On 06/06/2010 04:46 PM, Gregg wrote:
On Jun 6, 10:02 am, wrote:
I'm with cuhulin on this one.

How do you want to die? Burn to death from the flaky power supplies used in
those damned CFL bulb bases?
Or do you prefer the more subtle means of neurological hemorrhages and
clotting by inhaling the VERY TOXIC
gas that will come out when you accidentally drop one on the floor? No it
won't happen right away...it will
take hold years later, probably by the time you start developing lesions and
growths from that cell phone
you've got glued to your ear.

To believe those things are safe is a fool's denial.

What things? The bulbs or cell phones, or both? FWIW - whenever I use
my cell I use the speaker mode. I feel I know enough to not TX right
on my head. Everytime I see someone using their cell in that matter it
crosses my mind.

And the BT technology, I'm not real familiar with how that works, I
have an idea though. But using anything like that - that someone can
copy what you're saying isn't a good thing IMO and even worse is that
if it's on (though you're not using it) anyone with a lick of common
sense and the correct piece can listen to everything you're doing /
saying / in your vehicle. I suppose many people either don't care or
don't know, it has to be one or the other IMO.

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

On 06/06/2010 04:29 PM, Gregg wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:54 am, "Geoffrey S.
wrote:
Gregg wrote:
I think both lights have its niche. I have two of the newer expensive
ones. They definitely don't produce the same amount of light, though
I'm sure their data says otherwise. I just use the simply "common
sense" test. Pretty simple IMO, hold up an open book and look. Which
type of light makes it easier to read? Until they come up with an even
better type of lite that emits more lite, my majority of bulbs will be
the usual.

The problem is that incadesecnt lights are truely a full spectrum device.
They emit waves from far infrared (heat) to near ultra-violet over a
continuous spectrum.

Most of their output is far infrared, about 90% of the total, and by the
time they get to ultra violet, it's negligable.

Floursecent bulbs emit only ultraviolet light inside, and use that to excite
phospors on the outside of the bulb. They absorb most of the UV light, and
emit single color light. Household bulbs use a combination of the 3
primary colors of light (red, green and blue) to produce what looks like
(but really is not) full spectrum light.

Good explanantion, that made it make sense even too me.



LED's also work the same way, combining but they emit the colors directly.

Both are combined in such a way as to look white. The problem is that the
colors are generally set up to mimic daylight, (the light of the sky
on a clear day), not sunlight. The human eye is used to seeing sunlight, and
is more comfortable reading with it.

OK, copy that too. Can you explain this for me, with the combination
of your radio knowledge and these different bulbs etc. Why in your
opinion won't anyone replace my LED (am I saying that right?) on my
modded 394. I want that crap green gondo and replaced with the indiglo
blue like RadioLabs do with their 398/909.

I asked them and never received a response which was kind of
surprising in how good they usually are in answering emails. Are you
familiar enough with what I'm asking - is it even possible? I know it
can't be for the lack of room because the 909 is a portable and the
394 is a desktop. Can't hurt to ask you - no one else knows
apparently. :-)



Incadescent light is the most comfortable for reading, being more like
sunlight (actually it is even more red).

Ok, would that explain this then? I used to have a reading lite that
was red, it wasn't a hot red or anything - but at least "for me" for
some reason that was the best reading light I had.



As far as efficency goes, incadescent light is about 10% efficent, although
there are more efficent and longer lasting bulbs around, they have never
really been markted effectivley.

LED lights are about 25-30% efficent due to problems with heat dissipation,
the fact they are DC devices in a world with AC power and so on. There have
been claims of almsot 50% efficency in the future, but so far they are just
claims.

Flourescent lights are around 35% efficent, which currently makes them the
leader in lighting.

It's IMHO actually a false claim because due to the difference in spectrum
output, I find that I (and my family) all need higher power lights to read
if they are flouresent. That's why although I've been using CFL's for 13
years or so, we still have reading lamps with incadescent bulbs in them.

Exactly. I tried the newer ones for reading, it just wasn't going to
work for me unfortunately. My hope was to use two of them in front of
the house with each light encased in its own housing. I guess because
of the differences of temperature throughout the day into night/ cold/
humidity etc. they didn't last five months (I think) and they're too
expensive to use them if they're not going to last longer than that.




What I am hoping to see is a varation of the 360 degree LED with improved
efficency. These are similar in design to flourescent lights. The LEDs are
encased in a block of plastic, which instead of clear like traditional
ones flouresceses (glows).

The ones I have been using to replace radio dial lamps glow brightly in
a daylight white color in all directions, I'm hoping to be able to
buy them in "warm" (redder lights for reading) in the near future.

Yep, refer to earlier on my post about the red for reading. I've also
noticed on CB's nowadays. It seems to be the fad of using all
different kinds of LEDS on the radio and Nitro Knobs, from what I hear
they are pretty expensive. There are all kinds of youtube vids of
these radio modded out, I must say they are somewhat eye catching if
anything else. :-)



Until then, IMHO you are wise to replace all of your incadescent lights
for general illumination with flourescent ones, the "regular" kind being
cheaper to maintain than CFL's, but to make sure you have a large supply
of replacement bulbs for your reading lights.

Copy that. Thanks Geoff. I learned a little about lights.

Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light
psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His
place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black
light art. I really wish I had bought some of those.

On Jun 6, 5:52*pm, Bill Baka wrote:

Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light
psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His
place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black
light art. I really wish I had bought some of those.

I remember, but I'd rather not ;-)

On Jun 6, 5:48*pm, Bill Baka wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

I am sure this can be calculated, but not by this guy! :-)

On 06/06/2010 06:55 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:52 pm, Bill wrote:

Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light
psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His
place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black
light art. I really wish I had bought some of those.

I remember, but I'd rather not ;-)

1969 I will never forget. Moon landing, live in 'Boy toy' to a hot
French redhead and her always horny daughter. One worked days, the other
evenings so I was never without. I was grinning ear to ear that year.
That guy 'Bob', on the men's products commercials had nothing to smile
about like I did.
Overloaded on sex at 20 years old. GRIN

On 06/06/2010 06:59 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, Bill wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

I am sure this can be calculated, but not by this guy! :-)

I have a big reason to not want the CFL's in the winter, radio noise.
DX sucks in the summer and the noise level goes up in the evenings when
everybody turns on their energy saving noise makers.

On Jun 6, 7:03*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
On 06/06/2010 06:55 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

On Jun 6, 5:52 pm, Bill *wrote:

Are any of you guys old enough to remember the 70's when black light
psychedelic art was a big deal. There was a place in LA called His
place, a bit religious, but they had some outstanding works of black
light art. I really wish I had bought some of those.

I remember, but I'd rather not ;-)

1969 I will never forget. Moon landing, live in 'Boy toy' to a hot
French redhead and her always horny daughter. One worked days, the other
evenings so I was never without. I was grinning ear to ear that year.
That guy 'Bob', on the men's products commercials had nothing to smile
about like I did.
Overloaded on sex at 20 years old. GRIN

Now THAT'S worth remembering!

On Jun 6, 7:06*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
On 06/06/2010 06:59 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, Bill *wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
...
On 06/06/2010 06:59 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, Bill wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

I am sure this can be calculated, but not by this guy! :-)

I have a big reason to not want the CFL's in the winter, radio noise.
DX sucks in the summer and the noise level goes up in the evenings when
everybody turns on their energy saving noise makers.

Imagine how much MORE efficient those lamps would be if they DIDN'T eminate
energy in totally useless RF ranges...

On Jun 6, 7:32*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message

...





On 06/06/2010 06:59 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:48 pm, Bill *wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I like my filament bulbs in the winter.
The lack of efficiency just helps heat the room I am in, so no big deal.
My summer bulbs are CFL's, soon to be LED's when the price comes down to
something a mere mortal can afford.

In the winter, this is probably true - what you lose on light
efficiency you save on heating. *Then, the question becomes - per unit
of tangible heat energy, what costs less - the electricity to light
the bulb or the "other" source?

I am sure this can be calculated, but not by this guy! :-)

I have a big reason to not want the CFL's in the winter, radio noise.
DX sucks in the summer and the noise level goes up in the evenings when
everybody turns on their energy saving noise makers.

Imagine how much MORE efficient those lamps would be if they DIDN'T eminate
energy in totally useless RF ranges...

Again - mine appear to be radio silont.