Malkoff        
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 83

Thread: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

  1. #1

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by subwoofer View Post
    I love that on a forum dedicated to finding the next best light and buying it (a fine example of consumerism) certain participants still feel they can preach about environmental issues.

    Obviously we should all be considering the impact of our life choices on the environment for future generations, in which case we should all start by agreeing only to buy another light when the environmental impact can be justified by increased efficiency or the last one has broken.

    Anyone here happy to pledge not to buy another light until all the lights they have are broken, or until a new LED is developed that is powered by ambient heat energy and doesn't need a battery at all? ;-)


    Tongue firmly in cheek ;-)
    The more flashlights I own, the less in the landfill. And they are all made of recyclable aluminum too :o)

  2. #2
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,324

    Default New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Gotta love American ingenuity.....heard about this listening to Rush today here who interviewed the owner and new advertiser of his show.

    Basically, the "heavy duty" long life bulbs (lasting 10,000 hrs) are in a separate category called "Rough Duty" that were not the "General Use" ones banned by the bogus green energy law. These were the only ones worth buying in the first place, since they last 7 years if you use them an average of 4 hours every day. I had stocked up on a boatload of the 20,000 life bulbs that were made in China.

    This guy (& his company-"NewCandescent") had to get a waiver from the DOE to manufacture these which he got, and is doing in the USA. I don't need any more bulbs, but I bought a dozen just to show my support.

    This made me very happy today.

    Edit: I saw the link to Rush requires you to be a subscriber, so for those unfortunate souls who are not members, there was also an article in the NY Post about this inventor and rescue of our beloved incandescent bulbs. His grandfather was friends with Edison. When GE stopped making their incan bulbs, and shifted to producing CFL's in China, Larry Birnbaum, founder and owner of Epic Light Bulbs, bought their equipment. Brilliant move....literally.
    Last edited by LuxLuthor; 03-09-2012 at 06:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* Vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Puget Sound, WA
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Heard this today. Wanted to go check it out further, so thanks for the info and links.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* chewy78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    wi
    Posts
    594

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    home depot still sells Feit Electric 100-Watt A19 Rough Service Incandescent Light Bulbs (4-Pack) rated at 14,000hours at 120 voltsan 5,000 hours at 130 volts.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* jasonck08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,516

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    They really need to have an easy way to recycle CFL's, with this new Incan ban. CFL's in the landfill = bad news for our water supply.

  6. #6

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonck08 View Post
    They really need to have an easy way to recycle CFL's, with this new Incan ban.
    That wouldn't suffice. The only way to keep mercury out of the water supply is to keep it out of products. Even if 90% of people recycled properly -- an unprecedented level of compliance -- you'd still have 10% of all CFL mercury being dumped into the environment. That's a human-health disaster in the making.

    We will one day look back on the CFL period the same way we now look back on the days of leaded gasoline. The difference being that we will not be able to plead ignorance this time, because the neurotoxicity of mercury is well known. Perhaps we can argue, fittingly, that we were mad as a hatter over global warming.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Rough Service bulbs = even more pollution in our atmosphere. Not a good idea. Rough service bulbs are brutally inefficient. They are rough service by running at cooler less efficient temperatures. Why are people proud of themselves for making such bad environmental decisions?

  8. #8

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Rough Service bulbs = even more pollution in our atmosphere. Not a good idea. Rough service bulbs are brutally inefficient. They are rough service by running at cooler less efficient temperatures. Why are people proud of themselves for making such bad environmental decisions?
    John Gilmore famously observed that "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". But this is really just the latest instance of a much older law: the free market interprets regulation as damage and routes around it. Why are most of GM's sales SUVs? Because they couldn't meet the CAFE standards for sedans, but there were no such constraints on "light trucks", so they invented the SUV. Why are people now buying rough service bulbs? Because they want the CRI of incandescent, and this is a legal way to get it. (Take that away, and they'll find an illegal way.) In both cases, central planners have actually made things worse by trying to make them better.

    Related, and quite amusing: how to make hard-to-obtain Sudafed from readily available street meth


  9. #9
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Rough Service bulbs = even more pollution in our atmosphere. Not a good idea. Rough service bulbs are brutally inefficient. They are rough service by running at cooler less efficient temperatures. Why are people proud of themselves for making such bad environmental decisions?
    First response:

    We are proud of ourselves because we know what we are talking about, and you just demonstrated that you have no understanding of what "Rough Service Bulb" actually means.

