# The BIG LIE.



## Ron Evers

After the introduction of the come-on-eventually dim watt bulbs (CFLs), I, like many, started to use them. In spite of the claims of long life, I became very suspicious that they lasted no longer than regular incandescent bulbs, based on personal experience. I started dating them with a fine point permanent marker @ the time of installation. One manufacturer sent me two $5 cash cards for Home Depot when I complained about early failure of their product. Now I have a Blue Planet 9 Watt that is claimed to last 8 years that failed in a year & four months (16 mo). The packaging, that I kept, has no information on how to contact the manufacturer, so I am unable to contact them by e-mail. These bulbs may save energy but @ the added cost & dubious life span, methinks we the consumers are being screwed with the complicity of government.


----------



## Ron Evers

I edited a spelling error & now I have a double post.  ???


----------



## Designer

Screwed

The Chairman of GE is a huge donor to the One, and Congress has declared incandescent bulbs illegal.

General Electric makes those CFLs in China, if that makes any difference to anybody.
The CFL bulbs contain mercury which is a hazardous material.

So they cost more than regular bulbs, and don't last any longer.

I had CFLs in my garage lights on a photocell, and when two went out at the same time, I mistakenly thought it was the photocell, so I replaced it.  Turned out it was just two burned out bulbs of the hazardous material variety.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple

I switched my entire house over to LED bulbs. Large upfront cost but hopefully if they perform as claimed will one day pay for themselves. I guess I will have to wait and find out.


----------



## photoguy99

Unlike incandescents the lifespan is tied to a lot of different things, among them on/off cycles. LEDs are probably the right answer in the long term, but the various technologies are still being sorted out in terms of what can built - at scale - at what costs.


----------



## Dave442

I agree the CFL's seem to burn out faster than expected. Have been replacing with LED as they burn out and the first to change out were a couple outdoor fixtures that are on every night, so far they are going strong.


----------



## AFarhat

Maybe, writing on them with sharpie made turned them rouge and caused them to fail. 

Just kidding. That sucks though. I'd never even thought of that.


----------



## bribrius

if they can find a way to make more money off you. They will.


----------



## Derrel

Ron Evers said:


> I edited a spelling error & now I have a double post.  ???



WEIRD how that can happen! I've been seeing that lately!



crzyfotopeeple said:


> I switched my entire house over to LED bulbs. Large upfront cost but hopefully if they perform as claimed will one day pay for themselves. I guess I will have to wait and find out.



I just went to all-LED bulbs about a month ago. WOW!!! I am really,really enjoying the LED bulb experience. Like Ron, we tried some of the CFL bulbs a few years back...uggg...that's all I can say...uggg...


----------



## fjrabon

I went all phillips hue because I'm a tech nerd and I hate money, but man, yeah, they're a game changer.


----------



## DonTX

Derrel said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I edited a spelling error & now I have a double post.  ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEIRD how that can happen! I've been seeing that lately!
> 
> 
> 
> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I switched my entire house over to LED bulbs. Large upfront cost but hopefully if they perform as claimed will one day pay for themselves. I guess I will have to wait and find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to all-LED bulbs about a month ago. WOW!!! I am really,really enjoying the LED bulb experience. Like Ron, we tried some of the CFL bulbs a few years back...uggg...that's all I can say...uggg...
Click to expand...


Not to mention the CFL's contain mercury.  Really government?  You outlaw 100W incandescent bulbs which were safe and last no less than CFLs and make us use a bulb with mercury?


----------



## Seadawg

I have been dealing with led lights for the past several months (I work for a power company). And while they are great lights, the technology is changing at a resiculous rate. So, there are still a lot of unknowns about them (like longevity) other than what they can try to recreate in a lab environment. Fortunately the price is continually dropping, because they can generate more lumins at a lower watt thus a smaller led.  I am not saying that by installing leds through out your house will cut your power bill in half but it will help and you will see a quicker pay back by using them.


----------



## Forkie

Are you sure you didn't just get a bad batch?  I changed all mine to them about 5 years ago and haven't had to replace any yet.


----------



## goooner

What brand was it? I've had some success with Philips and Osram, the cheaper ones burn out quite quickly though. The name brands do cost quite a bit more though


----------



## fjrabon

Seadawg said:


> I have been dealing with led lights for the past several months (I work for a power company). And while they are great lights, the technology is changing at a resiculous rate. So, there are still a lot of unknowns about them (like longevity) other than what they can try to recreate in a lab environment. Fortunately the price is continually dropping, because they can generate more lumins at a lower watt thus a smaller led.  I am not saying that by installing leds through out your house will cut your power bill in half but it will help and you will see a quicker pay back by using them.


Biggest thing for me wasn't so much the energy savings as much as the ability to control the light temp by phone. Waking to blue light and having yellow light in the evenings before bed has made a noticeable difference in my sleep patterns and energy level.


----------



## Designer

Forkie said:


> Are you sure you didn't just get a bad batch?  I changed all mine to them about 5 years ago and haven't had to replace any yet.


Oh, but you were able to purchase the UK bulbs!  BIG difference!


----------



## pixmedic

I thought "the big lie" was that it was  this big.


----------



## Ron Evers

pixmedic said:


> I thought "the big lie" was that it was  this big.



Laf pix.

That reminds me of a time in the hospitality room for lecturers, after the booze had loosened up some inhibitions.  One of the ladies was asked why it was that girls cannot judge distance.  She replied, holding up thumb & forefinger not far apart & said "that is because you guys tell us this is six inches".


----------



## 480sparky




----------



## Ron Evers

Thanks for that Sparky. 

Seems like common sense in government is not so common.


----------



## DarkShadow

Yep them bulbs suck. LEDS Rock.I replaced all the incandescent with LEDS White light. LEDS run so much cooler as well.I also have LED lighting over a  55 gallon freshwater aquarium with built in moon lights.The shimmering effect from LEDS over moving water is pretty neat.


----------



## Seadawg

Ron Evers said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought "the big lie" was that it was  this big.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laf pix.
> 
> That reminds me of a time in the hospitality room for lecturers, after the booze had loosened up some inhibitions.  One of the ladies was asked why it was that girls cannot judge distance.  She replied, holding up thumb & forefinger not far apart & said "that is because you guys tell us this is six inches".
Click to expand...

The man that told her that secrete needs to be shot..


----------



## Braineack

480sparky said:


>


I bet he supports the ban on a plethora of other liberties--also not in the Constitution.


----------



## Designer

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he supports the ban on a plethora of other liberties--also not in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't understand.  

Are you suggesting that the Congressman would ban our liberty in some way?


----------



## Braineack

I'm simply stating that his argument could probably be used against him in another debate on a different topic.  Although his voting record is pretty consistent for not banning liberties.


----------



## 480sparky

I honestly think gubbamints pass laws today _simply for the sake of passing laws_.  Their job is to create laws, so that's exactly what they do, whether the law is needed or not. Since there's already a plethora of laws concerning the biggies like murder, treason, theft and the like, they gotta make up laws about petty stuff.

Like light bulbs.


----------



## Braineack

I want someone to pass a law that says you need to repeal 10 for every 1 passed.

but yes.  their job is to pass bills and get reelected.

just like police are to write tickets, collect taxes, and get bigger budgets.


----------



## Amocholes

Perhaps lawyers should be banned from holding public office.


----------



## tirediron

Amocholes said:


> Perhaps lawyers should be banned from holding public office.


FTFY


----------



## 480sparky

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
..................................................._.Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78_


----------



## Braineack

480sparky said:


> The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.



Who will defend you in court at your murder trial?


----------



## 480sparky

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will defend you in court at your murder trial?
Click to expand...


What trial?  There's no lawyers to bring charges against me.


----------



## Braineack

no trials/laywers needed for mob hangings; youre right.


----------



## Designer

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will defend you in court at your murder trial?
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that we would be arrested for killing lawyers.  LOL

Oh, and half the judges, too!


----------



## Braineack

and people wonder why others don't want to freely give up their guns to the mob...


----------



## petrochemist

Back on topic, I've not had issues with most of mine, though I don't like them! Perhaps the 240V ones are better, and the duff ones down rated for the American market 

In the bathroom & outside the life has proved to be shorter, possibly as they are turned on & off more often though moisture could also be the cause.

The LED lights I have are much better, but until recently haven't been available in the right fittings for my bathroom & outside light fittings.

I suspect in future I'll only get LED bulbs except for special purposes. LEDs wouldn't be suitable for the spectrometers at work!


----------



## 480sparky

Braineack said:


> no trials/laywers needed for mob hangings; youre right.



I wouldn't get hanged.


I'd get_ elected._


----------



## Designer

Braineack said:


> and people wonder why others don't want to freely give up their guns to the mob...


I missed that one, too.

Oh, well, I meant it as a joke.  

Mostly.


