<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_0059250</id>
	<title>Lifecycle Energy Costs of LED, CFL Bulbs Calculated</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259685240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>necro81 writes <i>"The NY Times is reporting on a new study from Osram, a German lighting manufacturer, which has calculated the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/energy-environment/30led.html">total lifecycle energy costs of three lightbulb technologies</a> and found that both LEDs and CFLs use <a href="http://www.osram-os.com/osram\_os/EN/About\_Us/We\_shape\_the\_future\_of\_light/Our\_obligation/LED\_life-cycle\_assessment/index.html">approximately 20\% of the energy of incandescents</a> over their lifetimes. While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain. The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2\% of their total lifetime energy cost &mdash; a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light."</i> The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>necro81 writes " The NY Times is reporting on a new study from Osram , a German lighting manufacturer , which has calculated the total lifecycle energy costs of three lightbulb technologies and found that both LEDs and CFLs use approximately 20 \ % of the energy of incandescents over their lifetimes .
While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light , it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain .
The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2 \ % of their total lifetime energy cost    a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light .
" The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs , and 25 times longer than incandescents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>necro81 writes "The NY Times is reporting on a new study from Osram, a German lighting manufacturer, which has calculated the total lifecycle energy costs of three lightbulb technologies and found that both LEDs and CFLs use approximately 20\% of the energy of incandescents over their lifetimes.
While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has not been proven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain.
The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2\% of their total lifetime energy cost — a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light.
" The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280592</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That link shows 8 bulbs for $34.79. How is that "a little over $1 each?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>That link shows 8 bulbs for $ 34.79 .
How is that " a little over $ 1 each ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That link shows 8 bulbs for $34.79.
How is that "a little over $1 each?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280370</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1259701020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, I moved into my current apartment - with crummy power to the point that the UPS freaks out daily (for a second or two) - and immediately started going through incandescents like water. Perhaps twelve bulbs, and I was replacing one per week.</p><p>Eventually I blew two hundred bucks on good-quality CFLs. I've had exactly one bulb fail since.</p><p>From what I've been able to tell, CFLs are by no means immune to the you-get-what-you-pay-for syndrome. They're just more expensive to start with, so people skimp on them more, and get crummy CFLs, and the CFLs die rapidly. Buy good ones: they're worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I moved into my current apartment - with crummy power to the point that the UPS freaks out daily ( for a second or two ) - and immediately started going through incandescents like water .
Perhaps twelve bulbs , and I was replacing one per week.Eventually I blew two hundred bucks on good-quality CFLs .
I 've had exactly one bulb fail since.From what I 've been able to tell , CFLs are by no means immune to the you-get-what-you-pay-for syndrome .
They 're just more expensive to start with , so people skimp on them more , and get crummy CFLs , and the CFLs die rapidly .
Buy good ones : they 're worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I moved into my current apartment - with crummy power to the point that the UPS freaks out daily (for a second or two) - and immediately started going through incandescents like water.
Perhaps twelve bulbs, and I was replacing one per week.Eventually I blew two hundred bucks on good-quality CFLs.
I've had exactly one bulb fail since.From what I've been able to tell, CFLs are by no means immune to the you-get-what-you-pay-for syndrome.
They're just more expensive to start with, so people skimp on them more, and get crummy CFLs, and the CFLs die rapidly.
Buy good ones: they're worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279388</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Light++</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Light + +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light++</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281746</id>
	<title>Power factor</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1259672820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got a killowatt sort of thing, and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED (3W  Luxeon); CFL has close to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED. I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL. Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I'm just not billed for it. Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got a killowatt sort of thing , and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED ( 3W Luxeon ) ; CFL has close to .5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED .
I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL .
Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I 'm just not billed for it .
Thing is , it should n't be too hard to improve the PFC , should it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got a killowatt sort of thing, and I tested it on a CFL and on a LED (3W  Luxeon); CFL has close to .5 power factor vs 1.0 for the LED.
I was astonished how bad it was on the CFL.
Sure it does not use much power but it wastes shittons of power in the transmission line as a result -- I'm just not billed for it.
Thing is, it shouldn't be too hard to improve the PFC, should it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364</id>
	<title>Zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFS:<blockquote><div><p>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs</p></div></blockquote><p>2.5x = x so x = zero. Do the math.</p><p>--<br>.nosig</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFS : The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs2.5x = x so x = zero .
Do the math.--.nosig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFS:The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs2.5x = x so x = zero.
Do the math.--.nosig
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279986</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>xlsior</author>
	<datestamp>1259609400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.</i> <br>
<br>
Don't forget the other way around: if you have electrical heating, there are little to no savings using compact florescents during the fall/winter months. With incandescent bulbs the so-called waste heat is actually useful in helping heat the home itself. Without them, my electric baseport heaters just have to work harder to make up the difference, using pretty much the same amount of electricity I'd alledgedly safe by not using incandescents.<br>
<br>
Sure, you'll safe a little during the summer time because you need less A/C, but realistically your lights will get most of their usage during the dark months...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is heat output .
More or less , any energy that is n't becoming light is becoming heat .
Now in some areas of the world , that matters little to none .
However in hot climates , it does .
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house .
You then have to run your AC more often .
So you end up paying double for the power , in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess .
Do n't forget the other way around : if you have electrical heating , there are little to no savings using compact florescents during the fall/winter months .
With incandescent bulbs the so-called waste heat is actually useful in helping heat the home itself .
Without them , my electric baseport heaters just have to work harder to make up the difference , using pretty much the same amount of electricity I 'd alledgedly safe by not using incandescents .
Sure , you 'll safe a little during the summer time because you need less A/C , but realistically your lights will get most of their usage during the dark months.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is heat output.
More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat.
Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.
However in hot climates, it does.
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.
You then have to run your AC more often.
So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.
Don't forget the other way around: if you have electrical heating, there are little to no savings using compact florescents during the fall/winter months.
With incandescent bulbs the so-called waste heat is actually useful in helping heat the home itself.
Without them, my electric baseport heaters just have to work harder to make up the difference, using pretty much the same amount of electricity I'd alledgedly safe by not using incandescents.
