A little madness never hurt anybody.
Interesting thread, I am aware that current incandescents are set to be discontinued starting 4 years from now. Let me explain my understanding of the bill clearly. Between 2012 and 2014, the wattage of the 310-2600 lumen range of incandescents must be cut by nearly 30%. By 2020, the minimum of 45 lumens per watt will become a requirement. The energy bill generally only affects general service incandescent lamps in the 40-135 (they say 40-100 watt but since they include 2600 lumens I'm including 135w) watt range. Other types won't be banned but wattage limitations may be set for rough service, vanity globes, and a few other types of incandescents. The bill is totally technology neutral, so LEDs, super efficient incandescents, halogen IRs, CFLs, and other types that may arise will be permitted.
Some of you complained about the yellowish color of incandescents. Let me point it out, incandescents are still technically full spectrum because they are blackbody emitters just like the sun. That's why they look just like sunrises and sunsets. Basically "warm white" versions of broad daylight. I found 2700K CFLs to be worse than incandescents for reading because the color is slightly more hued. I like full spectrum fluorescent tubes though, they have been around for much longer than you think. Duro-Test introduced the Vita-Lite fluorescent lamp in '67, and the major manufacturers have been making Chroma/Colortone/Design 50 lamps since the 70s. They are mellow and pleasant in many applications.
I also have noticed some commentary about the quality of incandescent lamps. I have done lighting maintenance at a couple places before. I have done incandescent, fluorescent and HID. I found the GE incandescents to be extremely consistent. They were used 12 hours a day, 6 days a week on average. The 100w ones lasted about 2 months or 700-800 hours, just as promised on the packages. The 60w ones lasted like 4 months. They were regular 120v soft whites you buy in the stores. The only compliant of mine with GE is that their 15w soft whites only last half their rated lives. I used those in the vintage late 30s exit lights. I also used Sylvania and Philips lamps, they are slightly less consistent (a few of Sylvania's bulbs failed fast) than the GEs but still decent. Eventually I was told to replace some of the most commonly used incandescents to CFLs. While I had some bad experiences with CFLs at home, they do very well at the workplace, especially in hard to reach places because they don't burn out as much. This is where CFLs truly shine, and the slightly lower CRI of CFLs is not critical in these applications.
Meeting the 2012-2014 deadline is easy with halogen IR technology and maybe other improvements to the tungsten filament. In addition, a different type of incandescent lamp using a hafnium carbide filament can reach over 60 lumens per watt. But who knows, maybe LEDs will get super efficient? The reason GE wants to sell the high efficiency incandescents is to make profits by selling high volumes of lamps like they always had for decades as well as keeping their US incandescent factories open. Sylvania also plans to introduce a higher efficiency incandescent lamp.
Just my two cents worth.
Mag-Lite 3AA LED, Mag-Lite 2AA LED, ROV Sportsman 1w Headlamp, Inova Radiant AA, Fenix TK41, Streamlight Junior LED
The 60w GE bulbs made in China, were the bulbs you got the Reveals? Many of GE's Reveal bulbs are made in China. Also in '04 there was a run of Chinese GE soft white bulbs that were awful in quality. Thankfully, they have disappeared from store shelves.
not to highjack the thread, but GE quality in everything is going downhill as far as I can tell. I've purchased several GE major appliances in the last few years, and vowed never to tough the stuff again. Even the little GE toaster that I broke down and bought a week ago is garbage. They aren't making the transition to overseas manufacturing without serious difficulties.
Even the dimmable CFLs don't work with X-10 systems. I should know; I've tried them all. So... you can either rewire your house so that you can use X10 appliance switches (at triple the price of the normal switches), or pitch all your X10 gear.
And of course the ban is silly anyway-- the incan bulbs are only "inefficient" IN THE SUMMER. In the wintertime, they put out heat right where you want it-- in the room you're in. They do not figure this in to their "energy savings" calculations. In an ideal world, you'd run the CFLs in the summer, and incans in the winter.
In the case of electric space heating of a room, running incan lamps, or any sort of electric appliances for that matter is (ultimately) just another form of electric heat, so should theoretically cost the same as running an electric space heater. One exception might be recessed lighting, where a portion of the heat will escape into the walls via the fixture due to conductivity with the bulb base.