----------



## Ron Evers

petrochemist said:


> Back on topic, I've not had issues with most of mine, though I don't like them! Perhaps the 240V ones are better, and the duff ones down rated for the American market
> 
> In the bathroom & outside the life has proved to be shorter, possibly as they are turned on & off more often though moisture could also be the cause.
> 
> The LED lights I have are much better, but until recently haven't been available in the right fittings for my bathroom &* outside light fittings.*
> 
> I suspect in future I'll only get LED bulbs except for special purposes. LEDs wouldn't be suitable for the spectrometers at work!



Outside????, here in Canada they would only come on in the summer.  Hell, I have one in the basement that will not light unless the temperature is above 15C & then takes forever to get to full brightness.


----------



## petrochemist

Temperatures here are a little more bearable. They don't always reach full brightness, but certainly give enough to get back into the warm on the colder nights.
We do have some motion sensitive solar powered LED lights that only work on summer nights. Probably due both to less sunlight to charge them & worse battery performance due to the cooler temperatures.


----------



## soufiej

As someone concerned about the natural resources of this Nation and the indiscriminate waste of those resources many of us simply take for granted; *"There was one problem: The government never banned incandescents. The new law was enacted to simply phase out inefficient lightbulbs in, as Congress stated, "a technology-neutral way." The new law doesn't ban incandescent lightbulbs, nor does it demand the use of CFLs or any other kind of bulb. It simply sets forth energy efficiency targets that go into effect in two phases: first in 2012, and again in 2020."  (What You Need to Know About the Lightbulb Law
*
In my job I go into folk's homes while they are away for extended time periods (I'm a pet sitter before you go getting any ideas in your head).  I am constantly amazed at the number of lights - mostly incandescent - left on for hours while no one will need them.  Several of my clients light up their house like it was a 7-11 when no one is home and won't be for hours.  I like a light or two to be left on if my first visit is a PM visit*.   *But one or two would be fine and I can find the rest once I'm in the house.  Lights left on timers are good burglar deterrents (and convenient for us pet sitters too) but leaving  a house full of 60 watt lamps on for eight hours is less than common sense IMO.   Most of my clients don't use timers and very few have dimmers to control the output of the lamp when in use.   You might as well fire up the gasoline powered lawn mower and let it run while you're away.

Several years back on a trip to Big Bend National Park I mentioned to a Ranger how clear the view was for what seemed to be miles and miles.   She informed me the view was quite poor that day at about nine miles visibility.  She further informed me of a (then) new coal burning power plant which had opened in Northern Mexico.  Since the power plant opened and began emitting pollutants into the atmosphere and subsequently being carried by the winds across Southern Texas, the average visibility had gone to about ten miles from a previous 55-60 miles - average!

Even as a casual photographer the difference of forty or more miles of clear, non-polluted visibility was shocking to me.   Here in Dallas, I live about two miles out of downtown and there are many days when I get on the road and can barely see an outline of the buildings just a short distance from me.  I think about that every time I go into a house with a dozen or more lights going full blast every day, all day when no one is home.   Several states, Texas included, are considering an added fee imposed on those of us who have installed solar panels on our house.  The fee goes mainly to the power companies "just 'cause".   Several years ago the Texas billionare, T. Boone Pickens - who made his money in energy - could not convince the US Congress to provide some assistance in his plan to link West Texas wind energy to the overall US power grid to supply renewable energy to most of the nation.  As an aside, I remember when $48 a barrel oil meant we would be paying about $1.35 or less for a gallon of gasoline.  Ask why we now are paying about seventy to eighty cents more per gallon and you'll hear the crickets begin to chirp. 

I am more than a bit confused when I see people complaining about their freedoms being taken away because they can't find a 100 watt incandescent lamp in the local big box home improvement store.  Congress isn't making the decision not to stock those lamps, the big box store is.  The oversized, international manufacturer is making the decision not to supply the lamps to the big box store.  Meanwhile, people are having their heads cut off while we complain about the loss of "freedom" to waste natural resources.  Women are being stoned and young girls are being shot while we are PO'd about a light bulb.

Technology moves forward.  If you are upset about the lifespan of being an early adapter, keep your receipts and go get your money back or an exchange.  Clearly, the technology of lamps has improved tremendously over the last few years.  I can buy a 60 watt equivalent, dimmable LED lamp for $8 now.    They will last for a decade or more while saving energy in the process.  If you want to get all OCD about marking your lamps, maybe you should take up another hobby.

IMO the "Big Lie" is that this is what gets people upset at "government overreach" while the big box stores are paying poverty level wages without benefits and keeping hours to part time only and the international manufacturers are shipping jobs to anywhere they can get the stuff made more cheaply today than yesterday.  All the while, your tax dollars are being used to subsidize this process through welfare programs which allow minimum wage workers to eat and have child health care.  Tax abatements are handed out like campaign bumper stickers to big boxes when they build another location which means more mom and pop stores will go under as they build on what was once farm land and further destroy the environment we all grew up thinking was our's to enjoy and pass on to our children.  

In case you don't remember, the bill passed in the US and was signed into law by a President named Bush; Ann Coulter - First Fascist President - Eric Bolling Mediaite
*
*


----------



## snowbear

Ron - did you ever find a contact for the Blue Planet bulbs?  I did a quick search and Canadian Tire has an exchange warranty that model for 5 years - you may want to check with whatever store you bought them at.  If you don't want a possible exchange, they may be able to get you a contact at Blue Planet (I couldn't find one online).

Blue Planet 9W G25 CFL Bulbs 3-pk Canadian Tire


----------



## Designer

soufiej said:


> I am more than a bit confused when I see people complaining about their freedoms being taken away because they can't find a 100 watt incandescent lamp in the local big box home improvement store.  Congress isn't making the decision not to stock those lamps, the big box store is.


Here's a quote from a CNN article:

"Seventy-five- and 100-watt bulbs were already *banned* this year. The ban on production of 40 and 60-watt bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- kicks in as 2014 begins."

Read it here:  Obit RIP light bulb - CNN.com

I selectively bolded the word "banned" so you'll be sure to notice it.

Please note: This story was not written by that extreme right-wing crazy network FAUX NEWS, but by your daily trusted, unimpeachable source; CNN (Clinton News Network).

You say "banned" your way, and I'll say *BANNED* my way.

Here's another link: (CNN again) Light bulb ban set to take effect - Dec. 13 2013


----------



## Ron Evers

It seems Blue Planet bulbs are exclusive to Canadian Tire stores.  I have a box, not the required receipt but I suppose it is worth taking it into the store & see what they have to say about the poor performance.  

Here in Canada, incandescent bulbs were banned by the federal government effective Jan. 1, 2014.


----------



## Braineack

so timely.   just had a CFL burn out over the weekend.

I bought it around 2 years ago when we moved into the house.  I'm going to check with the manufacturer on any life-time gurantees. IIRC that bulb was like $10 alone (BR40 style) should of lasted around 10 years.

and now i have to go out of my way to recycle it so i don't pollute the earth with mercury.


----------



## astroNikon

I noticed when using CFL bulbs that they are really dependent upon the quality connection of the  socket and how you use it .. if that makes any sense.  

The ones that are in sockets that are loose tend to not last long at all, whereas the same ones in very sturdy sockets tend to last a long time.   

I use one in my bathroom as a nightlight and is one 75% of the time (current one has been on for at least 1-1/2 years.  It actually lasts longer than other ones that are in a ceiling fan sockets which is kinda loose.  Also more than other bulbs which are not constantly on.  So it could be a combination of how often your turn it on/off and the stable connection.   

But .. I'll be testing a few LEDs soon as I bought some over the weekend.

My house electrical bill is from $80 to $110 per month, and a bit more in the summer with the A/C.


----------



## Designer

When I completed my first-floor bathroom about 6 years ago, I installed 60-watt incandescent bulbs in some recessed lighting fixtures.  Of 7 fixtures, exactly NONE have burned out yet.  

The halogen bulb in the fanlight had to be replaced last year at a cost of about 10$.


----------



## otherprof

petrochemist said:


> Back on topic, I've not had issues with most of mine, though I don't like them! Perhaps the 240V ones are better, and the duff ones down rated for the American market
> 
> In the bathroom & outside the life has proved to be shorter, possibly as they are turned on & off more often though moisture could also be the cause.
> 
> The LED lights I have are much better, but until recently haven't been available in the right fittings for my bathroom & outside light fittings.
> 
> I suspect in future I'll only get LED bulbs except for special purposes. LEDs wouldn't be suitable for the spectrometers at work!


Damn! For most of this post I thought you were still talking about lawyers!


