LightInTheWallet
Newly Enlightened
Ill
Last edited:
ATTENTION ALL, remember to stock up on appliance bulbs, politicos do not consider the end user ever.:thumbsdow
Use three clam shells instead.What I am worried about is when we have to give up real toilet paper for virtual toilet paper.
While not an incan guy, I am sure someone will pass a exemption for portable lighting. Forget about flashlights, think about the bigger issue...CARS...
Trying to go green, I did convert my headlights to florescents. They do not light nearly as much of the road..... but it was soo worth it. Now I can leave my lights on for hours without the battery going dead!
If that's the extent of the law, I really don't understand all the paranoia. "100W equivalence" from a 75W bulb would mean 1700 lumens from 75W, or 22.5lm/W. That can already be accomplished w/ existing 120V halogens. IRC (infrared reflective coated) halogens should be able to do even better -- in fact, I don't understand why those aren't already being sold for applications like dimmable track light lamps (dimmability/focusability can't be done with retrofit CFLs). As of right now there is really no viable energy-efficient alternatives for small halogen spotlights.My understanding was that the changes would come in several phases and that all they demand are percentage efficiency increases. So that within a few years all bulbs will need to put out as much light on 75W bulbs as you get form a typical hundred watt bulb, and then a few more years and it would become 50W. As far as I know there are no mentions of specific technologies so if you can meet the requirement with a halogen then you can still use halogen, they aren't really banning incandescent lighting just inefficient lighting.
Switching all the tiny auxiliary bulbs throughout the car (amber lights, tail lights, small white lights to illuminate license plate, auxiliary forward lights) for appropriately colored and focused LEDs would actually save more power than changing the headights. Those changes are good as well, as the overtaxed vehicle electrical systems need all the help they can get. Also, electricity is more expensive in a car than it is at home:While not an incan guy, I am sure someone will pass a exemption for portable lighting. Forget about flashlights, think about the bigger issue...CARS...
Trying to go green, I did convert my headlights to florescents. They do not light nearly as much of the road..... but it was soo worth it. Now I can leave my lights on for hours without the battery going dead
I haven't ever seen that here, but I can imagine that would be really annoying.I do believe the government needs to set a mandatory minimum PWM frequency of >1kHz for vehicle LED lights -- several car taillights on the road produce noticeable PWM flicker (est. about 100Hz) which is EXTREMELY annoying to other drivers.
They make floruecent appliance bulbs. I just bought one. What I am worried about is when we have to give up real toilet paper for virtual toilet paper.
Only a Gov't that blows...No more Bulb's to blow
Forget about flesh-on-flesh contacts too.Use three clam shells instead.
Congress just passed a Ban on Incan Bulbs.
ATTENTION ALL, remember to stock up on appliance bulbs, politicos do not consider the end user ever.:thumbsdow
You know, I looked and looked at Article 1, Section VIII of the Constitution, which grants to Congress certain limited authority.
Didn't see anything giving them the authority to tell me what kind of lighting device I could use. :shrug:
A CFL bulb has under 5 milligrams of mercury.All the extra mercury in landfills is going to do womders for the environment
I agree with you in many respects... especially since I am firmly against the "ban it" policies of current lawmakers.As I posted with pictures of some of my unique home bulbs in this thread, I have yet to find an LED that I liked over the color and other features of an incan. Some of the fluorescent bulbs at least have "natural" spectrum coatings that make them more appealing.
Like the small toilet restriction, government restrictions bowing to lobby pressures have no regard for the impact on many individuals. I guarantee I have a slew of custom and antique lighting/lamps that no fluorescent light will fit.
The answer is to stock up now.
I simply want to see the incandescents that are more efficient become available at a reasonable price. I understand that there are many applications where incandescent lamps remain the only viable choice, such as dimmable halogen spotlights. Multi-phosphor LEDs could potentially fulfill that applicaion, but I'm skeptical we'll see any able to plug-and-play into existing fixtures without severe compromises any time soon.For instance... one can purchase 2 poor-quality 60W incandescent bulbs for $1. A pair of CFLs will cost about $3. To push the adoption of CFLs along, and instead of the ridiculous ban on incandescents, they could instead institute a tax on lighting sources that do not meet certain efficiency ratings, that would bring their prices above that of the more efficient lights. In a perfect world, the money obtained from levying this tax would then be used for environmental conservation.
This way, if you simply must have incandescents, you can still get them... just at a somewhat elevated price...