Sure, you'll safe a little during the summer time because you need less A/C, but realistically your lights will get most of their usage during the dark months...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282278</id>
	<title>dimmable</title>
	<author>phsdv</author>
	<datestamp>1259678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>CFLs :<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., not very dimmable,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
LEDs :<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., dimmable,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i>
<p>I understand why you say this, however I must disappoint you, it is not correct. It is also very easy to dimm a CFL. For a retrofit LED lamp (thus in the shape of a incandescent bulb), you have to add as much electronics to dim the LEDs as you would need to dim a CFL lamp. </p><p>Technically, dimming a CFL is as easy as increasing the frequency of the oscillator that drivers the CFL tube. The only issue is the TRIAC dimmer in the wall that does not like the low power of the CFL lamp (or LED lamp). Translating the dimmer position to the oscillator frequency is easy.</p><p>The same is also true for LEDs. That is why many retrofit LED lamps are also not dimmable (there are dimmable retrofit LED as well!).</p><p>As soon as we get rid of the old fashion 2 wire TRIAC or transistor dimmers, we can dim CFL and LED easily, and safe even more energy in the end because we do not have to dissipate extra energy only to keep the dimmer happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CFLs : ... , not very dimmable , .. . LEDs : ... , dimmable , .. . I understand why you say this , however I must disappoint you , it is not correct .
It is also very easy to dimm a CFL .
For a retrofit LED lamp ( thus in the shape of a incandescent bulb ) , you have to add as much electronics to dim the LEDs as you would need to dim a CFL lamp .
Technically , dimming a CFL is as easy as increasing the frequency of the oscillator that drivers the CFL tube .
The only issue is the TRIAC dimmer in the wall that does not like the low power of the CFL lamp ( or LED lamp ) .
Translating the dimmer position to the oscillator frequency is easy.The same is also true for LEDs .
That is why many retrofit LED lamps are also not dimmable ( there are dimmable retrofit LED as well !
) .As soon as we get rid of the old fashion 2 wire TRIAC or transistor dimmers , we can dim CFL and LED easily , and safe even more energy in the end because we do not have to dissipate extra energy only to keep the dimmer happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CFLs : ..., not very dimmable, ...
LEDs : ..., dimmable, ...
I understand why you say this, however I must disappoint you, it is not correct.
It is also very easy to dimm a CFL.
For a retrofit LED lamp (thus in the shape of a incandescent bulb), you have to add as much electronics to dim the LEDs as you would need to dim a CFL lamp.
Technically, dimming a CFL is as easy as increasing the frequency of the oscillator that drivers the CFL tube.
The only issue is the TRIAC dimmer in the wall that does not like the low power of the CFL lamp (or LED lamp).
Translating the dimmer position to the oscillator frequency is easy.The same is also true for LEDs.
That is why many retrofit LED lamps are also not dimmable (there are dimmable retrofit LED as well!
).As soon as we get rid of the old fashion 2 wire TRIAC or transistor dimmers, we can dim CFL and LED easily, and safe even more energy in the end because we do not have to dissipate extra energy only to keep the dimmer happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482</id>
	<title>The study is bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents."</p><p>So...</p><p>They made it all up.</p><p>They<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/guessed/.</p><p>They didn't do any research, and didn't actually study anything, they just invented some numbers, then played with them.</p><p>No wonder so many people think so poorly of the environmental movement, if garbage like this gets any sort of positive press at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs , and 25 times longer than incandescents .
" So...They made it all up.They /guessed/.They did n't do any research , and did n't actually study anything , they just invented some numbers , then played with them.No wonder so many people think so poorly of the environmental movement , if garbage like this gets any sort of positive press at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times longer than CFLs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.
"So...They made it all up.They /guessed/.They didn't do any research, and didn't actually study anything, they just invented some numbers, then played with them.No wonder so many people think so poorly of the environmental movement, if garbage like this gets any sort of positive press at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30292900</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1259683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's this:<br><a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/831e/" title="thinkgeek.com">http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/831e/</a> [thinkgeek.com]</p><p>Don't own one, so I don't know how well it works exactly.  Kind of want one though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's this : http : //www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/831e/ [ thinkgeek.com ] Do n't own one , so I do n't know how well it works exactly .
Kind of want one though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's this:http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/831e/ [thinkgeek.com]Don't own one, so I don't know how well it works exactly.
Kind of want one though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279718</id>
	<title>Re:The study is bullshit</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1259605980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly is a report by a semiconductor company, clearly for the purposes of promoting LED lights, the product of "the environmental movement"?</p><p>On another note, it's interesting that you manage to turn a single assumption (albeit a significant one) and turn that into "they didn't do any research". This might well be the case if all the information they came back with was the consequences of a the different lifetimes, but that's not the case. The primary product of the study -- which the summary, even, is so kind as to point out for you -- is determining the energy costs in manufacture and end-of-life for the different bulb types.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is a report by a semiconductor company , clearly for the purposes of promoting LED lights , the product of " the environmental movement " ? On another note , it 's interesting that you manage to turn a single assumption ( albeit a significant one ) and turn that into " they did n't do any research " .
This might well be the case if all the information they came back with was the consequences of a the different lifetimes , but that 's not the case .
The primary product of the study -- which the summary , even , is so kind as to point out for you -- is determining the energy costs in manufacture and end-of-life for the different bulb types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is a report by a semiconductor company, clearly for the purposes of promoting LED lights, the product of "the environmental movement"?On another note, it's interesting that you manage to turn a single assumption (albeit a significant one) and turn that into "they didn't do any research".
This might well be the case if all the information they came back with was the consequences of a the different lifetimes, but that's not the case.
The primary product of the study -- which the summary, even, is so kind as to point out for you -- is determining the energy costs in manufacture and end-of-life for the different bulb types.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281494</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1259669940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At my old house they burned out a lot on me. Back then they were $5 a pop</p></div><p>Just curious -- have you tried to bring 'em back to the store?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At my old house they burned out a lot on me .
Back then they were $ 5 a popJust curious -- have you tried to bring 'em back to the store ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my old house they burned out a lot on me.
Back then they were $5 a popJust curious -- have you tried to bring 'em back to the store?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281404</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1259668980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking into the whole LED lighting thing about a year ago, and I see that you missed the most important cons about LEDs:<br>- In a size that fits a standard socket, they still can't put out the same amount of illumination (as measured in lumens) as either CFLs or Incandescent.<br>- Typical LED illumination is highly directional (i.e. spot type lighting) while both CFLs and Incandescent provide more diffused lighting. Current solutions for making the light from LED lamps more diffuse reduce efficiency and decrease the amount of light they put out.</p><p>Given that over the it's lifetime, LED lamps are even cheaper per-lumen as CFLs, in my view the issues I pointed above are the most significant ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking into the whole LED lighting thing about a year ago , and I see that you missed the most important cons about LEDs : - In a size that fits a standard socket , they still ca n't put out the same amount of illumination ( as measured in lumens ) as either CFLs or Incandescent.- Typical LED illumination is highly directional ( i.e .
spot type lighting ) while both CFLs and Incandescent provide more diffused lighting .
Current solutions for making the light from LED lamps more diffuse reduce efficiency and decrease the amount of light they put out.Given that over the it 's lifetime , LED lamps are even cheaper per-lumen as CFLs , in my view the issues I pointed above are the most significant ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking into the whole LED lighting thing about a year ago, and I see that you missed the most important cons about LEDs:- In a size that fits a standard socket, they still can't put out the same amount of illumination (as measured in lumens) as either CFLs or Incandescent.- Typical LED illumination is highly directional (i.e.
spot type lighting) while both CFLs and Incandescent provide more diffused lighting.
Current solutions for making the light from LED lamps more diffuse reduce efficiency and decrease the amount of light they put out.Given that over the it's lifetime, LED lamps are even cheaper per-lumen as CFLs, in my view the issues I pointed above are the most significant ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285076</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, my old energy supplier sent me two CFLs. One lasted a week, the second blew the moment it was switched on. The energy supplier was charging me so much for electricity I was getting nose bleeds.</p><p>I switched suppliers. I went out and bought some CFLs on a supermarket offer. They cost 50 pence each on offer. That was a year ago, they still work fine. They are reasonably similar to the incandescents they replaced, and I save money both by using CFLs and not using an expensive energy supplier who gives away cheap tack.</p><p>I fancy one of those energy meters though. Any chance they're actually made in a factory rather than somebody's back garden in Shanghai?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , my old energy supplier sent me two CFLs .
One lasted a week , the second blew the moment it was switched on .
The energy supplier was charging me so much for electricity I was getting nose bleeds.I switched suppliers .
I went out and bought some CFLs on a supermarket offer .
They cost 50 pence each on offer .
That was a year ago , they still work fine .
They are reasonably similar to the incandescents they replaced , and I save money both by using CFLs and not using an expensive energy supplier who gives away cheap tack.I fancy one of those energy meters though .
Any chance they 're actually made in a factory rather than somebody 's back garden in Shanghai ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, my old energy supplier sent me two CFLs.
One lasted a week, the second blew the moment it was switched on.
The energy supplier was charging me so much for electricity I was getting nose bleeds.I switched suppliers.
I went out and bought some CFLs on a supermarket offer.
They cost 50 pence each on offer.
That was a year ago, they still work fine.
They are reasonably similar to the incandescents they replaced, and I save money both by using CFLs and not using an expensive energy supplier who gives away cheap tack.I fancy one of those energy meters though.
Any chance they're actually made in a factory rather than somebody's back garden in Shanghai?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279412</id>
	<title>Re:Zero</title>
	<author>robinesque</author>
	<datestamp>1259603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one cares about the trivial solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one cares about the trivial solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one cares about the trivial solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279766</id>
	<title>Re:Zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.5x = x means 2.5 = 1. do the math</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.5x = x means 2.5 = 1. do the math</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.5x = x means 2.5 = 1. do the math</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282070</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>EatHam</author>
	<datestamp>1259676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I can throw away CFLs too, and the environment can eat my ass if it doesn't like it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away .
I can throw away CFLs too , and the environment can eat my ass if it does n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away.
I can throw away CFLs too, and the environment can eat my ass if it doesn't like it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282450</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LEDs<br>-  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.   Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents.  Current generation packaging creates a narrow, focused cone of light.</p><p>Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved, and the problems appear solvable.  Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable.  Once LED is perfected, the other two technologies will be useless.</p></div><p>Which "current generation" are you looking at?  Certainly not the current or even the previous one.  Here's an example of a previous-generation fixture: http://www.colorkinetics.com/ls/essentialwhite/ewcovep/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LEDs- $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .
Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents .
Current generation packaging creates a narrow , focused cone of light.Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved , and the problems appear solvable .
Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable .
Once LED is perfected , the other two technologies will be useless.Which " current generation " are you looking at ?
Certainly not the current or even the previous one .
Here 's an example of a previous-generation fixture : http : //www.colorkinetics.com/ls/essentialwhite/ewcovep/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LEDs-  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents.
Current generation packaging creates a narrow, focused cone of light.Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved, and the problems appear solvable.
Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable.
Once LED is perfected, the other two technologies will be useless.Which "current generation" are you looking at?
Certainly not the current or even the previous one.
Here's an example of a previous-generation fixture: http://www.colorkinetics.com/ls/essentialwhite/ewcovep/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279350</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.</p><p>If x is the lifetime of an LED:</p><p>x=2.5x</p><p>x=0</p><p>Ergo, LED lighting does not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really.If x is the lifetime of an LED : x = 2.5xx = 0Ergo , LED lighting does not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.If x is the lifetime of an LED:x=2.5xx=0Ergo, LED lighting does not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279396</id>
	<title>Oh for fucks sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can these "editors" screw up a single sentence? They're not even janitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can these " editors " screw up a single sentence ?
They 're not even janitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can these "editors" screw up a single sentence?
They're not even janitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288938</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>tdi1</author>
	<datestamp>1259662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quality of the bulb is the key factor. If you buy crap bulbs, they won't last, and unfortunately there are too many manufacturers piling in to make a quick buck and it is giving the field a black-eye.<br>I've installed a half dozen Cree LR6 "bulbs" for recessed lights. One has been running two years, the others about a year. No failures. Excellent quality light.<br>While this is about LEDs, I'll comment on CFLs as well because there are a lot of people with similar poor lifespans with those. Again, crap bulbs = short life. I've got a dozen outdoor  lights that get used in all temperatures. One failed, the rest have worked without flaw for three years.<br>Indoors, I've got two living room, 3-way fluorescent bulbs that burn 24/7/365 (yes, this wastes energy but I can't convince the wife to turn them off). Three years and 26,000 hours later and not a failure. I have a bulb above my shower in a recessed light fixture, considered a "worst case" for CFLs - never had to replace since installation 4 years ago.</p><p>The fundamental technology is excellent. Many manufacturers suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The quality of the bulb is the key factor .
If you buy crap bulbs , they wo n't last , and unfortunately there are too many manufacturers piling in to make a quick buck and it is giving the field a black-eye.I 've installed a half dozen Cree LR6 " bulbs " for recessed lights .
One has been running two years , the others about a year .
No failures .
Excellent quality light.While this is about LEDs , I 'll comment on CFLs as well because there are a lot of people with similar poor lifespans with those .
Again , crap bulbs = short life .
I 've got a dozen outdoor lights that get used in all temperatures .
One failed , the rest have worked without flaw for three years.Indoors , I 've got two living room , 3-way fluorescent bulbs that burn 24/7/365 ( yes , this wastes energy but I ca n't convince the wife to turn them off ) .
Three years and 26,000 hours later and not a failure .
I have a bulb above my shower in a recessed light fixture , considered a " worst case " for CFLs - never had to replace since installation 4 years ago.The fundamental technology is excellent .