    They are a wonderful idea, and the types of light bulbs used by private individuals has a completely negligible effect on atmospheric pollution. They are not "brutally inefficient." Less efficient than non-dimming, mercury polluting CFL's, yes...but a very worthwhile environmental tradeoff in favor of incandescents, as flashflood just presented. Not to mention color spectrum, fixed fixture size limitations.

    Perhaps you would like to start by finding out what "Rough Service Bulbs" actually means: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011.../2011-7939.htm

    Then if you figure that out, you can search for the multitude of factors causing air pollution, and work back to the real impact of light bulbs. Then let the market drive demand, rather than ignorant politicians issuing bans.

  10. #10

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    wow with life span like that you can overdrive the hell out of them. hm...

  11. #11
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    313

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by LuxLuthor View Post
    ... what "Rough Service Bulbs" actually means ...
    Let's not get carried away by provocation. I sure am thrilled by the decision to reuse the manufacturing equipment instead of destroying it, or sending it to say, across the Pacific. An increased number of filament supports does mean more heat lost, and cooler filament where they meet; 10000h life, all else equal, means lower efficacy. I'm trying to decipher from the A-19 packaging photos,
    1055 lm @100 watt
    645@75w
    515@60w
    All else equal, the color temperature will be lower compared to standard incandescents.
    Please do correct me if anything is wrong with my assessment.
    Clarification: It's not the company's fault that just wishing to produce and sell a non-hazardous product which might be powered by a mostly wooden windmill, they were forced, by the anti-choice, pro big-business legislation, to resort to using the intentional (similar provisions in the EU preceding US ones) "rough service" loophole.
    Last edited by Marcturus; 03-10-2012 at 10:33 AM. Reason: added Clarification line

  12. #12

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    With regard to mercury polluting CFL's vs inefficient use of electricity, more facts: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner...et_Mercury.pdf

    Still better off saving electricity by using a more energy efficient solution.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Marcturus/Harold ----- Damn you stating facts in stead of conjecture!!! How dare you! :-)

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    CFLs do have mercury though less today then in the past. HOWEVER, if you actually care about OUR planet and OUR water, you will dispose of them properly which is more work, but is not difficult.

    I am a capitalist, but not a head up my arse capitalist. Global warming is not going to be solved by capitalism UNTIL those so called ingorant politicians (which many of them are) create an economic situation for the reduction of green house gases and/or a lot of people start dying, coastal cities disappear, etc. However, waiting for a disaster to happen that you know is going to happen is a terrible idea.

    So what you are saying is that the goverment should not regulate anything?

    - No meat inspected to ensure it is safe
    - No electrical products inspecte to ensure it is safe
    - No ensuring there is no melamine in your chinese made dog food
    - So safety standard for vehicles such that the smallest accident results in injury

    Get real. We call it society for a reason.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by LuxLuthor View Post
    First response:

    We are proud of ourselves because we know what we are talking about, and you just demonstrated that you have no understanding of what "Rough Service Bulb" actually means.

    They are a wonderful idea, and the types of light bulbs used by private individuals has a completely negligible effect on atmospheric pollution. They are not "brutally inefficient." Less efficient than non-dimming, mercury polluting CFL's, yes...but a very worthwhile environmental tradeoff in favor of incandescents, as flashflood just presented. Not to mention color spectrum, fixed fixture size limitations.

    Perhaps you would like to start by finding out what "Rough Service Bulbs" actually means: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011.../2011-7939.htm

    Then if you figure that out, you can search for the multitude of factors causing air pollution, and work back to the real impact of light bulbs. Then let the market drive demand, rather than ignorant politicians issuing bans.
    Lux, perhaps you would like to do some research before spouting off your mouth. How rough service bulbs are constructed and/or defined is irrelevant. My statement, that they are brutally ineffecient is fact. It is not disputable. The BEST rough service bulb makes perhaps 1150 lumens, with many less than that. The average 100W standard incandescent makes 1600+ lumens. That means 30% more energy to do the same thing.

    Individual light usage does matter. To paraphrase an add that is on the radio today, there is no such thing as small billions. That would be billions of personal bulbs just in North America. That makes for a large impact if they are replaced.

  16. #16

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by LuxLuthor View Post
    First response:

    ...the types of light bulbs used by private individuals has a completely negligible effect on atmospheric pollution.
    Are you insane!? There are tens of BILLIONS of light bulbs in homes around the country (and world). Indoor lighting is about 30% of US electrical usage. Swapping incandescents to CFL or preferably LED bulbs will have an ENORMOUS effect on the amount of greenhouse gases that are released to the atmosphere.