----------



## soufiej

Designer said:


> Here's a quote from a CNN article:
> 
> "Seventy-five- and 100-watt bulbs were already *banned* this year. The ban on production of 40 and 60-watt bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- kicks in as 2014 begins."
> 
> Read it here:  Obit RIP light bulb - CNN.com
> 
> I selectively bolded the word "banned" so you'll be sure to notice it.
> 
> Please note: This story was not written by that extreme right-wing crazy network FAUX NEWS, but by your daily trusted, unimpeachable source; CNN (Clinton News Network).
> 
> You say "banned" your way, and I'll say *BANNED* my way.
> 
> Here's another link: (CNN again) Light bulb ban set to take effect - Dec. 13 2013



First, CNN spent how many months, three and one half?, almost 24/7 on a missing plane when there was absolutely nothing to report.  Even going so far as to suggest possible alien abduction.   CNN is struggling to survive and, what better way to get viewer response than throwing a fire bomb?  Your concept of CNN says all I need to know about your way of discerning information.  You prefer to have your house fire bombed.    

No type of lamp was "banned".  Energy efficiency rules were put in place. * BIG DIFFERENCE, *not big lie.   It is now up to the manufacturers to either improve the efficiency of an incandescent lamp or to move on.  They're still manufacturing the same lamps, you just can't get them sold to you at your local big box.  Go complain to Home Depot, not a photography forum.  Eventually, the "free market" will decide the fate of the incandescent lamp.

George W. Bush + free market.  Get the connection?     
*
Efficiency standards mean fewer resources are wasted on inefficient devices.  Buy an LED for a few bucks and you'll see the difference.  

So, why are you in favor of wasting energy?*


----------



## Designer

Methinks the lady doth protest way too much!


----------



## The_Traveler

Designer said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more than a bit confused when I see people complaining about their freedoms being taken away because they can't find a 100 watt incandescent lamp in the local big box home improvement store.  Congress isn't making the decision not to stock those lamps, the big box store is.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a quote from a CNN article:
> 
> "Seventy-five- and 100-watt bulbs were already *banned* this year. The ban on production of 40 and 60-watt bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- kicks in as 2014 begins."
> 
> Read it here:  Obit RIP light bulb - CNN.com
> 
> I selectively bolded the word "banned" so you'll be sure to notice it.
> 
> Please note: This story was not written by that extreme right-wing crazy network FAUX NEWS, but by your daily trusted, unimpeachable source; CNN (Clinton News Network).
> 
> You say "banned" your way, and I'll say *BANNED* my way.
> 
> Here's another link: (CNN again) Light bulb ban set to take effect - Dec. 13 2013
Click to expand...


You need to read past the word you are looking for:

Further down the article restates:



> Rest in peace.
> 
> This was no sudden death. The diagnosis came in years ago, in 2007, when President George W. Bush signed a law to replace standard incandescents with more efficient bulbs.





> Much more. Only about 10% of the energy these traditional bulbs use is for light, the Environmental Protection Agency says.





> Seventy-five- and 100-watt bulbs were already banned this year. The ban on production of 40 and 60-watt bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- kicks in as 2014 begins.





> "There are 4 billion light bulb sockets in the U.S. and more than 3 billion of them still use the standard incandescent technology that hasn't changed much in 125 years," the EPA says. "A standard incandescent is only 10% efficient -- the other 90% of the electricity it uses is lost as heat."





> It's the dawn of a new day.* Taking over the limelight now: halogen bulbs, compact fluorescent bulbs, LED bulbs and high efficiency incandescents*.



What has been banned is not incandescent bulbs but low efficiency bulbs that throw away 90% of the energy.
Transitioning to these will lower your energy bill, lower pollution and make us closer to energy independence.

You know what was invented about the time that electric bulbs were invented as they are now?
The first typewriter and coal-powered motorcycles.
Maybe its time for a change for society's benefit?


----------



## Designer

soufiej; when you get tired of swallowing the bovine excrement that the government is feeding you, you might want to get your head out of the trough and have a look around.  

An agency can write a specification for a hammer that can only be met with a $300 custom hammer, and the $3 hammer that is commonly available will not meet the specifications.

Writing "guidelines" for energy efficiency in order that no incandescent lightbulb can ever comply is effectively banning the incandescent lightbulb.  

So you go ahead and pollute the earth with mercury, and I'll continue to use whichever lightbulbs contain no hazardous materials.


----------



## JoeW

Let me add my personal experience.  First, I use CFLs in most of my house.  I've found that the ones I use have a significantly longer lifespan than the incandescent bulbs I used to use.  I've CFLs going on 10 years in some cases.  And no, it hasn't all been the same brand.  Meanwhile, we have floods in the kitchen that we have trouble finding CFLs for so we have to use incandescents for those.  8 different sockets spread over the kitchen ceiling and I replace 3-7 every year (and no, we don't leave our kitchen lights on a lot).

As for the argument that somehow this is a ban or a law, that's not quite accurate:  What You Need to Know About the Lightbulb Law

As for me personally, I like having bulbs that aren't "hot" and I have plenty of orchids in my basement (plenty = 24, a mixture of Paphs, Brassias, Phalenopses, a Vanilla plant, a Jewel orchid and an Oncidium).  So I have two full spectrum CFLs that I often keep going 20 hours a day sometimes in the winter when light is low.


----------



## Ron Evers

If soufiej was to reread my OP he would find that I made no mention of any government banning incandescent bulbs.  The Big Lie is that CFLs  outlast incandescent bulbs by years not months but years.  It was my earlier experience that led me to start dating them to confirm what I was sure of. 

We had 5 Incandescent bulbs in our dinning room fixture that was used daily & after 30 years one burned out & because of the style I had to change them all because I could no longer get a matching one.    Two of these bulbs are still in service aftermore than 40 years in other fixtures - here is one of them.






The end is marked 3000 hour, super bulb, 75 watt.


----------



## Designer

Yes, Ron, it's a better bulb, for sure, but unfortunately, we cannot buy them anymore.


----------



## Braineack

I'm $8 poorer.  Doubt this one last 8000 hours.

using tapatalk.


----------



## soufiej

Designer said:


> soufiej; when you get tired of swallowing the bovine excrement that the government is feeding you, you might want to get your head out of the trough and have a look around.
> 
> An agency can write a specification for a hammer that can only be met with a $300 custom hammer, and the $3 hammer that is commonly available will not meet the specifications.
> 
> Writing "guidelines" for energy efficiency in order that no incandescent lightbulb can ever comply is effectively banning the incandescent lightbulb.
> 
> So you go ahead and pollute the earth with mercury, and I'll continue to use whichever lightbulbs contain no hazardous materials.




I have to repeat, nothing has been "banned".  You can still buy incandescent lamps if your store wants to carry them.  Most won't because the manufacturer has moved on to a lamp technology with higher efficiency. That's what is being "mandated", higher efficiency lamps.  If incandescent lamp technology were improved sufficiently to make the lamp fit into the efficiency standards set, then incandescent lamps would still be around in quantities.  The manufacturers themselves effectively banned the incandescent lamp by saying it was more profitable to move to another technology.  This is how things work, we moved from being an agricultural nation to being an industrialized nation because we followed technology.  We moved from what at the time was unreliable electric power for our transportation to the technology with the highest return, petroleum.  At the time we did so, energy was plentiful and cheap and we weren't paying money to countries who would prefer we went away.  I remember when I was a little kid, we had friends from Texas who drove their Cadillac convertible with the top down and the AC on because gas was twenty two cents per gallon.  Those days are gone.   Moving forward is what technology does.   The government did not build CFL's, the manufacturer did.  I doubt you'll find a "Made in the USA" sticker on the CFL's since most are manufactured in China or some other third world country using cheap labor and cheap parts.  I would be more upset about the fact we don't manufacturer most goods in the US today.  

But "banning" and "phasing out" are two different things.  Government also mandated against gasoline powered vehicles which produced major pollutants.  That's bad?  IMO I'm in favor of government doing what it does best, being a watchdog against industry where we have seen profit will often override public good.   Government mandates how much arsenic can be in our water and food supplies?  You want to eat and drink arsenic?  Government is also mandating against the use of arsenic in "treated wood" products because it leeches into the water table.  I just can't get upset about such mandates.  

As to the mercury in a CFL, it is not an issue.  Unless you want to make it an issue, which you can so you can get PO'd at government.  Buy a LED or a halogen lamp.  They contain no mercury.  Recycle your CFL's so the minimal amount of mercury can be contained.  However, I have to ask again, why are you in favor of wasting energy?  If you're concerned about the miniscule amount of mercury in your CFL (which cannot escape unless you break the enclosure) but you're not concerned about the mercury and arsenic and other pollutants and carcinogens emitted by the coal burning power plant you are supporting and the rivers and streams being polluted by the coal companies as they top mountains, then, IMO, you've found the wrong dog to hunt with.  If you really want to go find something to scare you or to make you mad, come to Dallas.  We have at least eight radio channels turning out fear and anger 24/7.   Though, you probably have just as many on the presets to your own radio.  