Many manufacturers suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quality of the bulb is the key factor.
If you buy crap bulbs, they won't last, and unfortunately there are too many manufacturers piling in to make a quick buck and it is giving the field a black-eye.I've installed a half dozen Cree LR6 "bulbs" for recessed lights.
One has been running two years, the others about a year.
No failures.
Excellent quality light.While this is about LEDs, I'll comment on CFLs as well because there are a lot of people with similar poor lifespans with those.
Again, crap bulbs = short life.
I've got a dozen outdoor  lights that get used in all temperatures.
One failed, the rest have worked without flaw for three years.Indoors, I've got two living room, 3-way fluorescent bulbs that burn 24/7/365 (yes, this wastes energy but I can't convince the wife to turn them off).
Three years and 26,000 hours later and not a failure.
I have a bulb above my shower in a recessed light fixture, considered a "worst case" for CFLs - never had to replace since installation 4 years ago.The fundamental technology is excellent.
Many manufacturers suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279904</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1259608020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>LEDs - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. </i></p><p><i>http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13442</i></p><p><i>http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.24201</i></p><p><i>Price isn't such a limitation any more. Once we see true mass production it'll be sweet.</i></p><p><i>Incandescents have awful colour temp anyway.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LEDs - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .
http : //www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13442http : //www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.24201Price is n't such a limitation any more .
Once we see true mass production it 'll be sweet.Incandescents have awful colour temp anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LEDs - $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13442http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.24201Price isn't such a limitation any more.
Once we see true mass production it'll be sweet.Incandescents have awful colour temp anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</id>
	<title>Great assumption</title>
	<author>CrazyJim1</author>
	<datestamp>1259602560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs , we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279872</id>
	<title>VU1 no mercury :)</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259607780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hope for <a href="http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm" title="vu1.com">http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm</a> [vu1.com] <br>
No mercury, highly energy efficient, light quality identical to incandescent, not to expensive.<br>
Why suffer if you break a light for some eco cult?<br>
Wait for better tech and stay away from the lights of brain death.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope for http : //www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm [ vu1.com ] No mercury , highly energy efficient , light quality identical to incandescent , not to expensive .
Why suffer if you break a light for some eco cult ?
Wait for better tech and stay away from the lights of brain death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope for http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm [vu1.com] 
No mercury, highly energy efficient, light quality identical to incandescent, not to expensive.
Why suffer if you break a light for some eco cult?
Wait for better tech and stay away from the lights of brain death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280214</id>
	<title>Re:What did the study say about.....</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1259699220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take advantage of the efficiency.  Instead of a supposed 45W replacement CFL, go with a 60W or 75W equivalent.  Or even the really bright 100W CFLs (which only use around 25-30W).  It's still going to use less power and you'll get more light out of it.<br>
<br>
The other trick is to find a bulb color that you like.  Then add in some ambient light with a different temperature CFL in a 2nd fixture.  For the office, I prefer the brighter blue CFLs.  But for the L/R, I prefer the cooler and yellower CFLs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take advantage of the efficiency .
Instead of a supposed 45W replacement CFL , go with a 60W or 75W equivalent .
Or even the really bright 100W CFLs ( which only use around 25-30W ) .
It 's still going to use less power and you 'll get more light out of it .
The other trick is to find a bulb color that you like .
Then add in some ambient light with a different temperature CFL in a 2nd fixture .
For the office , I prefer the brighter blue CFLs .
But for the L/R , I prefer the cooler and yellower CFLs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take advantage of the efficiency.
Instead of a supposed 45W replacement CFL, go with a 60W or 75W equivalent.
Or even the really bright 100W CFLs (which only use around 25-30W).
It's still going to use less power and you'll get more light out of it.
The other trick is to find a bulb color that you like.
Then add in some ambient light with a different temperature CFL in a 2nd fixture.
For the office, I prefer the brighter blue CFLs.
But for the L/R, I prefer the cooler and yellower CFLs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</id>
	<title>Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incandescent bulbs :<br>+ Cheap, we're used to the light<br>- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat</p><p>CFLs :<br>+ much more efficient, very long lifespan<br>- not very dimmable, contain mercury, fragile, slow to start up in cold environs, reduced lifespan if toggled on and off</p><p>LEDs<br>+ extremely efficient, ridiculous lifespan (60,000 hours), almost bulletproof, can toggle on and off as much as you want, start up instantly in all environs, dimmable, no toxic materials.  Basically almost perfect in every way.<br>-  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.   Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents.  Current generation packaging creates a narrow, focused cone of light.</p><p>Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved, and the problems appear solvable.  Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable.  Once LED is perfected, the other two technologies will be useless.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incandescent bulbs : + Cheap , we 're used to the light- terrible efficiency , short lifespan , fragile , sensitive to vibration , emit heatCFLs : + much more efficient , very long lifespan- not very dimmable , contain mercury , fragile , slow to start up in cold environs , reduced lifespan if toggled on and offLEDs + extremely efficient , ridiculous lifespan ( 60,000 hours ) , almost bulletproof , can toggle on and off as much as you want , start up instantly in all environs , dimmable , no toxic materials .
Basically almost perfect in every way.- $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .
Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents .
Current generation packaging creates a narrow , focused cone of light.Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved , and the problems appear solvable .
Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable .
Once LED is perfected , the other two technologies will be useless .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incandescent bulbs :+ Cheap, we're used to the light- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heatCFLs :+ much more efficient, very long lifespan- not very dimmable, contain mercury, fragile, slow to start up in cold environs, reduced lifespan if toggled on and offLEDs+ extremely efficient, ridiculous lifespan (60,000 hours), almost bulletproof, can toggle on and off as much as you want, start up instantly in all environs, dimmable, no toxic materials.
Basically almost perfect in every way.-  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Current generation light spectra is too high a color temperature to mimic incandescents.
Current generation packaging creates a narrow, focused cone of light.Summary : LED will pwn all once the problems are solved, and the problems appear solvable.
Problems with other light technologies are inherent to the technology itself and not solvable.
Once LED is perfected, the other two technologies will be useless.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279952</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.</p> </div><p>The toxic parts of a LED are not in your home, they are at manufacturing where they can be dealt with (given proper regulation) or buried underground.  In contrast, CFLs bulbs have mercury but more importantly they have toxic fire retardant chemicals.  People forget this, but it's required since CFLs would otherwise sometimes burst into flames.</p><p>I had one that cracked while on, releasing mercury (supposedly not so hazardous as people hype it to be) and another where the plastic melted into an orange smoldering mess.  So I've already been exposed to more toxic compounds from CFLs than if I used LEDs for the rest of my life. Just for some context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen , and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water ( after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill .
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste , and it requires large amounts of energy .
The toxic parts of a LED are not in your home , they are at manufacturing where they can be dealt with ( given proper regulation ) or buried underground .
In contrast , CFLs bulbs have mercury but more importantly they have toxic fire retardant chemicals .
People forget this , but it 's required since CFLs would otherwise sometimes burst into flames.I had one that cracked while on , releasing mercury ( supposedly not so hazardous as people hype it to be ) and another where the plastic melted into an orange smoldering mess .
So I 've already been exposed to more toxic compounds from CFLs than if I used LEDs for the rest of my life .
Just for some context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.
The toxic parts of a LED are not in your home, they are at manufacturing where they can be dealt with (given proper regulation) or buried underground.
In contrast, CFLs bulbs have mercury but more importantly they have toxic fire retardant chemicals.
People forget this, but it's required since CFLs would otherwise sometimes burst into flames.I had one that cracked while on, releasing mercury (supposedly not so hazardous as people hype it to be) and another where the plastic melted into an orange smoldering mess.
So I've already been exposed to more toxic compounds from CFLs than if I used LEDs for the rest of my life.
Just for some context.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279984</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>yope</author>
	<datestamp>1259609340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They actually briefly mention this point in the study, so it is at least being considered (RTFA).
<br>
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat.
<br>
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility: excess heat being benefical in colder places. The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75\% of the time when heating is needed, as saving only 17 kg of CO2. I have made some calculations, and being very pessimistic, assuming your central heating has 100\% efficiency, you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle. That is not being insignificant anymore, but the study just dismisses it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They actually briefly mention this point in the study , so it is at least being considered ( RTFA ) .
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat .
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility : excess heat being benefical in colder places .
The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75 \ % of the time when heating is needed , as saving only 17 kg of CO2 .
I have made some calculations , and being very pessimistic , assuming your central heating has 100 \ % efficiency , you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle .
That is not being insignificant anymore , but the study just dismisses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They actually briefly mention this point in the study, so it is at least being considered (RTFA).
Although I do not entirely agree with some assumptions made and the last calculation about heat.
You also forget to mention the opposite possibility: excess heat being benefical in colder places.
The study mentions an example where they dismiss the heating effect of the incandecent bulb under conditions where the bulb is used 75\% of the time when heating is needed, as saving only 17 kg of CO2.
I have made some calculations, and being very pessimistic, assuming your central heating has 100\% efficiency, you should still save some 150 kg of CO2 over the 25000 hour lifecycle.
That is not being insignificant anymore, but the study just dismisses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279662</id>
	<title>login required</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck you nyt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck you nyt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck you nyt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480</id>
	<title>Easy Bake Ovens</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1259603700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't anyone ever think of the children? What about Easy Bake Ovens? Have you ever tried to bake a tiny little cake from the heat emitted by LED bulb? No adult, let alone child, has that sort of patience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anyone ever think of the children ?
What about Easy Bake Ovens ?
Have you ever tried to bake a tiny little cake from the heat emitted by LED bulb ?
No adult , let alone child , has that sort of patience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anyone ever think of the children?
What about Easy Bake Ovens?
Have you ever tried to bake a tiny little cake from the heat emitted by LED bulb?
No adult, let alone child, has that sort of patience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280952</id>
	<title>Re:The study is bullshit</title>
	<author>jlehtira</author>
	<datestamp>1259664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage (250,000 h, 6 hours a day), in anything less than 20 years?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p><p>Just that something is "assumed" doesn't mean there's no <i>reason</i> to make that assumption and believe it. They made a guess, right, but an educated one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage ( 250,000 h , 6 hours a day ) , in anything less than 20 years ?
; ) .Just that something is " assumed " does n't mean there 's no reason to make that assumption and believe it .
They made a guess , right , but an educated one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how exactly would you do actual research about whether LED bulbs actually last for 11 years of typical usage (250,000 h, 6 hours a day), in anything less than 20 years?
;).Just that something is "assumed" doesn't mean there's no reason to make that assumption and believe it.
They made a guess, right, but an educated one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285340</id>
	<title>Re:Pimping LEDs</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1259692320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I can find a 3-way LED bulb, I'll buy one. I want to use my 3-way floor lamps, and I'm not going to put a 3-way CFL in there because I have a toddler who can tip it over fairly easily. Why is it apparently impossible to build a 3-way LED bulb?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I can find a 3-way LED bulb , I 'll buy one .
I want to use my 3-way floor lamps , and I 'm not going to put a 3-way CFL in there because I have a toddler who can tip it over fairly easily .
Why is it apparently impossible to build a 3-way LED bulb ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I can find a 3-way LED bulb, I'll buy one.
I want to use my 3-way floor lamps, and I'm not going to put a 3-way CFL in there because I have a toddler who can tip it over fairly easily.
Why is it apparently impossible to build a 3-way LED bulb?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285208</id>
	<title>Re:Except that you cannot really buy LED lighbulbs</title>
	<author>Thrakamazog</author>
	<datestamp>1259691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming you are in a country that has Home Depot stores:
<a href="http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keyword=led\%2Blightbulb&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053" title="homedepot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keyword=led\%2Blightbulb&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053</a> [homedepot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming you are in a country that has Home Depot stores : http : //www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search ? keyword = led \ % 2Blightbulb&amp;langId = -1&amp;storeId = 10051&amp;catalogId = 10053 [ homedepot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming you are in a country that has Home Depot stores:
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?keyword=led\%2Blightbulb&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053 [homedepot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279774</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Love the sig.  You should check out the KJV. Jesus Saves</htmltext>
<tokenext>Love the sig .
You should check out the KJV .
Jesus Saves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love the sig.
You should check out the KJV.
Jesus Saves</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</id>
	<title>Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259603640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this is an energy-saving technology, surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason and makes fools of the "greenies" in my own mind!
You know, like how <a href="http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/03/toyotas\_prius\_is\_less\_efficien.html" title="thetorquereport.com">Hummers are actually more eco-friendly than the Prius</a> [thetorquereport.com], and how <a href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-disrupt-the-flow-of-prana/" title="wind-watch.org">windmills screw with feng shui</a> [wind-watch.org].  I've always found an excuse to view all environmentalism as self-defeating before, don't let me down this time slashdot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is an energy-saving technology , surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason and makes fools of the " greenies " in my own mind !
You know , like how Hummers are actually more eco-friendly than the Prius [ thetorquereport.com ] , and how windmills screw with feng shui [ wind-watch.org ] .
I 've always found an excuse to view all environmentalism as self-defeating before , do n't let me down this time slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is an energy-saving technology, surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason and makes fools of the "greenies" in my own mind!
You know, like how Hummers are actually more eco-friendly than the Prius [thetorquereport.com], and how windmills screw with feng shui [wind-watch.org].
I've always found an excuse to view all environmentalism as self-defeating before, don't let me down this time slashdot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282238</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259677860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another things to consider is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>It's still a waste if you have a heat pump, which has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient\_of\_performance#Example" title="wikipedia.org">coefficient of performance</a> [wikipedia.org] (COP) greater than 1.0. A resistive heater is 1.0.</p><blockquote><div><p>However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>An air conditioner also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air\_conditioner#Seasonal\_Energy\_Efficiency\_Rating\_.28SEER.29" title="wikipedia.org">has a COP greater than 1.0</a> [wikipedia.org], so you don't pay double for the excess energy the incandescent uses.

</p><p>So, if you need heating and don't have a heat pump, you might as well use incandescents in the winter. If you do have a heat pump, or it's summer, use CFLs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another things to consider is heat output .
More or less , any energy that is n't becoming light is becoming heat .
Now in some areas of the world , that matters little to none .
It 's still a waste if you have a heat pump , which has a coefficient of performance [ wikipedia.org ] ( COP ) greater than 1.0 .
A resistive heater is 1.0.However in hot climates , it does .
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house .
You then have to run your AC more often .
So you end up paying double for the power , in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess .
An air conditioner also has a COP greater than 1.0 [ wikipedia.org ] , so you do n't pay double for the excess energy the incandescent uses .
So , if you need heating and do n't have a heat pump , you might as well use incandescents in the winter .
If you do have a heat pump , or it 's summer , use CFLs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another things to consider is heat output.
More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat.
Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.
It's still a waste if you have a heat pump, which has a coefficient of performance [wikipedia.org] (COP) greater than 1.0.
A resistive heater is 1.0.However in hot climates, it does.
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.
You then have to run your AC more often.
So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.
An air conditioner also has a COP greater than 1.0 [wikipedia.org], so you don't pay double for the excess energy the incandescent uses.
So, if you need heating and don't have a heat pump, you might as well use incandescents in the winter.
If you do have a heat pump, or it's summer, use CFLs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283744</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>movercast</author>
	<datestamp>1259685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually with LEDs it should be possible to make ANY spectrum of your choice.  A few UV, Blue, Green, Red, and IR LEDs thrown together actually could create a perfectly flat spectrum across the board.  Also, if you put some adjustments on them, you could emulate Sunny, cloudy, moonshine or earthshine.  Anybody know of companies selling these types of customized units?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually with LEDs it should be possible to make ANY spectrum of your choice .
A few UV , Blue , Green , Red , and IR LEDs thrown together actually could create a perfectly flat spectrum across the board .
Also , if you put some adjustments on them , you could emulate Sunny , cloudy , moonshine or earthshine .
Anybody know of companies selling these types of customized units ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually with LEDs it should be possible to make ANY spectrum of your choice.
A few UV, Blue, Green, Red, and IR LEDs thrown together actually could create a perfectly flat spectrum across the board.
Also, if you put some adjustments on them, you could emulate Sunny, cloudy, moonshine or earthshine.
Anybody know of companies selling these types of customized units?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282666</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1259680260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100\% efficient.</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you aware that heat rises? Do you spend a lot of time sitting on your ceiling?</p><p>It's all very well to make heat, but it's pointless to be making it where it's not needed. That's not in any way efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100 \ % efficient.Are you aware that heat rises ?
Do you spend a lot of time sitting on your ceiling ? It 's all very well to make heat , but it 's pointless to be making it where it 's not needed .
That 's not in any way efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100\% efficient.Are you aware that heat rises?
Do you spend a lot of time sitting on your ceiling?It's all very well to make heat, but it's pointless to be making it where it's not needed.
That's not in any way efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279686</id>
	<title>Legislation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sure hope this doesn't get used as an excuse to ban incandescents (like similar studies for CFLs). When they're cheaper and more convenient, people will switch to them. I notice that neither of the linked articles mention the disposal cost as part of the lifecycle analysis. People pitched CFLs as some miracle cure for the incandescent disease but I can throw my incandescent bulbs in the trash while I (and everyone else in this area) have to hand-carry CFLs out to the dump (far away) in my car (you can assume it's a gas guzzler for most people around here) because they're toxic and the garbage men are too clever to get into the mad hatter business. I refuse to believe the CFLs are better and yet they are being forced on me by lawmakers that certainly don't understand the math or the real-world impact of these laws they pass. LEDs may be an economic win once they're brighter and cheaper, but why not help them get brighter and cheaper instead of trying to legislate people into believing they are?</p><p>This whole save the environment thing is like the Y2K scare... it's taking advantage of people's fear of the unknown to advance a personal agenda. There's a difference between being a steward of the environment (which I am all for) and being a slave to environmental regulations on the off chance that something good for the environment might happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope this does n't get used as an excuse to ban incandescents ( like similar studies for CFLs ) .
When they 're cheaper and more convenient , people will switch to them .
I notice that neither of the linked articles mention the disposal cost as part of the lifecycle analysis .
People pitched CFLs as some miracle cure for the incandescent disease but I can throw my incandescent bulbs in the trash while I ( and everyone else in this area ) have to hand-carry CFLs out to the dump ( far away ) in my car ( you can assume it 's a gas guzzler for most people around here ) because they 're toxic and the garbage men are too clever to get into the mad hatter business .
I refuse to believe the CFLs are better and yet they are being forced on me by lawmakers that certainly do n't understand the math or the real-world impact of these laws they pass .
LEDs may be an economic win once they 're brighter and cheaper , but why not help them get brighter and cheaper instead of trying to legislate people into believing they are ? This whole save the environment thing is like the Y2K scare... it 's taking advantage of people 's fear of the unknown to advance a personal agenda .
There 's a difference between being a steward of the environment ( which I am all for ) and being a slave to environmental regulations on the off chance that something good for the environment might happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope this doesn't get used as an excuse to ban incandescents (like similar studies for CFLs).
When they're cheaper and more convenient, people will switch to them.
I notice that neither of the linked articles mention the disposal cost as part of the lifecycle analysis.
People pitched CFLs as some miracle cure for the incandescent disease but I can throw my incandescent bulbs in the trash while I (and everyone else in this area) have to hand-carry CFLs out to the dump (far away) in my car (you can assume it's a gas guzzler for most people around here) because they're toxic and the garbage men are too clever to get into the mad hatter business.
I refuse to believe the CFLs are better and yet they are being forced on me by lawmakers that certainly don't understand the math or the real-world impact of these laws they pass.
LEDs may be an economic win once they're brighter and cheaper, but why not help them get brighter and cheaper instead of trying to legislate people into believing they are?This whole save the environment thing is like the Y2K scare... it's taking advantage of people's fear of the unknown to advance a personal agenda.
There's a difference between being a steward of the environment (which I am all for) and being a slave to environmental regulations on the off chance that something good for the environment might happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30309542</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1259851620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on the bulb. Home Depot sells three different color temperature bulbs. I want to say that the "use only for gitmo torture chamber and office cube farm" color bulbs are 4000k, I know they're marketed as the "natural daylight" cfl's and are sold in a blue packaging. The "bright white" bulbs in the green packages or the "warm" cfl's in the red packages are perfectly fine for me.</p><p>I never thought I would be a CFL bulb snob until I bought those natural daylight bulbs.</p><p>(I will also now go sit in the corner and feel great shame for never learning the color temperature / kelvin scale.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the bulb .
Home Depot sells three different color temperature bulbs .
I want to say that the " use only for gitmo torture chamber and office cube farm " color bulbs are 4000k , I know they 're marketed as the " natural daylight " cfl 's and are sold in a blue packaging .
The " bright white " bulbs in the green packages or the " warm " cfl 's in the red packages are perfectly fine for me.I never thought I would be a CFL bulb snob until I bought those natural daylight bulbs .
( I will also now go sit in the corner and feel great shame for never learning the color temperature / kelvin scale .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the bulb.
Home Depot sells three different color temperature bulbs.
I want to say that the "use only for gitmo torture chamber and office cube farm" color bulbs are 4000k, I know they're marketed as the "natural daylight" cfl's and are sold in a blue packaging.
The "bright white" bulbs in the green packages or the "warm" cfl's in the red packages are perfectly fine for me.I never thought I would be a CFL bulb snob until I bought those natural daylight bulbs.
(I will also now go sit in the corner and feel great shame for never learning the color temperature / kelvin scale.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281776</id>
	<title>Go for Luxeons</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1259673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3W, and now 5W per LED. Low power LEDs suck for lighting, even when you have 100s of them, I've found.</p><p>Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic, which is in turn in a metal+plastic casing. You really have to work hard to expose it. Even in a landfill most will never leak. The mass of dangerous material is tiny, anyway.</p><p>OTOH it's easy to break a CFL. The amount of mercury is ridiculously small, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3W , and now 5W per LED .
Low power LEDs suck for lighting , even when you have 100s of them , I 've found.Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic , which is in turn in a metal + plastic casing .
You really have to work hard to expose it .
Even in a landfill most will never leak .
The mass of dangerous material is tiny , anyway.OTOH it 's easy to break a CFL .
The amount of mercury is ridiculously small , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3W, and now 5W per LED.
Low power LEDs suck for lighting, even when you have 100s of them, I've found.Also the semiconductor in the LED is encased in plastic, which is in turn in a metal+plastic casing.
You really have to work hard to expose it.
Even in a landfill most will never leak.
The mass of dangerous material is tiny, anyway.OTOH it's easy to break a CFL.
The amount of mercury is ridiculously small, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283124</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>bjdevil66</author>
	<datestamp>1259682660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.</i> </p><p>In my "study of one", CFLs also don't work right out of the box about 10-20\% of the time. They don't light at all, or they flicker on and off, etc. There is a real quality problem with those bulbs. I much prefer plain, old fashioned incandescent bulbs. </p><p>This also doesn't take into effect that some kinds of CFL bulbs are hard on the eyes when lit (some are better than others). I have to go 50/50 to get the same light "warmth" in one bedroom.</p><p>Wake me up when LED bulbs are cheap enough to consider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially the increased on/off cycles , which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time .
In my " study of one " , CFLs also do n't work right out of the box about 10-20 \ % of the time .
They do n't light at all , or they flicker on and off , etc .
There is a real quality problem with those bulbs .
I much prefer plain , old fashioned incandescent bulbs .
This also does n't take into effect that some kinds of CFL bulbs are hard on the eyes when lit ( some are better than others ) .
I have to go 50/50 to get the same light " warmth " in one bedroom.Wake me up when LED bulbs are cheap enough to consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.
In my "study of one", CFLs also don't work right out of the box about 10-20\% of the time.
They don't light at all, or they flicker on and off, etc.
There is a real quality problem with those bulbs.
I much prefer plain, old fashioned incandescent bulbs.
This also doesn't take into effect that some kinds of CFL bulbs are hard on the eyes when lit (some are better than others).
I have to go 50/50 to get the same light "warmth" in one bedroom.Wake me up when LED bulbs are cheap enough to consider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280244</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1259699580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, most commercially available LED bulbs are no more efficient on a lumens/watt basis than CFL's (~60) and are MUCH worse on a lumens/dollar basis, this loaded study notwithstanding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , most commercially available LED bulbs are no more efficient on a lumens/watt basis than CFL 's ( ~ 60 ) and are MUCH worse on a lumens/dollar basis , this loaded study notwithstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, most commercially available LED bulbs are no more efficient on a lumens/watt basis than CFL's (~60) and are MUCH worse on a lumens/dollar basis, this loaded study notwithstanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Pieroxy</author>
	<datestamp>1259661720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, after having spent more than $400 in LED bulbs (that's not many bulbs trust me), most of them have died after a year or so. I'm talking about the bulbs, not the LEDs of course. I have no doubt they still have 25000 hours in stock, buit without the electronic to light them, it's very little use.</p><p><a href="http://france.palmdrive.net/pb/2009/10/15/1255609065536.html" title="palmdrive.net">My blog on the subject</a> [palmdrive.net] (in french...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , after having spent more than $ 400 in LED bulbs ( that 's not many bulbs trust me ) , most of them have died after a year or so .
I 'm talking about the bulbs , not the LEDs of course .
I have no doubt they still have 25000 hours in stock , buit without the electronic to light them , it 's very little use.My blog on the subject [ palmdrive.net ] ( in french... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, after having spent more than $400 in LED bulbs (that's not many bulbs trust me), most of them have died after a year or so.
I'm talking about the bulbs, not the LEDs of course.
I have no doubt they still have 25000 hours in stock, buit without the electronic to light them, it's very little use.My blog on the subject [palmdrive.net] (in french...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30297938</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is probably a really good idea. Better than "carbon" tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is probably a really good idea .
Better than " carbon " tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is probably a really good idea.
Better than "carbon" tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279384</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>startled</author>
	<datestamp>1259602860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.</p></div><p>The study was commissioned by an LED manufacturer.  In order to reach the desired result, they had to redefine 2.5 as the multiplicative identity.  At least they're up front about it.  ("Up front" being, in fact, quite important-- you don't want to see what they did to the associative property.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs , we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.The study was commissioned by an LED manufacturer .
