Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

basically correct, illustrates how ridiculous this law is.

Well, since it's incorrect, does that illustrate how ridiculous your objections to the law are?

 

[Bri]

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Probably. I actually have no problem with this since most people won't buy a bulb labeled as a heat lamp. Because of the lack of demand they would have to charge a huge amount for them, lessening demand further. At the same time, people who REALLY want inefficient bulbs can get them for a price.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Well, since it's incorrect, does that illustrate how ridiculous your objections to the law are?

i admit to the thread being ridiculous, but this is due to antics of Stalwart Defenders of the True Faith of Bulbs. It is the utter And fierce seriousness which is telling. Not just sincere self criticism but careful and ernest criticism of comrades which may only come aftet contrite self criticism.

Preparing for the biweekly Party meeting is serious work, comrades.

 

[Bri]

I was originally responding to a post (by Bri I believe) that implied it was 90% waste in all cases.

I don't recall implying that it was 90% waste in all cases. I believe what I said was that old non-compliant light bulbs convert 10% of their energy into light and 90% is wasted as heat. Of course if you're using the bulb to produce heat, that's kind of what you want. Which is why bulbs are exempt from the standards for purposes other than lighting.

Also, though what someone said about a coil of wire being a coil of wire isn't completely true, it is way more correct than when Bri said the electric heater is "far more efficient". I believe he already backed off the "far more" in a later post...

Probably people who are interested can read the thread without an inaccurate recap from you. I admitted my error in a previous post. I said that although any incandescent light bulb will produce the same amount of heat per watt, the reason that not all lightbulbs would be equivalent for heating a room is because more efficient bulbs will require less watts (and therefore produce less heat) per lumen output. In other words, an old incandescent bulb will produce more heat than an efficient bulb that is equally bright.

I also said that under most circumstances a far better strategy than lighting and heating the room with inefficient light bulbs is to light the room with efficient light bulbs and heat the room with a good space heater. The heat from a heater can be directed, space heaters can be moved, heaters can circulate the heat better, heaters can have thermostats to regulate the heat, space heaters can be placed in the floor rather than at the ceiling where the heat wants to go, and heaters can be turned off when not needed (on warm days, for example) without the room going dark.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

......under most circumstances a far better strategy than lighting and heating the room with inefficient light bulbs is to light the room with efficient light bulbs and heat the room with a good space heater. The heat from a heater can be directed, space heaters can be moved, heaters can circulate the heat better, heaters can have thermostats to regulate the heat, space heaters can be placed in the floor rather than at the ceiling where the heat wants to go, and heaters can be turned off when not needed (on warm days, for example) without the room going dark.

-Bri

false, you equate 'better' with your definition of 'energy efficient', thus generating at best, a circuitous argument.

At worst, it is worrying way too much about something that is hardly noticeable in the overall scheme of things.

In the real world of consumer choice, 'better' means many things. As just one example, the lady of the house may not want your "good efficient space heater" ....... She say that piece of crap is uglier than snot.

 

[This is The End]

Probably people who are interested can read the thread without an inaccurate recap from you.

Sorry Bri, the last thing I want to do is mis-represent what someone said. If it appeared so or if I did, I apologize. I was specifically addressing the initial 'far-more efficient' statement.

Really though, as I said in an earlier post, I believe this is off topic. I am only interested in the fact that this is a ban on the "normal" light bulbs that have been around for over 100 years.

To say it is not a ban because of the way the law was written, or because there are new alternatives, is disingenuous.

 

[This is The End]

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Also, since (afaik) over 100 watts are excempt, they could just change all the traditional 100 watt bulbs to 101 watts... Then they wouldn't even have to put 'outdoor' or 'heat bulb' on the package.

No. The law is written so that it covers a range of lumens. A 101w traditional incandescent would be in the same category. For that range of lumens, it stipulates a maximum wattage (energy used).

Joe, do you notice how you quoted 2 questions, but you only answered the 2nd one? As far as I can tell from Bri's response, your "no" doesn't apply to the first question.

