mnealtx 0 #151 December 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteNice to see how your ODS has led to mindreading abilities now. I decided to use your *STERLING* example of how to detect nutters over the internet. Unfortunately, again, your posting history puts the lie to your statement. Why are you so defensive about legislation signed by GWB? Embarrassed by it? I've posted nothing for or against the legislation, perfesser. Nice try at a misdirect, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #152 December 30, 2011 Another update: "Despite GOP opposition, light bulb standards will phase in on Jan. 1" http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/201687-despite-gop-opposition-light-bulb-standards-to-phase-in-on-jan-1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #153 January 3, 2012 QuoteAnother update: "Despite GOP opposition, light bulb standards will phase in on Jan. 1" http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/201687-despite-gop-opposition-light-bulb-standards-to-phase-in-on-jan-1 GOP opposition? If I recall correctly, the president that signed the legislation was GWB. He was a hero of the GOP.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #154 January 3, 2012 Quote The Philips one I have is omnidirectional (AmbientLED A19, $30) a $30 for a light bulb...I just could not force myself to do that. A $30 bulb better be able to give a decent BJ AND cook my breakfast in the morning.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #155 January 4, 2012 To be fair, CFL's were at one time, $30 each too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #156 January 5, 2012 >To be fair, CFL's were at one time, $30 each too. Yep. Heck, early incandescent light bulbs used platinum filaments. They were well over $30 each. But advances in materials science brought that down quickly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #157 January 5, 2012 Quote>To be fair, CFL's were at one time, $30 each too. Yep. Heck, early incandescent light bulbs used platinum filaments. They were well over $30 each. But advances in materials science brought that down quickly.$30 each in inflation-adjusted dollars, or $30 in 19th-century dollars? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #158 January 5, 2012 QuoteQuote>To be fair, CFL's were at one time, $30 each too. Yep. Heck, early incandescent light bulbs used platinum filaments. They were well over $30 each. But advances in materials science brought that down quickly.$30 each in inflation-adjusted dollars, or $30 in 19th-century dollars? The online calculator I just used stops at 2010 dollars. Using dollars in 1802, when Sir Humphry Davy reportedly used platinum filaments, $30 in 1802 dollars would equal $450.39 in 2010 dollars. Bastards. Always trying to soak the little guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #159 January 5, 2012 >$30 each in inflation-adjusted dollars, or $30 in 19th-century dollars? I don't know; I remember "over $100." It was in a history of lighting book I have. Another funny note from that book. There was a copy of an editorial in the Times complaining about the "harsh, blinding actinic light" in new car headlights, replacing the "warm and friendly glow" of conventional headlights. He predicted many accidents as drivers were blinded by the new lamps. The year was 1915, and the author was talking about the change from carbide to incandescent lamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #160 January 5, 2012 I did a little web research, and yes -- 19th century dollars!! So, over $500 in today's dollars. No wonder incandescent lamps weren't practical until the late 19th century (after Thomas Alva Edison made practical improvements, and scale-of-economy manufacturing, that finally made incandescent cheaper than candles.) Compared to this, LED bulbs are a fair bargain -- but I've now seen generic brands of 40-watt replacement LED's for as low as $7.50 at Costco in the United States (during last year's year-end sales). So prices are definitely falling, fast... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #161 January 5, 2012 Quote The year was 1915, and the author was talking about the change from carbide to incandescent lamps. I still feel that way about HID's!!! Damn yuppie drivers that leave their high beams on!!! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #162 January 5, 2012 Quote I still feel that way about HID's!!! Damn yuppie drivers that leave their high beams on!!! Dude -- those aren't high beams. Unfortunately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #163 January 5, 2012 Quote Quote I still feel that way about HID's!!! Damn yuppie drivers that leave their high beams on!!! Dude -- those aren't high beams. Unfortunately. the HIDs are generally fine. It's the trash buying the fake HIDs that cause no end of pain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #164 January 5, 2012 Quote Face it... LEDs are the light of the future, or so it would seem. My "biggest" concern was whether or not they emit the right wavelengths of light for a small, hydroponic indoor garden. They do, so I'm good. ----------------------------------------------------------- sooo this hydroponic garden you have...do you accept visitors? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
