| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#72
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... 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? Perhaps because you are in beyond your depth. 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. If you want to use occupancy sensors with CFL's on 2-wire, upgrade your sensors to a Leviton or other that doesn't require a neutral. So you've got a sensor issue, not a CFL/LED issue. Sensor/dimmer manufacturers have already passed up the stupid NEC code and solved the neutral issue with low power IC's and microcontrollers. So if I wanted to I could light control with my 2-wire. Anybody can. Or pull your own damn neutrals. You'll still need new modern sensors for CFL/LED. Apparently you prefer government intrusion of NEC code inspectors requiring neutrals for every ****ing light switch in America to solve your problem, even if they don't use sensors or dimmers on their lighting. And even if that won't solve your antiquated sensor issue. Or just use incandescents with your current gear. They're readily available and not outlawed, as many dumb-asses seem to think. Citing codes as a specific reason for not using CFL's is crazy! Writing and re-writing codes is in itself a very lucrative engineering industry and the WANT to find reasons to edit and revise codes. That's how they make their money. |
|
#73
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
In article , says...
On Fri, 3 May 2013 17:43:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Come on...you've not lost your powers of observation. Compare this guy to basskisser, and you'll know immediately who it is. John H. The dope smoker from Georgia. |
|
#74
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. |
|
#75
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
On 5/4/13 4:40 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. Smartass!  |
|
#76
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
True North wrote:
Never did. How insightful! Thank you for your contribution. |
|
#77
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
wrote:
On Thu, 02 May 2013 19:33:20 -0400, Earl wrote: Tim wrote: On May 1, 5:10 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 5/1/13 12:58 AM, wrote: On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:10:08 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: A study out Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least. The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy†either an old-school lightbulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,†and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,†said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Got that? With all other factors being equal, conservatives were less likely to buy the exact same lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. They didn't have any more aversion to buying energy-saving lightbulbs than anyone else, unless the package pointed out that this particular lightbulb was slightly less earth-screwing than the other one. Tell them that, and they were more likely to go for the other one. http://tinyurl.com/c6pmf4b A lot of people assume "save the planet" equates to "too expensive to sell on it's own merits" In the case of CFLs I think they were poorly marketed in the first place. People bought them for luminaires that they were not suitable for and they got a bad reputation. They don't "dim", they don't like living "base up" in an enclosed can and they don't work well in load powered switching applications like 2 wire motion detectors or timers. The ironic thing is these are the things energy aware customers are likely to have. The study demonstrated that conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy either bulb, but conservatives were less likely to buy the energy savings lightbulb if you told them it would help the environment. *That* is the point here. I have a bunch of the newer bulbs. I have them all over my shop. about 16 100 watters. I don't know if they really save that much over an incandescent, but I don't have to change them out nearly as often. But the cost of the bulb over the cost of energy isn't really a savings. when you figure it costs somewhat more to make one than it does an incandescent it also costs more to buy, so... I really dont' think they're that great of an all around 'bargain'. over a standard or a florescent . But they work... 100W incandescent bulbs are still available. Look for "rough service" or "commercial duty". Lowes.com says they have 100w A19s in stock at my local store. 8 for $3 http://tinyurl.com/d8m6n4j I guess that light bulb ban was as effective as the 1994 high cap magazine ban. They keep finding "pre ban" old stock to sell. The alternative reason might be that they changed the specs a little to avoid the ban, again, just like the 1994 clinton AWB law. Exactly. |
|
#78
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Funny Stuff
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... 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? --------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea who "iBoater" is, but I think he would argue what shade of black the night sky is indefinitely. Well, yes because it's not a black and white issue, there would be several shades, light no light, what type of light, clouds, etc. -------------------------------------------- Let's just cut to the chase. Black can't have a "shade" because it's not a color. Black is the absence of color. Exactly! And there is color in the night sky. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More funny stuff | General | |||
| This is some funny stuff... | General | |||
| Some funny stuff. | General | |||
| Funny stuff... | General | |||
| OT Funny stuff! | General | |||
![iBoaterer[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif "iBoaterer[_3_] is offline")
Linear Mode