 

[Bri]

Sorry Bri, the last thing I want to do is mis-represent what someone said. If it appeared so or if I did, I apologize. I was specifically addressing the initial 'far-more efficient' statement.

I accept your apology. As I said, I was referring to the use a space heater for heat and an efficient bulb for light as a far more efficient way to light and heat a room than using inefficient bulbs to do both, for all the reasons I listed in my post above.

Really though, as I said in an earlier post, I believe this is off topic. I am only interested in the fact that this is a ban on the "normal" light bulbs that have been around for over 100 years.

To say it is not a ban because of the way the law was written, or because there are new alternatives, is disingenuous.

Except that I didn't say what you say I said. What I said is that the phrase "it's a ban on incandescent bulbs" is not accurate. It is a ban on some incandescent bulbs, but not others. Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years. It is not a ban on newer incandescent bulbs that meet minimum efficiency requirements.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

false, you equate 'better' with your definition of 'energy efficient', thus generating at best, a circuitous argument.

At worst, it is worrying way too much about something that is hardly noticeable in the overall scheme of things.

In the real world of consumer choice, 'better' means many things. As just one example, the lady of the house may not want your "good efficient space heater" ....... She say that piece of crap is uglier than snot.

I don't know how many times I've said that there are undoubtedly instances where an incandescent might be the best choice for heating. That's why bulbs used for heating are exempt from the standards. We are in agreement on that, so why do you continue to argue this point with yourself?

I even said that I take you at your word that there are applications for which inefficient incandescents are better than other choices but are unavailable because of the standards, even though you have yet to present an example of one.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

.What I said is that the phrase "it's a ban on incandescent bulbs" is not accurate. It is a ban on some incandescent bulbs, but not others. Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years. It is not a ban on newer incandescent bulbs that meet minimum efficiency requirements.

-Bri

let's suppose that we take measurements of skin color, and reach an average of 1.2 for Caucasians. We see an average of 1.8 for blacks.

We then set up a rule concerning how we treat people with the measure in excess of 1.5.

By your and joe's logic "we are not targeting blacks".

 

[Bri]

By your and joe's logic "we are not targeting blacks"

You seem to be arguing with yourself once again, mhaze. I never said that the standards don't "target" the old, inefficient incandescent bulbs. In fact, I said the opposite:

Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years.​

However, when you state that the standards are a "ban on incandescent bulbs" you are guilty of lumping all incandescents into the same category and claiming that the entire category is banned, when in fact only some members of the category are banned. Which, oddly, is exactly what you're objecting to in your example. Arguing with yourself. Why am I not surprised?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

You seem to be arguing with yourself once again, mhaze. I never said that the standards don't "target" the old, inefficient incandescent bulbs. In fact, I said the opposite:

Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years.​

However, when you state that the standards are a "ban on incandescent bulbs" you are guilty of lumping all incandescents into the same category and claiming that the entire category is banned, when in fact only some members of the category are banned. Which, oddly, is exactly what you're objecting to in your example. Arguing with yourself. Why am I not surprised?

-Bri

Okay, but I am taking issue with the circuitous reasoning.

Here is a question that IMHO is pertinent.

Suppose that not all...but a good fraction, say half, of those whom you argued these points to regarding the double-talk of 'it is nt a ban' were insulted. Which is sort of what is happening here when you see people say that it is disingenuous, that it is double-talk, because you are talking down to them in a condescending fashion.

As if you thought they would not see the double-talk.

Then why continue it?

I would not.

 

[Bri]

Suppose that not all...but a good fraction, say half, of those whom you argued these points to regarding the double-talk of 'it is nt a ban' were insulted.

(bolding mine) mhaze, it's a bad sign when you have to keep changing the other person's argument to make your point. Are you really going to stick with the strategy of pretending that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said and then calling it double-talk?

Once again, I never said that it's not a ban. I said the opposite. Here's what I actually said:

Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years.​

Why do you keep insisting that I've said "it is not a ban" when I've said that it is a ban? If you want to keep arguing with yourself, go ahead. But please don't misquote me when you do it.

Which is sort of what is happening here when you see people say that it is disingenuous, that it is double-talk, because you are talking down to them in a condescending fashion.

Pointing it out when you make inaccurate statements is neither disingenuous or condescending.

Then why continue it?

I would not.

Right. So repeatedly calling people "bulb truthers" in every post isn't condescending at all.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

(bolding mine) mhaze, it's a bad sign when you have to keep changing the other person's argument to make your point. Are you really going to stick with the strategy of pretending that I said the exact opposite of what I actually said and then calling it double-talk?

Once again, I never said that it's not a ban. I said the opposite. Here's what I actually said:

Specifically, it is a ban on inefficient incandescent bulbs, such as those that have been around for over 100 years.​

Why do you keep insisting that I've said "it is not a ban" when I've said that it is a ban? If you want to keep arguing with yourself, go ahead. But please don't misquote me when you do it.



Pointing it out when you make inaccurate statements is neither disingenuous or condescending.



Right. So repeatedly calling people "bulb truthers" in every post isn't condescending at all.

-Bri

Since you don't get it, I'll spell it out one more time.

1. Measure lumens from traditional incadescent bulbs.
2. Define the bar for "inefficient" as slightly below the rating established in #1.
3. Write the law to ban items described in #2.

That's classic doubletalk because 1=2 BY INTENTION exactly as I noted with the skin color issue. The condescending part comes in when you keep repeating this "ban on only inefficient bulbs" as if people didn't already get it ( believe me, they did, that's why the phrase doubletalk, disingenous etc., arose) and as if you are smarter than them.

Then, continue to repeat the doubletalk when called on it repeatedly. So I have not missed any qualifications you put on your statements, on the contrary, I based my comment on those very qualifications and their doubletalk nature.

Then I ask, why continue to do this if everyone understands the facts, but about half of them are basically offended by the doubletalk?

Is it CONDESCENDING to call someone a bulb truther???

nope...

Truther has negative connotations, the question should be whether it's an accurate set of negative connotions to displayed behavior. In a forum (JREF) basically oriented toward critical thinking, "truther" has merit to descibe behavior. I don't use it as an insult, but to make a point about what seems to be going on here.

 

[DC]

Since you don't get it, I'll spell it out one more time.

1. Measure lumens from traditional incadescent bulbs.
2. Define the bar for "inefficient" as slightly below the rating established in #1.
3. Write the law to ban items described in #2.

That's classic doubletalk because 1=2 BY INTENTION exactly as I noted with the skin color issue. The condescending part comes in when you keep repeating this "ban on only inefficient bulbs" as if people didn't already get it ( believe me, they did, that's why the phrase doubletalk, disingenous etc., arose) and as if you are smarter than them.

Then, continue to repeat the doubletalk when called on it repeatedly. So I have not missed any qualifications you put on your statements, on the contrary, I based my comment on those very qualifications and their doubletalk nature.

Then I ask, why continue to do this if everyone understands the facts, but about half of them are basically offended by the doubletalk?

Is it CONDESCENDING to call someone a bulb truther???

nope...

Truther has negative connotations, the question should be whether it's an accurate set of negative connotions to displayed behavior. In a forum (JREF) basically oriented toward critical thinking, "truther" has merit to descibe behavior. I don't use it as an insult, but to make a point about what seems to be going on here.

what is your dwefinition of a truther?

 

[Bri]

Since you don't get it, I'll spell it out one more time.

1. Measure lumens from traditional incadescent bulbs.
2. Define the bar for "inefficient" as slightly below the rating established in #1.
3. Write the law to ban items described in #2.

That's classic doubletalk because 1=2 BY INTENTION exactly as I noted with the skin color issue.

I readily agree that the efficiency standards discriminate against inefficient bulbs, in the same way that auto safety standards discriminate against unsafe cars. I've never said otherwise. So how exactly is that "doubletalk?"

The condescending part comes in when you keep repeating this "ban on only inefficient bulbs" as if people didn't already get it ( believe me, they did, that's why the phrase doubletalk, disingenous etc., arose) and as if you are smarter than them.

When you say "it's a ban on incandescent bulbs," that's simply inaccurate. People don't already get it, and making inaccurate statements like that don't help people understand the standards.

Would you make the statement that blue cars are banned in the United States? Of course not -- blue cars aren't banned in the United States. Safety standards don't ban blue cars, they only ban unsafe blue cars (as well as all other colors of unsafe cars). All cars that meet the safety standards are allowed, including blue ones. I can go to the car dealership today and buy a blue car that meets the safety standards.

Similarly, the efficiency standards for light bulbs only ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs (as well as all other types of inefficient light bulbs). All light bulbs that meet the efficiency standards are allowed, including incandescents. I can go to the hardware store today and buy an incandescent bulb that meets the efficiency standards.

To say that incandescent light bulbs are banned would be misleading at best.

I'm sorry but it's not "doubletalk" to point out that you're wrong.

Truther has negative connotations, the question should be whether it's an accurate set of negative connotions to displayed behavior. In a forum (JREF) basically oriented toward critical thinking, "truther" has merit to descibe behavior. I don't use it as an insult, but to make a point about what seems to be going on here.

I'll admit that I don't understand what the word "truther" means in this context. Perhaps you can explain it. It appears that you throw the phrase around whenever you want to avoid actually addressing the growing list of inaccuracies you've spread in this thread, but maybe it's really a brilliant argument that's going over my head.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since you don't get it, I'll spell it out one more time.

1. Measure lumens from traditional incadescent bulbs.
2. Define the bar for "inefficient" as slightly below the rating established in #1.
3. Write the law to ban items described in #2.

That's classic doubletalk because 1=2 BY INTENTION exactly as I noted with the skin color issue.

This isn't doubletalk at all. The intention of the law is to prevent the production of inefficient lightbulbs*. The wording of the law prevents the production of inefficient lightbulbs.*

No doubletalk. The law allows energy efficient incandescent bulbs, thus it's not a ban on incandescents. If it's a ban on anything, it is a ban on the production of energy inefficient bulbs.* (It doesn't ban the sale of existing stock or the use of such bulbs by consumers.)


*Of standard sizes, types, functions, color, etc.

ETA: Now that we've dismissed your claim that the law is "doubletalk" what about your original claim that the law uses "snarky" language? I note your continued silence on this point.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When you say "it's a ban on incandescent bulbs," that's simply inaccurate. People don't already get it, and making inaccurate statements like that don't help people understand the standards.

Exactly. Many people do believe the law will ban incandescents (meaning all of them) and that it singles out incandescents for banning (as opposed to establishing energy efficiency guidelines that effectively ban a class of standard incandescents).

Such a total ban would be very heavy handed. Possibly it would even merit the term "authoritarian". But that's not what we're dealing with.

I was trying to make this point earlier with Ziggurat. Considering these two statements to be equivalent:

1. The law bans incandescents.
2. The law establishes energy efficiency guidelines applicable to bulbs of any technology that effectively bans a class of traditional incandescent bulbs (but allows energy efficient incandescent bulbs).

Ignores the fact that most people will not take number 1 to mean number 2. At best, one can argue that number 1 is ambiguous and can mean what most people take it to mean AND also number 2, even though technically (in a legal sense and by the intent of the law) it doesn't mean number 2 at all.

And language works by convention, so claiming that an unconventional usage of an ambiguous statement is the ONLY meaning of the statement is simply poor communication (and even worse argumentation).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And, haze, your comment here:

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Also, since (afaik) over 100 watts are excempt, they could just change all the traditional 100 watt bulbs to 101 watts... Then they wouldn't even have to put 'outdoor' or 'heat bulb' on the package.

basically correct, illustrates how ridiculous this law is.

But do not worry, the resident socialists can dream up another layer of regulation and control to more precisely fine tune your behavior so that you are Gooder.

illustrates that you still haven't read and understood the law in question.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I don't know if these have been mentioned in this thread, but here is a run down of the worlds oldest working light bulbs

http://www.centennialbulb.org/facts.htm