On 10-12-28 11:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
On 12/28/2010 10:19 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...
Yes, flourescents do promote more rapid fading, depending on the
pigments exposed.
...

If fluorescents provide that type of attack on the chemical coloring,
oxidation, weakening of bonds, etc., then I would expect an equal attack
on bacteria organisms ... perhaps a noticeable germicidal effect ...
wow, maybe my lights are giving me added benefits!

Regards,
JS

Fluorescent lights have been known to degrade food quality in the
stores. Clear/translucent plastic containers for milk or juice help the
process. Vegetables and fruits also suffer. Nourishment is secondary to
a sales promoting display.

RHF will be along in a moment to accuse me of practicing anti-lumenism
and then provide sixty links referring to himself referring to himself
as the True Light.



mike

An Alternative:

Install dimmers on all incandescent switches.
Install incandescent bulbs for bright lighting when needed.
Most of the time there's no need for full lighting so use the dimmers.

Result: Less electricity used. Bulbs last "forever."
(Incidentally the efficiency is lower -- so what?)

--
masonc

On 12/28/2010 11:46 AM, masonc wrote:
An Alternative:

Install dimmers on all incandescent switches.
Install incandescent bulbs for bright lighting when needed.
Most of the time there's no need for full lighting so use the dimmers.

Result: Less electricity used. Bulbs last "forever."
(Incidentally the efficiency is lower -- so what?)


Dimmers introduce too much noise, causes problems with various
receivers, in some cases, even wireless networks ...

Regards,
JS

On 12/28/10 13:54 , John Smith wrote:
On 12/28/2010 11:46 AM, masonc wrote:
An Alternative:

Install dimmers on all incandescent switches.
Install incandescent bulbs for bright lighting when needed.
Most of the time there's no need for full lighting so use the dimmers.

Result: Less electricity used. Bulbs last "forever."
(Incidentally the efficiency is lower -- so what?)


Dimmers introduce too much noise, causes problems with various
receivers, in some cases, even wireless networks ...

Regards,
JS



Quality dimmers don't produce these artifacts.

On 12/28/2010 12:04 PM, D Peter Maus wrote:

...
Quality dimmers don't produce these artifacts.
...

I have spent $1.98 on a dimmer and I have spent $30.00 on a dimmer, I
see no real difference.

However, I will admit, even CFL's generate noise (and some are worse
than others, and old, failing units can be worse of all.) I took a
weekend and placed a .001 uf, .01, and .1 -- 1,000 volt caps across all
my lights ... the noise is now insignificant ...

Regards,
JS

Should be interesting when they ban incandescents and people go to replace
the headlights in their car, and find they can no longer see the street at
night.


--
- Jane Galt

The reason that Progressivism-Socialism-Communism always fail, is that you
eventually run out of other peoples' money.

On Dec 27, 8:14Â*pm, Neoconis_Ignoramus
wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:48Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:









The California Energy Commission in September 2010 published its 226-
page Appliance Efficiency Regulations, whereby the 100-watt
incandescent light bulb will be outlawed at midnight on December 31,
2010.

Imagine 100-watt incandescent light bulbs as contraband in California
-- persona non gratis -- but illegal immigrants get free tuition --
amigo de bienvenida.

Smuggling bootleg light bulbs into California would be a piece of
cake. Â*Just stuff them inside bales of marijuana. Â*Or line up eight
packs in the cargo bays of Greyhound buses carrying illegals on the
express lane from Tijuana to any of two dozen sanctuary cities. Â*Hey,
wave 'em on in, there's nothing to check there! Â*Ten-four!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...bs_coming_to_c...

I see no diff in incandescent vs. flourescent. Â*The latter lasts a lot
longer, too. Â*Bunch of whining by poor mothe****ers who apparently
can't afford to splurge the extra 2 bones for the better bulb.



You must have missed the part about the toxic mercury in the
flourescent bulbs, and how you van't just throw them in the trash when
they burn out. But go ahead, spend your extra $2 for lights that don't
light as well, and are a toxic hazard.

On Dec 28, 12:56Â*am, RHF wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:32Â*pm, Sheldon Cooper wrote:







On Dec 27, 5:14Â*pm, Neoconis_Ignoramus
wrote:

On Dec 27, 4:48Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

The California Energy Commission in September 2010 published its 226-
page Appliance Efficiency Regulations, whereby the 100-watt
incandescent light bulb will be outlawed at midnight on December 31,
2010.

Imagine 100-watt incandescent light bulbs as contraband in California
-- persona non gratis -- but illegal immigrants get free tuition --
amigo de bienvenida.

Smuggling bootleg light bulbs into California would be a piece of
cake. Â*Just stuff them inside bales of marijuana. Â*Or line up eight
packs in the cargo bays of Greyhound buses carrying illegals on the
express lane from Tijuana to any of two dozen sanctuary cities. Â*Hey,
wave 'em on in, there's nothing to check there! Â*Ten-four!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...bs_coming_to_c...

I see no diff in incandescent vs. flourescent. Â*The latter lasts a lot
longer, too. Â*Bunch of whining by poor mothe****ers who apparently
can't afford to splurge the extra 2 bones for the better bulb.

- Yeah, I remember when you assholes said the same sort of thing about
- Ethonal. Â*It was going to be better for the environment, it was
going
- to make America energy independent. Â*It was going to be great.

At 5% Ethanol a 20 Gallon Tank of Gas has
19 Gals of Imported Oil and 1 Gal of Domestic
Ethanol : That One Less Gal of Imported Oil
and I am OK with that. Â*IMHO - The USA
should be moving to 85% Gas-A-Hol to reduce
Imported Oil by another 10%. ~ RHF
Â*.


You DO know that your messiah, algore has finally admitted that
ethanol is a scam, right?

On 12/28/10 11:57 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:


fades artwork, furniture and wall paper,

Why? Same number of lumens output as the incandescents that they
replace and the same color temperature (in degrees Kelvin) of the
incandescents they replace. No scientific reason in the world why
they would make things fade faster. This "complaint" is pure
hokum.

On 12/28/2010 1:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Actually, it's not.

Flourescents do not produce the same spectra as incandescents. They
may have the same average color temperature, but like white LED's,
with a higher blue and UV output than incandescents, the 'warm' white
color temperature, is achieved by adding red output to the phosphor
until the average color temperature is about the same as an
incandescent, and the eye can't discern a difference. The average is
the same, but the actual spectra produced are dramatically
different.

Yes, flourescents do promote more rapid fading, depending on the
pigments exposed.

Color temperature is a quantitative measure. The higher the number in
kelvins, the more blue the shade. Variations and inconsistencies exist
among manufacturers. For example, some CFLs have a color temperature of
3,500 K [relatively low UV/fading], while other lamps with a daylight
label have color temperatures of at least 5,000 K [higher blue/UV]. Your
particular mileage may vary, but fading with CFLs does not HAVE to be an
issue.

and tend to burn out at about the same rate as real light bulbs.

Not true unless you are buying the really, really cheap "Brand X"
CFLs. It is a -proven- fact that decent CFLs have a much longer
life than incandescents.

On 12/28/2010 1:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

I have had to replace my CFL's at about the same rate as average
price incandescents. Brand appears to be irrelevant. Cheap generic,
or branded GE and Philips, the failure rate is about the same.

In fact, the longest life bulb I've ever used was Halogena by
Philips. More than twice the life of any CFL's I've used, or Philips
non-halogen tungsten.

The average rated life of a CFL is between 8 and 15 times that of
incandescents. CFLs typically have a rated lifespan of between 6,000 and
15,000 hours, whereas incandescent lamps are usually manufactured to
have a lifespan of 750 hours or 1,000 hours. With -either- type of bulb,
longevity will be related to the line voltage and how rapidly the bulbs
are off/on cycled. However, given identical voltage and cycling, CFLs
are clearly superior in terms of life. It is unclear why you are having
such bad luck.

On 10-12-28 04:04 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

I was considering UV lights in restaurants that wash the kitchen in UV
at night to combat e-coli and other germs... I guessing it's already
out there. But NOT in the strength I was thinking maybe even for roach
bug and rat control.

Blind the rats and cook the roaches strategically place the lights to so
that there are NO shaded places.

And it can double as a tanning booth....


Tanned roaches with a light cream sauce sound like a delicacy...be
careful not to overcook, there has to be the slightest crunch
remaining..Keep the garlic butter in the frying pan just hot enough not
to smoke.




mike