In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:57:11 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


I ask again, where do you buy them?

Just about anywhere.

http://tinyurl.com/d66cc3b

http://tinyurl.com/cbtcqmf

http://tinyurl.com/d2l78hr

http://tinyurl.com/bps8eub

Need more?

"Anywhere" is not an internet medical supply company and 3 of the 4
links are talking about lab thermometers.

So? That means that somehow the mercury is different????

I am still not sure what this has to do with things we dump into the
land fill on a regular basis.



And what about other thermometers that are in use?

I haven't even seen a mercury thermometer in 30 years. These days
people use electronic ones.
Once they are gone, they are gone.
We are making about a billion new CFLs.
122 CFLs have as much mercury as one thermometer (using the cite you
gave and .6g per thermometer vs .005g in a CFL.).

Thermometers are just another of your straw men.

See above. Strawman, eh?


I know you may find some lab thermometers with mercury in them but
they are even being phased out.



And you are comparing a GOOD dimmable with the low priced, low
performing, crappy lighting CFL's designed to be put in an ad to get you
into the store.


They are pretty much all made in China. \
If I do go for the Sylvania CFL the reliability numbers get worse.
Their regular CFL is 12000 hours vs 8000 (66% )for the dimmable and it
is still 13w vs 14.
They are $3 and change each vs almost $10.
You still need a special dimmer. (inductive load rated)

I made no assumption or verse about where they were made.

That was silly of you, wasn't it. Virtually all of them are made in
China

So?

You also assume the $1.20 lamp is significantly worse than the $3 one.



So, tell me,
how does $3 versus $10 get you to the "7 times as much"?

Because you can buy cheaper regular CFLs but I couldn't find the
dimmables cheaper. I assume they have them.
You still ignore the fact that most existing dimmers specifically say
you can't use them with an inductive load. They may work, they may
not, they might just burn up. Hopefully the fire will be contained
inside the box ... or at least that is what U/L says.

Oh, I get it, you just dreamed up a number! I still want to know how
your $3 versus $10 gets you to "7 times as much".

I gave you a $1,30 vs $9.99 from a store people might actually shop
at.

And YOU gave examples proving that is bull****!!

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will
require that 3d wire we were talking about.
Try to keep up

There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR
anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING.

Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy
detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the
government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only
answer is a 3 wire device.

Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the
current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 17:17:42 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 14:12:00 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 00:52:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It is just that politically correct "if it just saves one life"
thing
you lefties seem to embrace everywhere else.

Right. I don't agree with a "greenie" code - so I'm a "lefty."
Yup, you sure enough drank the kool-ade.

It appears you are veering to the right when it might cost you money

Get real. You can't even define "lefty" or "righty," so it's senseless
to use them as epithets. But that's an effect of the kool-ade.



I have been talking to you for a couple of years and you usually do
not see a government intrusion you don't like.

What "intrusions?" Government dropping the hammer on gun sales to
criminals and whack jobs, which you think is just dandy?
It's you who here defending the NEC, not me. You're ok with government
imposing neutral wires on everybody's wall switches because YOU like
using lighting controls. How precious.
Outside of taxes, NEC is probably the biggest government enforced
"intrusion" into peoples lives.
What are these government "intrusions" you're talking about?
Chlorinated water? Obsoleting inefficient incandescent light bulbs?
An ordinance about riding your horse down the street?
Sorry, none of that bothered me a whit.
For Christ's sake, aren't you in a HOA? Is that the "government" you
speak of? I'm not in a HOA. Won't have that. I value my freedom.
Except for taxes, local codes generated by the likes of NEC, and
car/traffic laws, I don't even know the government exists.
Same for most law-abiding citizens. What problems are you having?
You sound like a paranoid, or an outlaw.



You should really take out the corncob.

John H.

Projecting again, I see.

On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:50:30 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:45:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...





The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will

require that 3d wire we were talking about.

Try to keep up



There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR

anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING.



Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy

detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the

government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only

answer is a 3 wire device.



Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the

current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's.



They work fine with incandescents. They don't work with CFLs or LEDs.

What else do you need to know.

2+2 is not his strong point.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:45:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will
require that 3d wire we were talking about.
Try to keep up

There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR
anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING.

Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy
detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the
government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only
answer is a 3 wire device.

Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the
current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's.

They work fine with incandescents. They don't work with CFLs or LEDs.
What else do you need to know.

So..... you are saying the only reason for the code change is because of
CFL's and LED's???? Really?

In article ,
says...

On Friday, May 3, 2013 9:50:30 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:45:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...





The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will

require that 3d wire we were talking about.

Try to keep up



There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR

anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING.



Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy

detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the

government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only

answer is a 3 wire device.



Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the

current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's.



They work fine with incandescents. They don't work with CFLs or LEDs.

What else do you need to know.

2+2 is not his strong point.

If you, like he, think that the only reason there was a code change is
because of CFL's you are a fool. Perhaps, after insulting me, YOU'D like
to show me? I didn't think so.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 13:03:37 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:45:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 16:58:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


The code sections mandate electronic switching devices and they will
require that 3d wire we were talking about.
Try to keep up

There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING in the code exclusive to CFL's OR
anything that is a direct cause of CFL's. NOTHING.

Bull****. If you could still use incandescents the 2 wire occupancy
detectors would work fine. The energy code mandates CFLs or LEDS, the
government is phasing out incandescents as we speak and the only
answer is a 3 wire device.

Bull****. You can not, have not and will not show me ANYTHING in the
current codes that mandate 3 wire occupancy detectors because of CFL's.

They work fine with incandescents. They don't work with CFLs or LEDs.
What else do you need to know.

So..... you are saying the only reason for the code change is because of
CFL's and LED's???? Really?



The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the
circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if
you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the
connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason
but I am done.

None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is
bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for
a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it
is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it
is, because it isn't happening.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the
circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if
you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the
connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason
but I am done.

None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is
bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for
a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it
is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it
is, because it isn't happening.

I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on
incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU
said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not
true.


Perhaps because you are in
beyond your depth.

See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to
show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they
went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true.

I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they
verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language
too.

It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now
somehow don't.

On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the
circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if
you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the
connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason
but I am done.

None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is
bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for
a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it
is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it
is, because it isn't happening.

I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on
incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU
said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not
true.


Perhaps because you are in
beyond your depth.

See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to
show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they
went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true.

I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they
verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language
too.

It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now
somehow don't.




You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something
more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000
posts?

On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:31:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/3/13 4:24 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:34:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

The code says "to provide for a neutral conductor to complete the
circuit for electronic lighting controls". That is not necessary if
you have an incandescent load. Maybe you are just to dumb to make the
connection or you are just ****ing with me for some personal reason
but I am done.

None of the above. Your notion that it's just for CFL's and LED's is
bull**** and further, you know it is! As you say, it is "to provide for
a neutral conductor..." It isn't "necessary" for a CFL any more than it
is for an incandescent light! Period. And you can't show me how/where it
is, because it isn't happening.

I have a half dozen 2 wire occupancy sensors working fine on
incandescents without a neutral. None work with a CFL or LED.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand, and you are changing yet again. YOU
said that the code was changed BECAUSE OF CFL's AND LED's. That is not
true.


Perhaps because you are in
beyond your depth.

See above. It's you that's in above your head. I've asked and asked to
show me where in the code, OR even in code comments it says that they
went to three wire because of CFL's. You can't because it's not true.

I suppose I could go to the manufacturer web site and see where they
verify my result but why bother. You would quibble with their language
too.

It would have NOTHING to do with code issues as you stated but now
somehow don't.




You two have split the hairs down to atom size. Isn't there something
more interesting you can argue about with Greg over the course of 5,000
posts?

Maybe they could argue about how many basketball players are still in the closet.

I say 12.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!