Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

<duplicate post>

 

[Bri]

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..."

Obviously, neither Joe or I mind discussing it since that's exactly what we've been doing. There was no reason for anyone to bring it up as far as I can tell. You only brought it up because you thought that somehow it furthered your argument that the standards are a ban on incandescents, but of course the 2020 standards don't help you in the least. They don't even advance a different argument than the one you were making: that the standards will ban incandescents after 2020 (which of course they won't).

And of course neither Joe or I have lied in this thread, much less "lied in everything we said." I have admitted to being wrong about a few things during the discussion. For example, I was confusing lumens per watt with heat per watt when I said that all incandescent bulbs didn't produce the same amount of heat per watt. But being wrong about something is only lying if I knew it wasn't true when I wrote it.

Which brings us to this whopper...

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...

Asking what kind of bulbs you stockpiled isn't personal, particularly since you volunteered the information earlier in the thread. You don't want to answer my direct question because you were caught in a lie and you don't want to have to admit it. It's OK, I'm not going to ask you to admit it.

Anyone can search the thread and see that you already told us what kind of bulbs you're stockpiling. You then admitted that reflector bulbs are exempt from the standards. And then you said that your stockpiled bulbs aren't exempt, even though you knew they were. That's the difference between merely being wrong about something and lying about it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Reflective DOES NOT move wavelengths to higher energy levels.

I meant "good try" conveniently ignoring the entire article because of one small error. Using your logic, we should dismiss everything you say.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I meant "good try" conveniently ignoring the entire article because of one small error. Using your logic, we should dismiss everything you say.

-Bri

Except I didn't dismiss the entire article.

One thing I have done though is to point out that your evidence brought in to support the claim of incandescent technology possibly meeting the 2020 standard:

GE - discontinued
Science Daily - laser surface enhancement
"reflective coatings article"

You brought these in to support that claim. And they just don't.

Pretty simple.

That's why there isn't any recourse but to note that the "MAGICAL, Non-Existent Bulb" is what you prop up your claim that the 2020 standards does not ban incandescent bulbs.

As long as you stuck with the 2012/2014 standard, you could claim that halogen incandescent were allowed. Only lying by omission supports this claim. The omission is of the actual final requirements - the 2020 standards.

And now you claim ignorance as a defense.

Checkmate.

 

[Bri]

Except I didn't dismiss the entire article.

Here's exactly what you said (bolding mine):

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?​

What I was referring to with my comment of "good try" is the part I put in bold. If you didn't mean that because there was a mistake in the article that you could dismiss the rest of what he wrote, then I misunderstood.

One thing I have done though is to point out that your evidence brought in to support the claim of incandescent technology possibly meeting the 2020 standard

(bolding mind) Do you understand what "possibly" means? Are you now claiming that it is impossible that incandescent bulbs will ever meet the 2020 standards?

But even if we pretend that it's impossible for an incandescent bulb to ever meet the 2020 standards (which of course it's not), your (ever changing) claim that the standards will ban incandescents in 2020 is still wrong. Why? Because reflector and specialty incandescent bulbs are exempt.

And of course if anyone ever does manufacture an incandescent that meets the 2020 standards, it won't be banned.

That's why there isn't any recourse but to note that the "MAGICAL, Non-Existent Bulb" is what you prop up your claim that the 2020 standards does not ban incandescent bulbs.

I don't need anything to prop up the claim. Reflector and specialty incandescent bulbs are exempt as you know. Therefore, the 2020 standards clearly don't ban incandescent bulbs.

Furthermore, it is possible that someone will manufacture an incandescent bulb that meets the 2020 standards, in which case it won't be banned.

As long as you stuck with the 2012/2014 standard, you could claim that halogen incandescent were allowed. Only lying by omission supports this claim. The omission is of the actual final requirements - the 2020 standards.

Except that I never used halogen incandescents to refute that claim. The first claim you made -- that the standards ban incandescent bulbs -- is disproven by halogen incandescents which aren't banned.

Then, of course, you qualified your claim, thinking that nobody would notice. Except that the new claim -- that the standards will ban incandescent bulbs starting in 2020 -- is also wrong. Now you're trying to say that I used halogen incandescents to refute this new claim, which of course I didn't. The new claim is wrong for other reasons specified above.

And now you claim ignorance as a defense.

Checkmate.

???

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

.....halogen incandescents to refute that claim. The first claim you made -- that the standards ban incandescent bulbs -- is disproven by halogen incandescents which aren't banned.....

Yes, they are banned by 2020. That's you repeating yet again the lie by omission. My original statement was correct.

.... I misunderstood....."possibly".... impossible that incandescent bulbs will ever meet the 2020 standards?....

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? The hot wire is, uh, HOT. That means it generates HEAT as well as light. And you need to get rid of the heat to get 80% efficiency or higher. For this reason, I point out the issues and difficulties in moving photon energy from lower to higher wavelengths. LED lighting does not have this problem.

If the (greatly simplified version I used of the...) physics goes over your head, and you want to stick with the dogma, then don't complain when I use the term "Bulb Truther".

 

[excaza]

Just checking in on the progress of the thread, those bulbs you are stockpiling are still exempt, correct?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just checking in on the progress of the thread, those bulbs you are stockpiling are still exempt, correct?

Yep, but he won't admit it. We've been trying to pin him down on the question as to whether or not they are reflector bulbs.

Even if I'm wrong in thinking all floodlights are reflector bulbs, I'm pretty sure floodlights would be exempt by being non standard shape and application.

But I'd be willing to bet money the ones haze is stockpiling are indeed reflector bulbs, since he's dancing really hard to avoid that question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's why there isn't any recourse but to note that the "MAGICAL, Non-Existent Bulb" is what you prop up your claim that the 2020 standards does not ban incandescent bulbs.

OH come on, why not just admit that you were ill-informed. Earlier in the thread you claimed the law bans incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012. You denied that halogen bulbs are incandescents and that they use a filament. (You further denied that they are dimmable.)

The law doesn't ban all incandescent bulbs (even in the brightness range specified). Even the 2020 standards do no preclude the legality of producing a compliant incandescent bulb (even among bulbs to which the energy efficiency standards will apply).

For you to make your case, you'd need to prove that such technology is impossible. Given your earlier ignorance of energy efficient incandescent technology, I would not rely on your judgement or frankly on anyone's current ability to declare that it's scientifically impossible.

Even so, the law doesn't single out incandescent bulbs. If you made a terribly inefficient LED or CFL bulb (in the category to which the standards apply), it too would be "banned" (remembering the very limited meaning "banned" in this context, which is why I prefer not to use it, since it's not very accurate).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the (greatly simplified version I used of the...) physics goes over your head,

This from the scientific authority that thinks his electricity use has no effect on the environment because his electricity comes from a nuclear plant.

This from the person who thought halogens were not incandescent, didn't have filaments and weren't dimmable.

This from the guy stockpiling exempt lightbulbs.

Your attempt at condescension fails due to your repeated false claims in this thread.

Haze, have you taken a few minutes to read the section of the law in question? That might help for starters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? The hot wire is, uh, HOT. That means it generates HEAT as well as light. And you need to get rid of the heat to get 80% efficiency or higher. For this reason, I point out the issues and difficulties in moving photon energy from lower to higher wavelengths. LED lighting does not have this problem.

You realize, of course, you're attempting to argue against the EISA by now arguing that incandescent technology is limited and inherently less efficient than others?

The EISA will prohibit the production of some types of energy inefficient bulbs. You're trying to argue that it comprises a ban on incandescents (demonstrably false).

And now your technique is to show that you know for a fact that incandescent technology will never be efficient, therefore the law is bad because it's a ban on incandescent bulbs. This reasoning sort of shoots yourself in the foot because it ignores the reasons anyone would have to be outraged by the law to begin with. Even if you were correct in knowing for certain that there will never be incandescent light bulbs that comply with the 2020 standards, and the law does in fact end up effectively banning all incandescents (of standard size, brightness, color, etc.) then what you're saying is that the law is bad because it will ban what you're arguing is a limited an inefficient technology. This sounds like a good reason for the law.

If you're wrong, and the technology is possible, then your characterization of the law as singling out a technology is wrong.

The fact is the law will phase out the production of some types of energy inefficient lightbulbs. Your attempts to make the law sound more draconian than that are at the very least less accurate. And that's being generous.

 

[Bri]

Yes, they are banned by 2020. That's you repeating yet again the lie by omission. My original statement was correct.

(bold mine) Sorry, you mean will be banned after 2020. But of course that wasn't your first claim, that's the revised version. Your first claim is that the standards ban incandescent bulbs. Halogen incandescents are an example of an incandescent that is not banned.

And as for your revised claim, incandescents won't be banned after 2020 either.

That's pretty much what I said, isn't it? The hot wire is, uh, HOT. That means it generates HEAT as well as light. And you need to get rid of the heat to get 80% efficiency or higher. For this reason, I point out the issues and difficulties in moving photon energy from lower to higher wavelengths.

45 lumens per watt isn't the theoretical limit of incandescents. And coatings have already been developed for incandescents that can convert heat into light. Here's another article about coatings:

http://www.hybridlightbulb.com/Technology.htm

While commercially available Hybrid lamps typically produce approximately 20 to 22 lumens per watt and engineering prototype lamps now produce up to 45 lumens per watt, much greater upside potential exists. A theoretical limit of over 100 lumens per watt can be achieved through IR recapture alone which involves optimization of the filament, the capsule, the coating, and their inter-relationship. Further upside potential exists through the minimization of end losses and improved gas designs.​

So, no, it's not impossible. You might be able to argue that it's unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible. More likely, other technologies will prove to be better and incandescents will be abandoned. But the standards don't ban them.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

That's the expensive GE bulb I was referring to. The expensive Phillips bulb is sold at Home Depot. Also a very unconventional design.

 

[Maus]

This is from Oct 2009

http://www.pure-global-air.com/LED-Marvel.html

"SSL is at the stage that the compact fluorescent (CFL) was over 10 years ago and its use is gaining acceptance in the industry as standards are being developed," says Maadanian. "SSL offers higher efficiency with no environmental impact during disposal…SSL presents a strong alternative to competitive technologies such as fluorescent, metal halide and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lighting," he added. The longevity of SSL is another attractive feature as they greatly reduce maintenance costs over their 50,000+ hour lifetime.

It is doable so I'm not sure where the stall is at this point. Up-front price maybe?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Asking what kind of bulbs you stockpiled isn't personal, particularly since you volunteered the information earlier in the thread. You don't want to answer my direct question because you were caught in a lie and you don't want to have to admit it.

Exhibit A:

Joe. The reason your double talk, obfuscation and denial don't work is because I earlier in this thread, mentioned stockpiling 90 and 150 watt incadescent bulbs for applications which needed them. Why did I do that if they were not banned? They disappeared from store shelves due to government regulation.

So, Haze, do you retract the claim that the reason these bulbs aren't in the stores is because they were banned?

If not, then kindly answer the question: are these reflector floodlight bulbs or not?

ETA: Also, if it turns out you've been stockpiling bulbs that are exempt from the energy efficiency standards, will you retract your insulting mischaracterization of what I was telling you?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is doable so I'm not sure where the stall is at this point. Up-front price maybe?

LEDs are on the market, and people are buying and using them. I think the up-front price scares off many (or at least people suspect that price will drop before long). Also, many of us are happy with CFLs at least for now.

I don't think there's any major stall though. It's new tech, and will just take some time to become mainstream. There's the chicken and egg thing of greater demanding leading to production at levels where economies of scale will lower the price, and lowering the price leads to greater demand. . . .

 

[mhaze]

This is from Oct 2009

http://www.pure-global-air.com/LED-Marvel.html

It is doable so I'm not sure where the stall is at this point. Up-front price maybe?

Apparently not, today. Shelf space at Lowes is about equal between CFL and LED today, indicating strong consumer demand for the LED even at their prices which are higher.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

In my opinion the ban was wrong because it came at a time that forced CFL's, an inferior technology on people. Time and money has been wasted on CFL's as LED's are the superior technology.

Had the inquest been done properly I think people would have saw this. And CREE is a "good ol boy" company. Something isn't right...

yah yah CT is thata way ------>

 

[Furcifer]

You denied that halogen bulbs are incandescents and that they use a filament.

They aren't. You may be able to prove otherwise using semantics, but they aren't.

I've seen this a couple times in pursuing this thread, I don't know how it arose, but halogens aren't considered incandescent. Not in any book I've ever read, they may be similar in operation and they may both fit the technical definition but for all intents and purposes they aren't the same thing.

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know how it arose, but halogens aren't considered incandescent.

Wikipedia "halogen lamp" entry:

A halogen lamp, also known as a tungsten halogen lamp, is an incandescent lamp with a tungsten filament contained within an inert gas and a small amount of a halogen such as iodine or bromine.

Wikipedia "incandescent light bulb" entry:

The incandescent light bulb, incandescent lamp or incandescent light globe makes light by heating a metal filament wire to a high temperature until it glows. The hot filament is protected from air by a glass bulb that is filled with inert gas or evacuated. In a halogen lamp, a chemical process that returns metal to the filament prevents its evaporation.

and

High-quality halogen incandescent lamps have higher efficacy, which will allow a 60-watt bulb to provide nearly as much light as a non-halogen 100-watt bulb. Also, a lower-wattage halogen lamp can be designed to produce the same amount of light as a 60-watt non-halogen lamp, but with much longer life.

On this page, Sylvania refers to Halogen lamps as "superior incandescent technology".

Topbulb.com says:

Halogen bulbs are technically incandescent light bulbs - illumination is produced in both when a tungsten filament is heated sufficiently to emit light or "incandescence." The difference between the two is in the composition of the glass envelope and the gas inside the envelope.

I could go on and on.

Halogens are indeed incandescent bulbs. [ETA: The most pertinent argument is that they work by causing a filament to incandesce.]

And they illustrate the point that the law does not single out incandescents in establishing its energy efficiency guidelines.