*
_Ron Evers said:   "If soufiej was to reread my OP he would find that I made no mention of any government banning incandescent bulbs. The Big Lie is that CFLs outlast incandescent bulbs by years not months but years. It was my earlier experience that led me to start dating them to confirm what I was sure of. 

We had 5 Incandescent bulbs in our dinning room fixture that was used daily & after 30 years one burned out & because of the style I had to change them all because I could no longer get a matching one. Two of these bulbs are still in service aftermore than 40 years in other fixtures - here is one of them."_


We seem to have two different conversations going on in this thread.  One is about "banning" incandescent lamps and the other is your contention CFL's are short lived.  I have similar experiences with some incandescent lamps I have in two ceiling fixtures.  They are both on dimmers so they don't get hit with 120VAC at start up and are often run well below their full output.  These two techniques alone will extend the life of any incandescent lamp.  I've probably changed two lamps in these (five lamps each) fixtures in 22 years since I run mostly floor and table lamps with CFL's and LED's.  Several of the CFL's have been in place for five years or more and saved money in that time.  I have no anecdotal evidence a CFL is more likely than an incandescent to burn out early.  I assume you purchased early adapter CFL's.  Made in China.  Cheap labor and cheap parts.  I can remember a time in the US when we complained about electronics coming from Japan.  Now we sheepishly accept the fact virtually all of our electronics will come from China, India or Taiwan.  Then we complain when they are substandard.   Makes no sense to me.   

I can't say I have any new CFL's.  First, LED's provide a better, brighter light IMO and are coming down in cost.  I've used halogens in many fixtures for the last fifteen years or so.  And the CFL's I use have simply lasted.  I remember the last batch of CFL's I purchased was something like three for $10 or so.  Even if they didn't actually last longer than an incandescent lamp, they did use less energy so they paid for themself in short time.  

So, Ron, I can't get on board with your complaint.  You made the decision to buy these lamps.  You received a $5 credit for replacements.  The first set basically cost you little to nothing, right?  For someone who dates their lamps, I'm a bit surprised you purchased lamps with no information regarding how to contact the manufacturer.  The government had nothing to do with your decision to buy an unknown brand.  I would say you wanted to save a few dollars so you bought the cheap Blue Planet, 9 watt lamp instead of a more well known name.  Did you check before you purchased from an unknown company?  If you didn't and you bought anyway, government had nothing to do with that either.  Government had nothing to do with those lamps being manufactured in a third world country.  But this is what I see from a lot of folks nowdays, find someone else to blame for their own problems.  And government always ranks up there when you have so many highly paid corporate schills, talking heads and politicians telling you to distrust government.   The more they get you riled up, the more their advertisers and contributors like it.  So it clearly benefits them to be as outrageous as possible.  

You can certainly be upset if that's what you prefer.  I prefer to be a bit more rational and look at the experiences I have with lowering my energy bill, not contributing to the destruction of the planet, not giving profit to those manufacturers moving US jobs overseas and selling lower quality products hoping most of us just won't complain.  I just can't see that one or two lamps, either CFL or incandescent is sufficient evidence to make your point.   I'm just not seeing hundreds of users posting complaints about their CFL's breaking.  Things do break.  All things eventually break.  And some things last when they are taken care of.  

If you consistently have problems with CFL's in one outlet or on one circuit, you might want to have your service panel checked.  Most modern communities now suffer from numerous over and under Voltage conditions all day, everyday.  Surges occur when appliances in your house - and actually in your neighbor's house too since you all share a common power source - power up and down and these large  Voltage/Amperage draws will shorten the life of all electronic devices using the circuit.  Possibly, rather than complaining about a defective CFL, you might benefit from a while house surge protector and a good, solid true Earth ground.


----------



## Designer

What You Need to Know About the Lightbulb Law

_"Consider that a typical 60-watt incandescent bulb emits about 900 lumens of light, which comes to approximately 15 lumens per watt of electricity. The new standard requires bulbs to produce at least 20 lumens of light per watt; by 2020 that number rises to 45 lumens per watt. A current CFL will do 50 lumens per watt or more,.."_

Why, imagine that!  The poor old lightbulb is JUST UNDER the new standard.  Aww... Too bad, so sad.  

Oh, but look!  Those CFL bulbs actually DO meet the new standards.  Wow!  What luck!  How fortunate for them!  

_"CFLs represent the best value for consumers, as they use one-fourth the power of a comparable incandescent lightbulb and last up to 10 times longer. As a result, each CFL will save the consumer at least $30 in the form of lower electricity costs over the life of the bulb."
_
Except if they don't then; Aww.. too bad, so sad.


----------



## snowbear




----------



## soufiej

Designer said:


> What You Need to Know About the Lightbulb Law
> 
> _"Consider that a typical 60-watt incandescent bulb emits about 900 lumens of light, which comes to approximately 15 lumens per watt of electricity. The new standard requires bulbs to produce at least 20 lumens of light per watt; by 2020 that number rises to 45 lumens per watt. A current CFL will do 50 lumens per watt or more,.."_
> 
> Why, imagine that!  The poor old lightbulb is JUST UNDER the new standard.  Aww... Too bad, so sad.
> 
> Oh, but look!  Those CFL bulbs actually DO meet the new standards.  Wow!  What luck!  How fortunate for them!
> 
> _"CFLs represent the best value for consumers, as they use one-fourth the power of a comparable incandescent lightbulb and last up to 10 times longer. As a result, each CFL will save the consumer at least $30 in the form of lower electricity costs over the life of the bulb."
> _
> Except if they don't then; Aww.. too bad, so sad.




As Forrest says, "Stupid is as Stupid does."


----------



## Designer

soufiej said:


> As Forrest says, "Stupid is as Stupid does."


Who are you calling "stupid"?

I know it wouldn't be the news reporters because they have all written the word "BANNED".

I know it can't be me because your post would be offensive to a fellow TPF-er.

It CERTAINLY is not the light-bulb manufacturers, because they got the legislation that they asked for (and paid for, indirectly).

It COULD be the legislators, but then they only do what is asked of them, rarely thinking past the next campaign donation check.

Who is left?


----------



## GlennT

One of our Facilities Techs recently gave me some casual information based on his observations within our company.  CFLs don't like heat.  More precisely, the ballasts don't like heat, and consistent with that, any bulbs that are inverted burn out faster.  Those installed in an enclosed fixture burn out faster.  Those installed in enclosed fixtures and inverted burn out fastest.

That's consistent with what I've seen at home.  Those installed inverted in ceiling fans or in ceiling mounted fixtures in the basement burn out the fastest.  The ceiling fan fixtures are the worst.  Although not fully enclosed, everything is pointed downward, leaving nowhere for heat to go except right up to the ballast.  We have a few enclosed fixtures that have the bulbs horizontal; 2nd most problematic.  We haven't had any problems with those in standard table lamps.

I've never cared for CFLs.  They've made indoor photography difficult in homes that have mismatched bulbs, and thus varying color temps.  I don't like that they have mercury in them.  They cost too much.  They take too long to warm up, and many of them buzz.  We have several in our home, and they've definitely improved, but I recently started swapping them all out for LEDs.


----------



## pgriz

Pretty much every manufactured product has a "performance" space in which it usually meets "the standard" or other criteria.  Outside of that performance space, the manufactured item usually does a poor job.  I am thinking that the performance space of incandescents is quite different from that of CFL's, and yet we are encouraged to think of them as interchangeable.  GlennT has make some interesting observations.  So perhaps the question is under which set of conditions do the CFL's reach their designed durability?  If those conditions are not exactly the the ones under which the lamps are generally used, then I would expect them to perform less well.  The following article (Longevity of light bulbs and how to make them last longer RobAid) talks about some of the factors that affect the durability:  on-off cycle, temperature, operating voltage, start-up voltage, light position, vibration.


----------



## soufiej

Designer said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Forrest says, "Stupid is as Stupid does."
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you calling "stupid"?
> 
> I know it wouldn't be the news reporters because they have all written the word "BANNED".
> 
> I know it can't be me because your post would be offensive to a fellow TPF-er.
> 
> It CERTAINLY is not the light-bulb manufacturers, because they got the legislation that they asked for (and paid for, indirectly).
> 
> It COULD be the legislators, but then they only do what is asked of them, rarely thinking past the next campaign donation check.
> 
> Who is left?
Click to expand...



All those uncertainties!  Maybe you don't know as much as you think you know.   

Glenn's right, of course.  I suppose most consumers never bother to look at the information provided when they buy a lamp.   Numerous styles of lamps do not care to be used base upwards and those lamps should have a warning which indicates "Burn Base Down Only".  The CFL's have never cared for being used in a base upwards condition.  It was one of our first lessons when I was doing lighting for live theatre.  A 500 or 1k watt specialized lamp can get expensive and you want them to last as long as possible.  Yet a lot of newbies would just grab a fixture and not check whether the lamp suited the usage. 

An enclosed fixture doesn't allow heat to escape, which will cause premature failure in any lamp.  Special lamps used in special sockets are needed for enclosed fixtures.  Vibration, I would hope,  is a no brainer and everyone at least sort of knows you'll need a specialized lamp for that purpose.  If you don't at first, you certainly should by the third lamp replacement.  "Ruggedized" lamps are great in your car's headlights and your ceiling fans.  You must not touch the glass envelope of a halogen lamp with your bare fingers.  The oils from your skin will collect on the glass and cause premature failure. 

Of course, over Voltaging any electronic device will cut short its life.  Surges take their toll.  Using a dimmer and ramping the lamp up to its operating Voltage will minimize shock to the lamp.  Most lamps "burn out" when they are hit with the first blast of Voltage and seldom die while they are in constant use.  Power up a lamp with a dimmer and run it at low Voltage and that cheapo incandescent lamp might last 25 years.  Running a dimmable lamp at less than 100% will greatly extend its life.  Lamps are subject to those start up surges from appliances within the house (and, as I said, even from your neighbor's house in some cases) and these under/over Voltage conditions will shorten the life of a lamp, and your TV and your HT receiver and DVR, etc.   

Most people though buy and use lamps like they buy and use low fat diary products.  They never read the label to see what actually is going on.


----------



## Ron Evers

In short, you are saying the CFLs are not a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs.  

BTW, here in the Great White North, we rely on the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep us warm in winter.


----------



## soufiej

Ron Evers said:


> In short, you are saying the CFLs are not a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs.
> 
> BTW, here in the Great White North, we rely on the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep us warm in winter.



Of course I'm NOT saying that.  You're saying that because, I guess, after all this, you have never read any of the information printed on a lamp or its packaging.  All types of lamps have certain restrictions and recommendations.  If you ignore them, they break early.  If you take proper care of them, they last for years - even the cheap and dirty incandescents that Congress DID NOT BAN!


----------



## Austin Greene

DonTX said:


> Not to mention the CFL's contain mercury.  Really government?  You outlaw 100W incandescent bulbs which were safe and last no less than CFLs and make us use a bulb with mercury?



Not saying CFL's are the solution, but keep in mind the main reason why we moved off of incandescent: we're quickly running out of tungsten. 

LED seems to be the way to go.


----------



## Designer

Ron Evers said:


> BTW, here in the Great White North, we rely on the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep us warm in winter.


Exactly!  For about 9 months out of the year, the excess heat from incandescent bulbs is NOT wasted!

THE HEAT IS NOT WASTED!


----------



## Designer

soufiej said:


> Congress DID NOT BAN!


Congress DID BAN any bulb that JUST HAPPENED to not meet their NEW STANDARDS, which were WRITTEN BY the bulb manufacturers.


----------



## soufiej

Designer said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress DID NOT BAN!
> 
> 
> 
> Congress DID BAN any bulb that JUST HAPPENED to not meet their NEW STANDARDS, which were WRITTEN BY the bulb manufacturers.
Click to expand...




  Aren't you missing Rushbo?


----------



## Designer

soufiej said:


> Aren't you missing Rushbo?


What?


----------



## Ron Evers

What I have learned here.

CFLs may last the advertised life if they are mounted base down & not in an enclosed space.  

 Rules them out as a viable alternative to incandescent  in our household where 90% of our usage does not meet that criteria.


----------



## photoguy99

Yes. CFLs are a poor fit for ordinary household usage patterns. They're improving, but LEDs seem to be a better choice these days.

Incandescents that meet the efficiency standards exist.

Separating "heating" functions from "lighting" functions is a pretty good idea, no matter where you live. For those days when you need heat but not light, or vice versa, you know.

Governments writing efficiency standards (and cleanliness standards, and so on and so forth) to drive consumer and manufacturer behavior has been with us a long time, and it's generally produced pretty good results in the end. Relying on "the market" to take care of these things is demonstrably a terrible idea.


----------



## soufiej

Ron Evers said:


> What I have learned here.
> 
> CFLs may last the advertised life if they are mounted base down & not in an enclosed space.
> 
> Rules them out as a viable alternative to incandescent  in our household where 90% of our usage does not meet that criteria.





But that is NOT the fault of the CFL.  If you use a CFL in an inappropriate manner, that's your fault.  Dated or not. 

You have no table lamps in your house?  Aren't they a base-down fixture?  Don't they have sufficient ventilation to draw heat away from the lamp?


----------



## soufiej

[QUOTE="photoguy99, post: 3455839, member: 163625"
Governments writing efficiency standards (and cleanliness standards, and so on and so forth) to drive consumer and manufacturer behavior has been with us a long time, and it's generally produced pretty good results in the end. Relying on "the market" to take care of these things is demonstrably a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I particularly like the one "Employees must wash hands before returning to work".  Until you try to use the empty soap dispenser.  Then, maybe, you'll just have iced tea while you decide where you're actually going to eat.


----------



## Designer

Sorry, Ron, you can no longer use your ceiling light fixtures.

The government has MANDATED that light bulbs SHALL meet new standards of efficiency.


----------



## Ron Evers

photoguy99 said:


> Relying on "the market" to take care of these things is demonstrably a terrible idea.



Interesting take!

Methinks if CFLs proved to be value for money, the free market would have stampeded towards them.  

Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.


----------



## photoguy99

Not the case, people are not rational. Better value for money is frequently trumped by lowered initial cost.

People buy cars and homes based on what the monthly payment will be, rather than the total cost. People buy airplane seats based on lowest cost, not on quality of service offered. And so on. The cheapest bulb, whether it offers better value for money or not (and that is itself a tricky calculation) is likely to sell the best even to people who bear the costs themselves. The cheapest bulb will DEFINITELY sell the best to landlords, home sellers, and anyone else who will not be bearing the long term costs.

And so on and so forth.

The market is, in general, surprisingly bad at pricing things.


----------



## The_Traveler

Ron Evers said:


> Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.



Except when it works for you?


----------



## SurvivalDad

This is soo true. I think the whole thing is a sham!


----------



## Ron Evers

Designer said:


> Sorry, Ron, you can no longer use your ceiling light fixtures.



And many others if you want them to last as long as an incandescent.


----------



## Ron Evers

The_Traveler said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it works for you?
Click to expand...


Well, you got me there Lew.  Health care in Canada being a perfect example of your point.


----------



## photoguy99

You are awesome, Ron. It takes a incredibly big man to just stand up and say something like that, without a single weasel word in sight.


----------



## pgriz

The "free market" (also known as self-interest) never values the commonly-held or the intangibles.  And unlike the rational consumer beloved by economists, the real consumer behaviour is quite irrational and emotion-driven, as most marketers already know.  And as the "free market" is set up and dominated by those with capital, it is less free than we may expect.

As governments are usually required to consider the commons and future implications (as opposed to short-term efficiencies and profit-making opportunities), they usually fulfill that role with regulations (laws, standards, etc.).  Of course, governments are made up of the same irrational and emotion-driven people that are the consumers, so the laws and regulations can often be skewed by special-interest groups exerting influence (almost always money) on the lawmakers.  However, when the citizenry (that's you and me) get involved and push for transparency and accountability, then governments tend to be somewhat more responsive to the needs of the common. 

As a self-employed enterpreneur in the construction field, I strongly resent the bureaucratic burden that reporting places on me, not to mention the haphazard enforcement of the rules and the occasional heavy-handed regulation, but on the other hand, despite these distortions, I also recognize the need for and the reasons that many of the regulations and standards have been enacted.  And that allows me to (somewhat) accept the imperfect realities of regulation because of the underlying benefit (overall, anyways) that on the balance accrues to society.

The CFL's are an example of regulations that aim for a common good (energy conservation), influenced by special interests (GE), implemented by industry looking for short-term profits, and used by consumers who, for the most part, aren't aware of, or don't care about the fine print.  I am as guilty as the next person in this, and have learned a few things about CFL's in this thread that will guide my usage of these.  And yet, because of the mercury content (in the CFL's), I am going to try and switch away from CFL's to LED's in most of our usage and application.


----------



## Braineack

I've been quite fond of my LED bulbs--I just hate the cost.  IIRC I spent something like $70 to buy (4) BR30 bulbs.  Unless the ballast fails, these should last a lifetime--but then again, why would a manufacturer want to make parts that last.

CFL tech makes little sense now that LED is available.

The law was not well intentioned--the gov't literally misinformed the public about all the risks and It forced it to move to the market flubbing CFL bulbs that were dim, slow to warm up, couldn't work on dimmers, and failed well before their expected lifespan--not to mention they were incredibly overpriced as well as BIOLOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS!

all under the wild and false assertion that the govt was saving us from ourselves so that a few rich people could get even richer through coercion.

there was nothing well intentioned behind the law.


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> I've been quite fond of my LED bulbs--I just hate the cost.  IIRC I spent something like $70 to buy (4) BR30 bulbs.  Unless the ballast fails, these should last a lifetime--but then again, why would a manufacturer want to make parts that last.
> 
> CFL tech makes little sense now that LED is available.
> 
> The law was not well intentioned--the gov't literally misinformed the public about all the risks and It forced it to move to the market flubbing CFL bulbs that were dim, slow to warm up, couldn't work on dimmers, and failed well before their expected lifespan--not to mention they were incredibly overpriced as well as BIOLOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS!
> 
> all under the wild and false assertion that the govt was saving us from ourselves so that a few rich people could get even richer through coercion.
> 
> there was nothing well intentioned behind the law.




That last statement is truly ridiculous.  The government funded cancer research of the last fifty years allowed drugs to be tried which, in the end, didn't save lives.  Was that a waste?  Was that not well intentioned?  If we found better ways in the end to treat disease, then the research was a success.  A very well known audio designer, Henry Kloss, once said (paraphrasing), "Of course, I don't know what I'm going to find.  That's why they call it research!"  

Many laws and regulations have inherent self interests designed into them.  Look at the bankruptcy laws which were passed and still gave the banks (who were funding the people passing the regulations) several years to come up with ways around the regulations.  By the time a law is on the books and going to happen, the industrialists have had their lawyers working 'round the clock to figure out how to beat the law.  Drive out to West Texas and look at all the electric power lines and "modern conveniences of life" which exist there where you can drive for 30 minutes and not see another car on the road. They were put there by LBJ who sincerely thought improving people's life was the function of government but getting the funding for the project also served to get him re-elected numerous times.

The whole bash the government schtick is just dumbed down thinking.  We blame government and ignore the manufacturer of poor or even defective parts.  If the government is reported to have done something which can be viewed in a negative light, we get all up in arms.  If a manufacturer designs a product which leaves out a five cent part and several dozen or even several hundred people die as a result, we don't seem to blame big business.  The self interest of selling and buying something at the cheapest cost appears to drive a lot of business today.  Then the consumer will b*tch when cheap products don't live up to their expectations - see this very thread for a fer-instance.  

Simply look at the manufacturers of the CFL's and consider their alternatives.  They were given several years notice to make design changes.  It's not like tomorrow they had to have all new stuff.  _They _made the decision to sell CFL's, not the government.  The government simply put in place future regulations and then left it up to the "free market" to decide how to respond.  The inefficiencies of the $0.60, 60 watt incandescent lamp were not suddenly recognized one day in 2007.  Most bills and regulations take months if not years to get through committees and floor votes.  Then it may take several more years for the laws and regulations to take effect, as with the light bulb efficiency standards.  In the intervening years, the manufacturers decided how they wanted to sell and what they wanted to sell.  To blame government for their actions is a bit like blaming the camera manufacturers for you not knowing how to take a decent photograph.  

If you really, really wanted to not buy CFL's, you as a consumer had ample opportunity to stock up on incandescent lamps.  In the years since the legislation passed, you could have purchased a sufficient number of incandescent lamps to last well into your grandchildren's life time.  No one from the government held a gun to your head and said you had to buy a CFL in 2010.  The government didn't advertise the money saving features of the CFL lamp.  The manufacturer's did.  And many people bought them thinking they would be saving a few bucks and then ignored the label for usage.  Technology changes and everyone expects technology to remain static and then they complain when it does not.  

The desire to always blame someone else for what the individual and the manufacturing industry are doing is bizarre to me.   Government has regulations which say protect your and your neighbor's children from drowning in your swimming pool.  I've got more than a few neighbors who see that as big government over reach.  Wear a seat belt.  How long did people resist that just because they were not going to be told by government how to save their own life?  Wear a motorcycle helmet.  How many quadriplegics are we paying to keep on 24/7 care when, if they had simply worn a helmet and acted responsibly, they wouldn't have been in the same situation?  

I'm not a government apologist but I'm also not someone who runs to blame government when the blame actually exists elsewhere.


----------



## Braineack

rofl.

just rofl.  im not sure how to address you post when you start it with such an off-topic strawman.

Your photographer metaphor isn't even close. A better one would be if the gov't outlawed film in 1993. Photographers would be blaming gov't for forcing them to buy expensive cameras that didn't perform better--actually much worse.  While you'd be blaming nikon and canon for not making better digital cameras in an unreasonable amount of time.

And the gov't figuratively DID hold a gun to our heads and said we had to buy CFL bulbs because it was the only alternative to tugensten bulbs on the market at the time.  They were still early to be adopted to the market and had plenty of issues.

There was no good reason the gov't needed to swoop in and outlaw tungsten bulb.  not one*.   and if you try to refute with efficiency/energy savings, then you really have no grasp on the issue.






*unless you own  a company like GE.


----------



## photoguy99

If you dig, you will always, _*always*_, find that any piece of legislation was passed for _*exactly one reason.*_ It's one of those things. Somehow, everyone on the committees, and everyone voting, in both houses, as well as the president, arrive at a consensus. They are all, weirdly enough, thinking exactly the same simple thought. One single idea motivates them.

The trick is, of course, decoding what that single idea IS. They keep it secret.


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> rofl.
> 
> just rofl.




While big government doesn't require it, I hope you're wearing your helmet while doing so.  I have no desire to pay for you becoming a vegetable.

I guess I missed the trooper in the light bulb aisle when I was shopping.  There truly is no helping some people who want to blame others for everything.


----------



## Braineack

there you go blaming me for your problems


----------



## pgriz

Braineack said:


> There was no good reason the gov't needed to swoop in and outlaw tungsten bulb. not one*. and if you try to refute with efficiency/energy savings, then you really have no grasp on the issue.



Not so sure that I would agree with you.  Considering how many bulbs there are across the country, and considering that the supply of energy requires building new power plants that are usually subsidized by the state, it makes sense for the government to try and reduce the consumption by almost any means possible.  A 90% reduction in energy use for lighting is not going to be trivial on the national scale.  Granted, GE probably did an excellent lobbying job on the committees and lawmakers that wrote this legislation, but the same imperative exists in promoting other sources of energy such as solar and geothermal, AND for enforcing energy standards for home heating/cooling, appliance efficiency and similar consumers of electricity.

If I look at the USA energy consumption budget (2012 numbers), roughly 70% of the total electrical energy consumption was in residential and commercial useage.  The estimates are that about 60% of that are for heating and lighting.  If we assume that lighting is at least 10% of that,  then that represents about 160 TWh of energy use per year.  The Hoover Dam has an average 4.2TWh capacity annually.  So by reducing energy consumption of light by 90%, there exists the possibility of lowering the light portion of energy consumption to maybe 16TWh.  That's a lot of generating capacity that won't have to be built.  

Given that it appears that coal supplies 41% of the electrical energy and natural gas another 25%, this anticipates that reduction in generating capacity can be done in the most polluting and least efficient plants.  I'm thinking that was certainly on the minds of lawmakers.


----------



## Braineack

But you're not considering how much energy is used to produce and recycle a CFL bulb over a halogon or tungesten.  the savings are nulled--espeically when these bulbs aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested.


----------



## photoguy99

Actually measuring the energy cost to make something is notoriously difficult. Simply using the retail cost as a measure isn't any less accurate than anything else.

So if the total lifetime costs of using the product are less, it almost certainly uses less energy over its lifetime.


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> But you're not considering how much energy is used to produce and recycle a CFL bulb over a halogon or tungesten.  the savings are nulled--espeically when these bulbs aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested.



As indicated in this thread, if the lamps "aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested" there's a good chance it is user error to blame.  The media is just not lighting up with complaints about CFL's lifespan.  

Recycling uses energy in a  negative way?  Now you've really been listening to Alex Jones too much.  Just say it and hope everyone believes you.


----------



## Braineack

It's not user error when being a light bulb is a cause for failure.

They fail from cycling of power on/off.
They fail in humid areas.
They fail with heat.
They fail with cold.
They fail on dimmer switches (even if they are dimmable).
They fail with vibration.
They fail because they are made with cheap parts. 
And not only do they not live up to their lifespan estimates, they do not live up to their rated lumens (which degrades worse over time).

I have absolutely no problem with an alternative to incandescent light bulbs. I tend to use higher rated lumen bulbs in my rooms so an alternative to the fixture melting metering spinning bulbs was welcomed. 

But I have a big problem being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want from a light bulb.  It didn't take an act of Congress to replace gas lighting with the Edison bulb--it shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to move to CFLs before the technology was ready, improved, and adopted by the market. I tried CFLs early on, and did not like them (nor did the market)--they had numerous issues.  I was reluctant to move to them in 2012 but have generally been fine with them.  It seems LED technology has come a long way in the last few years, but again, it shouldn't have been forced this way and the market should have worked naturally to get to this point.


----------



## snowbear

Braineack said:


> being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want


. . . HDTV.


----------



## pgriz

As discussed elsewhere, the "free market" is quite distorted by the capital of the market makers, and with the short-term considerations of most of the participants.  So for scenarios where the environment, or security of supply, or long-term trends are concerned, the "free market" usually doesn't work very well.  The guidance for how to deal with the things the free market is not good at, sometimes comes from non-governmental organizations, but almost always they don't have the budgetary or legislative support to make much of a dent, so this comes back to government structures.   Government structures are driven by government policy and budgets (much of this ideological, I might add), with a lot of influence from lobby groups, under-the-table arrangements and inherent self-protection that all bureaucracies have.  It's a mess, but it's really the only one where the majority of citizens have some influence as far as the longer-term issues are concerned.


----------



## Braineack

Not HDTV, but digital TV in general and I didn't like that either. The market was full of low-quality overpriced flat TVs there for a while.  And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market.

The guise there was better quality TV for consumers. The truth was the gov't was selling now available bandwidth (which is way it was part of the deficit reduction act).

Ironically, Pres-Elect Obama spoke out against the deadline saying consumers wouldn't be ready for the switch 

Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know.


----------



## Braineack

pgriz said:


> It's a mess, but it's really the only one where the majority of citizens have some influence as far as the longer-term issues are concerned.


Dont worry, we have a thing called executive orders to take care of that


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> It's not user error when being a light bulb is a cause for failure.
> 
> They fail from cycling of power on/off.
> They fail in humid areas.
> They fail with heat.
> They fail with cold.
> They fail on dimmer switches (even if they are dimmable).
> They fail with vibration.
> They fail because they are made with cheap parts.
> And not only do they not live up to their lifespan estimates, they do not live up to their rated lumens (which degrades worse over time).
> 
> I have absolutely no problem with an alternative to incandescent light bulbs. I tend to use higher rated lumen bulbs in my rooms so an alternative to the fixture melting metering spinning bulbs was welcomed.
> 
> But I have a big problem being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want from a light bulb.  It didn't take an act of Congress to replace gas lighting with the Edison bulb--it shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to move to CFLs before the technology was ready, improved, and adopted by the market. I tried CFLs early on, and did not like them (nor did the market)--they had numerous issues.  I was reluctant to move to them in 2012 but have generally been fine with them.  It seems LED technology has come a long way in the last few years, but again, it shouldn't have been forced this way and the market should have worked naturally to get to this point.





You make a lot of claims and offer no proof.  I have an email which indicates you had posted, " ... helmet laws have increased medical costs."  You must have realized how ignorant that claim was since I can't find it in the thread now.  Just do some basic research, "helmet laws increase/decrease medical costs"; Freakonomics Fewer Helmets Higher Healthcare Costs

You just post stuff.  You think people will believe what you post when it's absolutely absurd BS that you are making up as you go along.  Every "reason" you give for failure of CFL's is made up BS.  Prove just one of them.  You simply can't.  For every reason which might cause a CFL failure, the same reason might cause an incandescent failure.

*You cannot have it both ways*.


_"Not HDTV, but digital TV in general and I didn't like that either. The market was full of low-quality overpriced flat TVs there for a while.  And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market.

The guise there was better quality TV for consumers. The truth was the gov't was selling now available bandwidth (which is way it was part of the deficit reduction act).

Ironically, Pres-Elect Obama spoke out against the deadline saying consumers wouldn't be ready for the switch 

Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."
_


I was selling high end audio and video at the time HDTV, or more correctly "digital" standards were  introduced and I can tell you once again your ideas are simply BS.  *Deficit reduction act?  Pleeease!  Read this; "The Deficit Reduction Act includes provisions to complete the conversion from analog to digital television. The legislation takes part of the bandwidth spectrum currently used by television stations and makes it a dedicated new spectrum for public safety communications, performing a vital public service and fulfilling a critical recommendation of the 9/11 Commission."; Project Vote Smart - The Voter s Self Defense System *

Like most "deficit reduction" proposals, the DRA focused on cutting social programs first and foremost.  I suppose, if you look at anything from a perspective that government is always bad and always has its jack bootted heel on your throat, you can even find a way to believe the idea of providing first responders with radio frequencies shared by all services is still a bad idea.   If you don't remember, Alan Greenspan warned of paying down the deficit too quickly back in the late 1990's.  Then we had a change in administration.  The rest is history and a debt we must live with for a very, very long time.

"Digital" television was first deadlined to become the broadcast standard for the US many years before it actually came to pass.  The US was really the last major industrialized nation to switch to a digital broadcast standard.  The delay was due to many factors, not the least of which was the major networks which were feeling the shrinking market effects of cable and satellite television, simply putting off investing in a technology which had little to offer them from a profit standpoint.  They weren't investing in new equipment which meant they weren't broadcasting in digital.  However, the market for high end video is largely driven by a small contingent of techies who were adapting the higher resolution formats of Laser Disc and  later DVD.  And looking at the rest of the world and asking why the US was lagging behind all others.  The rest of the industry was dragged kicking and screaming along with the inevitable switch to HDTV. When the broadcast frequencies for standard definition television were vacated, the FCC sold - as is the FFC's mandate - broadcast frequencies which included the growing cell phone and radio frequency operated devices which were becoming significant players in the market.

Once again, the government did not stand in the aisles of the electronics stores - I would have bumped into them daily if they had - and forced anyone to make the switch to digital television.   You can still run a standard def TV set through a converter and view the major network broadcasts in low def.  You can use one of the many internet providers for TV material and ignore all broadcast and cable/satellite providers all together.  Check the smaller broadcasters in your local market, usually the UHF channels.  They were not mandated to fully make the switch and you can still see their output in standard definition quality.  The FCC controls the broadcasts frequencies because these belong to the people of the United States, they are what we call "commons".

(The commons is a new way to express a very old idea—that some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all;  About the Commons On the Commons

If you truly object to the FCC, then you must surely also object to the FDA which keeps unsafe drugs from being sold to the public.  Or any other federal, state or local agency which says the public good is of value over the profits at all costs free market.  If so, once again, Alex Jones is missing you.

*

To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...

"And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."

"Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."

Of course we wouldn't have had 4k TV's 5-10 years ago.  First, no one is broadcasting in 4k.  No one is even producing hard copy material in 4k.  4k TV is not an existent commodity for 99.9% of the public.  Why would we have 4k TV if 99.9% of us can't have it?  If you are in the small percentage of the populace who do not even own a computer, you would have no access to 4k TV as it now exists.  When the vast majority of us can't make use of it?  When 99.9% of us would be "forced" to spend money for something we don't want, don't need and can't use.  4k TV is not a universal right as is  the right to live a healthy and prosperous existence.

Digital TV technology was phased in gradually and people could make use of higher def TV's long before the final switch was thrown and standard def broadcasts largely became a matter of history.  It took decades to make digital TV a reality.  There are no plans for 4k TV broadcasts.  It's not government's job to chase down every sales pitch made by a sinking business plan industry.  

The available bandwidth for 4k wasn't commercially available ten years ago.

And, most importantly, 4k exists because 3-D was a bust for the video industry.  People got tired of buying new copies of The White Album every time a new audio format came to market.  They also got tired of replacing their entire video collection every time a new video technology was proclaimed to be the hottest and greatest invention yet.  The US buying public has rather recently replaced most of their televisions with flat screen technology after the prices plummeted due to the growing over supply of flat screen TV's produced by the Asian manufacturers.  The US buying public seems unwilling to go out and invest in yet another technology which has proven itself to be transitory in nature.  They've seen their old video and audio devices become obsolete too quickly and too often.  Sales are slumping for new televisions and the manufacturers must constantly have a new reason to invest in new technology.  4K is this year's gambit.

It is, however, a bizarre twist to say no one was broadcasting in HD when HD was introduced - they were if they wanted their product to be seen - yet we could have 4k now if only the government hadn't been involved.

*You can't have it both ways.*

More BS with no proof is what I expect from you.  Proof is all in your mind and you, and the few like you, who see government as "tyrannical", will always have an irrational reason to believe what you prefer to believe.   Proof is merely what you make of it and truth is not important when it comes to believing.


----------



## Braineack

Light bulb Facts

Highlights:



> *Can I turn my CFL on and off frequently?*
> Turning a CFL on and off frequently can shorten its life. To take full advantage of the energy savings and long life of CFLs, it is best to use them in light fixtures you use the most – lights you leave on for at least 15 minutes at a time.



regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.



> *Can I use Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) in the bathroom?*
> You can use CFLs in bathrooms; however, high humidity can shorten the life of CFLs. To avoid moisture problems, control humidity in your bathroom by running your ventilating fan or opening a window during and 15 minutes after showers and baths.



regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.



> *Does temperature or humidity affect the life of a CFL? For example, would a CFL work in extremely cold temperatures, or extremely wet climates?*
> Extreme temperatures can affect CFLs. Some CFLs can be used outside in temperatures down to –10 degrees Fahrenheit and up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, though when it is very cold they may take longer to reach full brightness. There are some CFLs that are weatherproof and can be used outside where exposed to rain, so check for “weatherproof” models before installing it in your outdoor spot light.
> 
> *Can I use my CFL in a totally enclosed fixture?*
> Before using a CFL in a totally enclosed fixture, you should consult the product packaging. CFLs that are not designed for totally enclosed fixtures will state that on the package. Because totally enclosed fixtures do not allow air to circulate around the lamp, it causes heat to build up, which can lead to performance issues.



use in "extreme" atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance.

from GE: FAQ Lighting Information GE Lighting North America



> Can I use a CFL in applications involving vibration such as a ceiling fan or garage door opener?
> Generally it is not recommended to use CFLs in vibrating environments. Vibration can cause the electronics in the CFL to fail. There is one CFL bulb (FLE11) that is available for use in a ceiling fan. Check the package for this application.



regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up.

2 seconds in google found me this: CFLs Are Your New Bulbs Burning Out Light Bulbs for Home

pretty much the exact bullet list I posted. There are limitations to CFL bulbs that should be considered.


----------



## Braineack

> To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...
> 
> "And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."
> 
> "Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."



does it?

The first statement suggests that the technology was still very new and the early adopters were just testing it out.  I had HDTV back in like 2004, I remember having about 10 HD channels (which I paid extra for) and maybe 1/50th of the new programming was actually filmed in HD.  My plasma TV has 4:3 bars burned into it.

The second statement merely suggests that it's possible that the law actually slowed innovation of the HD technology.

Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing.


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> Light bulb Facts
> 
> Highlights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Can I turn my CFL on and off frequently?*
> Turning a CFL on and off frequently can shorten its life. To take full advantage of the energy savings and long life of CFLs, it is best to use them in light fixtures you use the most – lights you leave on for at least 15 minutes at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Can I use Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) in the bathroom?*
> You can use CFLs in bathrooms; however, high humidity can shorten the life of CFLs. To avoid moisture problems, control humidity in your bathroom by running your ventilating fan or opening a window during and 15 minutes after showers and baths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does temperature or humidity affect the life of a CFL? For example, would a CFL work in extremely cold temperatures, or extremely wet climates?*
> Extreme temperatures can affect CFLs. Some CFLs can be used outside in temperatures down to –10 degrees Fahrenheit and up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, though when it is very cold they may take longer to reach full brightness. There are some CFLs that are weatherproof and can be used outside where exposed to rain, so check for “weatherproof” models before installing it in your outdoor spot light.
> 
> *Can I use my CFL in a totally enclosed fixture?*
> Before using a CFL in a totally enclosed fixture, you should consult the product packaging. CFLs that are not designed for totally enclosed fixtures will state that on the package. Because totally enclosed fixtures do not allow air to circulate around the lamp, it causes heat to build up, which can lead to performance issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> use in "extreme" atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance.
> 
> from GE: FAQ Lighting Information GE Lighting North America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I use a CFL in applications involving vibration such as a ceiling fan or garage door opener?
> Generally it is not recommended to use CFLs in vibrating environments. Vibration can cause the electronics in the CFL to fail. There is one CFL bulb (FLE11) that is available for use in a ceiling fan. Check the package for this application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.
> 
> I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up.
> 
> 2 seconds in google found me this: CFLs Are Your New Bulbs Burning Out Light Bulbs for Home
> 
> pretty much the exact bullet list I posted. There are limitations to CFL bulbs that should be considered.
Click to expand...



No, it does nothing of the sort.  For every "bullet point", the same conditions apply to any lamp. 

_"regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb."_

The more you shock the filament of an incandescent lamp, the sooner it will burn out.  No great mystery there. 

_"regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb"_

How is this different than the same conditions met with an incandescent lamp?  Moisture?  Condensation?  Lamps of all sorts are sealed envelopes and what affects one will also affect others.  Is this truly a mystery to you? 

Read what you've posted, specialized lamps exist for specialized conditions.  That applies to all lamp technologies.

_ "use in 'extreme' atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance."_

You have absolutely no knowledge of how lamps operate, do you?  Put any lamp in an enclosed fixture and it will limit its life.  Heat builds up and causes pre-mature failure.  If the user mis-uses a lamp, it is not the fault of the technology that is the problem here.  You are going out of your way to find issues which don't exist only in CFL's. 

_"regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb."_

It's not the socket that matters.  If the socket is experiencing vibration, all lamps will fail early unless you use "ruggedized" lamps.  *All lamps have these same restrictions. All lamps.    
*

_"regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb._

_I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up."_


*But you did make up the idea this only applies to CFL's.  *That someone can look at facts and be so irresponsible in their take away is really sad.


----------



## soufiej

Braineack said:


> To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...
> 
> "And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."
> 
> "Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does it?
> 
> The first statement suggests that the technology was still very new and the early adopters were just testing it out.  I had HDTV back in like 2004, I remember having about 10 HD channels (which I paid extra for) and maybe 1/50th of the new programming was actually filmed in HD.  My plasma TV has 4:3 bars burned into it.
> 
> The second statement merely suggests that it's possible that the law actually slowed innovation of the HD technology.
> 
> Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing.
Click to expand...



So, it's the fault of who or what when you had to pay for "pay" TV? 

So, it's who or what's fault that *you* burned 4:3 bars into your TV monitor?  You made the choice to set the monitor, no one else.  No jack booted whatever was standing there making you set the TV.  Can you not accept fault for anything *YOU actually do on your own? * 

No, the "law" - which isn't a "law" at all - did not slow 4k technology.  4k exists because 3-D failed.  Time to move to another reason to buy a new TV.  That's the free market in case you can't recognize it when you refer to it.  You just keep making up more and more BS and hoping someone with no common sense actually believes you.  Government did not "control" technology.  Technology already existed in other countries and in the manufacturer's products before the FCC came to a conclusion on the acceptable standard for US broadcasts.  *You really shouldn't talk about things when you obviously do not know a wit about the subject and you are obviously so unwilling to actually read up before you post.*

"_Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing."_

*HUH???!!!*  They wouldn't have had to focus on current technology if they were foscused on advancing technology?  _You have got to be kidding!_

The manufacturers were not focusing on "current technology".  They already had the technology in other countries and the US was the only major market where they weren't already selling the technology.  Manufacturers were actually quite happy when the US entered the market and they no longer were required to produce "special technology" only for the US market, which was and remains the single largest sales market for darned near any product.  *Again, don't say anything if you don't know what you are talking about.  Technology is several years ahead of production.  Is that really a surprise to you*?


----------



## tirediron

Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!


----------



## Braineack

whoops missed a post.


----------



## soufiej

tirediron said:


> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!





I figure he's got to run out of looney-tune ideas soon.  No one can be this out of touch with reality.

Can they?


----------



## tirediron

soufiej said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figure he's got to run out of looney-tune ideas soon.  No one can be this out of touch with reality.
> 
> Can they?
Click to expand...

Takes two to tango!


----------



## soufiej

tirediron said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figure he's got to run out of looney-tune ideas soon.  No one can be this out of touch with reality.
> 
> Can they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes two to tango!
Click to expand...



And one to critique!


----------



## tirediron

soufiej said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figure he's got to run out of looney-tune ideas soon.  No one can be this out of touch with reality.
> 
> Can they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Takes two to tango!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And one to critique!
Click to expand...

Or, in this case, moderate!


----------



## Ron Evers

tirediron said:


> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!



Too funny John!


----------



## tirediron

Ron Evers said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geezzzzzzzzzzz...  go outside and take some pictures you two!  Either that, or get a room!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny John!
Click to expand...


----------



## nanhi

Derrel said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> 
> I edited a spelling error & now I have a double post.  ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEIRD how that can happen! I've been seeing that lately!
> 
> 
> 
> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> 
> I switched my entire house over to LED bulbs. Large upfront cost but hopefully if they perform as claimed will one day pay for themselves. I guess I will have to wait and find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went to all-LED bulbs about a month ago. WOW!!! I am really,really enjoying the LED bulb experience. Like Ron, we tried some of the CFL bulbs a few years back...uggg...that's all I can say...uggg...
Click to expand...


Yep! Enjoy them now Sir. But  2 to 5  years later don't be surprised if it turns out they cause Caneer or some such thing.
And the high price is not justified since the components and electronics are simpler than a CFL Bulb.
Regards


----------

