am
On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...

> Subject: Re: Dimmable CFL
> From: trader4@optonline.net
>
>> (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>> > I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
>> > incandescent being powered by 120 volts
>>
>> Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
>> operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
>> of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?

Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 16hrs 5mins
-------------------------------------------
Hey, I have an idea! Let's all go
spray paint some cars in Singapore.
-------------------------------------------


Posted by Tony Hwang on April 28, 2008, 11:08 am
Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...
>
>
>>Subject: Re: Dimmable CFL
>>From: trader4@optonline.net
>>
>>
>>>(Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I give low odds of its energy efficiency exceeding that of a 230 volt
>>>>incandescent being powered by 120 volts
>>>
>>>Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
>>>operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
>>>of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?
>
>
> Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
> home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.
>
Hi,
Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.

Posted by Don Klipstein on April 28, 2008, 2:04 pm
>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...
>>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Dimmable CFL
>>>From: trader4@optonline.net
>>>

>>>>Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
>>>>operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
>>>>of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?
>>
>> Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
>> home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.
>>
>Hi,
>Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
>Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
>ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
>will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.

The commercial grade, 130V and rough duty ones also produce less light.
A 100 watt one of those is only slightly brighter than a standard 75 watt
one.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Posted by Wayne Boatwright on April 28, 2008, 3:07 pm
On Mon 28 Apr 2008 11:04:17a, Don Klipstein told us...

>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon 28 Apr 2008 06:44:08a, told us...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Dimmable CFL
>>>>From: trader4@optonline.net
>>>>
>
>>>>>Do you believe that 130V-rated (commercial?) incandescent lamps,
>>>>>operating at ~120VAC, are longer-lasting enough to be worth the hassle
>>>>>of getting them (wholesaler) and price, compared to an everyday bulb?
>>>
>>> Yes, I believe that, and almost all the incandescent bulbs I have in my
>>> home are 130v-rated. Their logevity is astounding.
>>>
>>Hi,
>>Definitely those long life commercial grade ones lasts longer.
>>Also there is another one called rough duty ones. They are good for
>>ceiling light or trouble light fixtures. Pretty soon incadescent bulbs
>>will be out of production like diminishing R22 refrigerant.
>
> The commercial grade, 130V and rough duty ones also produce less light.
> A 100 watt one of those is only slightly brighter than a standard 75 watt
> one.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>

True, but I like the color of the light better.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 11hrs 55mins
-------------------------------------------
Reality is not always probable, or
even likely.
-------------------------------------------


Page 5 of 9       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Converting remote controlled, dimmable, incandescent fan lights to flourescent non-dimmable November 23, 2005, 3:24 pm
Dimmable compact fluorescents July 31, 2005, 6:02 am
Re: cfl dimmable at walmart - any experience March 28, 2007, 9:26 pm
Re: cfl dimmable at walmart - any experience March 28, 2007, 6:16 pm
Dimmable compact fluorescent bulbs October 17, 2007, 7:40 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap