porno tŁrk porno rokettube
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #61
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30/08/2013 1:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 30-August-2013 7:30 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    >> On 28/08/2013 5:05 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, JeŖus wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
    >>>>> the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
    >>>>> are
    >>>>> simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
    >>>>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>>>> they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>> Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    >>>> superior alternative.
    >>>
    >>> it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    >>> output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.
    >>>

    >>
    >> **More bollocks. I have a 100 Watt LED here right now.

    >
    > and how much did you pay for it?
    >
    >


    **Utterly and completely ****ing irrelevant. I responded to yet another
    of your ignorant claims. Nothing more.

    FWIW: I paid $60.00 for it. It sure cost more than the halogen, but
    costs 1/5th the amount of electricity to operate and radiates 20% of the
    heat. In confined spaces, it is well worth it. Lots of light and minimal
    heat.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  2. #62
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.

    >>
    >>> Yes. they do,

    >>
    >> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>
    >>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >>
    >> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >
    > That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >
    >


    **Points:

    * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    produce UV radiation.
    * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

    Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished. Shut
    the **** up.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  3. #63
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8aja0F959cU3@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.
    >>> they still emit radiation

    >> But not enough to be of any concern. I guess you never watched an old CRT
    >> TV
    >> or heaven forbid used a CRT computer monitor as they are far worse for
    >> radiation emmision.

    >
    > everybody used CRT monitors. there was no other choice until LCD's came on
    > the market


    Right, and how many died from them? CFL's are far less dangerous.

    Trevor.



  4. #64
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    > On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>
    >>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>
    >>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>
    >>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    >>
    >> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>
    >>

    >
    > **Points:
    >
    > * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    > * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    > produce UV radiation.
    > * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    > forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >
    > Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.


    UV does pass thru glass

    > Shut the **** up.
    >


    you STFU (egotistical twit!)




  5. #65
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >> On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>
    >>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>
    >>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>
    >>> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> **Points:
    >>
    >> * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >> * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    >> produce UV radiation.
    >> * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    >> forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >>
    >> Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.

    >
    > UV does pass thru glass


    **Considerably attenuated.

    >
    >> Shut the **** up.
    >>

    >
    > you STFU (egotistical twit!)


    **I'm not the one making the stupid claims.

    The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
    considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a corner.

    You're wrong. Admit it and move on.


    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  6. #66
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 7:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    > On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >> On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>> On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>
    >>>> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> **Points:
    >>>
    >>> * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >>> * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    >>> produce UV radiation.


    which goes thru the glass

    >>> * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    >>> forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >>>
    >>> Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.

    >>
    >> UV does pass thru glass

    >
    > **Considerably attenuated.
    >
    >>
    >>> Shut the **** up.
    >>>

    >>
    >> you STFU (egotistical twit!)

    >
    > **I'm not the one making the stupid claims.
    >
    > The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
    > considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a
    > corner.
    >
    > You're wrong. Admit it and move on.
    >
    >


    about what? Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass. pick on
    him- or is he too much for you to handle?


  7. #67
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 7:52 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

    > "felix_unger"
    >
    >> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

    >
    > FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >
    > Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >
    > But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is not
    > 100%.
    >
    > The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    > attenuation.


    and window glass passes UV which is why curtains and carpets fade

    >
    > In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV that
    > any fluoro tube.
    >


    so?

    >
    > ... Phil
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  8. #68
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>
    >>> The govt conned themselves...
    >>>
    >>>> must be laughing all the way to the bank.
    >>>
    >>> Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
    >>>> not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>> they are simply not cost effective.
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,
    >>>
    >>> The best of them do.
    >>>> or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps more.
    >>>
    >>> Mine have been quite literally free.
    >>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.

    >
    >> Yes. they do,

    >
    > No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.


    Whether the majority of cfls emit harmful amount of UVs to us, is something
    I'm not sure yet.
    That need some reading of research papers.

    >
    >> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story. That
    >> would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >
    > Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.


    Come on man. You should know that's incorrect. I know you are no big in
    physics, but you still suppose to have chemistry experties, which should
    give you enough background knowledge on that.
    We have sunglasses(not just glasses) for a very good reason.



  9. #69
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger"

    > Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.



    FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.

    Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.

    But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is not
    100%.

    The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    attenuation.

    In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV that
    any fluoro tube.



    .... Phil



  10. #70
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
    news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > "felix_unger"
    >
    >> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

    >
    >
    > FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >
    > Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >
    > But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is
    > not 100%.
    >
    > The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this
    > attenuation.
    >
    > In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    > that any fluoro tube.


    Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
    It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I
    believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is ok.
    I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have against
    UV in under Australian sun.
    I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real
    Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.


    >
    >
    >
    > ... Phil
    >
    >




  11. #71
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger"

    >
    > and window glass passes UV which is why curtains and carpets fade


    ** Wrong.

    The sun is relentless and has massive UV output.

    >
    >> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >> that
    >> any fluoro tube.
    >>

    >
    > so?



    ** UV harm done to humans is from the sun, rather than fluoros - ****head.

    Wot a dumb cretin.




    .... Phil



  12. #72
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8b7rvFddrhU1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 30-August-2013 7:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >> On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>> On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>> On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> **Points:
    >>>>
    >>>> * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >>>> * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    >>>> produce UV radiation.

    >
    > which goes thru the glass
    >
    >>>> * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    >>>> forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >>>>
    >>>> Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.
    >>>
    >>> UV does pass thru glass

    >>
    >> **Considerably attenuated.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> Shut the **** up.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> you STFU (egotistical twit!)

    >>
    >> **I'm not the one making the stupid claims.
    >>
    >> The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
    >> considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a
    >> corner.
    >>
    >> You're wrong. Admit it and move on.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > about what? Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass. pick on
    > him- or is he too much for you to handle?


    Trevor is scared of Rod. ;-))
    BTW, Rod is dead wrong, even in generic sense of 'glass'.
    But, you won't get him to admit that. He would rather die. :-))

    >




  13. #73
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 9:37 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

    > "felix_unger"
    >
    >> and window glass passes UV which is why curtains and carpets fade

    > ** Wrong.
    >
    > The sun is relentless and has massive UV output.


    yes I know, and it passes thru window glass and fades carpet and drapes,
    as I said. what is your problem?

    >
    > >
    >>> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV
    >>> that
    >>> any fluoro tube.
    >>>

    >> so?

    >
    > ** UV harm done to humans is from the sun, rather than fluoros - ****head.


    I know - ****head

    >
    > a dumb cretin.
    >
    > ... Phil
    >


    yes you are










  14. #74
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 9:09 PM, Damian wrote:

    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8b7rvFddrhU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 30-August-2013 7:15 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>> On 30/08/2013 5:24 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>> On 30-August-2013 2:43 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >>>>> On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >>>>>> On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
    >>>>>>>> Yes. they do,
    >>>>>>> No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>>>>>>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.
    >>>>>>> Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.
    >>>>>> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> **Points:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >>>>> * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    >>>>> produce UV radiation.

    >> which goes thru the glass
    >>
    >>>>> * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    >>>>> forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished.
    >>>> UV does pass thru glass
    >>> **Considerably attenuated.
    >>>
    >>>>> Shut the **** up.
    >>>>>
    >>>> you STFU (egotistical twit!)
    >>> **I'm not the one making the stupid claims.
    >>>
    >>> The appropriate response from you should be to acknowledge your
    >>> considerable errors, rather than continuing to back yourself into a
    >>> corner.
    >>>
    >>> You're wrong. Admit it and move on.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> about what? Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass. pick on
    >> him- or is he too much for you to handle?

    > Trevor is scared of Rod. ;-))
    > BTW, Rod is dead wrong, even in generic sense of 'glass'.
    > But, you won't get him to admit that. He would rather die. :-))
    >


    nothing is more sure than that, lol!

    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  15. #75
    Ext User(yaputya) Guest

    Re: cfl's and BUNGARD pcb


    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:kvpte5$jj4$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:b8b8bcFdh4eU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> "felix_unger"
    >>
    >>> Rod made the claim that UV does not pass thru glass.

    >>
    >>
    >> FFS - "glass " is a whole class of materials - not ONE material.
    >>
    >> Ordinary "soda glass" heavily attenuates UV radiation.
    >>
    >> But the tubes used in fluoro and CFL tubes are egg shell thin - so it is not 100%.
    >>
    >> The tubes used in "bug zappers" use quartz glass to eliminate this attenuation.
    >>
    >> In any case, bright SUN on generates about 100 to 1000 times more UV that any fluoro tube.

    >
    > Yes, but most of you 'black' guys can handle it. ;-)
    > It's mostly in Australia we should be worried about this UV sun thing. I believe most of the habitable other areas of the world is
    > ok.


    The UV exposure index in Australia is no different to other parts of the world with
    the same conditions (latitude, altitude, clouds etc.)
    http://www.who.int/uv/intersunprogra...en/index3.html
    BTW We have all seen media beatups about the Antarctic ozone layer "hole",
    suggesting that it massively increases UV in Australia and is to blame for skin cancer rates.
    That is simply not true, as this link explains:
    http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~cordero/ozone/MSIE_paper.pdf

    > I believe the darker your skin, the better protection you might have against UV in under Australian sun.


    That is true for any where in the world, not just Australia.
    All fair skinned people are at increased risk if they move closer to the equator,
    as happened when the Poms moved here.

    > I rarely hear aborigenes getting skin cancer, by that I meant the real Aborigenes. Not the 5% Aborigenes.


    The skin cancer mortality rate for aborigines is about a quarter of the non- aborigines.
    But aborigines die much younger anyway.

    On another topic, has anyone used BUNGARD photo-resist pcbs and what is a
    cheap UV source to expose with? (Other than the Sun.) Aldi had a cheap UV steriliser
    a few years ago which worked with UV EPROMs, but it's too small for PCBs
    Anyone tried cold cathode UV tubes?







  16. #76
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>
    >>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

    >
    >> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.

    >
    > It was mandated anyway.
    >
    >> I believe it's a choice, so far.

    >
    > You're wrong, as always.


    I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in areas
    where I rarely switch them on.
    I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it yet.
    And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

    >
    >>>must be laughing all the way to the bank. not only are they an
    >>>environmental hazed, they are simply not cost effective. they don't last
    >>>10 times longer than

    >
    >> The ones I buy dirt cheap from warehouses do last lot longer than that.

    >
    > I get them for free and they last fine. Haven't had to replace any of
    > them.
    >
    >>> conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
    >>> they cost heaps more.

    >
    >> They cost more,

    >
    > Nope, mine didnít. Didnít cost a cent.


    Are they free in Antarctica??!!

    >
    >> dunno about heaps more. Depends where you buy it and how smart shopper
    >> you are.

    >
    > In spades when you get them for free.


    Are they free in Antarctica??!!

    >
    >>>they emit UV radiation too.

    >
    >




  17. #77
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b88b83FouhpU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    >
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>
    >>> The govt conned themselves...
    >>>
    >>>> must be laughing all the way to the bank.
    >>>
    >>> Unlikely given that none of them are made here.
    >>>> not only are they an environmental hazed,
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>> they are simply not cost effective.
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>> they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,
    >>>
    >>> The best of them do.
    >>>> or however many times it was supposed to be, and they cost heaps more.
    >>>
    >>> Mine have been quite literally free.
    >>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.

    >
    >> Yes. they do,

    >
    > No they donít. UV doesnít get thru glass.


    Wrong as always.
    average glass blocks UVB. But, cfl's emit both UVA & UVB.

    >
    >> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story. That
    >> would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >
    > Nope, because UV doesnít get thru glass.

    Wrong as always.
    average glass blocks UVB. But, cfl's emit both UVA & UVB.



  18. #78
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:

    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.

    >> It was mandated anyway.
    >>
    >>> I believe it's a choice, so far.

    >> You're wrong, as always.

    > I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in areas
    > where I rarely switch them on.


    I still have a box full

    > I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it yet.


    now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime soon..

    > And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.


    eBay too


    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  19. #79
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvrmsp$ll6$1@dont-email.me...
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8cst3FojfcU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>>> news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>>> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
    >>>> It was mandated anyway.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I believe it's a choice, so far.
    >>>> You're wrong, as always.
    >>> I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in
    >>> areas
    >>> where I rarely switch them on.

    >>
    >> I still have a box full
    >>
    >>> I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it
    >>> yet.

    >>
    >> now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime
    >> soon..

    >
    > Crap! Why don't I think before I talk?!! ;-)
    >
    >>
    >>> And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

    >>
    >> eBay too
    >>

    >
    > Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?! :-)
    > BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
    > I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. :-))


    Try the Weed Capital of NSW

    >
    >
    >>
    >> --
    >> rgds,
    >>
    >> Pete
    >> -------
    >> http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    >> http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/
    >>

    >
    >



  20. #80
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8cst3FojfcU1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 31-August-2013 1:55 AM, Damian wrote:
    >
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b88bc6Fov8oU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >>> news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use
    >>>> I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
    >>> It was mandated anyway.
    >>>
    >>>> I believe it's a choice, so far.
    >>> You're wrong, as always.

    >> I have couple of incandescents in the house installed by(not me), in
    >> areas
    >> where I rarely switch them on.

    >
    > I still have a box full
    >
    >> I haven't had the bulb police showing up and kicking my arse over it yet.

    >
    > now that you've outed yourself on usenet expect a SWAT team anytime soon..


    Crap! Why don't I think before I talk?!! ;-)

    >
    >> And the local Chinese shops and major warehouses still have them.

    >
    > eBay too
    >


    Shouldn't it be illegal to sell them, like tobacco and alcohol?! :-)
    BTW, Rod is a home brewer.
    I would dob in the bastard, if I know where he live. :-))


    >
    > --
    > rgds,
    >
    > Pete
    > -------
    > http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    > http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/
    >




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •