On 11/29/2014 1:20 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:30 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
For incandescent, yes. But not for LED bulbs. If that were the case,
why would some LED bulbs be dimmable and others not?

"is it dimmable" refers to the use of a phase-cut TRIAC dimmer in combination
with a retrofit LED bulb designed to run on mains power.


No, some bulbs are not dimmable, period. Some are. None work reliably
with triac dimmer controls.

According to independant reviews by people NOT selling light bulbs, some
manufacturers bulbs do.

The ones you are selling do not.


Independent reviews by untrained people are worth exactly what you paid
for them.

Keep reading the funny pages. They're your speed.

snip

It's going to be years (if ever) before such standards are created for
the residential market. There are too many reasons to stick with 117V
wiring.

The standards are being actively developed and have nothing to do with
altering the wiring voltage and everything to do with dimmer and bulb
technology.




And exactly who is "developing" these standards? References?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 12:55 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:09 AM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

"No, unlike incandescent bulbs that work with almost any dimmer, LED and
CFL bulbs perform differently depending on the dimmer you install. You
will need to select a dimmer designed specifically for dimmable LED/CFL
bulbs."

Not if you use Phillips bulbs.

http://www.cnet.com/news/which-led-l...t-for-dimming/

snip remainder



And exactly what are the qualifications of the author? A "text-based
adventure connoisseur"?

I'll believe the engineers who design dimmers, not the funny pages.

Yes, you will believe the engineers from the company whose bulbs and
dimmers you sell; you kind of have to.


No, I don't. I believe them because they are correct. If I didn't
believe them, we wouldn't sell their product.

Oh course you wouldn't.

There are lots of INDEPENDANT reviews out there that do NOT hold the
same views you do.


Independent reviews by untrained people are worth exactly what you paid
for them.

And of course anyone that disgrees with you is untrained.

Keep reading the funny pages. They're your speed.

And of course any independant reviewer that disagrees with you is the
"funny pages".


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:06 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

If they lied in their statements, the FTC would be after them in a
second. They are very aggressive about such things.

Only if people complain first or if the statements are blatent and
very visible as on TV.


Incorrect. The FTC takes actions on their own quite often.

I did not say they lied, which is irrelevant, as they were only talking
about their products.


Either they are correct or they lied. Which one is it?

They were correct in what they said about their own products, but that
is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, observed, or in this case, sold, was less than perfect,
at which point you went off into one of your usual rages.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.

Now you are calling those doing independant reviews the funny pages.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said, just like the "correct
or lied" statement above.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just a thin skinned, egomaniacal playground bully with delusions
of perfection.

--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:33 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

If you must know, Phillips is not considered one of the top brands in
the U.S.

Yeah, they must be trolls.


You said it, not me.

snip

Oh no? ROFLMAO! Who do you think first developed LED bulbs? Here's a
hint: it wasn't Phillips.

Hint:

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 authorized the
Department of Energy (DOE) to establish the Bright Tomorrow Lighting
Prize competition, known as the "L Prize".

On 3 August 2011, DOE awarded the prize in the 60 W replacement category
to a Philips' LED lamp after 18 months of extensive testing.


Yes, but they did not develop the LED bulb. You obviously are not
reading, and arguing for argument's sake.

Neither inventing nor developing something is worth a lot unless you can
actually manufacture it. Witness the failure of the Wright Bros. airplane
company.

snip

Nope. There is no analog TV in the United States.

Tell that to the FCC who is allowing analog stations until Septempber,
2015.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:20 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:30 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
For incandescent, yes. But not for LED bulbs. If that were the case,
why would some LED bulbs be dimmable and others not?

"is it dimmable" refers to the use of a phase-cut TRIAC dimmer in combination
with a retrofit LED bulb designed to run on mains power.


No, some bulbs are not dimmable, period. Some are. None work reliably
with triac dimmer controls.

According to independant reviews by people NOT selling light bulbs, some
manufacturers bulbs do.

The ones you are selling do not.


Independent reviews by untrained people are worth exactly what you paid
for them.

Keep reading the funny pages. They're your speed.

Yep, anyone that disagrees with you is untrained and anywhere it is published
something that disagrees with you is funny papers.

snip

It's going to be years (if ever) before such standards are created for
the residential market. There are too many reasons to stick with 117V
wiring.

The standards are being actively developed and have nothing to do with
altering the wiring voltage and everything to do with dimmer and bulb
technology.

And exactly who is "developing" these standards? References?

I thought you were supposed to be an expert in light bulbs?

If you actually knew anything about such you would know what the
standards groups are.

--
Jim Pennino

On 11/29/2014 10:16 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 12:55 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:09 AM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

"No, unlike incandescent bulbs that work with almost any dimmer, LED and
CFL bulbs perform differently depending on the dimmer you install. You
will need to select a dimmer designed specifically for dimmable LED/CFL
bulbs."

Not if you use Phillips bulbs.

http://www.cnet.com/news/which-led-l...t-for-dimming/

snip remainder



And exactly what are the qualifications of the author? A "text-based
adventure connoisseur"?

I'll believe the engineers who design dimmers, not the funny pages.

Yes, you will believe the engineers from the company whose bulbs and
dimmers you sell; you kind of have to.


No, I don't. I believe them because they are correct. If I didn't
believe them, we wouldn't sell their product.

Oh course you wouldn't.

There are lots of INDEPENDANT reviews out there that do NOT hold the
same views you do.


Independent reviews by untrained people are worth exactly what you paid
for them.

And of course anyone that disgrees with you is untrained.


And what are the qualifications of the guy who wrote the blog? A
"text-based adventure connoisseur"? Some qualifications! Where's his
engineering degree? His experience in test labs?

Keep reading the funny pages. They're your speed.

And of course any independant reviewer that disagrees with you is the
"funny pages".



Any UNQUALIFIED reviewer is in the funny pages. And they are right at
your speed.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/29/2014 10:19 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:06 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

If they lied in their statements, the FTC would be after them in a
second. They are very aggressive about such things.

Only if people complain first or if the statements are blatent and
very visible as on TV.


Incorrect. The FTC takes actions on their own quite often.

I did not say they lied, which is irrelevant, as they were only talking
about their products.


Either they are correct or they lied. Which one is it?

They were correct in what they said about their own products, but that
is irrelevant.


Then you admit they were correct.

The bottom line is that it was implied that something you did, used, made,
worked with, said, observed, or in this case, sold, was less than perfect,
at which point you went off into one of your usual rages.


Nope, no rage here, Jimmy. But once again you've lost it. Just like
you always do, when you can't argue facts, you start with the adhominim
attacks.

Once the rage starts, the other person is a troll, an anonymous troll, a
liar, ignorant, stupid and a few other of your usual ad hominem responses.


You're the one with the attacks.

Now you are calling those doing independant reviews the funny pages.


Because that's what they are. Show me the qualifications of the author.

Once the rage really gets going, you start interpreting what the other
person says as having the opposite meaning to what was said and saying
the other person said things that were never said, just like the "correct
or lied" statement above.


Nope, just quoting what YOU said, Jimmy. But once again, you're off on
your usual tangent when you can't argue the facts.

During the rage you go off onto tangets based on your misinterpretation of
the other persons responses that can only be seen though your blood lust
filled eyes.


I'm not the one on a tangent, Jimmy. I've kept on topic. You're the
one with the ad hominim attacks.

The rage will often continue across topics and sometimes even groups
as blood lust within you boils over.

This will continue until everyone else gives up and you have the last
word.

You are just a thin skinned, egomaniacal playground bully with delusions
of perfection.


Once again you show you've lost it, Jimmy.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/29/2014 10:22 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:33 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

If you must know, Phillips is not considered one of the top brands in
the U.S.

Yeah, they must be trolls.


You said it, not me.

snip

Oh no? ROFLMAO! Who do you think first developed LED bulbs? Here's a
hint: it wasn't Phillips.

Hint:

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 authorized the
Department of Energy (DOE) to establish the Bright Tomorrow Lighting
Prize competition, known as the "L Prize".

On 3 August 2011, DOE awarded the prize in the 60 W replacement category
to a Philips' LED lamp after 18 months of extensive testing.


Yes, but they did not develop the LED bulb. You obviously are not
reading, and arguing for argument's sake.

Neither inventing nor developing something is worth a lot unless you can
actually manufacture it. Witness the failure of the Wright Bros. airplane
company.


Which is completely immaterial. The topic was development of LED light
bulbs. But you can't stay on topic, as usual.


snip

Nope. There is no analog TV in the United States.

Tell that to the FCC who is allowing analog stations until Septempber,
2015.



A few low power stations, with range in the single digits of miles.
Hardly worth commenting on. Nothing worth commenting about, because the
number of people who can receive them is so low.

Effectively the entire country has converted to digital.

And it has nothing to do with the 70 meter band, as indicated in the
FCC's denial of the petition.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 11/29/2014 10:25 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 1:20 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/29/2014 4:30 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
For incandescent, yes. But not for LED bulbs. If that were the case,
why would some LED bulbs be dimmable and others not?

"is it dimmable" refers to the use of a phase-cut TRIAC dimmer in combination
with a retrofit LED bulb designed to run on mains power.


No, some bulbs are not dimmable, period. Some are. None work reliably
with triac dimmer controls.

According to independant reviews by people NOT selling light bulbs, some
manufacturers bulbs do.

The ones you are selling do not.


Independent reviews by untrained people are worth exactly what you paid
for them.

Keep reading the funny pages. They're your speed.

Yep, anyone that disagrees with you is untrained and anywhere it is published
something that disagrees with you is funny papers.


And what are the qualifications of the guy who wrote the blog? A
"text-based adventure connoisseur"? Some qualifications! Where's his
engineering degree? His experience in test labs?

Keep reading the funny pages, Jimmy. They're right up your alley.

snip

It's going to be years (if ever) before such standards are created for
the residential market. There are too many reasons to stick with 117V
wiring.

The standards are being actively developed and have nothing to do with
altering the wiring voltage and everything to do with dimmer and bulb
technology.

And exactly who is "developing" these standards? References?

I thought you were supposed to be an expert in light bulbs?

If you actually knew anything about such you would know what the
standards groups are.


No, I'm asking YOU - exactly who is "developing" these standards?
References? IOW, support your claim.

But you can't, because once again you have no idea what you're talking
about.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/28/2014 11:11 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
No, these have electronic power supplies in them. Otherwise they would
dissipate huge amounts of heat. Think about it. LED's run at about 3V.
That means a 9W LED requires about 3 amps of power. 3 amps at 240V is
720W - or about 711W of power wasted. They would be way less efficient
than any other type of bulbs. Plus LED's run on DC and would not work
as efficiently on 50Hz AC.

9W is an enormous amount of power for an LED. The LEDs used to replace
pilot lamps are normally running 10mA, not 3 amps. This is what allows
a dropping resistor to be used.


You are confusing LEDs with LED bulbs. A 9W LED bulb is equivalent to
about a 60W incandescent bulb.

Ahh, I thought you were talking about the high intensity LED replacements
for incandescent pilot lamps. Not the household bulb replacements. The
house lamp replacements have switchers in them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."