Your incandescent light bulbs are now safe

[W5GA]

Congress has "overturned" the ban on them by denying enforcement funding.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/

[K7SGJ]

Great news. How the hell could I tune and load my xmtr without them.

Oh yeah, another plus. The middle and lower class citizens that congress has fu*ked over won't have to suffer and starve in the dark. Brilliant, simply brilliant. (no pun intended)

[N2CHX]

Other than using them in a situation where you want to keep something warm (like old FM exciters with PLL's that don't like cold, and chicken coops) or you enjoy burning money, why would you really want them? I love my CFL's and LED's.

[N8YX]

Higher-powered incandescents do have their uses but I'm very appreciative of the engineering strides which have been made in LED lighting technology over the past decade. I've begun to convert a lot of my amateur gear to LED meter illumination; both of my '940S sub-displays were fitted with these cool 5000mcd, sea-green 3mm LEDs. No more display bulb burnout. If the devices had existed when Kenwood built the rig, they should have been OEM.

Also thankful that the motorcycle and bicycle industries have begun to implement the technology in a widespread manner. A 2w LED bicycle headlight with 3-4h high beam runtime can now be powered by 2 AA batteries and weighs 8oz. Sure beats taping a Maglight to the bars.

[K7SGJ]

Other than using them in a situation where you want to keep something warm (like old FM exciters with PLL's that don't like cold, and chicken coops) or you enjoy burning money, why would you really want them? I love my CFL's and LED's.

They also keep my the pipes at the well from freezing. Of course, the packrats are thankful for the warmth, too. Bastids

[N8YX]

Other than using them in a situation where you want to keep something warm (like old FM exciters with PLL's that don't like cold, and chicken coops) or you enjoy burning money, why would you really want them? I love my CFL's and LED's.

The only possible drawback I can think of with LEDs is rectification and harmonic generation in the presence of a high RF field...if the construct isn't bypassed properly.

Also: When using LEDs to illuminate metering in a receiver, noise can be generated and introduced into the signal stages. There was a recent discussion about this on either Eham or AMfone; I'll see if I can find it.

[kf0rt]

Other than using them in a situation where you want to keep something warm (like old FM exciters with PLL's that don't like cold, and chicken coops) or you enjoy burning money, why would you really want them? I love my CFL's and LED's.

I put CFL's in my garage door opener. Burned out a $90 control board. Or more accurately, fried the relay that turns the lights on and off. Back to incandescents there.

[K7SGJ]

I put CFL's in my garage door opener. Burned out a $90 control board. Or more accurately, fried the relay that turns the lights on and off. Back to incandescents there.

I use the ones made for rugged duty/high vibration applications. A bit more expensive, but they last a lot longer.

[N2CHX]

I put CFL's in my garage door opener. Burned out a $90 control board. Or more accurately, fried the relay that turns the lights on and off. Back to incandescents there.

From an engineering standpoint, I really don't see how a CFL could burn up a relay. You mean a relay with metal contacts, correct? Not solid state?

[kf0rt]

From an engineering standpoint, I really don't see how a CFL could burn up a relay. You mean a relay with metal contacts, correct? Not solid state?

Yeah, regular contact type relay. I just assumed it wasn't up to the higher startup currents of the CFL, but maybe I'm all wet on that. Still have the board and it still works except for the lights. Relay clicks, but no juice on the output.

[kf0rt]

I use the ones made for rugged duty/high vibration applications. A bit more expensive, but they last a lot longer.

Been meaning to try those...

[W5GA]

Been meaning to try those...
I just put some of those (cfl type) in a ceiling fan with candelabra base. The 4 of them lasted less time then regular incandescent bulbs, and that base style isn't known for its longevity to begin with. IIRC, from time I put them in to dead was < 2 weeks. And no, the fan isn't out of balance.

Interesting side note in a discussion with the folks at Lowes...you can't buy a new ceiling fan that doesn't use the candelabra base anymore. Another case of nanny statism, people were putting 100w incandescent's in (4 at once), and wondering why their house burned down, in spite of the warning labels.

[K7SGJ]

Yeah, but 400 watts give the fire department a lot of light to work by.

[n2ize]

Awesome !! Great news !! I never thought a day would come where I would actually say, God Bless the GOP!! Those Good ol' boys are all right !

[PA5COR]

Well done GOP with another step in the race to the bottom.

I use CFL lights since they came out 28 years or so ago.
Switching over to LED now.( 1/4 done) including solar fed.
Saves me 400 euro's a year on electricity, but if you want to thhrow your money away, be my guest.
Never had one die in 2 weeks, just one after 2 year, free replacement i got.

[n2ize]

Well done GOP with another step in the race to the bottom.

I use CFL lights since they came out 28 years or so ago.
Switching over to LED now.( 1/4 done) including solar fed.
Saves me 400 euro's a year on electricity, but if you want to thhrow your money away, be my guest.
Never had one die in 2 weeks, just one after 2 year, free replacement i got.

The thing is that not everyone likes the kind of light from CFL's and LED's. Regular incandescent s offer a warmer glow that most people find more relaxing. Plus I question the safety of some of those screw in type of CFL's. On several occasions I have had them fail catastrophically. One time the light began to flicker and I smelled an odor of burning electronics. When I went up to the light I noticed the base of the bulb was smoking and was glowing red hot. LED lights are too expensive and still don't have the kind of temperature and colour rendering that a lot of people like.

Now my personal preference for lighting is the old fashioned (developed in 1940's) straight tube fluorescent in either the "daylight" or "cool white" variety. I would be pretty livid if I turned around and discovered that someone took them off the market.

Its basically about choice. I should have the choice to use whatever type of lighting I prefer. If my preference is for using candles or oil lamps I should be able to buy them. No lawmaker should take candles or oil lamp wicks off the market. Same as for incandescent s. It should be a choice. Besides, many people have adopted the use of CFL's and LED's without the government demanding they do. I am kind of glad this ban has been struck down.

[N1LAF]

From an engineering standpoint, I really don't see how a CFL could burn up a relay. You mean a relay with metal contacts, correct? Not solid state?

It could be a solid state relay/opticoupler, which are sensitive to voltage spikes.

[N1LAF]

Typical CFL's do not work well with dusk-to-dawn lights. Furthermore, most do not do well in cold temperatures. And in cold weather, it takes a while for the CFL to come up to brightness.

Use common sense here, CFL for indoor use, and incandescence for outdoor use when cold, and relay actuated dusk-to-dawn lights are manufactured. Don't outlaw because some dumb-ass politician wants to control what you buy.

[W2NAP]

CFL are ok. I got one in the light next to me. it puts out more like then the incandescent dose.

Pain in the ass finding them made in USA tho. I refuse to buy anything China.

[n2ize]

Typical CFL's do not work well with dusk-to-dawn lights.

Sure they do. Make sure your electric eye control uses a thermal relay to switch that lamp on and off.


Furthermore, most do not do well in cold temperatures. And in cold weather, it takes a while for the CFL to come up to brightness.

You can say that again.


Don't outlaw because some dumb-ass politician wants to control what you buy.

Ditto. You can say that again too.

[n2ize]

CFL are ok. I got one in the light next to me. it puts out more like then the incandescent dose.

Pain in the ass finding them made in USA tho. I refuse to buy anything China.

Then you must have very few things. Even if its "made in the USA" there is usually stuff inside made in China. And then there are some specialized items where there is little or no choice. The only place they are made is in China.

[NQ6U]

Don't outlaw because some dumb-ass politician wants to control what you buy.

"They'll take my incandescent bulbs when they pry them from my cold, dark fingers!"

[W2NAP]

Then you must have very few things. Even if its "made in the USA" there is usually stuff inside made in China. And then there are some specialized items where there is little or no choice. The only place they are made is in China.

I do have few things, but most of it is all old things.

[n2ize]

I do have few things, but most of it is all old things.

Well, that's good. I like the old stuff myself. I have a lot of old radios and vintage/antique appliances. Sometimes people see them and say, "gee nice antique". And I tell them, "it's an antique that still gets a lot of use".

[W3WN]

Other than using them in a situation where you want to keep something warm (like old FM exciters with PLL's that don't like cold, and chicken coops) or you enjoy burning money, why would you really want them? I love my CFL's and LED's.
I believe that a lot of the resentment over having the CFL, LED, and other "new" styles of lighting come from not just being forced "for our own good" to accept them... resentment at the ground level of the Nanny State... but over their higher initial costs.

There is also a concern regarding disposal of the CFL lights. I know a lot of people who are scared about what happens if they break one and the mercury gets out... overblown, no doubt, but understandable considering the amount of publicity over how bad mercury is supposed to be, over the last few decades.

There is also a group legitimately concerned that most of the CFL lights are made overseas, despite the fact that the design and development work took place here... and that the last US based incandescent manufacturing plants were or will be shut down.