  17. #17
    *Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Flushing, NY
    Posts
    5,892

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcturus View Post
    1055 lm @100 watt
    645@75w
    515@60w
    All else equal, the color temperature will be lower compared to standard incandescents.
    Please do correct me if anything is wrong with my assessment.
    Yep, the color would probably resemble those really orange, very dim bulbs which used to light up subway stations when I was a kid. Those were about as well-loved as sodium lights are today.

    Anyway, these are "rough service" bulbs, not general lighting bulbs. If I recall, there was even talk that if the "rough-service loophole" was abused, then the rules would be modified (i.e. perhaps the rough-service bulbs would be required to be green or purple or some other color which would make them unsuitable for general lighting). If someone still wants to light with incandescent, they can buy halogen bulbs which give the same amount of light, the same type of light, but use roughly 30% less power. I'm really not seeing what's so great about this other than it's made in the USA. We absolutely should make more products here, but I'd rather we make high-tech products which we could sell to the rest of the world.

    Oh, and there is a very good reason to go with more efficient bulbs. The electrical grid is overstressed. This was discussed in other threads around here not long ago. If we can reduce power usage via more efficient appliances, more efficient bulbs, better insulated houses, etc. then I'm not seeing that it's a bad thing. The alternative is eventual collapse of the grid, and going back to candles.
    Last edited by jtr1962; 03-10-2012 at 10:47 AM.

  18. #18

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by ratsbew View Post
    Indoor lighting is about 30% of US electrical usage. .
    actually according to con edison, it is about 10%.

  19. #19

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Perhaps the 30% figure comes from industrial usage which is estimated as being as high as 35%. This report from the DOE shows home usage at an average 11%: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildin...teindustry.pdf

    Google. Amazing search engine but worthless if the resource lacks credibility. The DOE, IES and a handful of others are reliable. Take a blog or advertiser for what it is, a biased opinion with an agenda typically to sell a product or a sponsored perspective.

  20. #20
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    313

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by jtr1962 View Post
    If someone still wants to light with incandescent, they can buy halogen bulbs which give the same amount of light, the same type of light, but use roughly 30% less power.
    Take a clue from the EU, where right at the start of the incan ban, two major manufacturers offered halogen bulbs rated "two-year/2000h" halogens, in the following years, they did not cut the prices, but changed the labels (and probably cut quality) from 1.5 years to 1 year ratings.

    The alternative is eventual collapse of the grid, and going back to candles.
    Just for the record, noticably taxing consumption of goods like those expressed in electric bills, and redistributing the taxes toward uses deemed necessary or beneficial, is a standard economics approach to decrease demand. Politics, in association with big manufacturers and "environmental" advocacy, has tried to get around the hugely unpopular taxation issue by legislating efficacy. And a nicely targeted little solar flare or EMP might also take care of collapsing the grid. Got indium tin oxide covered, conductive lenses, preppers?

  21. #21
    *Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    5,262

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold_B View Post
    With regard to mercury polluting CFL's vs inefficient use of electricity, more facts: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner...et_Mercury.pdf

    Still better off saving electricity by using a more energy efficient solution.
    It never ceases to amaze me how people will fixate on trace sources of some externality/pollution they disapprove of while willfully ignoring sources that contribute the overwhelming majority of it. In this case, the irony is exceptionally delicious.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idleprocess View Post
    It never ceases to amaze me how people will fixate on trace sources of some externality/pollution they disapprove of while willfully ignoring sources that contribute the overwhelming majority of it. In this case, the irony is exceptionally delicious.
    You mean the way people focus on nuclear waste while ignoring the 2,000-fold greater radioactive burden dumped directly into the atmosphere due to burning coal instead? Totally agree. If we had not gotten our collective panties in a bunch after Three Mile Island, we would have replaced much of that truly filthy coal with clean, carbon-free, mercury-free nuclear power by now. Even if you assume that we can never avoid the occasional nuclear meltdown, we'd still have a far cleaner planet trading coal for nuclear.

    So yes, mercury in fish is a bigger problem than mercury in CFLs -- but only because we burn coal so much coal, which is the main source of mercury in the oceans. It is indeed ironic that the most polluting activity in the world has been protected by the anti-nuclear greens who profess to save the planet.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    868

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by ratsbew View Post
    Are you insane!?
    Of course he's not insane. Just another graduate from the Limbaugh Institute
    Jim

  24. #24
    Flashaholic* Vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Puget Sound, WA
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by brickbat View Post
    Of course he's not insane. Just another graduate from the Limbaugh Institute
    Guys, keep it civil.

    At then end of the day this debate will all go away when LED bulbs are up to speed. Why are incandescent flashlights going the way of the dinosaur? It's not because the government legislated them away. Let the free market work.

  25. #25

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold_B View Post
    Perhaps the 30% figure comes from industrial usage which is estimated as being as high as 35%. This report from the DOE shows home usage at an average 11%: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildin...teindustry.pdf
    i wouldn't worry about industrial lighting, since it is not incandescent for the most part anyway, I've been to many industrial facilities they are either fluorescent or hps\mh lights. nycmta track crew still uses paddles with 5 rough service bulbs, that they use in the tunnels, hooking them to third rail (600v), i don't see them use anything else in near future for that.

  26. #26

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    To be perfectly honest I don't worry much about most of it. The 35% figure is from a reference site and it kind of surprised me given the juice that industrial motors suck! My main concern is my electric bill and how much I can impact the total and anything I can do with a positive impact on the planet and for society is a secondary bonus. I am selfish but not to the point of being short sighted. Sometimes the benefit to society outweighs the benefit to my pocketbook and therefore my conscience won't allow me to do otherwise.

  27. #27

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    So what you are saying is that the goverment should not regulate anything?

    - No meat inspected to ensure it is safe
    Yes, exactly. I identified two specific, on-point instances of government intervention that exacerbated the problem they were trying to solve. Therefore, clearly, I don't want meat inspections.

    Get real, indeed.

  28. #28
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    ROFL! So predictable are the responses...especially the need to make cheap associations because I referenced hearing about this on Rush Limbaugh. Typical feeble minded attempt to dismiss anyone who holds differing viewpoints, or questions propaganda. Did I say I believed anything that Rush Limbaugh says? I also regularly watch Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, read the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, NewsDaily, WND, Politico.com, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, Slashdot, TheHill.com, and several other sources. Now what does that make me?

    Marcturus, I don't buy the practical criticism of rough service vs. general service bulbs because I have both, in two adjacent, built-in overhead sockets. When I turn on the 12 x 100 Watt bulb switch, and fill my room with glorious bright white full spectrum incandescent lighting, there is no discernible color difference between the two bulb types, so on practical observation, the speculation of extra filament supports changing the heat/color is not necessarily valid, depending on the support composition. There can also be different alloys and strand thicknesses of the rough service bulbs that contribute to their practical function. I find them a perfect substitute for the general use 750-1250 hour rated bulbs. I am not saying your points are altogether wrong, as I have not done the research to determine the nuances you raised, but on a practical, observational basis they don't hold water.

    Harold_B, thank you for that reference. I would want to check out the veracity of how the determinations were made, since there is little source references presented, and it is being issued from a govt. department with a self interest in making the case for regulations/bans it is enforcing. Their theory of incan causing mercury release is based upon "The US EPA 2005 National Emissions Inventory" (not their more recent 2008 version) where they claim:
    Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.
    Note my emphasis on "human-caused" because I did not see what is the overall mercury emissions from non-human sources to know what percent of the total is from human-caused. Then, one has to make this whole other leap in logic that my light bulbs are causing more mercury pollution than CFL's because all utility power generation facilities are stuck with the same dirty coal sources. This report ignores Clean Coal Technology restrictions, use of Natural Gas, nuclear, and other rapidly developing greener supply side improvements--because they want the public to accept their incandescent ban and justify whey they should buy CFL bulbs.

    Obviously, the more electric power generation shifts away from mercury emissions from coal power plants, the less their argument in favor of CFL's holds water. I question their validity and objectivity on this one point.

    SemiMan, the heart of this light bulb issue is based on people being forced to conserve energy because there is a finite supply, and some types are better than others. I don't accept that basic premise, and believe that there are virtually unlimited energy resources available (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, wave, etc.) for the foreseeable future.

    To force people into the conservation side of managing the energy needs equation, they have to come up with things like not just global warming, but man-made global warming which I also do not buy because there are so many well-respected experts that have been ignored, so many lies & cover-ups exposed, and way too much politics driving it all.

