(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

Michael A. Terrell · Oct 28, 2003

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <3F9D20DC.12E9F6E8@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

A fluorescent lamp can generate noise above 4 GHz. I use one as a
noise source to test C-Band LNAs, LNBs, and LNCs.

Yeah, really. Of course an incandescent can generate wavelengths
above 4 GHz, too. What freq is green light? Some 400 terahertz? I
don't remember. ;-)

You cant pick that up on a microwave receiver, though. ;-)
--

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

oldsoundguy · Oct 28, 2003

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the

conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Mark Jones · Oct 28, 2003

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being
140 a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates)
between 90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just flicker.
Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

DarkMatter · Oct 28, 2003

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:02:36 -0500, JW <none@dev.nul> Gave us:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:32:42 -0800 DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in Message id:
8otnpvsc8ldc6tug9naiqrsbj6gi01pj7i@4ax.com>:

That is correct. Good catch. The only flaw being that you top
posted the reply. Doh!

Anal-retentive twat.

Retarded Usenet twit!

Jeff · Oct 28, 2003

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:btqopvocnhdh527q111qeio90pvg34avck@4ax.com...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:39:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> Gave us:

5 computers running 24/7

Just keeping the monitors OFF when not in use (not just green
mode... I mean OFF) will save several tens of dollars a month, if they
are CRT types.

Or switch them out for LCD's at 90% typical power savings. Who ever said
LCD's were more expensive? This is especally the case when you go beyond
resisdential and the power company charges you a lot of money per each KVA
of demand.

oldsoundguy · Oct 28, 2003

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being
140 a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates)
between 90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just flicker.
Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't

even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
... could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Mark Jones · Oct 28, 2003

In news:iAvnb.3614$R13.166601@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca (Jeff):

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
message news:btqopvocnhdh527q111qeio90pvg34avck@4ax.com...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:39:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
invalid@invalid.invalid> Gave us:

5 computers running 24/7

Just keeping the monitors OFF when not in use (not just green
mode... I mean OFF) will save several tens of dollars a month, if they
are CRT types.

Or switch them out for LCD's at 90% typical power savings. Who ever said
LCD's were more expensive? This is especally the case when you go beyond
resisdential and the power company charges you a lot of money per each
KVA of demand.

I should let work know about that... we have 400 screens that are usually
on. Wonder how much that could save?

Mark Jones · Oct 28, 2003

In news:btctpv4trjsdfj8ppkvpqog6fkrsddkrb6@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being
140 a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates)
between 90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you
can buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in
a two year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb
(including outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood
lamp over the stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7
year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just
flicker. Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't
even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
.. could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Well good for you, but for the rest of us who ARE in those god-forsaken
places, then CF's DO NOT WORK outside!

Jim Thompson · Oct 28, 2003

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:50:04 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:

In news:btctpv4trjsdfj8ppkvpqog6fkrsddkrb6@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:02:18 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
[snip]
Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just
flicker. Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

it is AMAZING how much some people claim to know when they haven't
even TRIED something! ... the bulbs work outside because they are
confined in fixtures that have glass over same and the fixtures are
under cover, mounted to the building wall. Now this has been this way
for two years without a problem .. IF you are above the Artic Circle,
or in the North woods or Northern Maine or In North Dakota or Montana
.. could be they would present a problem. I am NOT in any of those
god forsaken places!!

Well good for you, but for the rest of us who ARE in those god-forsaken
places, then CF's DO NOT WORK outside!

What is this "it gets cold" ?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Michael A. Terrell · Oct 28, 2003

Mark Jones wrote:

I should let work know about that... we have 400 screens that are usually
on. Wonder how much that could save?

Not only would you save on electricity, but the monitors might last
long enough to become obsolete before they need replaced. I have picked
up a lot of dead monitors that were barely 18 months old, and they had
been run 24/7 till the electrolytics failed from the heat buildup.
--

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

DarkMatter · Oct 29, 2003

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:04:46 GMT, "Jeff" <levy_jeff@hotmail.com> Gave
us:

Or switch them out for LCD's at 90% typical power savings. Who ever said
LCD's were more expensive? This is especally the case when you go beyond
resisdential and the power company charges you a lot of money per each KVA
of demand.

The lag of an LCD refresh makes it impossible for movies or games
where the image moves about a lot.

CRTs have their place... On my desktop.

DarkMatter · Oct 29, 2003

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:35:47 -0500, "Mark Jones" <127.0.0.1> Gave us:

I should let work know about that... we have 400 screens that are usually
on. Wonder how much that could save?

Some folks despise LCDs because they are slow on the refresh (eye
strain returns), and they are small in size. A downgrade for
engineers at workstations with 19 and 21 inch high res, fast displays.