Incidentally, I heard on the news the other day (before Congress "overturned" the ban) that there's also a replacement coming in for the standard flourescent bulbs. And that these will be a new design that can not be easily or inexpensively retrofitted into existing lighting units. So once those "old" bulbs are taken off the market, you'll have to buy new fixtures, allegedly, when the bulbs wear out. Lovely.

[kf0rt]

Incidentally, I heard on the news the other day (before Congress "overturned" the ban) that there's also a replacement coming in for the standard flourescent bulbs. And that these will be a new design that can not be easily or inexpensively retrofitted into existing lighting units. So once those "old" bulbs are taken off the market, you'll have to buy new fixtures, allegedly, when the bulbs wear out. Lovely.

It'll be a total pain, but I won't shed a tear over the loss of the "Edison socket."

[N1LAF]

A feature I like about CFL's is the varying types of light you can choose from. I have CFL through my house, it is only a couple light fixtures it does not work well with, and some refuse to work in cold weather.

[n2ize]

Incidentally, I heard on the news the other day (before Congress "overturned" the ban) that there's also a replacement coming in for the standard flourescent bulbs. And that these will be a new design that can not be easily or inexpensively retrofitted into existing lighting units. So once those "old" bulbs are taken off the market, you'll have to buy new fixtures, allegedly, when the bulbs wear out. Lovely.

Are you talking about the straight tube florescent ? If so I highly doubt they will be disappearing from the market place anytime soon. They are too widely used and they are still being installed in many new locations. The cost and effort involved in replacing every standard fluorescent fixture would be astronomical. Furthermore the straight tube fluorescent's are energy efficient and come in a wide range of intensities and colour temps.. No real need to replace them.. Besides there is already an LED replacement for straight tube florescent for those who want it. It's basically a row of LED's mounted in a cylindrical tube enclosure the same length and diameter as a standard fluorescent. You just put it into the existing sockets and turn it on. Personally I like the regular fluorescent. Economical, cool burning, plenty of light output, good colour rendering, and the best light dispersion you can get. Very easy on the eyes.

[n2ize]

It'll be a total pain, but I won't shed a tear over the loss of the "Edison socket."

What's wrong with the standard edison socket ? It's cheap, easy to manufacture, simple, reliable , can be fitted to almost any application, comes in a wide range of sizes. I have yet to see anything better.

I highly doubt the standard Edison socket is going to vanish anytime soon. Way too many in use in so many different applications worldwide. Plus, even the incandescent ban would not have eliminated the standard Edison socket or the incandescent lamp. The "ban" was not really a ban. It was merely an efficiency requirement. Energy efficient incandescent s that met the requirements of the "ban" were/are already on the market. In addition there were a huge number of exemptions to the "ban". many places where you cannot or would not want to replace incandescent s. For example, decorative lighting, chandeliers, utility apps (i.e refrigerators, oven's, etc.).. Incandescent's will be with us for decades to come.

[PA5COR]

Seems the GOP ( again) made a whoopsie.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/19/1046879/-Oooopsy-GOP-attack-on-light-bulb-efficiency-irks-manufacturers?via=siderec

First of all the incandescent lamps will not be forbidden at all.
They just have to be 30% more efficient, like the halogen lamps already are.

Then:


Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them. After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.
Manufacturers are worried that the rider will undermine companies’ investments and “allow potential bad actors to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without any fear of federal enforcement,” said Kyle Pitsor, the trade group’s vice president of government relations.


Woops, even more jobs out of the window?
I might be dumb, but didn't the GOP get elected on their meme of creating more jobs? Boehner? hello Boehner? :scared::chin:

[W3WN]

Are you talking about the straight tube florescent ? If so I highly doubt they will be disappearing from the market place anytime soon. They are too widely used and they are still being installed in many new locations. The cost and effort involved in replacing every standard fluorescent fixture would be astronomical. Furthermore the straight tube fluorescent's are energy efficient and come in a wide range of intensities and colour temps.. No real need to replace them.. Besides there is already an LED replacement for straight tube florescent for those who want it. It's basically a row of LED's mounted in a cylindrical tube enclosure the same length and diameter as a standard fluorescent. You just put it into the existing sockets and turn it on. Personally I like the regular fluorescent. Economical, cool burning, plenty of light output, good colour rendering, and the best light dispersion you can get. Very easy on the eyes.Yes. The news story was talking about the new "super energy efficient" replacements, although they didn't specify LED's. Supposedly, the replacements require a different socket. Of course, the electrician quoted on the news cast might be trying to drum up some business...

Doesn't matter to me, I have to replace a fixture anyway, so either way, I pay for it.

...and what appears to be going on is that the LED replacements don't require the ballast. So it has to be taken out. Of COURSE some electrician will tell everyone that the whole fixture has to be replaced, as it's "too hard" to "retrofit" the existing ones. May not be true, but it's easier, and I'm sure that there will be a markup for buying the new light fixture on top of the labor costs.

[PA5COR]

The LED replacement lamps have the same fitting, remove the starter and ballast and the 36 watt TL can be replaced in the old TL lamp holder, using 1/2 the wattage, i.e. 15 watts for the same LUX lighting.
You can get the LED TL's in several "colours as well, from warm white as in incandescent lamp light to natural daylight colour.
( on my side of the pond that is ) .

60, 120 en 150cm in the colours white ( 4000-4500K) en cool white (5500-7000K).
New TL lamps even dimmable in 4 settings, 25%, 50% 75% and 100%.
Life expectancy 50.000 hours. ( 10 x the standard TL)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHpPurkIQV4

[n2ize]

The LED replacement lamps have the same fitting, remove the starter and ballast and the 36 watt TL can be replaced in the old TL lamp holder, using 1/2 the wattage, i.e. 15 watts for the same LUX lighting.
You can get the LED TL's in several "colours as well, from warm white as in incandescent lamp light to natural daylight colour.
( on my side of the pond that is ) .

60, 120 en 150cm in the colours white ( 4000-4500K) en cool white (5500-7000K).
New TL lamps even dimmable in 4 settings, 25%, 50% 75% and 100%.
Life expectancy 50.000 hours. ( 10 x the standard TL)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHpPurkIQV4

Interesting but an advertisement. It's a good option for those who want it and, might be feasible in certain locations, i.e. cold locations, hard to reach locations, new installations. But I still don't see it happening on a grand scale. Millions upon millions of legacy fixtures would have to either be swapped or rewired. Perhaps in decades to come these will replace standard tubes. But I strongly suspect ordinate tubes will be around for at least a few more decades. Plus, you can't beat the quality of a gas discharge tube igniting a phosphor. The light diffusion of a standard bare florescent tube is excellent. Matter of fact it is so good that you can often use a standard tube florescent without a diffuser. I can stare at a standard tube without hurting my eyes and the light spreads out evenly everywhere.

[n2ize]

Yes. The news story was talking about the new "super energy efficient" replacements, although they didn't specify LED's. Supposedly, the replacements require a different socket. Of course, the electrician quoted on the news cast might be trying to drum up some business...

Doesn't matter to me, I have to replace a fixture anyway, so either way, I pay for it.

...and what appears to be going on is that the LED replacements don't require the ballast. So it has to be taken out. Of COURSE some electrician will tell everyone that the whole fixture has to be replaced, as it's "too hard" to "retrofit" the existing ones. May not be true, but it's easier, and I'm sure that there will be a markup for buying the new light fixture on top of the labor costs.

When I was working for a building maintainer we'd show him a box of end caps from burned out tubes and we'd get a bulk discount on new straight tubes. I tend to suspect what they mean by "new socket" really means "new fixture". Eventually they will probably change over to high efficiency but I suspect it will happen in stages. First new buildings, then new fixtures and then, a slow but gradual change over with regards to legacy fixtures. But it will take a very long time because standard fixtures are still being manufactures, sold, and installed in new buildings and installations. I doubt they are going to swap over anytime soon.

[K7SGJ]

Or the price of legacy bulbs becomes close to, or higher than an all new fixture w/bulbs.

[kf0rt]

What's wrong with the standard edison socket ? It's cheap, easy to manufacture, simple, reliable , can be fitted to almost any application, comes in a wide range of sizes. I have yet to see anything better.

I highly doubt the standard Edison socket is going to vanish anytime soon. Way too many in use in so many different applications worldwide. Plus, even the incandescent ban would not have eliminated the standard Edison socket or the incandescent lamp. The "ban" was not really a ban. It was merely an efficiency requirement. Energy efficient incandescent s that met the requirements of the "ban" were/are already on the market. In addition there were a huge number of exemptions to the "ban". many places where you cannot or would not want to replace incandescent s. For example, decorative lighting, chandeliers, utility apps (i.e refrigerators, oven's, etc.).. Incandescent's will be with us for decades to come.

I don't like them because they often "stick" in the socket and are "gritty" to remove / install. Replaced a porch fixture here a few years back, and it came with a bulb and socket like I've never seen before. The base of the bulb is ceramic (like a CFL), but it's flat on the bottom and has two short nail-head pins sticking out. These pins fit into two holes in the socket. Twist maybe 10-15 degrees and it locks in place. Sweeeeeet! What a light socket should have been in the first place.

I've since forgotten the name of the base and couldn't locate it in 10 minutes of google-fu. Guess that means I'm screwed if I ever have to replace the bulb.

But yeah, I think we're stuck with the Edison socket forever.

[W3WN]

One thing that ought to be mentioned in this discussion...

If the new bulbs are so much better, in terms of energy consumption and environmental impact, then the market ought to determine how quickly they are adapted. That their adoption has to be forced on the consumers (by laws that indirectly ban the old bulbs by imposing impossible-for-incandescent bulb efficiency standards) tells me that they have not done a very good job of marketing the CFL bulbs, even though they've been out for years.

And I'm sure in part it's because the CFL and LED bulbs up front cost a great deal more. So over the course of time, they may end up being cheaper to the consumer, but that initial sticker shock is leaving them on the shelves...

...until the alternative is removed by government mandate. And who pockets the profits of the new bulbs?

[PA5COR]

CFL's and TL and LED are common here, the incandescent lamps were on their way out here a long time back.
With the negative feedback of a certain political party with their mouthpiece FOX, and the current state lots of people are in now in the USA i didn't expect anything else.
If that is environmental protection, lowering our footprint on nature or energy savings or getting cars with better gas milage.
If it is politicians steered by their masters big business like oil, gas or energy firms, we know who really controls the USA.

Must be the same mental retardation that lets people vote for the political party that breaks down jobs, lies to them and does anything against their interests.

You can buy CFL's from 1.50 Euro on so what initial price shocker?
A decent TL tube 4 foot 38 watts is 8 euro here, so 10 times that = 80 euro for one 18 watt LED tube costing 29.90 at the moment every hour saving 18 watts.

You even can keep the old fixture, just remove a few parts...
Saving 900 KW over the lifetime of the LED lamp equals 900 x .22 Euro or 200 euro in the lifetime of the LED lamp, not taking in account the price hikes the electricity will take over the years, then the savings will be even bigger.
Total savings 50 euro for replacementlampsand 200 for electricity = 250 euro and 10 times the trouble of replacing the old tube and have it taken care of as chemical waste.
More chemical waste to treat by the local authorities = more costs as well.
For which you will be footed the bill as well.
In the LED TL lamp there are no chemical dangerous waste, and can be recycled.

If the incandescent lighbulb makers won't invest in the simple task to make them 30% more efficient that is not the governments fault.
The technology has been around decades, Halogen lamps do just that.
It would make the normal incandescent lamps more expensive though, so that their cost price is equal to CFL's.

I always found it to be a anachronism that people want the latest in technology when we buy tv's or audio systems, cars etc.
But go full retarded when it comes to energy saving and lighting their house.

[W5GA]

I always found it to be a anachronism that people want the latest in technology when we buy tv's or audio systems, cars etc.
But go full retarded when it comes to energy saving and lighting their house.
People aren't averse to lighting technology at all. They are averse to having it stuffed down their throats by the governments jack boots.

[WV6Z]

They are averse to having it stuffed down their throats by the governments jack boots.

Yep, that's the way I'm seeing it. Here's a humorous anecdote for you guys...... Went to Lowe's this past spring, determined to bite the bullet and not only conserve energy, but $$$, eventually, off of my power bill and then there is the prime reason for me...... no desire to get up on the bloody ladder to change out motion light's bulbs any more than I have to. Anywho.... if I am remembering right...... they had a LED floodlamp 'bulb' on sale for either $49 or $59. Yeah, I said ON sale not FOR sale. So, after seeing a two pack of incandescents for like $7ish..... being a tree hugger hippie type and a cheap old bastard after zipping past the half century mark years ago, I opted for the CFLs.... they were like $15 for a pair. Jeez, what a fricking faux pas that turned out to be. Word to the wise........ or a friendly reminder FROM a dumb ass..... It takes a full 5 minutes for these pieces of shit to reach full brightness. Dammit..... I expected them to be slow like the slow CFLs all through the interior of my house, not slow like a fricken Flintstone's lightbulb where you have to wait for a mini dinosaur to rub two frickin sticks together within a glass globe to 'get the light going'. Geez, I am such a dumb ass sometimes, well, okay, most of the time..... but what the hell was I thinking?! I am sure when outside temperatures dip below zero F, these sumbeegiz will be able to be timed with a damned calendar before reaching full luminescence.......shit!

[PA5COR]

You can get special CFL's for cold environments like outside in winter, or deep freeze cells etc, instant on.

If the government "forces you" ? they didn't forbid incandescent lamps they just banned the old ones, if the lighting industry brings down electricity ise 30% you can stuff your house full of incandescent lamps, halogen lamps are just that and not "forbidden" .

Before Government introduced the rule Democratically!!! the same people didn't want to change to energysaving laights, but rather throw money out of the window.
I use that money to better uses like my hobby...

[n2ize]

You can get special CFL's for cold environments like outside in winter, or deep freeze cells etc, instant on.

If the government "forces you" ? they didn't forbid incandescent lamps they just banned the old ones, if the lighting industry brings down electricity ise 30% you can stuff your house full of incandescent lamps, halogen lamps are just that and not "forbidden" .

Before Government introduced the rule Democratically!!! the same people didn't want to change to energysaving laights, but rather throw money out of the window.
I use that money to better uses like my hobby...

If we Americans want to throw our money out the window that is our right and our business. We don;t need the gubmint to tell us how to spend or what to buy or what to light our homes with. I use florescent lighting because I like it. Others like ordinary incandesents and that should be their right to run them. If I want to burn kerosene lamps that should be my business and no one else's.

[n2ize]

People aren't averse to lighting technology at all. They are averse to having it stuffed down their throats by the governments jack boots.

^^^^ Amen

[PA5COR]

That would be your business as long you could keep your pollution over the USA.

[W1GUH]

With 12' ceilings and the ladder 5 floors down I'm VERY THANKFUL for CFL's. The slow start-up to me is a non-issue, considering the benefits. And never really noticed any difference in the light. DID notice I don't need to change the bulbs in the ceiling fixtures nearly so often.

[N1LAF]

You can get special CFL's for cold environments like outside in winter, or deep freeze cells etc, instant on.


If they are available, they would be purchased.

[K7SGJ]

With 12' ceilings and the ladder 5 floors down I'm VERY THANKFUL for CFL's. The slow start-up to me is a non-issue, considering the benefits. And never really noticed any difference in the light. DID notice I don't need to change the bulbs in the ceiling fixtures nearly so often.


It's not really slow startup, it has more to do with the fact the light has to travel so far to get to you. 12 foot ceiling, indeed.

[W1GUH]

Of course. And it also has to travel through my long hippie hair!

[n2ize]

That would be your business as long you could keep your pollution over the USA.

It's not people using incandescent bulbs that are causing the pollution. People should have a choice as to what they want to light their homes with. I think this thread alone speaks for itself. Virtually everyone on this thread prefers LED's or CFL's to incandescent. Most people right on this thread have discontinued using incandescent and have switched to the newer lamps. I am seeing CFL's almost everywhere I go. Even a lot of decorative Christmas lighting is done via LED's. Many traffic lights are using LED's. Most homeowners are using them outdoors and indoors.

That said, I think that it should still be a persons choice. Not everybody likes LED's or CFL's. Nor are they practical in every situation. Incandescent are also better suited to certain applications, such as for use in chandeliers and for decorative dining room and restaurant lighting. Some people prefer the colour rendering that incandescent have to offer. They should have the choice to buy and use the lighting they prefer without some envirowacko or some PITA lawmaker telling them what they should use.

People are making the transition to energy efficiency just fine without the lawmakers breathing down their necks.

[n2ize]

Incidentally it is kind of ironic that the so called "incandescent ban" was aimed at the higher wattage incandescents when in reality the higher wattage incandescents tend to be more efficient than the lower wattage's.

Also, if you want to make an incandescent last a long time run it at a reduced filament temperature, i.e. reduce the voltage to the lamp will often increase its life several fold.

The following link summarizes these and more facts.

http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html#mll

[n2ize]

Proof that incandescents can outlast both CFL's and LED's

http://www.centennialbulb.org/

[PA5COR]

They are available, maybe people are too stupid to ask for them? or just not caring enough, just in being able to nag, nag, nag?
In order to get an ENERGY STAR rating CFL must be instant start. Several are now on the market.
LED lamps are instant start, instant full brightness, and don't care what temperature it is.
CFLs are available with cold-weather ballasts, which may be rated to as low as −23 °C (−10 °F).I use standard CFL's outside the ones with the glass globes to make them look like a "regular" bulb help a lot. They do take a while to come up to full brightness, as did the other ones, but even at -10F they get pretty darn bright, not as bright as 70F, but more then enough to snow blow or shovel by.
Not that we get a lot to -10F here ;)

[K7SGJ]

Of course. And it also has to travel through my long hippie hair!

That's 1 in a row!

[PA5COR]

The exception doesn't make it the rule though ;)

[W1GUH]

Awwww...I remember over on another thread, doesn't that count?

In any event, thanks for noticing!

[KC2UGV]

If we Americans want to throw our money out the window that is our right and our business. We don;t need the gubmint to tell us how to spend or what to buy or what to light our homes with. I use florescent lighting because I like it. Others like ordinary incandesents and that should be their right to run them. If I want to burn kerosene lamps that should be my business and no one else's.

That's like saying the government has no right to regulate things like emission standards.

[n2ize]

That's like saying the government has no right to regulate things like emission standards.

Allright, so then we'll buy old style incandescent bulbs as "heaters" or "special purpose devices". But the "ban" is now dead so let it rest.

Personally the world would be a better place without lawmakers IMHO. I am sick of busybodies telling me how to live.

[KC2UGV]

Allright, so then we'll buy old style incandescent bulbs as "heaters" or "special purpose devices". But the "ban" is now dead so let it rest.

Personally the world would be a better place without lawmakers IMHO. I am sick of busybodies telling me how to live.

Nobody (For the most part) is telling you how to live; but rather mandating minimal requirements for manufacturers.

[n2ize]

Nobody (For the most part) is telling you how to live; but rather mandating minimal requirements for manufacturers.

Well, they were mandating but that is over now. The good part is you can get any kind of bulb you want, even old fashioned carbon filaments. There are numerous suppliers of vintage and antique style bulbs. I bought a carbon filament and a 1930's style tungsten this past summer.

[N1LAF]

... but rather mandating minimal requirements for manufacturers.

Why? Is it the role of government to pick "the winners", to choose what brands YOU can buy? Interfere with private business? If it doesn't affect US security and/or safety, they have no business interfering.

[KC2UGV]

Why? Is it the role of government to pick "the winners", to choose what brands YOU can buy? Interfere with private business? If it doesn't affect US security and/or safety, they have no business interfering.

In this case, the government isn't picking winners and losers (As happened under GW Bush, where he picked which financial institutions would lose, and which ones would win).

Everybody has a level playing field: Meet these minimums.

And, energy demand very much DOES affect national security.

And, the government has every authority to "interfere" with private businesses, when it crosses state lines.

[W5GA]

And, the government has every authority to "interfere" with private businesses, when it crosses state lines.
And, according to the gov't., even when it doesn't.

[KC2UGV]

And, according to the gov't., even when it doesn't.

A pretty good case can be made that if a business has a bank account, it crosses state lines, no matter the location of the bank (Due to the FDIC, and the fact that a bank, even if not FDIC insured, still invests in the wider market).

In this case, sale of lightbulbs crosses state lines, and their excessive energy waste is a national defense issue. I can run 10 CFL's with the same amount of power I used to light 1 incandescent.

[N1LAF]

This is actually a good case of where gov't regulates companies to go out of business

[W5GA]

A pretty good case can be made that if a business has a bank account, it crosses state lines, no matter the location of the bank (Due to the FDIC, and the fact that a bank, even if not FDIC insured, still invests in the wider market).

In this case, sale of lightbulbs crosses state lines, and their excessive energy waste is a national defense issue. I can run 10 CFL's with the same amount of power I used to light 1 incandescent.
I guess my statement was a bit too obscure.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111

[KC2UGV]

This is actually a good case of where gov't regulates companies to go out of business

And that would mean those companies could not be competitive. No company has ever gone out of business because regulation prevented them from being competitive.

[KC2UGV]

I guess my statement was a bit too obscure.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111

And, even in that case, wheat production IS an interstate commerce issue; since pretty much ALL commerce in the US eventually crosses state lines; or has effects.

Especially in time of a depression...

[W5GA]

And, even in that case, wheat production IS an interstate commerce issue; since pretty much ALL commerce in the US eventually crosses state lines; or has effects.

Especially in time of a depression...
Except when it's being grown for personal consumption, as was the case here.

[KC2UGV]

Except when it's being grown for personal consumption, as was the case here.

It was stated in the link you provided that he was selling about 20% of it.

[n2ize]

A pretty good case can be made that if a business has a bank account, it crosses state lines, no matter the location of the bank (Due to the FDIC, and the fact that a bank, even if not FDIC insured, still invests in the wider market).

In this case, sale of lightbulbs crosses state lines, and their excessive energy waste is a national defense issue. I can run 10 CFL's with the same amount of power I used to light 1 incandescent.

And where does it stop ? Suppose the government decides that ham radios are not necessarily and consume too much power ? Or perhaps older tube radios or linear amplifiers that use tubes ? So you can own one if you already have one but, you cannot legally buy one if it requires being shipped across state lines. If someone prefers to use standard incandescents and they are manufactured then they should have that right.

Besides, millions of Americans have voluntarily switched over to more efficient lighting forms simply based on diiscusions that they are more economical, less harmful to the environment, etc. I prefer to see things done on a voluntary basis as opposed to the behest of some lawmaker.

Even not that the ban is pretty much over I'll bet lots of people will still switch over and companies will offer more efficient incandescents anyway, as they already have.

[ka4dpo]

I personally can not stand the light given off by CFL's. I tried several of them in the family room and they gave me a headache. I do have some very high wattage (125 watt equivalent) CFL's in the basement, they are the bright white kind that generate a lot of light. They work well and are cheaper to operate than 20 125 watt incandescant bulbs would be so they have have their uses. They also generate radio noise in the HF spectrum so I turn them off when I get on the air, my shack is in a second story office and I use incandescent lighting in there.

I was so glad that the government relented on this issue because the truth is that modern incandescent light bulbs are not that inefficient compared to other light sources. So if it makes you feel good to go hug a tree then by all means. I prefer to be comfortable and I am willing to pay for it. My neighbor has a 1981 Ford Fairmont station wagon into which he put a 420 HP V8. A bumper sticker on the back says " One Less Prius". That was good for a couple of beers and a good laugh.

[KC2UGV]

And where does it stop ? Suppose the government decides that ham radios are not necessarily and consume too much power ? Or perhaps older tube radios or linear amplifiers that use tubes ? So you can own one if you already have one but, you cannot legally buy one if it requires being shipped across state lines. If someone prefers to use standard incandescents and they are manufactured then they should have that right.

Besides, millions of Americans have voluntarily switched over to more efficient lighting forms simply based on diiscusions that they are more economical, less harmful to the environment, etc. I prefer to see things done on a voluntary basis as opposed to the behest of some lawmaker.

Even not that the ban is pretty much over I'll bet lots of people will still switch over and companies will offer more efficient incandescents anyway, as they already have.

You do realize, we operate on the amateur bands with the blessing of the FCC, by whatever rules they set down, right?

One example: Damped wave is no longer an allowed emission, due to it not being efficient enough with the limited resources to be had.

[n2ize]

I personally can not stand the light given off by CFL's. I tried several of them in the family room and they gave me a headache. I do have some very high wattage (125 watt equivalent) CFL's in the basement, they are the bright white kind that generate a lot of light. They work well and are cheaper to operate than 20 125 watt incandescant bulbs would be so they have have their uses. They also generate radio noise in the HF spectrum so I turn them off when I get on the air, my shack is in a second story office and I use incandescent lighting in there.

You are not alone. My Mom and a few other people I know of have complained that they don't like the lighting from CFL's and complain of headache, eye strain, etc. when using them. Personally they don't bother me, however I prefer the straight tube flourescents because they give a nice even light dispersal, even without a diffuser.



I was so glad that the government relented on this issue because the truth is that modern incandescent light bulbs are not that inefficient compared to other light sources. So if it makes you feel good to go hug a tree then by all means. I prefer to be comfortable and I am willing to pay for it. My neighbor has a 1981 Ford Fairmont station wagon into which he put a 420 HP V8. A bumper sticker on the back says " One Less Prius". That was good for a couple of beers and a good laugh.

I concur... CFL's and LED's do have their place and will continue to grow in popularity. However, they are not for everyone and not for every application. I know people who use incandescents in the bedroom, the dining room, living room but use CFL's everywhere else. That is why I strongly advocate on allowing people to have a choice as opposed to a mandate from a lawmaker.

[W5GA]

It was stated in the link you provided that he was selling about 20% of it.
You should read the whole flawed decision.

The Act includes a definition of 'market' and its derivatives so that as related to wheat in addition to its conventional meaning it also means to dispose of 'by feeding (in any [317 U.S. 111, 119] form) to poultry or livestock which, or the products of which, are sold, bartered, or exchanged, or to be so disposed of.' 13 Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises. Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. 14 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111#f14) Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture.