Reply With Quote
I just paid $100 for one that is supposed to be indestructable to try in droplights on my service trucks.
Ah well. People do move on. I have a hard time finding time to be here most days.that was essentially my reaction last time I saw an XRZ post.
I got nowhere with that.
I just paid $100 for one that is supposed to be indestructable to try in droplights on my service trucks.
Was that federally mandated?
I've been saving quite a bit by just switching to CFLs... just wish they would be constructed a bit more sturdily... had a couple break on the electronics...
I'd switch to LED's before buying those things.
Nope. And throw those ing CFL's away. LED's rock. I'm almost all LED at home now.
When I tried them a couple years ago, they weren't as bright... might have to give them a second look...
I tried a few of the earlier ones also, and didn't like them either. I am still using the 950 lumen Ecosmart I spoke of some time back, and it is great.
As I was transitioning I had a room with incandescent, CFL, and LED BR30 floods and the LED's gave by far the brightest and most color true light. CFL's make everything look yellowish.
You can get bright white CFLs. The only issue with CFLs is that even "instant-on" ones can take a bit to give full brightness when it's too cold.
"CFL's make everything look yellowish."
blanket statement doesn't apply since home depot/lowes have about 4 shades/color temps of CFL.
Fine.You liberals stay in the dark ages with your antique, mercury polluting CFLs. You are murdering chinese kids.
LED's are the shiznit.
FYI, I received notice and a tracking number. My Nanoleaf 100 watt equivalent LED is on it's way. It is now in the hands of the USPS, so I should get it any day now.
I'm not promoting CFL, just exposing your ignorance about the range of CFL color temperatures.
Who cares if he doesn't know about the different K values. He doesn't like CFL's so he doesn't shop for them. You apparently do, and you posts suggest you do condone polluting China.
LOL...
Damn Chinese tracking number. Must have been on a ship. Finally left the first USPS sorting facility, being there for about 13-1/3 hrs. Next stop, Seattle, then Portland, via FedX contract flight?
Times are Chinese time, not local:
Mar 15, 2014
12:00am
Depart USPS Sort FacilityUSPS
LOS ANGELES
Mar 14, 2014
04:49pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
02:34pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
11:02am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
10:25am
Processed through USPS Sort FacilityUSPS
LOS ANGELES
Mar 14, 2014
10:24am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
10:24am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
08:57am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
06:42am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
04:34am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
02:21am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 14, 2014
12:04am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
08:46pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
06:27pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
04:18pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
02:04pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
11:41am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
09:30am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
07:11am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
04:56am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
02:50am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 13, 2014
12:39am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
09:38pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
07:17pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
05:10pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
03:07pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
12:58pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
10:38am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
08:19am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
06:15am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
03:57am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 12, 2014
01:57am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
11:46pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
06:03pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
02:42pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
12:29pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
10:12am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
07:55am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
05:35am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
03:26am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 11, 2014
01:06am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
10:57pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
08:18pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
06:16pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
04:13pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
02:06pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
11:49am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
09:36am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
07:23am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
05:14am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
02:54am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 10, 2014
12:47am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 09, 2014
10:34pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 09, 2014
08:10pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 09, 2014
05:55pm
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 09, 2014
09:10am
Origin Post is Preparing ShipmentUSPS
Mar 08, 2014
12:00am
出口总包直封封发, 深圳国际, 美国China Post
Mar 07, 2014
12:01am
出口总包互封开拆, 深圳国际, 美国China Post
Mar 07, 2014
12:00am
收寄局收寄, 深圳市国际大宗邮件处理中心, 美国China
http://nautil.us/issue/11/light/drowning-in-lightLighting prices fall and efficiencies rise with the breathtaking inevitability of Moore’s Law in semiconductors. Moore’s Law, a prediction made by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore in 1965, says that the number of transistors packed on a chip will double every 18 to 24 months. More than half a century later, Moore’s Law still holds, although many experts believe it will run its course in a few more years. The lighting field has its own Moore’s Law, an LED counterpart called Haitz’s Law. In 2000, Dr. Roland Haitz, then with Agilent Technologies, predicted that the cost of LED lighting will fall by a factor of 10, while “flux per lamp” (what we call brilliance or luminosity) will increase by a factor of 20 per decade. How long that trend will continue is also a matter of intense debate, but solid-state lighting (SSL) technology is based on semiconductor components, so the technology price fix is in, at least for now, and lighting is likely to keep getting cheaper.
As prices fall, our use of light climbs in exact proportion. For several years now, physicist Jeff Tsao at Sandia National Laboratories has been digging into the economic cost-benefit ratios of artificial lighting. Analyzing data sets spanning three centuries and six continents, Tsao and his coworkers at Sandia have concluded that “the result of increases in luminous efficacy has been an increase in demand for energy used for lighting that nearly exactly offsets the efficiency gains—essentially a 100% rebound in energy use.”3 The Sandia group’s equations aren’t holy writ, but with remarkable consistency, human beings, when faced with the availability of a cheaper and more efficient lighting technology, simply use more of it. We don’t bank the savings, but instead fall into what is known as Jevons’ paradox, which states that technological improvements can be counterproductive if the resultant savings are spent rather than saved.
Tsao calculates that, as a result, light represents a constant fraction of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) over time; the world has been spending 0.72 percent of its GDP for light for 300 years now. If there are other energy markets that show a constant percentage of GDP expenditure over time, Tsao doesn’t know of them. Noted environmentalist Amory Lovins memorably told the New Yorker’s David Owen in 2010 that improved lighting has always been “a lunch you’re paid to eat.”4
Like any junkie, we don’t know when we’ve had enough. “One thing that evolutionary anthropologists have learned is that humans are not necessarily natural conservationists,” says biological anthropologist Carol Worthman of Emory University, who has done field work in developing countries with scant night lighting, such as New Guinea and Vietnam. “We don’t have inbuilt mechanisms to step down consumption, even in the best interest of our own physical health.” The disruption of circadian rhythms and the disappearing night sky are just a part of the price. We’ve even tried, and failed, to understand how much we need. “Despite over a century of research,” the Sandia group found, “recommended [lighting] levels for comparable spaces still vary by a factor of up to 20.”
"The disruption of circadian rhythms..."
.... for night shift workers has been "linked" to increase cancer, etc incidence.
sameAs prices fall, our use of light climbs in exact proportion. For several years now, physicist Jeff Tsao at Sandia National Laboratories has been digging into the economic cost-benefit ratios of artificial lighting. Analyzing data sets spanning three centuries and six continents, Tsao and his coworkers at Sandia have concluded that “the result of increases in luminous efficacy has been an increase in demand for energy used for lighting that nearly exactly offsets the efficiency gains—essentially a 100% rebound in energy use.” The Sandia group’s equations aren’t holy writ, but with remarkable consistency, human beings, when faced with the availability of a cheaper and more efficient lighting technology, simply use more of it.
"when faced with the availability of a cheaper and more efficient lighting technology, simply use more of it."
the inverse is also true, as we saw when gas prices went way up after the 1973 M/E war. Fuel-efficient (but mostly ty) cars were all the rage.
Raising Fed tax on gasoline over a ramp up of a few years to $7 or $8 would push people out of gasoline cars and into the huge construction in public, electrified transport. BigCarbon, who runs the country, won't permit it.
LED lighting is so 2012: LG bets on an OLED lamp
http://www.cnet.com/news/led-lightin...tag=CAD090e536
I didn't see a mention of lumens.
The USPS lost my shipment. I think someone stole it from inside the USPS. A replacement was finally shipped today from China, new tracking number etc. The other one took from 3/7 to 3/19 to get to the delivery station, of which I should have received it on 3/19. Hopefully I get my 1600 lumen 12 watt LED bulb to test withing two weeks.
I'm actually OK with raising the fuel tax, but only up to around $1.00/gallon. The $0.18 hasn't increased for a very long time. I would raise pumped diesel for cars also, but not at truck stops. We need to keep transportation costs down.
Raise gasoline to $8/gal with federal taxes over a 5 year period. That GOVT POLICY will give a huge push to hydrogen and electric vehicules, while also providing funds to investment in the federal highway system and regional high speed, fully electric rail.
Just what we need...a super-regressive gasoline tax. That'll get the poor folks to pony up 30k for an electric car in no time. :facepalm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions