Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum CFL - tempers in the house of (representatives ? )

A must see video

See how the Government patches its addiction to the Gas Taxes.

See how we lose more and more control over our own lives due to oil.

there are people paying over 1,000 a month just to commute to work in the U.S.

Granted these CFL bulbs are great but there not really needed.

What is really needed is a new energy source other than oil.

.

Anonymous posted this in the "BioFuel crops are a crime" thread which I think is relevant to the idea of creating new sources of oil, or the illusions of an oil shortage.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

a verry interesting video tutor turtle !

it almost seems that the price of oil has been risen
so that the people of the poorer nations of the world cannot
afford to drive automobiles or use much energy , its as if the
people in charge of oil prices know that burning fosile fuels / oil is reaping havoc on the planet and this is the only way they can find to put a damper on oil usage.


on the other hand .. he states that he has been rubbing elbows with the highest ranking people in the oil industry , given that
one single bit of knowlege I find that there could be some intentional missinformation directed his way.

always step back , and examine the entire picture , every bit of inteligence you have and can find , and you will find that in most cases there are several paths that can lead you in different directions.

dont just choose a path , follow each path and see where it takes you.
then choose.

but leave yourself open to new paths that you find along the way.

.

A couple of years ago there was an article referring to the war in Iraq where Saddam Hussein before he was captured and before the war began and while he was still buddies with the U.S. being supplied with arms and munitions by the U.S. Government, had decided to invest all of his oil revenues in the Euro rather than the U.S. Dollar.
This would have collapsed the U. S. Dollar which was mentioned in the video.
There are certain things that were said that add up with the history of events.
There is another great video called zeitgiest http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ which I feel supports a lot of what was stated in the film by Lindsey Williams.

Where this is all headed is speculative.
On one hand there needs to be something cleaner to burn than fossil fuels or a way to burn fossil fuels without creating hazardous byproducts.
Necessity is always the mother of invention.
On the other hand leveling the playing field to tear down the superpowers and to raise the third world countries to a greater standing so that the world can be united under one rule has long been the idea rallied around stories of the Illuminati or Tri-lateral commission.
These ideas are alot like the movie conspiracy theory where truths are made into tabloid like drama where no one really takes anything seriously.
The media is a powerful influence and governments aren't in service to the people as much as they are to special interests. No one I know really believes the politicians of the world are living in any kind of integrity and this is supposed to be a comedic kind of picture that is being painted.

I think the threat of human submission to an influence that has designs other than to expand the welfare of humanity is valid.
In the history of the world there have always been those who wish to rule the world. I don't think man has yet evolved beyond this egotistic desire to have healed this disease.

I agree , except that inventions need a means of manufacturing
in order for them to be worthwhile.

in the video I posted the link to about the cfl bulbs there was a large portion of concern about the safety hazards of these cfl bulbs , I just left lowes and while I was there I noticed cfl bulbs that have a hardened shell , and they appear very similar to regular old fashioned light bulbs , this addition to the cfl should remove any concerns about the mercury content if the hardned shell is strong enought , but I can practically guarantee you that there was not a single penny of energy related funding from the U.S.D.O.E. involved as it would lessen concern of safety thereby increase use and reduce fosile fuel useage in the U.S.



illuminati...theres an old one.

a central government of "this world" will never happen , at least not in the way you would think.
there may be / become a group of individuals with this intent but I find that with all of the counter actions we see for all the actions that might tend to give one more power than the other there would never be any single group that could achieve this goal.

complete world rule is a pipe dream.

probably discussed in circles that contain the wealthiest people.
the most they can / could hope for would be to gain such a firm grip on the countrys of the world financially , that their grip could control each countrys economy , thereby allowing them to set wars between the countrys to increase their profits.

to not see this as a leader of a country and act on it respectively shows weakness in that leader.

to be led around by a group of people with this intent shows either a willfull obedience or shear neglect of that countrys leader / leaders.

I enjoyed reading your reply and hope to read more.

the zietgeist film along with many more such as the 911 films
need a bit of structure they mostly jump to conclusions to feed a hungry crowd.

there is only one thing I have found in all of the 911 conspiracy films that hold water in my book , and that one single thing is the I-beam at ground level that clearly shows a deliberate cutting with some type of shape charge or thermite.

this could have been done to clear the debri , I cant find any info on it.

I can fully understand how the building structure failed as the building fell , and the reasons it fell.

every picture I have seen clearly shows that all of the bolts that held the floors in place were popped from their holes.
I wouldnt think you could place explosives on each bolt , it was a structual failure in my opinion , if that holds any weight .

Im not a republican by any means and hope that by saying these things I have not upset anyones beliefs in a conspiracy theory concerning 911.

at first I fell into the conspiracy belief that this was all planned out by someone / some group other than just a few terrorist , and I have to admit it was the refusal of the release of the confiscated tapes that was a large percentage of my believing this , it was my studying the assorted tapes on the internet and pictures of the aftermath and the eye wittness accounts that led me to believe otherwise.

before the pentagon tapes were released , I had already found evidence of the 9 ft diameter impact of one of the jet engine cowls in a picture taken just after the impact.

but that is enought about the 911 attacks , the point is that the media does have a large impact on the way we think , if they choose to feed us incorrect information and later we find out that that information was incorrect then they will have to bear the results of our trust in them.

I believe that there will be a through investigation of 911 and then we will find out if there was any type of a power play involved and by whom.

if we become evil to fight evil , then where is the fight.

.

I'm thinking of sock puppet governments, where everyone pretends to be interested in the welfare and structure of their country, but actually have no real value as a representative of a single country interest. Eventually that will give way to something like the United Nations where everyone is believed to participate in world policies.

In reference to the 911 thing, I'm still interested in how a building that wasn't near enough to the impact of the plane suddenly catches fire and collapses.

But more importantly the zeitgeist movie dives into the formation of the Federal Reserve and the doing away with private banks and the Gold or wealth to back up the U.S. dollar. The fact that the Federal Reserve is privately owned and not a part of the Government, and prints money at the taxpayers expense by charging interest on something it lends to the U.S. is unconstitutional, and a segue to the destruction of the Republic that the constitution was created around and for.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe someone would like to attempt to explain the purpose of this video? I can't seem to get an answer from anyone. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

It's obvious that this was going to be a news flash about combustible gas in the subway. Why was combustible gas detected in the subway before the first plane hit? Remember, the subways did explode.

Max

I will look into the subway explosion in a moment , but for now
I want to include a little info on this , that I found in a comment by someone directly below the video in the comments section.



an aircraft builds enormous amounts of static electricity a aircraft flying at this speed will have tremendous amounts of static electricity that would discharge into any grounded structure such as the WTC towers.

this grounding would occur exactly as seen in the videos.

it would look similar to a lightning bolt between the aircraft and the building.

...........

from what I have read or heard of in the available info the subways explosions were due to basement level diesel storage tanks that are for the power generating facilities located in the basements.

.............

the timing of the first impact ,where the man located in the basement who heard and felt an explosion in the basement levels below him , before he heard the impact follows the fact that sound and vibration travels through solid materials much faster than through the air.
he would have felt and heard the impact in the basement first , the vibrations would have been sent into the basement ,
and what he heard first should have been verry loud followed by a sort of muffled sound that traveled through the air.

as the sound moved through the air , he would have thought he heard a second impact , the two sounds he heard came from the impact of the first plane.

................

as for the vans that were trying to get the gold out before the buildings collapse , this tells me that there was no wrongfull playing on their part or they would have already gotten the gold out.
if you had a few billion of gold setting under a structure that was about to fall , you might think of getting it out also , or it could be that someone saw a oppurtunity to get some gold.

.......................

please let me know if you have any further questions or doubts concerning the 911 attacks , I would like to know because I would like to look into it if I havent already.
Im dissabled and I do this type of thing as a hobby because it interest me.

.................

the video that you are speaking of was very suspicious to me also.

it looks as if they were checking for some type of substance in the grating and the sensors alarm goes off.

this is the first time I have heard sound with this video.

the language probably is the reason.

the thing about this video that is suspicious to me is the location and the view from this point.

so , what would cause this result.

someone reported a gas leak?
a routine check?
I wouldnt think they would carry a camera along and film every checkpoint.

it sounds like I'm getting suspicious again.
but how can I find out?

here is yet another video on 911
a must see video

google seems to be unable to show the video at this time so

here it is SOMEWHERE ELSE

well that one doesnt work either , so

heres something ELSE to think about

I will be commenting on parts of this video as I watch it






.

Thanks Paul,

The instrument is a TIF 8800 gas detector...I own one. These devices "click" and the clicking speeds up when gas is detected. The clicking turns into a "scream" when the sensor is saturated with combustible gas. His detector was "screaming" which means "danger".

I just found this video which reports a gas leak at the high school across the street from the towers. Everyone was safely evacuated. Very suspicious. IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_fg7eashn0&feature=related

Max

what a find !!!

I have never seen this one either , not only is there a gas leak reported at a high school across from the towers , there is also a report of a remote controled airplane filled with explosives and a truck with a mural painted on its sides of a airplane flying into new york city and exploding.

and all this before the initial plane impact ?

amazing.

It makes you wonder what types of diversions occured that day before the impact to create a type of chaos or pandemonium by the terrorist.

I wonder who the two men that got out of the truck and ran were , it sounds like they were apprehended , and it sounds like they were going to beat the S**T out of em.

.

Paul,

I didn't watch all of the second video, and have no idea if it happened before or after the planes hit. I was just happy to hear a possible explanation for combustible gas being detected in the subway, after years of searching. I guess that reports of gas leaks were common on that day, as the first video shows gas being detected blocks away before the first plane hit, and now a report of a gas leak across the street from the WTC. That's a lot of gas!

It had to be sabotage...regardless of who did it.

Tutor Turtle



which building are you refering to?

and at what time did it catch fire and at what time did it collapse?

Max

only a few gallons of gasoline poured into a sewer could cause this type of thing , perhaps this was a diversion , to know the times at which the gas leaks were reported could lead to the point where the gas was poured into the sewers , or it could be a propane cylinder or two was opened and tossed in somewhere.

the chatter on the radio itself that morning of the video you gave the link to was annoying to listen to , as there was so much going on at the time.

I'm glad you found an explanation to the things you were searching for , and I hope you dont stop there.

for me each video opens new doors for exploration into the causes of the events that day.

such as the thing that looks very much like a military drone
attached to the undercarrige of the second aircraft that hit the wtc buildings.

on the other hand the position of the sun that morning tells me that this is nothing but a shadow of the right engine.

but then again if someone in the military were interested in starting a war on the basis of terrorist attacks and they knew that cameras would be rolling after the first plane hit , then they might tip the aircraft to give this appearance.

so above you see 3 different things to explore.

from only one section of one video.

Paul,

I've never been to NY but I can't imagine that they would vent the sewage gases in the streets! NASTY! That has to be a subway vent. Please, tell me New Yorkers aren't breathing their own waste 24/7!

I'm not new to the conspiracy theory...seen most of the videos. The huge gas leak bugs me the most, mainly because everyone has ignored it.

Max

Well , I dont know either , I guess we have all been left to our own imaginations as the bush admin deemed it unnecessary to have any type of significant investigation as they seemed to already know who did it !!
and as they conficated the tapes for the investigation they were not going to do !!
this way we could ponder if they were the culprits !!
it may be that they didnt know for sure if this was a U.S. gov action in order to start a war or not and that is why they never released the pentagon tapes !!
and maybe since they were not going to perform an investigation that is why they sold the wtc salvage to china as soon as they could get it on a boat.

I suppose that if you cut funding of the investigative structures in america such as the CIA and the FBI and others and then order them to not investigate 911 this type of imagination runaway occurs.

underneath the city of new york is like a completely seperate city , it is a maze down there , I would think that there could easily be gasses escapping from the many different sewer systems under the city.

and that if someone were to release a gas into the sewer system it would seep into the maze.

unless it is perfectly sealed off from everything else down there.

do you have any links to the gasses in the subway you are refering to , I cant seem to find anything either?



.

Max

here is the foundation of the wtc before it was built , it shows the depth of the foundations and some of the subway tubes that ran underneath the wtc.

foundation of wtc

in this view you can see the maze I spoke of , there were probably underground parking areas as well as many natural gas lines running all over the place.

the maze I spoke of

how hard would it have been for a team of experts to get in and set charges to drop the core of the building , in the videos the core is shown to be the first thing to drop , if the places where the bolts were placed were also welded the building might have taken longer to fall , but as I see it , the core was dropped and every bolt that connected the floors to the core was popped from its hole in one clean snap.

except for the top floors that were pulled down at the same time that the core dropped.

it appears that the buildings were constructed with their demolition in mind.

the top floors then pulled away from the core as it stopped falling and then fell on top of the floors underneath popping them out one by one , the weight of the 16 floors that fell with the core would surely be enought to spread out the exterior walls and pop the bolts one floor at a time.
the bolts were all placed vertically into two horizontal plates.
the floor mounting plates were not designed to withstand a force that could shear the bolts in half , they were designed to only hold the floors in place as they sat upon the structure.

the top of the buildings fell into their respective buildings
and this is why you can see what appears as explosions below the levels that apear as if they are just falling.

there are apx 16 floors of the building already inside the building falling on top of the floors inside.

what appears as explosions below the distance that the 16 floors would allow I cannot account for.

there were some of these that could be thirty even more floors below the apparent floors that are visibly seen as falling.

in my opinion these buildings could not have fallen unless there was some force to remove the strenght of the buildings cores at basement level.

and your subway explosions might account for this , as in the photo there are clearly subways running underneath the wtc buildings , the explosion that was heard from accross the river
that shook the tripod of the camera in the video I posted a link to accounts to the fact that there was a large explosion that occured before the first building fell.

and that explosion was not at or above ground level it was underground.

Building 7. which collapsed at 5:25.
The official reports were that the building caught fire and collapsed due to the fire. However the building collapsed inward from the center and occupants of both towers felt an explosion from the basement before the impact of the plane.
Building 7 had fire on two of the floors before it collapsed and there was no damage from the plane impact or the collapse of the twin towers.
One report said there has never been, ever in history, a collapse of a building like this due to fire. The way these buildings fell in free fall without damaging the buildings around them could have only been achieved with explosives.

Tutor Turtle

when the south tower fell , the building fell into the basement areas and basically filled that area with debri.

there was still space under the north tower and building 7 I suppose , I cant find out if there was an open area under vesey st , however I would think that there would be , just not sure.

when the north tower fell , it fell into its basement area and since the south tower had already fell and occupied its basement area , there was no place left for the north tower to fall into other than its own basement area , there were several hot spots of molten metal found in the basement area of the south tower

scroll down for the thermal images of the wtc

most of the molten metal was found in the basement of the south tower and the basement of building 7 , according to the thermal imagery.

from what I can make of the light imagery taken of the wtc aftermath below

light imagery of wtc aftermath

when the north tower fell , it fell into its basement area and spread into the buildings basements adjacent to it causing a structural failure to the building between the north tower and building 7 , as there is not much thermals showing in the footprint or basement area of the north tower , I would sudgest that the force from the collapse of the north tower pushed hot super heated air down into the wtc area further heating the already heated metal such as in a blast furnace , this could have pushed hot molten metal and debri through any openings available underneath vesey st such as the subway tubes and assorted access ways underground and caused a structual damage to building 7 that could not be easily seen from ground level.

there were reports and evidence of pyroclastic flows eminating from the wtc buildings that ignighted automobiles parked outside in the streets.

this molten metal underneath building 7 could have been the reason for its removal.

if you will notice the thermals or hot spots in the footprint of the south tower and building 7 , you can see that the hottest spots appear to be located in a manner in which they could have been pushed outward to their furthermost positions by the blast of air provided when the north tower fell.

at least that is some of what I have been thinking about concerning this matter , hope this has provided you with some type of reasonable reason why building 7 fell or had to be removed.

I still think that building 7 was dropped on purpose , probably because of the fires in the basement areas and the extreme structual damage underneath it.

here are a few links to help to get an idea of the locations
and other assorted links.

foundation and subway tubes

view from the top durring construction

view from the top after construction

status of the buildings after 911

a more recent view from the top

2000 subway map

current subway map

google maps (( vesey st )) wtc area

molten metal (( south tower ))


the video above shows molten metal located in the north east corner of the south tower , by studying separate videos and images of the aircraft impact to the south tower , it appears that the aircraft strikes the building at a apx N NE heading , a heading which sends the aircraft towards the northeast corner of the building , I believe that what you are seeing burning in this video is the magnesium wheels of the landing gear.

the initial fireball could have ignighted the rubber tires and thereby provided fuel to ignite the wheels , if they did not ignight on impact , also the location of the wheels if that is what is burning provided the fire with plenty of oxygen for burning.

burning thermite using magnesium as a fuse !!

notice the magnesium fuse burns very slow...

the thermite burns very fast ...

the thermite does not burn with a orange flame.

I have personaly removed my suspictions that the towers were demolished on purpose , I had to find out myself if that was what happened that day , it bothered me constantly and since we were not given any reasonable explanations that contridicted all the conclusion jumping and theories in many of the 911 videos , I went after the explanations myself.

there is still that picture of the obvious shape charge used on the I-beam at ground level however.
after finding these photos it looks as i...ape charge look


as in the large core section on the left there is what appears to be a cut at an angle in this beam also " unfinished"

this brings me to the moment that the south tower collapsed

the top of the tower did not fall straight down it fell toward the north east corner of the building , the corner where the burning magnesium wheels were I spoke of , if that is what was burning , if not then it would have had to be thermite and someone very brave would have had to place the thermite there in that location after the collision , or they would have had to know exactly what floor of the building the plane was supposed to crash into.


magnesium burns at a temperature of around 1982 C

1982 degree Celsius = 3599.6 degree Fahrenheit

steel melts at 2700 F

the corner that the magnesium wheels were burning in was no more than 2 meters away from the place where the corner of the building began to fall according to the distances in the video.

each horizontal girder is apx 1 meter distance from each other.

the south tower fell because of the weight of the 30 floors above the 80th floor that fell on the 79th floor and then the weight of the 31 floors above the 78th floor and so on.

the nist report says that there was a UPS unit (uninteruptable power supply unit ) on the 81st floor read about it here if you want , in my opinion lead acid batteries would have melted long before the showers of molten metal was seen , in other words the electricity stored in the unit would have boiled away with the electrolite long before the moments just before the collapse , if they could have withstood the impact of the aircraft.

you decide .

I believe it was the nist that was used to deny funding to the CFM (the predecessor to the CFPFM )back in 1996 hence I have little use for their findings.

It may be that when the south tower fell , the foundation / core of the north tower was weakened , thus the method of core failure as seen in the videos of the north tower falling.

north tower collapse , note the top 19 floors at top fall first
then the remaining floors fall as the weight bears down on them.

.

I wanted to share my experience with the CFL lightbulbs today because I had to replace my second bulb today.

all of the lightbulbs in the house are the CFL bulbs.

I remember having to change lightbulbs several times a year
back when I used the incandescent bulbs that cost three times as much money to use.

now not only am I having to change lightbulbs less , its almost like its an event to see one actually not work.

.

They definitely last longer and are cheaper to run too. However I do not like the way the flouro bulbs take ages to warm up to full light, and the light can be glary (though there is now a less blinding white light available) . When you switch them on it is quite gloomy for a while though.

HOWEVER I know it is better from the environmental point of view--and way better than candles.

In the video does that Poe guy listen to what he is saying do you think?

I have a light that I keep on 24/7. I had an incandescent bulb in there, it lasted three years. My brother changed it for a compact fluorescent light a little less than a year ago. The compact fluorescent light burned out two months ago. It did not last longer than that incandescent bulb, it lasted definitely shorter, and now I have a hazardous material to dispose of. I'm not so impressed. My brother said it was due to a voltage spike, which we are prone to in this area. The only thing that would have saved it would be a full house surge protector, which I cannot afford. The compact fluorescent light bulb is not the answer to every man's prayer. At four times the price of a regular light bulb, it should have lasted at least 12 years. Does anybody know what I can do with a blown out compact fluorescent light bulb? Before I wrap it in newspaper in plastic and send it to the landfill. :-(

Hi A~R,
In our town the local hardware stores all accept CFL's for recycling. Any place that sells them should, but....

Even our landfill accepts them for recycling. Just call around a bit.

Good luck.

p.s. Is that 24/7 bulb exposed to temperature changes? When they first came out, I think I heard that the CFL's don't do as well in garages, porches, etc. because of the temp. extremes, but I'm not sure about that anymore. But you're right about the power too, CFL's need a strong steady supply--no dimmer switches either!

The bulb is in my kitchen, in an alcove. It gets no cooler or warmer than the rest of the kitchen. We have power outages and surges due to lightning on a relatively frequent basis. I guess it took one hit too many. That's why my computer runs on an uninterruptable power source. I can't get ups's for all my lights, though. It simply wouldn't be practical.

CFL's are usually rated between 5,000 and 7,000 hours. Sounds like you had a 5,000 hour bulb. The claim that they last for years is based on 4 hours per day usage. I had one break while it was on, and my cat knocked one off of the table last week. I don't plan on using them again. Too much of a risk.

"I don't plan on using them again. Too much of a risk." Max wrote.

We have to use them in Oz, as the regular bulbs are being phased out. I don't know how it was done but they work on dimmer switches and there are different sorts of shadings. For instance I don't like the operating table glare of the originals and now there are other less glary ones available. We are able to take the old bulbs to the Tip for recycling without problem. They also have different shapes for different light fittings and the only big problem is that people who have those tiny down-lights still have to use halogen bulbs I believe.

I like to think I am helping the planet! And since Paul convinced me I am doing the right thing with his statistics, I think these bulbs are a step along the way.

Sorry for the late reply. I just don' visit on week-ends just too busy with house work. So here I am on Monday. Hey, that's nice of you. Thanks a lot!! Same to you . . .

Regards,
comparatif simulation taux credit auto - Taux crédit auto. Comparatif des offres! Les meilleurs taux crédit auto sont sur le net !comparatif simulation taux credit auto

You are helping the planet , thank you

I wanted to update my CFL bulb usage.

I just happened to tune to cspan today and in the house
they are discussing HR 2417 energy efficiency for light bulbs.

the republicans are focussing on the difference in the cost of the light bulbs and the Democrats are focussing on the benefits of the light bulbs.

well after using these bulbs for several years now , I have only had to replace 3 bulbs , and CFL bulbs are the only bulbs I use.

normally as I recall when I used to use the standard incandescent bulbs I would need to replace a bulb every month or so.

so even though they do cost a little more , it sure does save me the money and time I used to spend driving to the store and shopping for the old crappy bulbs we all used to use.

Plus as an added savings so far I have saved apx $9.00 because I havent had to buy more incandescent bulbs , in fact when I bought the CFL bulbs the first time apx 3-4 years ago I also purchased 4 extra 4 packs of these CFL bulbs and the CFL porch and flood light bulbs.

I am absolutely satisfied with these bulbs , however after hearing the republicans bitching about them and never telling the real reason they are bitching about them
( the real reason being that they will cause their constituents , the large energy suppliers to loose millions if not billions in energy sales )

any way I have now decided that the LED lighting is my prefered choice , knowing that it bothers the republicans so much.

and the fact that the LED bulbs use much less energy than even the CFL bulbs means that those who fund the republicans wont have as much to fund republicans with.

which should help to ensure a cleaner safer and better world to live in.


LOL

Really?! I guess LEDs have come a long way since my day when they were about as good as halogens. You are talking about white light, right? Colored LEDs are relatively very efficient but are colored.

The true winner of efficient light bulbs is what's used by people for whom the cost really matters. People with huge power bills for lighting. Those are gas discharge lamps. Very old technology, but still trumps and modern fancy stuff. They're used in warehouses and other large buildings, streetlights, and even car headlights.

Well, some cars use them, but not very many. I'm not completely sure why, but they mostly seem to have been a flash in the pan. One thing, they are too bright and can blind oncoming drivers.

Bill Gill

yes they did , here is a 35 Watt street light for instance
http://gloplus.com/commercial/street.html




and here are some spot and flood lights
http://gloplus.com/commercial/flood.html



and here are residential 8 Watt lights

http://gloplus.com/residential/bulb.html





so if you were using the old crappy 100 watt incadessant bulbs and you switch to the 60 watt equivalent LED lights you are saving 92 Watts for every bulb you use.

11 of these bulbs can save you a killo watt hour every hour you use them.

use them 10 hours a day and you save 10 kwh a day

365 days using them = 3650 kwh a year.

at 12 cents per kwh you would save apx $443.26 a year using them.

the cost to run the CFL bulbs 10 hrs a day x 365 days
$38.54

11 8 watt bulbs = 88 watts
88 watts x 10 hpd = 880 watts
880 watts x 365 days = 321,200 watts

321.2 kwh x .12 cents pkwh = $38.54

to run the incandesant bulbs 10 hrs a day x 365 days
$481.8

11 100 watt bulbs = 1100 watts
1100 watts x 10 hpd = 11,000 watts
11,000 watts x 365 days = 4,015,000 watts

4015 kwh x .12 cents pkwh = $481.8


$443.26 a year

thats a vacation , or a new tv , or groceries , clothes
some other product to support other industries.

the government is always going broke , could you even begin to figure how much of the taxpayers dollars are wasted on inefficient street lights?

Atlanta alone for instance lets just estimate that they use 1,000,000 street lights just in the city , probably a very low estimate.

they burn apx 12 hours a day or longer.

they are usualy 125 watt bulbs

1,000,000 x 125 watts = 125,000,000 watts per hour

125,000,000 x 12 hours = 1,500,000,000 watts per day

1,500,000,000 x 365 days = 547,500,000,000 watts per year.

cities usualy get discounted electricity rates so I will use .04 cents per killo watt hour.

547,500,000 killo watts x .04 cents kwh = $21,000,000 U.S.

using the LED street lights they would have a cost of only $6,132,000 and a savings of apx $14,800,000 a year.

talk about trimming budgets , theres a great place to start.

but do you ever hear a republican talking about using more efficient lighting?

no , you only hear about how they want to deprive the citizens of any type of help programs and assistance
and the constant removal of benefits to the citizens.

oh and of course all the tax breaks to the rich so that the rich can afford to build more factories in china to produce the products sold in the U.S.

Another might have been the stupendous cost. $2000 added to the price of a car could really make it uncompetitive.

Stop there, that's complete rubbish. They do produce more heat energy than light energy. And the cool operating temperature is not an advantage, it's an impediment imposed by the small size of the light source and it's poor ability to withstand high temperatures.

Those streetlights claim to have luminous efficacy (sic) of 50-60 lumens/watt while conventional sodium streetlights are in the 100-200 range. Flourescent tubes are better than LEDs too.

I have flourescent tubes (not just CFLs) in my house. But I think they're generally unpopular because they remind people of work! It's just silly aesthetic reasons like this that people haven't been save money and power on lighting for decades.

Yea , the above Sodium street light uses 600 Watts and has 100 lm/W efficiency.

but here is a GE sodium street light it has
a mean lumens of 8550 and they use 100 watts

http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProduct...ge&sortkey=

8550 lumens / 100watts = 85.50 lumens/watt

why dont you post a link to the sodium bulbs you are talking about.

or should we just take your word for it?

BTW 2100 lumens / 35 watts = 60 lm/watt

LOL



its a good thing that the page stated



nearly 100% doesnt mean 100%

100 Watts for 85.5 lm (sodium)
vs
35 Watts for 60 lm (LED)

looks like they are more efficient than the sodium bulbs

otherwise the sodium bulbs would get 171 lm / 100 watts
and would be as efficient as the LED bulbs.

Something's gone wrong with your maths and units. Divide lumens by watts and you get:
86lm/W for the high pressure sodium streetlight you linked to
60lm/W for the LED streetlight you linked to


Here's a more efficient one at 135 lm/W
http://bilebo.en.made-in-china.com/produ...HPS-1000w-.html




No, but "nearly 100%" does imply more than 10%. Check out wikipedia for the distinction between luminous efficacy and luminous efficiency. These LEDs streetlights really are around 10% efficient, other kinds of lights aren't much better, but are still better.

when I divide 8550 by 100 I get 85.5

you can simply move the decimal two places to get 85.5

you must be rounding it off or your calculator isnt working right.

and where are my units wrong?

130,000 lm / 1000 W = 130 lm/W efficiency not 135 lm/W
your maths must be wrong somewhere.

and it consumes 1000 Watts...


plus the description says the bulb uses 110 volts @ 9.8 amps , that totals 1078 Watts which brings the lm/W down to 120.59 lm/Watt

I had much rather be paying taxes to burn 35 Watt light bulbs than 1078 Watt light bulbs.

from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficiency#Efficacy_and_efficiency



I see what your saying , I suppose that wikipedia is right when they say that " The distinction between efficacy and efficiency is not always carefully maintained in published sources"


luminous efficacy of radiation has a maximum possible value of 683 lm/W so you would need to achieve 683 lm/W
in order to claim 100% efficacy.

but we are discussing efficiency not efficacy.

of course if they made street light bulbs that used
5000 Watts to get less than 10% efficacy then there are plenty of republican governors that would mandate that these bulbs be used so that there puppet masters could get richer.

and the 1078 Watt bulbs you placed a link to could very well be a hedge for utility companies , to be used by current republican puppets and an incentive to elect even more republicans so that any reduction of energy usage by the public because of the CFL and LED light bulbs are not realized.

I think it would be a great idea to check into this and see just what types of streetlamps are being used by states that have republican governors.

You're picking at nits. Even the 100W sodium light is more efficient than the LEDs. The more powerful one even more so. The published numbers from all sources we've posted show that.

Furthermore, fluorescent tubes can also be more efficient than LEDs. So LEDs aren't a power saving for room lighting.

However there are applications where they do have advantages. Where a tightly focussed beam is all that's needed they can save scattering light all over the place. When colors are needed they're much more efficient than filtering a white light. At very low powers (mW) they could be much better than incandescents. But generally they can't yet compete with the big ugly old fashioned bulbs for room lighting at low power cost because nearly 100% of the electric power that goes into them comes out as heat.

8550 / 100 = 85.5 thats not picking at nits.

but 8550 / 100 = 86 is just wrong.



theres no way , 100 Watts is never more efficient than 35 Watts.

no matter how you look at it.

especially when its being used on streets and highways that have cars with headlights attached and in a country where its illegal to drive at night without your headlights on.

and when your looking at it from a taxpayers viewpoint
the 35 Watt bulbs look more efficient.

I can't believe this is coming from you Paul. Where did you go to school? Do you honestly believe those bulbs consume exactly 100W? Sure it might not be 100.0001W? This is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I rounded it to make it clearer. You know that. It makes no difference. Both values are correct, so is 90lm/W.





So use this instead. Produces more light than the LED unit for the same electrical power consumed.
http://www.pdfdoc.ru/electrical-installa...5w/lumens-3300/


At the end of the day, LEDs still don't save power over conventional lights for street and room lighting applications. They simply generate too much heat and not enough light.

I think this one would be better for our homes in the
future , we could run our whole house lighting system using a car battery or less.

it only uses 1 Watt.

and outputs 74 lm

so its efficiency is 74 lm/W

thats brighter and more efficient than the
60 lm/W 8 Watt bulbs.

http://www.pdfdoc.ru/lighting/led-lamps/...-white-715-8301

since the U.S. is slowly going kerplunk and 50 million of its citizens are being threatened with a no income situation , why not install things that you might be able to afford when you dont have an income.

you could power these lights by rubbing two sticks together , LOL

as a matter of fact I think it would be a great way for the 50 million threatned citizens to show there opinion of the republican actions by reducing there spending on
republican puppet master industries such as energy.

Now we're getting somewhere. So LEDs are reasonably efficient afterall! For low power applications like indoor spotlights.

Go for it! Get some (get lots, 74lm isn't much)! You can power use a single halogen transformer and drive dozens together!

That's if you want narrow beam spotlights like over the kitchen bench. To light a room you'd still do better with fluorescent tubes - for now - maybe in the future LEDs can replace them too!

By the way, Americans are happy to waste energy because it's so cheap, not because the government forces them to. Look what the rest of the world is doing when they're constrained by fuel taxes and low incomes. Look at the prevalence of electric bikes in Asia, the use of diesel cars in Europe, solar water heaters just about everywhere, people living in the same cities where they work, not driving to the shops (because they're just downstairs from your high rise apartment building) etc.

not really , I still like the 35 W LED street lights
vs the 135 Watt street lights.

2100 lm isnt bad for 35 Watts.

and they wouldnt need to be 5 ft long like they would if
you used a fluorescent bulb in a street light.

and if the fluorescent bulbs were used then the new intelligent street lights systems wouldnt be as efficient.

because the intelligent street light systems turn the street lights off when there are no cars on the road.

I get 1600 lm from my 23 Watt CFL bulbs and
they are equivalent to the 100 Watt incandessant bulbs.

and to avoid constantly turning lights on and off I might even install motion sensors in my home to turn the lights on and off for me.

It's not going to light a street. You'd need more of them to cover the same area of lit ground.


I've thought about that before but not sure how to do it without it being really irritating. What if you sit still for a while and the lights go out? If it's detecting body heat, what if you leave the computer on and the lights stay on too because they think it's a person. Might need some more sophisticated sensors than just PIR security ones.

My solution is to just leave the lights on all the time The cost of power is low enough that I wouldn't notice the difference.

switches that detect movement when you enter a room or exit a room.

placed at the doorway.

they would need to be on / off switches.

but if there is more than 1 in your home you could have a problem.

perhaps a sensor that is on your watch that tells a pickup that you are now in the room and the lights need to be turned on in that room.

as long as someone wearing a sensor is in that room the light will stay on.

and you could have a manual switch to keep the light from comming on like while your sleeping etc...etc...

Bill Gates' house:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates%27_house

"Guests wear pins that upon entrance of a room automatically adjust temperature, music, and lighting based on the guest's preferences..."

you know Bill Gates gives a whole lot of money to charities , microsoft gives away almost any thing you would need to learn programming of any type , I would like to exclude Bill Gates when I speak of rich people , he cant help it that he is rich , my gosh he has really tried hard to avoid being that rich but hes just a money magnet because he is such a nice person.

Sure Paul. I hadn't considered his character and wealth, only the fact that his house seems to wired along the lines that you have in mind (but more so):

yes I see , he has already modernized his electricity usage
and his electricity usage wouldnt be as much as a conventional home because he has an earth sheltered home.

the earth shelter home takes advantage of ground temperatures to control the homes internal temperatures.

I would be willing to wager that in his home you could find many of the CFL lights and the even newer LED lights also and on his grounds you will most likely find solar powered lights.

and possibly a few electric cars in his garage.