One final point to remember is that the issue is reversed for air-conditoined spaces, in that case the "penalty" for running incans is more as the excess heat must be forcibly pumped out. In my case, this is more relevant as I live in Southern California and typically never run any sort of heaters. The issue is also moot when talking about outdoor lighting.
Actually, I am not sure it is too difficult to calculate this.
A perfectly efficient LED (such a thing does not yet exist) would in theory emit 240 lumens/Watt IIRC (someone please correct me if that figure is wrong).
The same 240 lm/W theoretical maximum would therefore apply to any emitter of light.
A 100-Watt incan bulb would therefore emit 24,000 lm if it was perfectly efficient.
Let's say you measure the luminous output of your 100-Watt incan bulb and it emits only 4,800 lm. You would know that only 20% of the energy, or 20W, was being converted into light. The remaining 80W would therefore be emitted as heat.
Lol, there is probably a huge hole somewhere in my logic, and I am sure someone will now point it out!
Resistance is futile...
Also note that practically speaking, LED emitted spectrums will range anywhere from the low 300s to about 400 lm/W. There's no sense imitating a ~200 lm/W broad spectrum. Drop a little off, and the CRI only drops to about 98, but the emitted efficacy increases to the low 300s. Have three or four will chosen colored emitters, and you can get a CRI in the high 80s with an emitted efficacy around 400 lm/W. So 500 watts of 100% efficient LEDs are likely to be close to 200,000 lumens, or equivalent to over 10,000 watts of incandescents.
I don't think losses out of the window are relevant here. I was referring to the production of heat, not how efficiently you use it. If you put a heater outside your house, you would waste 100% of the heat into the atmosphere, but you could not call the heater itself 0% efficient.
Light bulbs consume energy and convert it into heat and light. Nothing else. They don't produce any other form of energy, such as sound (except for the fizzing noise you sometimes hear with fluorescent lights) or any other form of energy. It is all heat and light.
So, the energy consumed that is not emitted as light is all converted into heat. The percentages of each will differ, depending on the emitter type, but the figure will always add up to 100%.
Resistance is futile...
XTension I have LOTS of those switches in the house and CFL's are definitely a problem with the el-cheapo X10 wall switches. i wrote a couple of articles:
if you have multiple fixtures you can often replace all but 1 regular bulb with CF's and as long as there is 1 bulb for the trickle power to passthrough for the switch it will work just fine. I've done this in several places with very acceptable results. Not ideal, but it might get you working with them. MOre info at those links.
Only if you have all electric heat. If you get your heat from gas then thats probably because gas is cheaper per therm than electric where you are, and if you use a heat pump then it's going to be much more efficient than the pure electric heater that your light bulbs are. But if you're on all electric heat, then yes, there is no difference in efficiency between your baseboards and your table lamps. In the summer though, I've had really impressive savings in my AC bill by converting to almost all CF"s over the last few years. My AC will actually cool my kitchen with all the lights on now and it cycles on and off even. When we first moved into this house with rows of 75 watt can lights the AC never kept up while they were on and never turned off the whole day if you had to have the lights on.And of course the ban is silly anyway-- the incan bulbs are only "inefficient" IN THE SUMMER. In the wintertime, they put out heat right where you want it-- in the room you're in. They do not figure this in to their "energy savings" calculations. In an ideal world, you'd run the CFLs in the summer, and incans in the winter.
LUX Luthor, i had a weird idea this last week, and figured that stocking up on INCAN might not be as valuable as stocking up on CFLs :-)
after all if everyone has to change, and its "regulated" the laws of "supply and your damned" comes into play, and the CFL might be the "Hot" item to have owned before the mandate .
i am sure sombodys stocks will change.
market in capitolistic society is based on need=greed, "supply and demand", if you ever find a truely capitolistic society :-) the item most needed will be the one that costs the most.
Last edited by VidPro; 01-07-2008 at 05:13 PM.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...d.php?t=236906 <--HKJs DMM guide.
Ahhh, a quick revisit to my "Govt knows best" topic. I now have what I conservatively calculate to be a 30 year supply of all the incan bulbs of every type I will need in all my fixtures. VidPro, I don't like CFL's, so I'm not going to waste money buying something I don't like or want to use. They look like crap, and don't fit most of the custom fixtures in my house.
Same environmentalist driven illogical approach to toilets. We don't have a water shortage where I live. We have never had a water shortage where I live. Let them use toy toilets where there are too many people for the water supply.....but noooo...the enviro-terrorists must get their way forcing their regulations and bans upon everyone because they know best.
Same illogical approach to banning US offshore oil drilling, resulting in other countries drilling in the same waters instead. Not developing nuclear energy, hydrogen energy, clean coal burning, wasting more energy converting corn to ethanol are more examples of their infinite wisdom. Another example--not allowing sensible logging and replanting--resulting in catastrophic forest fires and more air pollution than all the SUV's on the road. And don't get me started on the imaginary man-made global warming poppycock...just keep your fur coats because the solar cycle experts are certain of a coming mini-ice age.
Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh is my hero.
From what I understand, CFLs are already heavily subsidized, which is why at most stores in my area they're actually CHEAPER than comparable incandescents now. ($1.50/ea as opposed to more like $3/ea for a comparable incan) If anything though, the CFLs will be less attractive after the incan ban, as incandescents will be about 60% more efficient (some of these are already coming onto the market where I live), so the efficiency gain of the CFL will be less.LUX Luthor, i had a weird idea this last week, and figured that stocking up on INCAN might not be as valuable as stocking up on CFLs :-)
after all if everyone has to change, and its "regulated" the laws of "supply and your damned" comes into play, and the CFL might be the "Hot" item to have owned before the mandate .
For retrofits, I'd rather see more research pumped into improving HIR technology, I believe by improving the coatings used, that we could see big improvements there. For example, a higher color-temperature incan lamp could be done not by simply filtering the red light with tinted glass, but reflecting some of it and re-heating the filament. That way there would be a tint change without an efficiency loss. There's also the issue of filaments being easily focusable, and being able to tolerate conditons completely ill-suited for LEDs at present (most incandescent fixtures fall into that category...)
I am not really satisfied with CFLs. By trying to cram an entire ballast and lamp into such a small system, for hte cheapest price psosible, they've ended up a product that is unreliable, and does not distribute light exactly the same as a stock incan lamp, result in weird effects in some fixtures. I like the choice of higher color temps (I prefer 3500k at home in general) but would rather see the promotion of good purpose-built fixtures with high-quality dedicated ballasts -- even linear fixtures -- over kludgy retrofit bulbs. IMHO the diffused light of a good linear tube is more useful than trying to emulate the "point source" of an incan lamp anyway, which ends up resulting in about double the fixture losses, and still results in annoying shadows all over the place. Rooms where I've installed linear fixtures are much nicer as the diffused light eliminated irritated shadows.
So the potato trick is new to me - can't remember when / or even if a bulb has ever done that to me. I imagine that it would still be a good idea to turn off the power first, or does the US have non-conductive potatoes.
A commoner problem for me is the insulation falling off ancient wiring when you replace a bulb. We use bayonet bulbs which can require significant force to insert in the newer "safer" plastic bulb holders. This tends to lead to a loud bang and some nasty smells when you switch the light back on. What genius fitted safety light fitments onto 40 year old wiring? Yes, I did replace the wiring.
Most of the bulbs here are CFLs - our energy costs a lot more, petrol is about $9 a (UK - about 20% larger) gallon, electricity costs more than 26 cents/kWh, I know it has gone up about 14% since that old bill that I took the price from. - so my lightbulb choice is dictated by what I can afford. I dislike nasty CFLs intensely - there may be good ones but they'd not be affordable.
Our national media got hold of the mercury content of CFLs between Christmas and New Year - it is likely that our politicians will feel the need to "do something" about this is as legally these things are "hazardous waste" and so cost a fortune to dispose of "safely", i.e., pay someone to ship them to India or China. We are supposed to take them to the nearest recycling point - in my case $50 worth of petrol away. For most electronics the place I am seriously expected to take stuff is $18 worth of petrol and 2 hours out of my life away. And I live in the middle of a city of 202,370 people.
Oddly enough acrylic paint is also "hazardous waste"- I was needing some paint to decorate a patient's house and the Works dept folk leapt on me with glee and offered me about 2 tons of part used paint cans that they would have had to pay a fortune to have taken away (and probably shipped to China)
"Greenness" and sanity apparently are not related. Which is hardly surprising given where I work.
You missed my post #52 with picture in this thread. 50 cents for my 100W incan bulbs, and about 40 cents a bulb for the rest of them I got at Benny's. I didn't care about the price in particular, more that I got what I wanted and that fit my fixtures.