Mark Fergerson · Oct 29, 2003

Rich Grise wrote:

Some outfit apparently called "Jinn Lighting" is making an FCL22,
albeit it's only 8" OD. There's a magnifier lamp right next to me.
Y'know, the kind with the clamp and articulated arm, like a big
Luxo?

Yeah, I got one with a common Sylvania FC22W/WW Circline
bulb in it right (well, on my left) next to me. The bulb
plugs into the lamp, which houses the starter and ballast.

The bedside lamp unit has an FC8T9WW bulb (even though
the label on the base says 22 watts), the ballast is in the
base (the starter is in a little plastic extension of the
bit that covers the gap in the lamp's circle); you just
screw the whole assembly (which is glued together) into an
ordinary mogul socket.

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed;
it just went 'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack
that wound partway around without self-intersecting, and the
guts looked OK upon disassembly. It had worked fine for a
week or so previously, so I didn't buy it broken. I figure
I'm getting my money's worth out of the remaining one.

Mark L. Fergerson

Oct 29, 2003

oldsoundguy wrote:

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough?

Yup! Thanks. In a rough guesstimate, that conversion would
save me 357 kwh per month - very close to $50 off the
electric bill.

What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun · Oct 29, 2003

In article <kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com>,
soundguy2@worldnet.att.net mentioned...

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being 140
a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates) between
90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I

Good enough? It's almost incomprehensible. Lack of punctuation,
paragraphs and the excessive rat turds AKA periods, make it difficult
to understand. You could do a lot better.

was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

The last sentence doesn't make much sense. What _about_ the quality?
good or bad?

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun · Oct 29, 2003

In article <A7adnVpbrOhkvAOiRVn-gA@buckeye-express.com>, "Mark Jones"
<127.0.0.1> mentioned...

In news:kq4spv0f1iaaggncjfbql6u8p1649g64js@4ax.com (oldsoundguy):
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:31:28 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:48:05 GMT, ehsjr@bellatlantic.net wrote:

oldsoundguy wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 04:50:04 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun"
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

In article <3F9B2231.1F7899B3@bellatlantic.net>,
ehsjr@bellatlantic.net mentioned...

My electrical bill was in the 280 US a month range .. lowest being
140 a month .. now it ranges (with a local 30% INCREASE in rates)
between 90 on the low to 180 on the high .. I would say that using
fluroescents is a substantial saving. I have 3 way in the lamps
requireing same. Only those fixtures running less than a 40 watt
sitll have incancescent lamps, as 40 watt is the lowest that you can
buy at present in the CCF lreplacement bulbs. add to that in a two
year time, I have yet to have to replace a single bulb (including
outdoor porch lamps and bathroom lamps and the hood lamp over the
stove top) .. and the new CCF bulbs come with a 7 year warantee.

I assume the high-low difference is seasonal? Heating and/or
air conditioning related? Your low delta is 140 to 90, so that's
a 50 dollar difference. How many incandescants at what wattage
did you replace? How many "rating watts" did you save per
replacement, based on the wattage of the incandescent vs the
wattage of the fluorescent?

SHEESH!! you people are so ANTI saving money you question
everything????

Who is anti saving money???
Is it unreasonable to ask where the 50 - 100 dollar savings
comes from, when that represents about 370-740 kwh lower
energy use at the rates I pay? Since you seem to attribute
it to converted lighting, is it unreasonable to ask how many
fixtures you converted, and what the estimated savings in
watts are for each converted fixture?
How hard could the answer be?

You could say something like
"I replaced 20 75 watt incandescent bulbs with 20
15 watt fluorescent bulbs, saving 60 watts per bulb" or
whatever the actual numbers are.

24 fixtures changed over to CCF 4 two ways .. increasing the
conversion from a 150 watt top to a 300 watt equivalant CCF. Bath 4
100 w rated CCF vs 4 60w incandescents. Kit same story increasing the
amount of lighting at the same time ... converting. fan lites ..
40watt .. strip can lites 4 at 40 watt equavalent. 100watt equivalent
instead of 75 watt incandescent on both front an back porches.
(BRIGHTER and lighter and less cost!!) NOW is that good enough? What I
was originaly saying is BOTTOM LINE I save money .. a BUNCH of money
over a years time .. plus I have replaced ONE bulb and exchanged it on
the warantee! whereas I used to replace MOST of the incandescents at
least twice a year .. the quality of workmanship in todays chinese
light bulb manufacturing facilities and sold under almost everyone's
label.

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just flicker.
Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

Depends on how you define cold. Here in So. Calif., cold is 50
degrees F, and they still seem to work okay. But then this is the
exception.

Is this because the mercury has a difficult time being vaporized when
cold? Anyone know the gory details?

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

Don Klipstein · Oct 29, 2003

In art. <A7adnVpbrOhkvAOiRVn-gA@buckeye-express.com>, Mark Jones wrote:

Note, CF's will NOT work outside when it gets cold... they just flicker.
Unless yours are some new, special type, never-before-seen...

How about Philips 18 watt SL/O "Outdoor" "Earth Light"? That one starts
in temperatures down to even a little below zero degrees F, about -20
degrees C.
In windchills as low as a few degrees F (around -15 C), this one warms
up most of the way to full brightness, but may take several minutes to do
so and can start very dim and even start with an "off" pinkish-red color.
In fixtures that protect it from wind, it can warm up most of the way in
temperatures a few degrees above zero F (or -15 degrees C). In enclosed
fixtures, once it starts it can accumulate heat and warm up most of the
way in temperatures a little below zero F (approx. -20 degrees C).
In an enclosed fixture, this one should work outdors in anything short
of the worst couple nights of an average winter of Chicago!

There is at least one lower wattage in the Philips SL/O series, but it
appears to me that specifically the 18 watt one is the good one.

If you want Cf lamps that are good in higher temperatures, then the 15
and 20 watt Philips SLS ones are good. I have seen the 15 watt one dimmed
by drafts, and these two (and not the 23 and 25 watt ones as far as I
know) are rated for use in recessed ceiling fixtures.

For good efficiency in indoor use, any of the above are normally good,
but in favorable environments I believe the Sylvania Dulux EL series does
even better.

For good fit that requires an overall length not much longer than that
of regular incandescents, the spirals do well. Watch for some specific
unreliable models better known by wattage: 25 watts (probably
discontinued by now), which I found prone to dying very young whether of
the the much-maligned (often deservedly so according to my experience)
Lights of America brand, or of the GE brand (one of the "Big Three" and
mostly reputable). There are two sizes of 24 watt, the smaller one of
which is "mini" and I had one of those die young. But most other spirals
seem to do well. My apartment building has had about 4 dozen 15 watt ones
imported by Abco and having the "Westinghouse" brand, and about 40 of them
are still alive after 22 months running 24 hours a day.

Please read these files in my web site:
http://www.misty.com/~don/cf.html (general info, most by Sam Goldwasser)
http://www.misty.com/~don/cfbest.html (test results, many model-specific)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://www.misty.com/~don/index.html)

Don Klipstein · Oct 29, 2003

In article <3F9F2DCF.8070204@biz.ness>, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Some outfit apparently called "Jinn Lighting" is making an FCL22,
albeit it's only 8" OD. There's a magnifier lamp right next to me.
Y'know, the kind with the clamp and articulated arm, like a big
Luxo?

Yeah, I got one with a common Sylvania FC22W/WW Circline
bulb in it right (well, on my left) next to me. The bulb
plugs into the lamp, which houses the starter and ballast.

The bedside lamp unit has an FC8T9WW bulb (even though
the label on the base says 22 watts),

"Circline" and similar fluorescent lamps are sometimes have the part
number being diameter in inches rather than wattage.

I never did figure out why the other one self-destructed;
it just went 'tink' and got dark. The glass had a nice crack
that wound partway around without self-intersecting, and the
guts looked OK upon disassembly. It had worked fine for a
week or so previously, so I didn't buy it broken. I figure
I'm getting my money's worth out of the remaining one.

Possible design flaw in the fixture building up heat.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun · Oct 29, 2003

In article <3F9E000E.6B390822@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun" wrote:

In article <3F9D20DC.12E9F6E8@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

A fluorescent lamp can generate noise above 4 GHz. I use one as a
noise source to test C-Band LNAs, LNBs, and LNCs.

Yeah, really. Of course an incandescent can generate wavelengths
above 4 GHz, too. What freq is green light? Some 400 terahertz? I
don't remember. ;-)

You cant pick that up on a microwave receiver, though. ;-)

Well, yeah, but..

Hey, I saw a good personalized license plate the other day.

DK RMVR

For all I know the owner could be a Dr. who does circumcisions. :^)
But after mulling what it meant over a bunch of times in my head, I
came up with what my little LED projects do. Remove the dark.
So now it's Watt Sun, Dark Remover.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun · Oct 29, 2003

In article <3F9EFB9F.480B282E@earthlink.net>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net mentioned...

Mark Jones wrote:

I should let work know about that... we have 400 screens that are usually
on. Wonder how much that could save?

Not only would you save on electricity, but the monitors might last
long enough to become obsolete before they need replaced. I have picked
up a lot of dead monitors that were barely 18 months old, and they had
been run 24/7 till the electrolytics failed from the heat buildup.

So what's it cost to repair a typical one with dead 'lytics? How many
caps do you have to replace? Is the CRT still okay? Do other caps
fail soon after the repair? Do I ask too many questions? :^)

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

(10) Technologies That Deserve To Die

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

oldsoundguy

Guest

Mark Jones

Guest

DarkMatter

Guest

Jeff

Guest

oldsoundguy

Guest

Mark Jones

Guest

Mark Jones

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

DarkMatter

Guest

DarkMatter

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Don Klipstein

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor