CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

...except for oven lights (because god knows we'd be lost without our oven lights) car headlights, and public stop lights, which are being replaced with LEDs anyway but apparently the gov't can't meet their own deadline.

Now, I know that digital bulbs are usually arc lights of some type, not filament, but they're still incandescing rather than flourescing, if you get my drift. It's heat that's making the light.

So, either they've got an exception in there for projectors... and for stage lighting, home accent lighting, christmas lights, people who get incandescent with rage, etc etc - which weren't mentioned, or the world is going to be in for some interesting changes.

Personally, I find it repugnant that my government feels it's necessary to tell me what kind of technology I'm allowed to use. Retroactive ban on CRT projectors due to their inefficiency anyone?

Ergh.

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:04 am Post subject:

You're sh*ting me. Please tell me you're kidding. There wasn't something in this new energy bill about tungsten lighting, was there? I hadn't heard about that - only the CAFE standards made the news.

If this is true, I guess I'll be buying several cases of all the bulbs I like to use in my home to last me for the foreseeable future. I HATE fluorescent lighting - with a passion. The only lights in my house that are fluorescent are my under-counter lighting in the kitchen - and I was planning on replacing those with halogens.

Please tell me this isn't true.

SC

zaphod · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 2002 Location: Cloverdale

and halogens are so very very efficient putting all the energy to light and nothing to heat.

NOT.

i'm not advocating incandescents or energy waste, but banning incandescents without addressing halogens. without addressing the existing install base and while still selling incandescents fixtures is stupid.

i bought a "luxo lamp" for my HT room because i like pixar. a week after i bought it i realized that it won't have a bulb in another year or two. bloody annoying.

the correct thing would be to ban production/sale of fixtures first and then tail off the bulb supply. people will hoard bulbs and extend the energy waste cycle before they hoard fixtures...

Bucketfoot · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 698 Location: Centennial, CO

How about without addressing the mercury in fluorescents?

I've already got non-incandescent everywhere I can (like don't need to be able to dim or places I need immediate light), but having this mandated is a joke.

If you are going to do it, at least wait until LED lights are available to the masses at decent prices.

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:33 am Post subject:

I like my incandescents in the shop... they help heat me in winter.. Wink

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

AFAIK it's true; Bush signed it (!) so it's not just a proposal. However, I only know media reports which tend to be wrong in at least one significant way (I know this because I've had a few newspaper and magazine articles written about me and my business, and each has screwed up at least one major thing. The worst was the one that said my aunt was my mom...).

So it could be, tungsten filament bulbs of N wattage, thus meaning everybody can run 500 watt tungsten bulbs with neutral density filters to get around it... Wink

Banning halogens would be ass. I happen to like halogen light, and what about xenon? I'm putting ten xenon spots around the flashing in my HT for dimable accent lighting; am I supposed to throw out $150 worth of fixtures in two years of xenon is part of this ban?

There are certain kinds of flourescent bulbs I really like... I'm running a massive wattage of 'full spectrum' (really really high color temperature) bulbs aimed at the wall behind my monitors in my office; keeps me sane (literally; I have severe bipolar disorder and light really helps). But I rather like the warmth (light-wise) that incandescents give me in my house. So, I'm supposed to let myself be told by big daddy government that I need to change my bulbs?

What happens when big daddy government tells me that motion simulators are a waste of energy and bans them, too? I'm supposed to pack up my career and go home? How about race cars, fine art painting (wastes lots of energy making tubes, paint, canvas, etc)? What about big screen TVs? Exactly how much of our freedom are we going to give up first in the name of terrorism and then in the name of 'ecology'?

And when we're done, when we've thrown out our privacy and free speech to get rid of terrorists, and thrown out our entertainment and art in the name of environmentalism, and our fatty foods in the name of national health - when we and the planet are secure - exactly what will we have gained as we sit quietly at home on our hemp woven papasan chairs telling our kids stories about how we used to be able to watch things called movies at home on a big, bright screen, and we could have sound so you could FEEL the rumble, and how they used to light up trees and houses every winter to add some cheer to the cold weather... and they go, WOW, DAD! But how'd it get like this?

How indeed. And all this from a left-winger.

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:14 am Post subject:

Where are you seeing this? I can't find any reference to the banning of light bulbs in any of the stories on the energy bill I could find. Of course, it could be buried somewhere in the 1,724 PAGE bill. Gee, I wonder why government is so inefficient?

Looking here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/

The only thing that jumped out at me was this:

greg_mitch · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 5321

They're not banned. But i think it is hilarious this is in the digital projector forum.

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:32 am Post subject:

Definitely. Of course, we CRT guys can't talk. My 1271 max power consumption is on the order of 675 watts. Most consumer digitals are probably half that. I'm sure my rack full of equipment is probably pulling close to what the projector is, so I'm probably in the 1300w neighborhood when I'm watching movies or playing games. Good thing I'm only able to use my theater 4-6 hours per week on average, or my carbon footprint would get out of hand. Rolling Eyes

SC

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

This is where I got it. No mention of it being only in Federal offices, but as I said, the press and wrongness usually go hand in hand...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/us_energy_bill/

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:40 am Post subject:

Ontario Canada banned the sale of incandesent bulbs after a certain date that escapes me. I have aboot 300 of them in storage. F*$%^ing C$#**#$!

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:09 am Post subject:

That article, for everyone else's benefit... er, amazement:

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

It would be awesome if the language specifically stated "100 watts" "75 watts" etc... I'd start ramping up production for 101, 76, and 61, and 41 watt bulbs...

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12026 Location: Fort Collins, CO

ecrabb · Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject:

I suppose the CFLs are much better than typical office-style fluorescent tubes, then.

In offices, it's typical for plastic office equipment (computers) to get completely destroyed by fluorescent light. Old Apple computers that are supposed to be grey turn a nasty shade of yellow after a few years in an office under fluorescent tubes.

Even in your example above where 8 hours under CFL is equivalent to 1 minute of sunlight. That means, that in a typical 8-hr/day, 5 day/week operation like an office, a photographic or art print is going to see the equivalent of 3+ hours of sunlight per year. That's not a good thing.

Hmm... a standard tungsten light bulb gives off as much or more UV than a CFL? That's hard to believe, actually. I think I'll have to see some lab numbers on that, because it doesn't really make any sense to me.

SC

Bucketfoot · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 698 Location: Centennial, CO

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12026 Location: Fort Collins, CO

greg_mitch · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 5321

It makes me wonder like steve was saying about outlaws...

Maybe I should start hoarding all of the incandescents that I can find, and start selling them once they are outlawed for $5 a pop. I would be a very rich person.

I have also thought about selling sudafed to crank heads but my darn morals got in the way.

WanMan · Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 10273

Greg, you are talking about 5-10 years down the road. How much of that $5 will go into storage costs? Smile

And somehow I think there will be plenty of amendments between now and ten years from now on specialty lamps like those in projectors.

BTW, how long between indoor lighting become generally the norm and the time the government instituted florescent lighting in the kitchens as the main means of illumination? And that is only on builders and new home sellers, not resales. I'd imagine aftermarket supplies would remain for a while. Certainly not going to worry about a digital projector lamp not being available ten years down the line--how many bad pixels would be visible in that amount of time?

greg_mitch · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 5321