I don't think I care for having these wasteful,greedy,unethical goverment crooks tell me what I can and can't have without exclusion.
I like CFLs but I have a house full of antiques that won't allow their utilization and these idiots are just caving to big corporations who want to sell you $5 lightbulb instead of a $.95 lightbulb.
Oh,hi,my name is Mike and I'm a flashaholic
"Greenness" and sanity apparently are not related. Which is hardly surprising given where I work.[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just found this thread and it is of concern to me too as the same ban is likely to happen here.
Contrary to the opinions of many, I have found that CFLs tend to burn out as quickly or more so than the incans I have used all my life (perhaps they do not stand up well to being cycled on and off that often).
So to save a tiny amount of electricity I have to buy CFLs at $8 (give or take) instead of an incan that costs pennies. I personally have seen little evidence of longer life of CFLs so I am spending 10 times more to save a few cents on electricity. Then there is the disposal issue. Also, has anyone researched the difference in energy used to produce a CFL compared to incans?
And as LuxLuthor has pointed out, the cost of replacing fixtures, cabinetry, etc. And how much energy is wasted by manufacturing and distributing a replacement fixture when the existing one works. Then the old one has to be disposed of. How much energy is used in that process? Think of it, taking the fixtures to the recycling depot, sorting of parts, transporting components to recycling facility, metling down of used materials, etc.... (not to mention shipping the raw materials back to China to be used and shipped back here). It may make economic sense, but if the goal is reduced energy consumption, the argument is weak.
Although I am a devoted LED flashoholic, I still perfer the quality of light offered by incans when I am at home.
The other problem with the approach taken by the US government is that there are more gains to be had by simply reducing usage rather than chasing after ever greater efficiency. And those gains are immediate! Turn off the lights and appliance that are not being used and you'll save a bunch - right now and without having to lay out any cash. Most people I know leave televisions on all day long, sometimes even if they leave the house. How many folks leave lights on in rooms they do not use? (Insert your example here).
Now I am not saying more efficient lights are bad, only that they should enter the market place on the usual replacement cycle. It would not make sense to force all Americans to destroy their current cars and buy a new more fuel efficient car on a certain date - or to ban the sale of replacement parts for non fuel-efficient cars. Consumers will no doubt consider efficiency and running costs when they are ready to replace their current machines.
Sorry about the rant, but I am a management consultant and I constantly see governments spending their way to immaginary efficiency for tomorrow while they ignore the easy inexpensive gains they could realize today. One government I worked with had the mandate of reducing the size of the public service. "Government is too big and too expensive so we have to cut". After laying-off 1,000s of workers, they outsourced services and hired more people on contract. The net result a smaller public service, but MORE people working to deliver the services at GREATER COST. All this in the name of EFFICIENCY!
I'll never use florescent lighting in my home. And LED's have a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before they put out the pleasing light an incandescent bulb does.
Don't think the energy companies aren't behind a lot of this "green" stuff. All that is happening is politicians are passing legislation so that the energy companies can charge you more to give you less.
This is never mentioned by anyone though. The horror if somebody in the press actually said such a thing! They would probably find themselves out of their job.
Last edited by ampdude; 02-06-2008 at 11:54 AM.
It's not about having energy companies charge you more for less. It's about not having to build new power plants and/or having rolling blackouts. Why does everyone assume that every law passed always has some hidden agenda behind it? If we don't try to reduce energy consumption by this and other means then we're basically screwed. We can't really build any new power plants. Nobody wants them in their neighborhood. Besides that, it seems any major infrastructure project these days requires 15 years of environmental reviews before it can even get off the ground. The only alternatives left are to reduce energy consumption or generate power locally (i.e. solar panels). Solar panels won't be viable in some cases, so that basically leaves conservation as the main alternative.
Also, lots of misinformation in this thread. CFLs granted aren't the best answer but most of the time they don't have very short life. And their light quality isn't up to par with sunlight, but it can be better than incandescent if you avoid the warm white shades which make everything look like crap (then again incandescent does that too). And they *don't* flicker. Flickering fluorescents when out with Martha Washington. Anything made in the last 10 or 15 years uses flicker-free electronic ballasts. Anyway, let's forgot CFLs. Linear tubes for now are really the best answer. They deal better with frequent starts, especially on a programmed rapid start ballast, they're 50% more efficient than CFLs, they have better light distribution (i.e. not a point source like a CFL or incandescent), the tubes last upwards of 20,000 hours, and they're available in a wide variety of color temperatures, particular full-spectrum 5000K. I don't see how "pleasing" and "incandescent" can go together, either. 5000K, high CRI fluorescent is about as good as it gets for artificial lighting, at least until something better using LEDs comes out.
Speaking of LEDs, by the time this ban kicks into effect there will be LEDs which have none of the drawbacks of CFLs. Let the incandescent bulbs go as a relic of the past. Does anyone still drive a Model T any more? So why continue to use 130 year old lighting technology which honestly was obsolete 25 year ago when triphosphor T8 tubes came out? It amazes me so many people actually still use incandescents. Even if they didn't have major efficiency and light quality drawbacks, the ~750 hour (best case) lifetime is totally ridiculous. Talk about waste and extra landfill, not to mention the annoyance of constantly replacing burned out bulbs.
People stopped using candles to light their homes. Again, not because the government banned them, but because better options became available.
Most people aren't as stupid as you seem to think. They will select new technology, when it is in their own best interest. And if people can't figure out which light bulb is their best choice, does our government really need to be in the business of telling them?
Sadly, however, too many citizens of this country tolerate a government that oversteps its constitutional authority on a daily basis...
Really? Most people aren't even aware of any options beyond incandescents. Well, some are but they'll think of the options as something for other people, not themselves. A lot of those who are aware stubbornly refuse to try anything else based on old prejudices (i.e. fluorescent flickers, the color is harsh, etc.), or because all they see is the initial purchase price. It may not be always be the business of government to tell people what to do, but we should see that people are truthfully informed about alternatives, not subject to misinformation by companies who want to keep selling light bulbs. That's where I see the real value of this law here. It'll get people thinking about something most don't usually think about. I've already known a few people who voluntarily converted their lighting because the law made them think about CFLs enough to try them. Once they did, they got rid of all their incandescent bulbs in short order. Now they like not having to change lamps constantly. Some even enjoyed the whiter light when they tried several different color temps.Most people aren't as stupid as you seem to think. They will select new technology, when it is in their own best interest. And if people can't figure out which light bulb is their best choice, does our government really need to be in the business of telling them?
And I'll also add that when something people do negatively affects others, it becomes the business of government to regulate it if possible. That's the case here. If we go on business as usual then we'll either have rolling blackouts or need to build new power plants. That's a fact. Both those things will affect everyone. There are lots of other ways to cut power usage we should try also, but getting rid of an obsolete light source is a good start. And making people pay per kw-hr of power used is another thing we should do. Lots of people in apartments still just pay a flat rate. No incentive to conserve there at all.
If I drafted this law I would have one loophole for those still wanting to use incandescents. If they generate their power from some renewable source like solar, wind, geothermal then they would be entitled to an exemption since their usage patterns wouldn't affect the grid.
Well, there's other countries they could go to if they don't like it here. Let those who complain about our government restricting some types of light emitters go to North Korea or maybe Cuba, or even most countries in the EU. They'll see how few restrictions we really have here compared to most places. Sometimes government screws up and regulates things it shouldn't, such as the disastrous attempt at prohibition. Other times they fail to regulate things they should (the subprime loan crisis comes to mind). I happen to see a lot of sense in a law like this, even without dragging the infamous topic of global warming into it. Can't you just accept that sometimes people who are a lot smarter than you and I (I'm not referring to Congress here) can study something, and then recommend that certain legislative action be taken? Why are we as a people suddenly becoming more averse to accepting expert opinions instead of acting as if we're all experts on every subject here? It wasn't that way 30 or 40 years ago.Sadly, however, too many citizens of this country tolerate a government that oversteps its constitutional authority on a daily basis...
Ever think if maybe more people wanted to use linear fluorescents we would have found ways of tastefully integrating them into homes? It's a chicken or egg thing. Think how much it annoys me that almost all residential lighting is still centered around the archaic incandescent lamp. Why aren't my preferences being catered to?Not always. Some people don't like their form factor, and they don't fit in fixtures they happen to like. It's not totally about efficiently producing lumens.
There's a little thing called millions of years of evolution under our ~5500K sun which caused this type of light to be optimal for our eyes. Anything much different causes eyestrain and other problems like SAD long term. Of course, optometrists need to make a living too, so let's all go on using incandescent bulbs. It's not even a question of preferences here. It's about using the type of light most suited to our eyes functioning as they should.Will you ever see that some people have different preferences than yourself?
There's no reason except poor design for LEDs to have any of these limitations, even now. They can work way better with dimmers than CFLs. If you have adequate heat sinking then heat isn't a problem. Most of the problems with CFLs can be traced to the race to bottom in terms of cost. You get what you pay for. I don't buy CFLs from dollar stores because they're probably garbage. It'll be the same with LEDs. Avoid the cheap garbage, they'll be fine. Even if a 10 watt LED designed to replace a 100 watt incandescent costs $20, the payback time is fairly short. After only 1000 hours of use, the electricity saved amounts to $18 (at $0.20 per kw-hr). The real problem with higher initial cost is properly educating the general public to calculate total cost of ownership. I'll gladly spend even $50 for a lamp if it saves me 10 times that over its life. And no way will LEDs be $50. I think they'll probably start at $15 to $25, as CFLs did, but quickly come down to the $5 to $10 area, perhaps even under $3. The electronics for LEDs are inherently much simpler than for CFLs. I'll go out on a limb and say they'll probably be cheaper than incandescent bulbs are in ten years. We'll all look back on this thread wondering what all the fuss about the ban was. They banned lead in paint and gasoline, they banned PCBs in transformers, they banned asbestoes. Did anyone really miss any of these things? I'll certainly keep whatever incandescents I have for posterity's sake, but I don't ever see myself actually using them again as a light source.Really? How do you know that they won't have an initial cost barrier? They won't be subject to shortened life at high temperatures? They won't be susceptible to mains surges? They won't have any limitations when used on dimmer circuits?
Why light bulbs are accelerating global warming and mercury contamination
Interesting read. The author obviously isn't a fan of incandescents but he doesn't think CFLs are a good answer, either.
If for example, dual-phosphor next-gen high-power emitters came out for pennies each due to economy of scale, linear "strips" of next-gen LEDs coudl be superior to linear fluorescent. I certainly do hope that with LEDs we start to see better fixtures and not just kludgy drop-in replacements for existing fixtures.
Either way, I agree with the that CFLs are not a good choice in many applications. IMO linear tubes are a better solution even in terms of waste disposal. They have longer life, meaning fewer tubes and less mercury (modern tubes have only a few mg, just like CFLs) Also, with linear tubes, the ballasts aren't thrown away every time, they will generate significantly less waste.
Ultimately though, I believe the scare involving mercury in CFLs is exaggerated. I actually ended up breaking one on a hard surface. The mercury content was actaully two small grains of amalgam, not liquid droplets. Most of the CFLs I've seen appear to use a mercury amalgam (the reason for the "long warmup time" problem -- this is done to make the lamp operable at higher temps -- a drawback of making retrofit rather than using dedicated fixtures). Metallic mercury itself isn't what is dangerous, the vapor, and organic compounds of mercury, are. If mercury is stored in an amalgam however when a lamp is broken, none of it will evaporate -- and the fragments can be fairly easily lifted.
We use CFL in almost every fixture in the HOUSE.
Tube fixtures are in the shop, pump house and garage.
There ain't no way tubes are coming indoors, as they are UGLY to look at.
I get very good life out of indoor CFL. It's the ones in outdoor fixtures that don't last all that great, but still beat incandescent in the same fixtures.
I haven't found a CFL for candelabra base fixtures. My FINE Hunter ceiling fan uses them as well as the main light in the kitchen. We just don't USE the main kitchen light that much and I'm only in my room with the light on maybe an hour a day TOPS!
For government to MAKE me do any of this would hack me off BADLY!
P.S. The lamps he's selling are overpriced and underperforming. I question whether his 10 watt lamp can replace a 100 watt incandescent. Perhaps in a focused light application, but not in total lumens. I'm sure 10:1 or better will happen soon, but that's not the case here.
Someone sent me a PM today thanking me for this topic which I had long forgotten about. It is interesting to read it in today's reality, even though I believe some posts may now go against the current guidelines of CPF discussions. If the thread is closed, it is a nice slice of CPF posterity. My passion was dripping off the walls back then. LOL!