Re: Vanity lights 1. The make short CFL bulbs, they will fit just fine. I use them in my small desk lamps. 2. The base is white, it reflects nearly as much light as a mirror, so it does not lose 50% of the light that would be reflected. The cone of the shadow is only slightly larger than the screw base of the bulb, so the net difference in light is negligible. 3. Valid, but has absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous discussion. 4. See previous discussion re:dimmers. Again, has nothing to do with "shadow of the base" or OPs point.
Bar lights: 1.&2. Has nothing to do with "shadow of the base" 3. See #2 under vanity lights.
Front door light: 1. Maybe, but see #2 under vanity lights.
So, you've given no clear examples, and only one "maybe" example of instances where the ballast causes a shadow that makes them unacceptable.
They do not "pump out radiation and mercury vapor". They give off EM radiation, aka "light" and "RF", not ionizing radiation, and their RF emissions are fairly small. They contain mercury vapor, but it doesn't leave the glass tube unless you break the tube. The amount of mercury in a CFL is far less than the amount of mercury put into the atmosphere by burning coal to power an incandescent bulb. Therefore, even if you break a CFL bulb after using it, it will put less mercury into the environment than the extra coal burned to power equivalent incandescent bulbs for an equivalent duration. If you recycle the CFL, it puts even less mercury into the environment.
Turning off street and parking lot lights makes it more dangerous (driving, walking, parking, etc). And, those are almost universally mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium, or LED bulbs, so they're already far more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Turning them off won't save nearly as much power as switching most household lights to LED or CFL.
DC has serious distribution problems. DC is more dangerous and requires larger wires or higher voltage to distribute a given amount of power. While you could make a case for using low-voltage, low-current DC for lower powered devices in house, all running off a single AC-DC rectifier, the difficulties of DC distribution and the fact that every house would need to be rewired and people would need to buy new direct DC devices makes it completely impractical. AC was the right choice 100 years ago, and it's still the best choice (Edison was wrong, Tesla was correct). DC distribution does have some limited uses, but those will remain limited.
And incandescent bulbs haven't been banned. They can still make and sell higher efficiency incandescent bulbs, halogen bulbs, heat-lamps, and specialty bulbs. They're just banning the least efficient incandescent bulbs, and those are going out in phases. Only the 100W and higher bulbs go away in 2012. 75W in 2013, and 60W in 2014. They have newer bulbs producing the same lumens, at 7%-10% lower wattage.
"Many" applications? Seriously? I'll be amazed if you can give a handful of application where the shadow of a CFL ballast makes it unsuitable. Examples please.
And for the others: startup time, flicker, size, EFI: use LED, higher efficiency incandescent, or halogen. All are still legal. color type or quality: use halogen, higher efficiency incandescent, or LED/CFL bulbs of an appropriate color temp. X10 compatibility: haven't tested, but halogen or higher efficiency incandescent will work, LED will probably work, dimmable CFL?. Fixture compatibility: it's a non-issue, all specialty bulbs are exempt from the new regs. Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types.
Dimmable CFLs do work, (they're used in nearly all LCD monitors, other than those that now use dimmable LEDs). Neither is as simple as a dimmable incandescent, but they are available and they do work. However, dimmers designed for incandescent bulbs are not optimal for CFL or LED lights. Your best option to replace incandescent bulbs in dimming fixtures are the newer, more efficient incandescent or halogen bulbs, or replace both the dimmer and the bulbs.
BTW, only standard bulbs are affected by the new regulations, specialty bulbs (e.g. "decorator", "teardrop", "sconce", etc.) are not affected. These are the types of bulbs most frequently used with dimmers.
I never said there aren't valid uses for incandescent bulbs (particularly halogen bulbs), I only challenged the OPs statement, and I fully expect him to fail to provide a single valid example that justifies his statement.
I agree with the concept, but I disagree in practice. Tools, copyrightable material, patentable materials, etc developed in part or in whole with public funds should be owned (in part or whole) by the public (i.e. the gov't). Whether those items are then put into the public domain, or whether the gov't receives it's share of any royalties can be decided on a case by case basis.
Some may ask, why should I pay a royalty to use something I already paid to fund? First off, all taxpayers funded it, yet not all taxpayers will use/benefit from it, therefore, it's appropriate to charge those who use/benefit from it's use. Second, if companies are making a profit selling products using those copyrights/patents, the taxpayers who funded it should receive some return for their investment. People in other countries may benefit from it as well, yet they didn't pay the taxes to fund it, so licensing it is again appropriate.
The inventors, authors, etc. and any non-public funds investors should also have partial ownership. I don't think we want the government involved in marketing patent and copyright licenses, so the licensing should be handled by commercial or non-profit entities who would receive a "commission" for each sale/license.
We should all sue BT, after all, they claim they invented the hyperlink, therefore, they should be liable for the damages of malicious hyperlinks. My theory is based upon the premise that the most effective way to fight abuse of the legal system is to use it against the abusers thereby costing them billions of dollars. Call it an "economic sanction".
According the the linked article, an update from NYT indicates that they sent the email. It was supposed to go to 300 people, instead, it went to all 8M people with NYT accounts.
I'm well aware of that. And the leap week, while interesting in theory, is an even bigger problem than leap days. We either stick with what we have, or we switch to the World Calendar (despite the objections of some religious groups). This proposal doesn't actually solve any current issue other than most holidays falling on the same day every year. But the leap week reintroduces all the other problems it claims to solve. And holidays that are connected to the lunar cycle will still vary from year to year, as will the solstices and equinoxes. At least the World Calendar offers some useful improvements while only introducing an issue for those who believe that they must celebrate the sabbath every 7th day (which hasn't always been the case, calendars from the past have had non-counted days).
Personally, I say leave it alone, what we have works. But of the alternative proposals, the World Calendar is the best.
If accurate, M-Edge should receive a very large refund from Amazon, along with the reinstatement of the original contract terms. Then, add a very large punitive settlement and all legal costs. And throw in 10% of Amazon's sales for a year just for good measure (since 10% is what Amazon was demanding).
It's all awkward, but it's easier to hide/ignore an extra day than an extra week. We already deal with leap days. But consider the ramifications of adding an extra week to December. What does that do to interest calculations on loans?. New years will be two weeks after Christmas, what does that do to work and school schedules? how do you compare quarterly or annual income/profit when every ~22nd quarter is 14 weeks rather than 13? With a leap week, there will be ~7x as many people born during the leap week as are now born on leap day, so 7x as many people have to deal with whatever inconveniences that adds.
For nearly all the issues they claim this proposal addresses, adding an extra week in December reintroduces the exact same problems on a larger scale. The only issue that "leap week" calendars address that the World Calendar doesn't is keeping the sabbath day every 7th day, but they also introduce their own set of problems that are at least as big as the problems they're supposed to address.
A 12 oz can of Coke is 355ml, a more precise measurement. And 12oz cans, 20oz bottles, and the rare 8oz can/bottle are the only remaining english sizes of soft drinks, most are.5l, 1l, 1.5l, 2l, and 3l sizes now. Automobiles don't use SAE nut and bolt sizes anymore, they use metric. You can remain in denial, but we have been assimilated into the metric system.
Actually, the World Calendar is a far better proposal than this new one. Adding Worldsday and Leapyear Day makes a better system than adding a week every 5-6 years.
Works great, except for those pesky solstices and equinoxes.
Oh, and that leap week every 5th-6th December, is that a work week? Will New Years be 2 weeks after Christmas some years?
And then there is that pesky problem of birthdays. If you were born on Jan 31, May 31, July 31, Aug 31, or Oct 31 (Gregorian), what is your birthdate on the new calendar? What about people born during a leap week? How do you determine their ages for legal purposes?
When would we celebrate Halloween?
And what about interest calculations when there is a leap week? That's gonna mess with some mortgages and other loans. They claim it solves the interest problem, but clearly it doesn't.
As another said, "Simply adjust the earth's orbit so we have 360 days in a year". Well, actually, 364 days a year would work better. And while we're at it, adjust the moon's orbit to exactly 28 days. Those would solve the real issues and give us a truly consistent calendar. Until then, let's live with the messy calendar we have.
As for eliminating time zones, that's an even bigger mess. At least now when you calculate that it's 1am in another time zone, you know with some level of certainty that it's not a good time to phone. Meal times, work schedules, etc would all change with what we now call "time zones", so it would be more confusing, but wouldn't eliminate time-zones at all.
Slashdot Mirror
They do, many new fridges come with LED lighting for efficiency.
Re: Vanity lights
1. The make short CFL bulbs, they will fit just fine. I use them in my small desk lamps.
2. The base is white, it reflects nearly as much light as a mirror, so it does not lose 50% of the light that would be reflected. The cone of the shadow is only slightly larger than the screw base of the bulb, so the net difference in light is negligible.
3. Valid, but has absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous discussion.
4. See previous discussion re:dimmers. Again, has nothing to do with "shadow of the base" or OPs point.
Bar lights:
1.&2. Has nothing to do with "shadow of the base"
3. See #2 under vanity lights.
Front door light:
1. Maybe, but see #2 under vanity lights.
So, you've given no clear examples, and only one "maybe" example of instances where the ballast causes a shadow that makes them unacceptable.
They do not "pump out radiation and mercury vapor". They give off EM radiation, aka "light" and "RF", not ionizing radiation, and their RF emissions are fairly small. They contain mercury vapor, but it doesn't leave the glass tube unless you break the tube. The amount of mercury in a CFL is far less than the amount of mercury put into the atmosphere by burning coal to power an incandescent bulb. Therefore, even if you break a CFL bulb after using it, it will put less mercury into the environment than the extra coal burned to power equivalent incandescent bulbs for an equivalent duration. If you recycle the CFL, it puts even less mercury into the environment.
In short, your post is pure bunk.
Turning off street and parking lot lights makes it more dangerous (driving, walking, parking, etc). And, those are almost universally mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium, or LED bulbs, so they're already far more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Turning them off won't save nearly as much power as switching most household lights to LED or CFL.
DC has serious distribution problems. DC is more dangerous and requires larger wires or higher voltage to distribute a given amount of power. While you could make a case for using low-voltage, low-current DC for lower powered devices in house, all running off a single AC-DC rectifier, the difficulties of DC distribution and the fact that every house would need to be rewired and people would need to buy new direct DC devices makes it completely impractical. AC was the right choice 100 years ago, and it's still the best choice (Edison was wrong, Tesla was correct). DC distribution does have some limited uses, but those will remain limited.
And incandescent bulbs haven't been banned. They can still make and sell higher efficiency incandescent bulbs, halogen bulbs, heat-lamps, and specialty bulbs. They're just banning the least efficient incandescent bulbs, and those are going out in phases. Only the 100W and higher bulbs go away in 2012. 75W in 2013, and 60W in 2014. They have newer bulbs producing the same lumens, at 7%-10% lower wattage.
"Many" applications? Seriously? I'll be amazed if you can give a handful of application where the shadow of a CFL ballast makes it unsuitable. Examples please.
Oops, my other reply was for the parent, not your post.
I forgot nothing. I challenged an absurd statement.
I never said there were replacements for incandescent bulbs for every situation, read my other responses.
I never said they were, I just challenged the absurd statement the OP made.
I addressed dimming in this post.
And for the others:
startup time, flicker, size, EFI: use LED, higher efficiency incandescent, or halogen. All are still legal.
color type or quality: use halogen, higher efficiency incandescent, or LED/CFL bulbs of an appropriate color temp.
X10 compatibility: haven't tested, but halogen or higher efficiency incandescent will work, LED will probably work, dimmable CFL?.
Fixture compatibility: it's a non-issue, all specialty bulbs are exempt from the new regs.
Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types.
Dimmable CFLs do work, (they're used in nearly all LCD monitors, other than those that now use dimmable LEDs). Neither is as simple as a dimmable incandescent, but they are available and they do work. However, dimmers designed for incandescent bulbs are not optimal for CFL or LED lights. Your best option to replace incandescent bulbs in dimming fixtures are the newer, more efficient incandescent or halogen bulbs, or replace both the dimmer and the bulbs.
BTW, only standard bulbs are affected by the new regulations, specialty bulbs (e.g. "decorator", "teardrop", "sconce", etc.) are not affected. These are the types of bulbs most frequently used with dimmers.
I never said there aren't valid uses for incandescent bulbs (particularly halogen bulbs), I only challenged the OPs statement, and I fully expect him to fail to provide a single valid example that justifies his statement.
Not from an energy usage point of view. Please give at least one example.
Lemmings.
Great old game.
websites, and "cloud computing" require a constant internet connection. Apps don't, they can actually do useful work any time.
The iPad doesn't have a retina display, only the iPhone 4/4s
Paul Christoforo of OceanMarketing.
I agree with the concept, but I disagree in practice. Tools, copyrightable material, patentable materials, etc developed in part or in whole with public funds should be owned (in part or whole) by the public (i.e. the gov't). Whether those items are then put into the public domain, or whether the gov't receives it's share of any royalties can be decided on a case by case basis.
Some may ask, why should I pay a royalty to use something I already paid to fund? First off, all taxpayers funded it, yet not all taxpayers will use/benefit from it, therefore, it's appropriate to charge those who use/benefit from it's use. Second, if companies are making a profit selling products using those copyrights/patents, the taxpayers who funded it should receive some return for their investment. People in other countries may benefit from it as well, yet they didn't pay the taxes to fund it, so licensing it is again appropriate.
The inventors, authors, etc. and any non-public funds investors should also have partial ownership. I don't think we want the government involved in marketing patent and copyright licenses, so the licensing should be handled by commercial or non-profit entities who would receive a "commission" for each sale/license.
We should all sue BT, after all, they claim they invented the hyperlink, therefore, they should be liable for the damages of malicious hyperlinks. My theory is based upon the premise that the most effective way to fight abuse of the legal system is to use it against the abusers thereby costing them billions of dollars. Call it an "economic sanction".
Shhhh! Don't tell the grunts, they might just find a way to do it.
Well, apparently it does when compared to the military simulators.
According the the linked article, an update from NYT indicates that they sent the email. It was supposed to go to 300 people, instead, it went to all 8M people with NYT accounts.
I'm well aware of that. And the leap week, while interesting in theory, is an even bigger problem than leap days. We either stick with what we have, or we switch to the World Calendar (despite the objections of some religious groups). This proposal doesn't actually solve any current issue other than most holidays falling on the same day every year. But the leap week reintroduces all the other problems it claims to solve. And holidays that are connected to the lunar cycle will still vary from year to year, as will the solstices and equinoxes. At least the World Calendar offers some useful improvements while only introducing an issue for those who believe that they must celebrate the sabbath every 7th day (which hasn't always been the case, calendars from the past have had non-counted days).
Personally, I say leave it alone, what we have works. But of the alternative proposals, the World Calendar is the best.
If accurate, M-Edge should receive a very large refund from Amazon, along with the reinstatement of the original contract terms. Then, add a very large punitive settlement and all legal costs. And throw in 10% of Amazon's sales for a year just for good measure (since 10% is what Amazon was demanding).
It's all awkward, but it's easier to hide/ignore an extra day than an extra week. We already deal with leap days. But consider the ramifications of adding an extra week to December. What does that do to interest calculations on loans?. New years will be two weeks after Christmas, what does that do to work and school schedules? how do you compare quarterly or annual income/profit when every ~22nd quarter is 14 weeks rather than 13? With a leap week, there will be ~7x as many people born during the leap week as are now born on leap day, so 7x as many people have to deal with whatever inconveniences that adds.
For nearly all the issues they claim this proposal addresses, adding an extra week in December reintroduces the exact same problems on a larger scale. The only issue that "leap week" calendars address that the World Calendar doesn't is keeping the sabbath day every 7th day, but they also introduce their own set of problems that are at least as big as the problems they're supposed to address.
A 12 oz can of Coke is 355ml, a more precise measurement. And 12oz cans, 20oz bottles, and the rare 8oz can/bottle are the only remaining english sizes of soft drinks, most are .5l, 1l, 1.5l, 2l, and 3l sizes now. Automobiles don't use SAE nut and bolt sizes anymore, they use metric. You can remain in denial, but we have been assimilated into the metric system.
Actually, the World Calendar is a far better proposal than this new one. Adding Worldsday and Leapyear Day makes a better system than adding a week every 5-6 years.
Works great, except for those pesky solstices and equinoxes.
Oh, and that leap week every 5th-6th December, is that a work week? Will New Years be 2 weeks after Christmas some years?
And then there is that pesky problem of birthdays. If you were born on Jan 31, May 31, July 31, Aug 31, or Oct 31 (Gregorian), what is your birthdate on the new calendar? What about people born during a leap week? How do you determine their ages for legal purposes?
When would we celebrate Halloween?
And what about interest calculations when there is a leap week? That's gonna mess with some mortgages and other loans. They claim it solves the interest problem, but clearly it doesn't.
As another said, "Simply adjust the earth's orbit so we have 360 days in a year". Well, actually, 364 days a year would work better. And while we're at it, adjust the moon's orbit to exactly 28 days. Those would solve the real issues and give us a truly consistent calendar. Until then, let's live with the messy calendar we have.
As for eliminating time zones, that's an even bigger mess. At least now when you calculate that it's 1am in another time zone, you know with some level of certainty that it's not a good time to phone. Meal times, work schedules, etc would all change with what we now call "time zones", so it would be more confusing, but wouldn't eliminate time-zones at all.