Are You Ready to Ditch the Classic Light Bulb?

Oh, you mean this? But it's not a light bulb, it's a heat source.

Nope, and thanks to the Texas Legislature, i won't have to.

Maybe we will have to smuggle them from Mexico.

Oh, wait, did I misread your response? Is the TX legislature makng you "Ditch the Classic Light Bulb", or enabling their use for an extended time?

Nope the US EPA is. Texas however just passed a bill that states that any incandescent bulb manufactured in the State of Texas, and is not shipped outside of the state is not interstate commerce and therefore not under the purview of the EPA and is perfectly legal. I may just look into seeing what it would cost to manufacture them....

Gotcha

Man, I just love the Texas attitude.

Isn't the 10th Amendment a beautiful thing?

Their manufacture and sale in state are protected by it but their use may be questioned.

The tenth Amendment may all so be the undoing of such state legislation. All the fed has to do is to imply that it effects interstate commerce. Which in the consumption of energy it will. So there fore it will effect interstate pricing of electricity. Texas is still on the grid. The higher state usage of electricity by use of incandescent lighting will in effect push the price up. Which will effect the price of electricity out of state.

Good point.

It may be a good point, but I ain't messin' with Texas.

Also, it doesn't really matter how many bulbs I replace when you see my A/C units running 24/7 in all this blasted heat.

Actually Texas is on it's own grid...

Not completely ESCOT handles most the state. There are parts of it that extends into other states. As there are parts of your state on another grid. Doesn't matter they are all connected.

Actually it is called ERCOT... but you are mostly right...

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/mediakit/maps/NERC_Regions_color.jpg

Actually it is my understanding that the tie lines between ERCOT and the other grids are fairly low capacity and we can't push or pull much power to/from the other grids very effectively. so ERCOT is essentially an island to itself. As to the commerce clause, expect to see the Courts limit the commerce clause fairly severely in the coming months. Obamacare tried to stretch the commerce clause far from it's intended purpose or even reasonable interpretation by claiming choosing not to engage in economic activity (being self-insured) is economic activity in of itself. Congress tried to use the Commerce clause to justify a 1000ft "no gun" barrier around schools and had it's arse handed to it in the courts, so they went and rewrote the law and reinstated it, but it is unenforceable because of the court ruling and they are essentially in contempt of court because of it. The commerce clause is not an infinitely flexible membrane that can be used to wrap anything anyone might want up in a cloak of constitutionality. The federal Government has some rather rigid limits it must stay within.

Thats great, otherwise China will have the grip on workd market for these light bulbs. unless it is sold as a heating element.

I wonder if the idiots that thought of this, or the same idiots that thought of the low water flush toilets. The kind to have to flush twice just so the tp will flush down

I foresee many dark days in our future. Our economy is shot and most of us, myself included, cannot afford these new and mostly untested lamps. They have not been in use long enough to be certain of ther life expectancy or efficiency.

Read an interesting article, about 6 months ago, about a German fellow, who calculated out his light bulb needs, til the end of his days, and went out an bought an equal amount of bulbs, before they were banned in Germany, in the near future--Others have picked up on it--The one technology that i have found interesting is the LED technology. C. Crane just sent a flier on some new bulbs, that look interesting. Don't know the color spectrums (Kelvin), but would like to know if from others, more informed, if they feel that we can bypass the mercury laden bulbs for the newer kid on the block--Just interested--Thanks, Mc

The LED bulbs for general illumination are VERY expensive. Home Depot is selling some for around $40. No, not a case, each.

I don't buy the expected life either. One look at any of the LED traffic signals will clearly show "dead pixels". Those have not been in use very long.

It would be foolish to be on the bleeding edge of this technology because you will pay the price.

I have been buying all the 60, 75, and 100 watt bulbs that I can find. These incadesent bulbs always worked well for me. In my radio shack, I have a good supply of 12 volt, 50 watt bulbs for backup.I bought several of these Mercury bulbs when they first came out, . I think I gave like $7.50 a piece for them. Not one lasted a month in my house, or the radio shack. Worst bulbs I ever used, and the lighting was terrible.I throwed the last bulb in the trash, and have bought all the old bulbs I can find. Most were around $1.23 each, so I was buying them by the case. I have bulbs every where. Since I live way out in the Ozark woods, I really don`t think anyone is going to be checking. I can`t quote on the LED bulbs, to exspensive for my taste. They have to find me first, before they can do any thing to me. I just don`t see that happening. Have fun guys, I will. Bob KC0VEA

The infernal revenooers will gitcha sooner or later; better hide that still, too!

Actually, my experience with CFLs (compact fluorescents) has mostly been good, though recently one died prematurely, and I got the wrong color temperature for my dining space. I haven't yet tried LEDs except in flashlights.

I like to try new things, but I hate to be forced into it.

Incandescent bulbs are out here in Australia. I was in Finland and went shopping. I found 240V 75 Watt bulbs (useful as ballast in AC/DC valve/tube radios) for 2 Euros each (about $4). The best one was Italian-made, 8000 hours rated. Most were 1000 hours rated.What is hour rating of 110V bulbs?

110V bulbs have varying expected lives depending on things like whether they are actually rated for 130V or whether they are graded as rough service bulbs.

Yes, we will bypass the compact fluoro lamps with LEDs. With any product, there is a bathtub curve of failure, with a small rapid failure rate initially, a long low failure rate, and then a gradual rising failure rate as the product approaches old age. With the number of LEDs out there, you must expect some failures early in the peace. Think about it, and you will realise that the PERCENTAGE of dead ones you have seen has been rather small. Also one manufacturer may have been careless in monitoring the production line. Also the failed LEDs may have been running at too high a current. This causes a higher failure rate.

As to colour rendition, yes they are b...y awful at the moment. Most white power LEDs are a blue LED bombarding a fluorescent layer. They tend to to have a bluish halo and are a bit harsh because the emission spectrum is limited, not broad like incandescent. However when they start using tri-colour fluoro material, like in standard fluoro lamps, there should be an improvement in colour rendition.

What are you talking about??? Hardly untested...incandescent bulbs have been banned in Europe for several years now. I've had CFC lamps last 6 months and some that have been up several years. Which is about the same life span as my classics, it's hugely affected by cycles rather than on-time.

Mind you, I hate the colour and lack of lumens...Going from a clear 100W bulb to a "frosted/pearl 100W equivalent" is like stepping down from 100W to 60W classic...simply not bright enough.

And as for start up time...flipping useless. The cats knocked something over last night, I switched on the light, peered through the gloom and then went to the bathroom for 5 mins while the lamp warmed up. No flipping use in an emergency of if being attacked. Hurrumph.

While I'm ranting...why don't house builders/electricicians put a switch for the hall light at the top of the stairs. like they put a landing light switch at the bottom? It would be much safer as then you're not walking down in your own shadow.

I have also had some interesting experience with some of these LED lamps. They explode. Seems to be related to using cheap capacitors...

I plan on setting up an incandescent light bulb smuggling operation with friends in Texas using illegal aliens as mules to deliver the goods to the rest of the US of A. Gonna make a killing, just like my Grandpa did during Prohibition.

But you didn't read that here...

Hooker

The LEDs are very expensive, I bought one the other day for $40 (the flood light equivalents are more like $65) as a test. 5 days in it is pretty good, only 1,090 more until it pays for itself.

Don't know what the problem is. Some one in Europe already has the answer sell them as heat lamps. Which got around the legislation.

How am I suppose to cook cake in my Suzy Bake Oven with LEDs?????

I replaced all my incandescent bulbs with daylight CFs (about $1.75 each at Home Depot) about 3 years ago. So far one bulb has burned out. I don't care much for the color, but then again I was never that crazy about incandescents either. I do worry about the mercury though. For obvious reasons our eyes work best at ~6000K black body curve. Neither CFs nor incandescents come close. When the price comes down I'll try the 'full spectrum' LEDs.

It's interesting that most of the contributors to this post are from the USA, and advocating "business as usual". Hmmmmmm.........

Considering the direction this topic has taken.

Its interesting to note. I watched an Inconvenient Truth last week, for the first time. Took an environmental course and was required.

Seems to talk about as much to do with getting back at the people that scoft this hypocrit of an author and his struggles, as what was actually said about GW.

The movie should have been called Mein Kampf, but I guess that was already taken.

I'll one up you For decades in the HVAC world EVERYONE used a refrigerant called R22. It's great stuff. Then came the whole scam known as "the ozone hole". A lot of Chicken Little types demanded we rush to change. Argue that point all you wish. When the dust settled our fearless leaders decided R22 was pure evil and must be ELIMINATED! In it's place came R410a. Well the R22 was about $35 a can, the R410a is around $200. So an entire industry was forced by law to buy all sorts of new equipment, test gear, training, etc.

Uh oh, "Houston, we have a problem". The R22 was contributing to the ozone hole but guess what? It turns out the R410a has a slight side effect as well. Turns out when it finds it's way to the atmosphere it contributes to GLOBAL WARMING.

So depending on the junk science panic of the day we'll just keep switching refrigerants and raising the price as we go.

"According to a 2004 Gallop poll, 45% of the US said that they were creationists. This is creationists in general, not YECs or OECs specifically."

Not sure how accurate that is, and I agree about some iffy research, but I (for one) don't think GW is yet on the scam list.

Taxation is going off at a tangent a little, but the healthcare system here does not exist to simply cater for the feckless/bone idle. People are often in need of help, but have no resources, through no fault of their own. We prefer not to turn a blind eye and shirk social responsibility. Calm down, I don't think you meant it in quite that way, and the UK does have an idiotic support culture in many situations. Perhaps this paragraph is one for discussion someplace else. Back to the topic....

I'm not persuaded by the currently available alternatives to 'classic light-bubs'. They don't seem to last anywhere near as long as often stated, and don't take kindly to being switched on and off to much. The extra material (and substances) used in construction is also questionable. In blighty, the heat of a conventional bulb is directly useful in winter.

45% of the US said that they were creationists.

Really, that seems quite high, they really must have problems in science in the schools systems

I read it on the internet, so it's true .

CR4, alas (maybe not), does not represent people as a whole. This thread seems to suggest GW is a hoax/balls. I'm just having my 2 cents to say I disagree. However, it's off the topic.

As to the original question, I'm of the opinion that we should question this insane dash to 'low energy' bulbs. The case is not proven.

Kris you can use halogen. It's 'incandescent' and not on the obsolete technology list as it gives more light per Watt in. They are also better 'radiant heaters' than a Swan globe.

Yeah, but doesn't halogen have to be fitted on a glitzy bike ? My ceiling just wont take the weight

It's NOT business as usual. Come to my house and count the CFL's. You might be surprised. BUT, the gubmint outlawing a particular type of bulb is ballocks. I have some applications where an LED or CFL installation is laughable. A basement or attic that is only rarely accessed is absolutely STUPID to install one of these alternative bulbs. Give me break. We are not all "ugly" Americans. We are a nation built upon the concepts of liberty, something that eventually made it to your shores!!! (But these days, I have to wonder.)

The joke is, on a farm, we will use light bulbs to keep a water pipe from freezing

Just curious about conditions on your side of the pond:

• Do your engineers have the same level of disrespect for scientists that is often expressed on this site? Are climate scientists regarded as a 'criminal conspiracy?
• Is there a ground swell of support for the proposition of re-engineering society and politics to create a word more to the liking of...oh say Ayn Rand's fictional character John Galt?

To answer your first point: Yes, when they stray beyond their research into the realm of politics. And yes climate scientists are a criminal conspiracy.

To answer your second point: No, because you are starting from a false premise. Society does not have to be re-engineered to conform to an Ayn Rand type society. It is, was, and always will be already. She merely recognized the laws of human nature. Any re-engineering would be to try to deviate from that and any deviation is ultimately doomed to failure. Europe's experiment with socialism will fail and fail catastrophically. America's flirtation with the same will end the same way if we cannot stop it in time. And yes, there is a HUGE groundswell of support to stop it. It is called the Tea Parties, perhaps you've heard of them?

Not true at all. There is a difference between altruism and socialism. The fundamental difference is that an altruist does not have to be forced to be altruistic. force negates altruism. Socialism FORCES people to be "altruistic" but if they are forced to do it, and not doing it out of their own free will, then it isn't altruism, it is theft. There was a study done a while back that found that conservatives gave far more to charity than liberals did. Liberals felt someone ELSE should pay for social services...Ayn Rand did not say that you COULD NOT give altruistically, she said you should not have to be FORCED to do so.

Better dead ehan Red.

Sort of like those insisting on raising taxes.....No one is stopping them from voluntarily pay more taxes than they owe. How many do?

OK, let me get this right, YOUR ideas of doing away with free trade and getting the government to take care of everyone who doesn't want to work is the same altruism as someone sacrificing their life for family or country? The trouble is you really believe (with all the others who give you GA for that kind of circular self gratifying logic) that you are a better person for it, above all us selfish people who read smutty books.

THAT (mandating CFLs as a means to reduce the defense budget) is the most far-fetched logical (illogical, in reality) path I've EVER seen trod by a supposedly intelligent interlocutor.

No wonder we are getting such weird laws on the books, if THAT kind of thinking can be used to justify them.

Good ad hominem. Can you make an actual argument? I think the connection is pretty clear. No oil money sloshing around the mid east would eliminate funding for terrorists. No oil in Iraq would have kept that problem small and local.

I agree with your thoughts on this subject. The US, while still the largest giver in the world, seems to be trending into this "me" direction. You can see it in the lack of trust in government, church, schools, employers, etc. The truth/falsity of global warming isn't really the issue, it is the total lack of trust people have for institutions these days. The tea party is just the latest incarnation of this selfish mode of thinking. I'm not suggesting we turn into Norway, or even Canada, but we are not heading to the left right now, we are going to the right.

And that is a good thing. it will be the ONLY thing to save this republic. Liberalism is evil.

I really have a problem understanding this apparent split between engineers and scientists. It would seem to me that many of the toys, tools and processes that engineers use in their work were originally developed by scientists. What would you do for a living if the scientists 'shrugged'?

No, Scientist develop and prove out a thoery. The engineer puts it to practical use such as to make many of the toys, tools and processes that engineers use in their work.

Sometimes they need to develop new equipment to 'prove' a theory. I'm sorry if my choice of words was confusing - I think my point is reasonably clear and straight forward. By the way, since you want to nit pick my word choice, scientists don't 'prove out a theory'; they like other mortals don't 'prove' anything. They amass evidence that appears to support or undermine a theory.

1. The "climate crisis" appears that it is being hawked by a bunch of scam artists who have figured out how to make a buck out of nothing (i.e., trading carbon credits, anyone?)

2. Atlas Shrugged is as much about a group of disillusioned idealists coming together to create a better world from the ruins left by a bunch of self-interested socialists as it is about the glory of the individual. It took a great deal of altruistic cooperation for Galt and his group to actually put together their private retreat.

3. I'm sorry. I missed the smutty parts. Actually, I missed all of the smutty parts in all of the Rand books I have read, although I have not read them all. Can you cite a smutty passage for me so that I can return to the source and verify that Rand is, actually, an author of smut?

Thank you.

I think Charlie was mostly joking about the smut... implying that liberals would classify a book about unbridled capitalism as pornographic (from their pov)...

I think they will have to pull the incandescent bulb from my dead lifeless hands. My hands certainly won't be cold! I like them not only as a light source, but as a heat source. I use a combination of F12 and incandescent bulbs to actually SEE projects on my workbench. In the winter, I change out the 60W bulbs to 100W to add to my warmth. There are also incubators and such that use bulbs as a heat source. I built a makeshift outdoor shelter for a homeless cat in a sub-zero winter. You think I was gonna waste money on a heating pad? (scratch scratch) That cat is sure grateful to Mr. Edison. I think it's pretty pretentious of the government to tell me how to use the energy that I am paying for!

You have a good point about some uses for light bulbs that are actually working as heat sources. Not so much your point about use of energy that you pay for. You pay for part of it. We all pay for the military to keep the supply lines open - this is an indirect subsidy. If the oil companies and tanker operators paid for their own security the price would skyrocket.

Actually they do. Haven't you noticed all the Somali pirate activity? the US Navy is doing very little about it, as is most other navies as well.

It's kind of ironic that fighting the Barbary pirates were one of the factors in Congress funding of ships leading to the birth of the US Navy in 1794.

Not the navy, that was the ongoing fights with the British that caused the formation of the US Navy, but it was why the US Marines were formed.

"From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

I am by no means a Navy history expert, but had read something awhile ago regarding the pirates and US Navy.

But from this link to Wikipedia (i really hate using them as source):

United States Navy recognizes 13 October 1775 as the date of its official establishment, when the Continental Congress passed a resolution creating the Continental Navy. Soon after the end of the Revolutionary War the last ship was sold and the Continental Navy was disbanded. Eleven years later, conflicts between American merchant shipping and pirates in the Mediterranean Sea led to the Naval Act of 1794, which created the US Navy. The original six frigates were authorized as part of the Act. During the next 20 years the Navy fought the French Navy in the Quasi-War, Barbary states in the First and Second Barbary Wars, and the British in the War of 1812.

Halogen aren't banned & do everything incandescents do with less energy

I just bought some CFL's with reflectors [mock floods] for $0.50 each

I see the representatives of political nihilism are here

when there is a choice between increased profits & acting in furtherance of the greater good, how often will the greater good win out?

oh sure the justifications will be endless

regulation is a reaction to a lack of restraint in the free market

instead of destroying [or adding another layer of oversight] a system because it could work better, we need fix em

it's much easier to just throw up our hands & pine for "the good ol days" & look for someone to blame

Fancy that, a comment about doing the same thing with 'less energy' - and recognizing the least light efficient end of incandescent technology is what is actually being 'pressured into obsolescence'

GA

It is worth to make an economic study of using incandescent bulbs and paying for air conditioning in summer with that of using non-incandescent bulbs and paying for heating in winter.