Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Howie Felterbush]

As mentioned very early in the thread, there are already compliant incandescents on the market that are nearly the same shape as traditional lightbulbs, and should fit those kind of shades.

Also, some of the LED bulbs come in the pear shape that should work with those kind of shades.

Ah!

That would be perfect! Thanks.

Sorry about not reading the whole thread, but this much light bulb fighting would make Thomas Edison take up lawnmower repair.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Am I going to have to buy black market bulbs from mhaze, or what?

I doubt the ones he's stockpiling would work with the clip on shades since they're floodlights of some kind.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Then there's this thing: http://www.magictoob.com/
-Bri

That's for me! Then no matter what kind of light bulb the eeebil gummint makes my buy, my bowling pin lamp will always be able to wear its shade with pride.

I can't believe there isn't a thirty minute, 3 a.m. infomercial devoted to this thing.

 

[Bri]

Sorry about not reading the whole thread, but this much light bulb fighting would make Thomas Edison take up lawnmower repair.

Please don't if you know what's good for you! It's not for the faint of heart!

I can't believe there isn't a thirty minute, 3 a.m. infomercial devoted to this thing.

There are some videos on the web site! Good luck!

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

I have to pause before answering this post to go throw one of those stupid CFLs in the regular trash can that only lasted a few months.

Now what were you saying?

I doubt if CFL's will be popular in 5 years

I'm just saying the extent of their usage will taper off naturally over the next 10 years. By that time high volume users would have switched to money saving alternatives like CFL's and LED's, people looking to save a few bucks at home will have changed and the select few that prefer incandescent lights would be in the minority.

The funny thing is in the AGW thread people are saying the ban has had 0 effect. Nada, zilch, zero, business as usual. The same people citing AGW as the reason for the ban are also saying it hasn't done anything for AGW either.

It seems the ban has only had the effect of spreading trace amounts of mercury all over the place and moving a few thousand jobs offshore. Some people saved a few bucks on lighting in the Summer too.

 

[Furcifer]

That's for me! Then no matter what kind of light bulb the eeebil gummint makes my buy, my bowling pin lamp will always be able to wear its shade with pride.

I can't believe there isn't a thirty minute, 3 a.m. infomercial devoted to this thing.

I've seen some magic toobs on at 3am.

 

[mhaze]

It's actually in The Declaration of Independence,

You know, "light, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?..... Am I going to have to buy black market bulbs from mhaze, or what?

"Buy them. Get them cuz they are hot!"



Actually, the LED bulbs tend to have fluted aluminum heat sinks on the bottom half, and light out of the top half. Further the overall diameter is not the same as traditional. So you might find one that the shade would clamp onto, but maybe not. And the light goes to the upper half of the bulb, not the lower half. That doesn't seem good for say, a reading lamp.

I doubt if CFL's will be popular in 5 years

I'm just saying the extent of their usage will taper off naturally over the next 10 years. By that time high volume users would have switched to money saving alternatives like CFL's and LED's,.....

That's all obsolete, too, when the paint itself has nanotech computers and white LED functions, and the wall itself lights up when you want it too. But yeah, the CFL is already clearly the orphan child of the technological advance. In the absence of that stupid law Joe keeps citing and the religion of Gore, the progression would have likely been regular bulb --->> LED directly.

....The funny thing is in the AGW thread people are saying the ban has had 0 effect. Nada, zilch, zero, business as usual. The same people citing AGW as the reason for the ban are also saying it hasn't done anything for AGW either.

It seems the ban has only had the effect of spreading trace amounts of mercury all over the place and moving a few thousand jobs offshore. Some people saved a few bucks on lighting in the Summer too.

Isn't it in that way similar to the pig headed corn to ethanol scam that we still can't seem to get rid of? It's these bone headed Authoritarian Controller types just really getting in the way of progress.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, the LED bulbs tend to have fluted aluminum heat sinks on the bottom half, and light out of the top half. Further the overall diameter is not the same as traditional. So you might find one that the shade would clamp onto, but maybe not. And the light goes to the upper half of the bulb, not the lower half. That doesn't seem good for say, a reading lamp.

It's not just reading lamps. I put a few like that in a ceiling fan fixture, and it wasn't good there either. The ceiling was really dark compared to the rest of the room, and it looked terrible.

GE and Philips have some LED bulbs with much better angular dispersion than the typical LED's, but they cost something like $40 each. They also don't have spherical tops, so I don't know how well they'd accommodate lamp shades designed to attach to conventional incandescents.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not just reading lamps. I put a few like that in a ceiling fan fixture, and it wasn't good there either. The ceiling was really dark compared to the rest of the room, and it looked terrible.

GE and Philips have some LED bulbs with much better angular dispersion than the typical LED's, but they cost something like $40 each. They also don't have spherical tops, so I don't know how well they'd accommodate lamp shades designed to attach to conventional incandescents.

Don't be surprised if the lamp shade goes the way of the dodo as well. This transition period of adapting new tech to old should be short lived. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it. I'm sure some of this stuff will end up on antiques roadshow 100 years from now with people going "We can't figure out what this it is"

 

[This is The End]

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

As long as you define "ban" as meaning a ban on production (not on the sale or use), and as long as by "soon" you mean over a 2 year period as detailed in a law passed 2 nearly 4 years ago, and as long as you further point out that many types of traditional old-style 40 to 100 watt light bulbs are exempt from the new energy efficiency standards.

But of course, at that point the word "all" becomes pretty silly, doesn't it?

At any rate, even the (incomplete and inaccurate) statement you made isn't as draconian-sounding as the blanket statement that the law will ban incandescents.

Well at least you admit I'm closer! Let me try one? more time:

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that encompass 99% of the normal household light bulb usage of the past 100 years are soon to be banned via prohibition of manufacture and import.

 

[This is The End]

As mentioned very early in the thread, there are already compliant incandescents on the market that are nearly the same shape as traditional lightbulbs, and should fit those kind of shades. [ETA: This was the bulb that haze wrongly claimed wasn't dimmable.]

Joe just because you change the link to say 'incandescent' doesn't make it so. Anyone that clicks that link can see that it specifically says it's not one.

Uses less energy than an incandescent bulb

Halogen light bulbs offer a midpoint in energy efficiency between compact fluorescents and regular incandescent bulbs.

warmer" than an incandescent bulb.

This is exactly the same type of nitpicking you are doing with the ban, only backwards. This bulb is kinda like an incandescent, and the law is kinda like a ban.

 

[Bri]

Well at least you admit I'm closer! Let me try one? more time:

All of the traditional, old-style, 40 to 100 watt light bulbs that encompass 99% of the normal household light bulb usage of the past 100 years are soon to be banned via prohibition of manufacture and import.

Not bad, but I still find the description "40 to 100 watt light bulbs that encompass 99% of the normal household light bulb usage of the past 100 years" confusing and wordy. The old-style incandescent bulbs that you're trying to describe come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and uses, and some of those are exempt. In addition, there may be other types of bulbs that are banned by the standards, particularly in 2020 when they are required to be even more efficient. It seems a lot easier to just call it what it is -- efficiency standards that exempt reflector and other specialty bulbs.

Joe just because you change the link to say 'incandescent' doesn't make it so. Anyone that clicks that link can see that it specifically says it's not one.

Except that Joe is right and the link's description isn't technically accurate. Halogens are a type of incandescent (which basically just means that it uses a filament). The link appears to be trying to distinguish between a halogen incandescent and the inefficient incandescent that people may be more used to.

This is exactly the same type of nitpicking you are doing with the ban, only backwards. This bulb is kinda like an incandescent, and the law is kinda like a ban.

A halogen incandescent isn't "kinda like" an incandescent. It IS an incandescent. The problem is that the average person doesn't know what "incandescent" means and they associate the old-style incandescents with the word.

It's true that the law that enacts the light bulb standards is kinda like a ban, but really it's no more of a ban than car safety standards are a ban. Once you use the word "ban" you have to be careful that you specify exactly what's banned and what isn't (and in addition the word "effectively" is generally added to make it clear that it's not an explicit ban). Safety standards for cars ban unsafe cars, but they don't ban cars. You could say that safety standards effectively ban the Ford Pinto (because it's prone to exploding when hit from behind).

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Here's an article on another possible approach to increasing the light emitted by incandescents:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529121556.htm

The laser process creates a unique array of nano- and micro-scale structures on the surface of a regular tungsten filament—the tiny wire inside a light bulb—and theses structures make the tungsten become far more effective at radiating light.​

Mhaze, no need to comment on this -- just posting it in case anyone is interested in the possibility that incandescents might stick around after 2020.....

This is consistent with regular science and does not change the fact that reasonably long life light bulbs will not be made which are compliant with the 200% improvement in power usage. This is because as I previously stated the bar for energy compliance was simply placed ABOVE what is possible with incadescent bulbs. That is why you have to now argue that the MAGICAL MYSTERY Yet to be Invented Bulb is a proof that the law does not ban incandescent.

Not bad, but I still find the description "40 to 100 watt light bulbs that encompass 99% of the normal household light bulb usage of the past 100 years" confusing and wordy. The old-style incandescent bulbs that you're trying to describe come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and uses, and some of those are exempt. In addition, there may be other types of bulbs that are banned by the standards, particularly in 2020 when they are required to be even more efficient......

Well, since I brought in the 2020 standards (which you and Joe DIDN'T want to discuss) now at least you've admitted that the only standardd, traditional bulb not banned by the law is the MAGICAL, MYSTERY, NON EXISTENT, COMPLIANT incandescent. Not the halogens.

 

[mhaze]

It's not just reading lamps. I put a few like that in a ceiling fan fixture, and it wasn't good there either. The ceiling was really dark compared to the rest of the room, and it looked terrible.

GE and Philips have some LED bulbs with much better angular dispersion than the typical LED's, but they cost something like $40 each. They also don't have spherical tops, so I don't know how well they'd accommodate lamp shades designed to attach to conventional incandescents.

I saw one the other day in Lowes that did not have this problem, it had 6 white heat sinks that went all the way to the top of the bulb. Shape of that thing looked like something out of the movie, Dune. But it wouldn't have worked for a clamp on shade.

Don't be surprised if the lamp shade goes the way of the dodo as well. This transition period of adapting new tech to old should be short lived. It's pretty ridiculous when you think about it. I'm sure some of this stuff will end up on antiques roadshow 100 years from now with people going "We can't figure out what this it is"

Agreed, because the LED lamps do not need shades, they have a more subdued light with no glare. For those which resemble traditional bulbs.

The other ones which are PAR30 or for ceiling recessed fixtures are basically, well, don't look straight into them.

But this brings up an interesting point. Lowes had a ceiling can for sale which had an integral LED, 65 watt equivalent for $49. THERE WAS NO BULB! And the landscape LED lights I put in couple months ago, similarly they were all built in one, no replaceable bulbs. So when you think about it the very reason for the "Bulb" is the fact that bulbs burn out and have to be replaced. LED eliminates this, CFL does not. And that's a game changer.

 

[mhaze]

I doubt the ones he's stockpiling would work with the clip on shades since they're floodlights of some kind.

Oh I have the regular bulbs in the 40-100 watt category, too...about a hundred of them....

 

[Bri]

Well, since I brought in the 2020 standards (which you and Joe DIDN'T want to discuss) now at least you've admitted that the only standardd, traditional bulb not banned by the law is the MAGICAL, MYSTERY, NON EXISTENT, COMPLIANT incandescent. Not the halogens.

(bold mine) You're wrong, of course. There are incandescent bulbs available today that comply with the standards until 2020. And of course any incandescent bulbs developed at any point in the future that comply with the 2020 standards are not banned. And of course reflectors and other specialty incandescent bulbs are exempt from the standards.

Which is why it's inaccurate and misleading to say that the standards ban incandescent bulbs.

ETA: Oh wait, I see you've changed your claim from "incandescent bulbs are banned" to "'standardd [sic], traditional' bulbs are banned." If by that description you mean the "old-style" inefficient incandescents, then yes, indeed inefficient incandescents are banned by the efficiency standards! Maybe we're making some progress!

By the way, can you show me where either Joe or I ever said we didn't want to discuss the 2020 standards?

But here's something you seem to refuse to discuss:

Were your stockpiled bulbs floodlight style reflector bulbs or weren't they? Yes or no?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

(bold mine) ....ETA: Oh wait, I see you've changed your claim from "incandescent bulbs are banned" to "'standardd [sic], traditional' bulbs are banned." If by that description you mean the "old-style" inefficient incandescents, then yes, indeed inefficient incandescents are banned by the efficiency standards! Maybe we're making some progress!

By the way, can you show me where either Joe or I ever said we didn't want to discuss the 2020 standards?.....

No, you and Joe were simply lying by omission in everything you said, which required me to bring the subject of the actual standards in the law, into the discussion. So rather than phrase the matter as "Lying" (subcategorized) I used a more polite phrase "didn't want to discuss..."



As for why I don't reply to your question, it is because it is clearly just a "Saul Alinsky Tactic #11" and in debate falls into the Ad Hominem category of argument. "Personalize the argument, pin your opponent", etc and I have no interest in such idiocy BUT...

...it's rather humorous to see Bulb Truthers in action.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
LOL...I think you mean emissive coatings, like phospers, or those used in LEDs, which absorb and re emit. It's not YOUR FAULT, just the dumb reporter that wrote the article so what else should I believe that he wrote?

Ummmm...no. Good try though.....

Reflective DOES NOT move wavelengths to higher energy levels.

Go learn what the meanings of the words reflective, emissive, and re emissive, Stokes, anti-Stokes, flourescence, 2nd law of Thermo, mean as well as how they pertain to this matter. This just yet another case of your refusing to acknowledge contrary data but now it is the laws of physics. That no worky. Well heck maybe I should take that back.

It might work in that alternate fantasy universe of radical Green wackos, that universe where windmills and solar power are going to power the country while peoples' energy consumption goes down to 20% of what it is currently.

The universe where Bulb Truthers hail from?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Wrong question. Rights not set forth in the Constitution are defined as being delegated to the States. By not explicitly stating that it is not the case, it's handed to the States to decide. The absence of a mention of lighting devices is the limitation of the Constitution from lighting devices.

The original statement was "The Constitution doesn't give you the right..." which you've now changed, restating it .... to some advantage?

No, you made the statement, "Yes, actually I do", which any sane person would interpret as you saying you believe the Constitution gives you the right to use any light bulb you wish. The interpretation could be extended to something similar to the second amendment, which gives you the right to bear arms.

It's certainly not the first time someone has mis framed the Constitution. These days, you could make an argument on restricting use of...say...CFL bulbs from a public health standpoint, and base it on the history of Constitutional interpretation (general welfare, commerce clause, etc).

But that is not the Constitution, it is the interpretations.

It's odd, Joe also mis framed the original comment by BRI, and the original statement I made in response to it.

I'm not American, so I can't claim any special knowledge of your constitution, but I understand that the adage holds, "Things which are not specifically proscribed are allowed." Guess what? Certain classes of items (inefficient incandescent light bulbs) are now proscribed, so they're no longer allowed.

As to the separation of state and federal powers, someone else will have to carry that ball, I'm afraid. There might be something in the commerce clause that gives the federal government the right to regulate certain items.

 

[Bri]

<duplicate post>