    My main objection is to govt. deciding what is best for everyone, and enforcing their bans, and forcing conservation as the main way of approaching our energy needs.

    jtr1962, we need to quit meeting like this. I'm beginning to think with all your talk about orange light bulbs that your house must have been at the end of the electrical grid, and/or using antique, high resistance wiring where you only had 90 volts coming in. The electrical grid has been stressed for a long time and needs to be seriously upgraded with increasing population demands. It won't be incandescent light bulbs that crashes the grid. My vote is on terrorism.

    Seriously, I don't recall ever having seen an OBJECTIVE study that looks at what percent of the total electrical consumption comes from indoor residential lighting. Looking at this source:

    6.2 The Importance of Lighting

    Lighting uses about 18 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., and another 4 to 5 percent goes to remove the waste heat generated by those lights. Lighting in commercial buildings accounts for close to 71 percent of overall lighting electricity use in the U.S.
    If 71% is commercial, I'm guessing we must then assume 29% is residential lighting, ignoring non-commercial governmental, street, and other types of non-residential lighting.

    OK, then 29% residential x 18% of electricity generated = 5.22% of total electricity generated for lighting is from residential. But we don't know how they determine that 29% residential lighting electricity. Did they measure the real time electrical consumption in a statistically significant sample with all the lights on, and then off at night, and factor in the night time heaters, air conditioners that may also be running? Did they go in and count actual inside light bulbs, verifying their wattage, and have people keep logs of which lights are turned on for how long? If you don't track down studies and look at this level of verifiable details, they could say anything they wanted.

  29. #29
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by Vesper View Post
    Guys, keep it civil.

    At then end of the day this debate will all go away when LED bulbs are up to speed. Why are incandescent flashlights going the way of the dinosaur? It's not because the government legislated them away. Let the free market work.
    That is the heart of my argument. If and when LED's work, fit inside of built in receptacles, give proper spectrum, figure out their heatsink issues, and become affordable, they will likely be worthwhile alternatives....and it is happening as you said based on free market choices. Why do you think the Chevy Volt is such a disaster? Besides the battery fires, the main reason is that it is not market driven. It is another Nanny-State failed project.

    Also for the record, I am not against government inspections and regulations....but they should be done as sparingly and judiciously as possible. Was a total ban on incandescent bulbs necessary to solve the issue? Nope. Neither was the ban on manufacturing larger gallons per flush toilets--nation wide. We have NEVER EVER had a water ban or shortage in southeast CT where I live, and we are not going to be sending our water to Colorado or Texas. That is another example of ignorant federal politicians. It would have made a lot more sense to charge people in water starved areas astronomical prices for water delivery, to discourage over population of those areas. Exceptions could have been given for indigent or emergency scenarios. Instead, the govt. enforces a ban that impacts people that are not affected. Loss of freedom, loss of market driving forces.

  30. #30
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,324

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Lux, perhaps you would like to do some research before spouting off your mouth. How rough service bulbs are constructed and/or defined is irrelevant. My statement, that they are brutally ineffecient is fact. It is not disputable. The BEST rough service bulb makes perhaps 1150 lumens, with many less than that. The average 100W standard incandescent makes 1600+ lumens. That means 30% more energy to do the same thing.

    Individual light usage does matter. To paraphrase an add that is on the radio today, there is no such thing as small billions. That would be billions of personal bulbs just in North America. That makes for a large impact if they are replaced.


    These are the bulbs I was comparing, as I have not received mine from Newtronics.com yet. These are GE 1260L 750hrs vs. Litetronics Super Service 1100L 20,000hrs.

    My beef with your comments is that rough service bulbs are defined as being designed to protect against vibration and industrial stresses, which you said nothing about, and which is their most important aspect, which is why I knew you did not know the facts about them. Their design purpose is not to run at lower voltages and cooler temps as the primary way they function and survive longer in rough service scenarios. There is a significant portion of their extended life that is a direct function of the internal components and alloys.
    These have 7 support filament mounting, triple alloy tungsten filament (that is thicker and longer), three separate getters, and brass base to prevent corrosion.








    I was not using 1600+ Lumen bulbs, and it does not mean 30% more energy to do the same thing since I just put each bulb in a lamp hooked inline to a Seasonic Volt-Amp-Watt-Hz-KWH measuring display. The 750Hr GE bulb I was using registered 122.2V & 101 Watts. The LiteTronics 20,000Hr bulb registered 122.3V & 102Watts. Same energy being used with an adequate amount of white light coming from fixture.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •