http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin

wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin


Why? I quit using them 20 years ago and never looked back. Try to be
brave.

On Jun 5, 11:10*pm, dave wrote:
wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin

Why? *I quit using them 20 years ago and never looked back. *Try to be
brave.

Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s...

On Jun 6, 1:57*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:10*pm, dave wrote:

wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin

Why? *I quit using them 20 years ago and never looked back. *Try to be
brave.

Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s...

Be careful "shaking that head" thing.....someone may call you on
it. ;-)
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.

On 6/06/2010 4:36 PM, Gregg wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57 am, wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:10 pm, wrote:

wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=290585

Load up on LOTS of Incandescent Light Bulbs.Hoard them.Get a Lifetime
supply of them, before it is too late.
cuhulin

Why? I quit using them 20 years ago and never looked back. Try to be
brave.

Hoarding light bulbs... shakes head and :-)s...

Be careful "shaking that head" thing.....someone may call you on
it. ;-)

Why shouldn't he do it? You do it all the time, even with all the "loose
screws". Such a risk taker, eh?

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.

It's a great pity you didn't use the "common sense" test when you allied
yourself with the trolls. But then, common sense isn't a very common
commodity in your neck of the woods, is it?

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.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally "saw the light" and recanted your bat
signal to the DTS. That "backchannel" of yours must really have been
buzzing after Nurk got his signals crossed!

Krypsis

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in.../lightbulb.htm

Before the invention of the Incandescent light bulbs, there was Arc
Lights, sort of like striking an Arc with an electric welding
machine.They were very Bright harsh lights too, but they didn't last
long.

We can weld anything but the crack of Dawn ~ old Shack's Welding shop
(radio commercials) that used to be across the mighty Pearl River from
doggy's couch.

And Dawn was a good old gal.
cuhulin

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.

You know what a Radiometer is, I have two of them.If I set them in the
Sunlight or near an Incandescent light bulb, the little black and white
vanes spin around fast.If I set them near a flourescent light, the vanes
do not spin around at all.Light, real Light has mass and pressure.In
outer Space, there are a few devices which use Solar Sails, the Light
from the Sun gives them power to soar through outer Space.

Incandescent Light Bulbs are the Best Light Bulbs.
Stock up, hoard those Incandescent Light Bulbs.Fill up your closets and
attics and basements with Incandescent Light Bubs.
In the Land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is King.
cuhulin

On Jun 6, 8:54*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
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.

On Jun 6, 8:54*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.