In order to reach the desired result , they had to redefine 2.5 as the multiplicative identity .
At least they 're up front about it .
( " Up front " being , in fact , quite important-- you do n't want to see what they did to the associative property .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, we conclude that LEDs last infinitely long and there is nothing superior except for LEDs.The study was commissioned by an LED manufacturer.
In order to reach the desired result, they had to redefine 2.5 as the multiplicative identity.
At least they're up front about it.
("Up front" being, in fact, quite important-- you don't want to see what they did to the associative property.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283786</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1259685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electric heat?  In the US at least, natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU.  Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose, and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source.  Not to mention summer cooling costs; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months?  Interesting theory, I look forward to some math on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electric heat ?
In the US at least , natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU .
Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose , and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source .
Not to mention summer cooling costs ; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months ?
Interesting theory , I look forward to some math on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electric heat?
In the US at least, natural gas costs about 1/3 of what electricity does per rendered BTU.
Many homes have natural gas heating for this purpose, and deriving heat from electricity could be seen as only contributing 1/3 cost efficiency when considered to be a heat source.
Not to mention summer cooling costs; are you suggesting swapping out incandescents for CFLs during the summer months?
Interesting theory, I look forward to some math on the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284050</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Bake Ovens</title>
	<author>movercast</author>
	<datestamp>1259686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More IR LEDs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More IR LEDs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More IR LEDs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281132</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1259665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, they can have a much more natural white point. I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day. Just a much nicer quality of light.</p></div><p>Haver you ever seen the spectrum of a CFL though?  Every one I've is completely freaky, absolutely nothing like a blackbody spectrum (such as the sun, or an incandescent bulb), basically lots of extremely narrow high-intensity spikes at widely-distributed points.
</p><p>LED bulbs don't have a perfect black-body spectrum either, but the one's I've seen a spectrum for are much, much closer than the typical CFL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , they can have a much more natural white point .
I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000 , which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day .
Just a much nicer quality of light.Haver you ever seen the spectrum of a CFL though ?
Every one I 've is completely freaky , absolutely nothing like a blackbody spectrum ( such as the sun , or an incandescent bulb ) , basically lots of extremely narrow high-intensity spikes at widely-distributed points .
LED bulbs do n't have a perfect black-body spectrum either , but the one 's I 've seen a spectrum for are much , much closer than the typical CFL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, they can have a much more natural white point.
I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day.
Just a much nicer quality of light.Haver you ever seen the spectrum of a CFL though?
Every one I've is completely freaky, absolutely nothing like a blackbody spectrum (such as the sun, or an incandescent bulb), basically lots of extremely narrow high-intensity spikes at widely-distributed points.
LED bulbs don't have a perfect black-body spectrum either, but the one's I've seen a spectrum for are much, much closer than the typical CFL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281290</id>
	<title>Re:Pimping LEDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whilst it's true that most LED lamps currently on the market aren't better than CFLs (an in fact many are still much worse in terms of lumens per Watt), if you pay enough money you can get LED lamps that are more than capable of outperforming CFLs in all ways. I think we have to make the assumption that over the long term, these expensive LEDs will only get cheaper due to product maturity, and the poorly-performing ones currently widely available will disappear from the market. Even with merely equal energy efficiency, the increased reliability will still favour LEDs in the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet LEDs do n't really compete with CFLs yet.Whilst it 's true that most LED lamps currently on the market are n't better than CFLs ( an in fact many are still much worse in terms of lumens per Watt ) , if you pay enough money you can get LED lamps that are more than capable of outperforming CFLs in all ways .
I think we have to make the assumption that over the long term , these expensive LEDs will only get cheaper due to product maturity , and the poorly-performing ones currently widely available will disappear from the market .
Even with merely equal energy efficiency , the increased reliability will still favour LEDs in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet.Whilst it's true that most LED lamps currently on the market aren't better than CFLs (an in fact many are still much worse in terms of lumens per Watt), if you pay enough money you can get LED lamps that are more than capable of outperforming CFLs in all ways.
I think we have to make the assumption that over the long term, these expensive LEDs will only get cheaper due to product maturity, and the poorly-performing ones currently widely available will disappear from the market.
Even with merely equal energy efficiency, the increased reliability will still favour LEDs in the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279660</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many LEDs are made out of toxic materials (like gallium aresenide). Neither they nor CFLs (which contain something like 4 mg of elemental mercury) present a significant hazard to the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many LEDs are made out of toxic materials ( like gallium aresenide ) .
Neither they nor CFLs ( which contain something like 4 mg of elemental mercury ) present a significant hazard to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many LEDs are made out of toxic materials (like gallium aresenide).
Neither they nor CFLs (which contain something like 4 mg of elemental mercury) present a significant hazard to the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280898</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1259663400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That short lifespan for incandescents is a somewhat recent development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That short lifespan for incandescents is a somewhat recent development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That short lifespan for incandescents is a somewhat recent development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280860</id>
	<title>My house lighted like Bourne Identity fight scene</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259663160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went all CFL a few months ago and now, my house is lighted like a <i>Bourne Identity</i> fight scene in an Eastern European stairwell.</p><p>I can hardly wait until <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent\_ban" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">incandescents are banned</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went all CFL a few months ago and now , my house is lighted like a Bourne Identity fight scene in an Eastern European stairwell.I can hardly wait until incandescents are banned [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went all CFL a few months ago and now, my house is lighted like a Bourne Identity fight scene in an Eastern European stairwell.I can hardly wait until incandescents are banned [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280038</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a serious note though, I wonder how that "25 times" assumption stands if you include the effect of children playing indoor football etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a serious note though , I wonder how that " 25 times " assumption stands if you include the effect of children playing indoor football etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a serious note though, I wonder how that "25 times" assumption stands if you include the effect of children playing indoor football etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279706</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LED technology isn't quite there yet, but when it is, it will have a few<br>advantages over CFL:</p><p>1) You won't need a hazmat team to clean up when one breaks<br>2) The lumens per watt demonstrated in the lab is better than CFLs</p><p>I bought a handful of LED bulbs from donsgreenstore (the site I bought<br>them from seems to be gone now, no surprise) and they were expensive<br>and they sucked.  Considerably worse efficiency than CFLs and they<br>didn't last as long as incandescents.  In California, there's a requirement<br>that certain fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen meet a lumens per watt<br>requirement and they fell well short of that... not that it really matters<br>because the California requirement is on the fixture type, not the bulb<br>type.  If you have an incandescent fixture and put a magic bulb<br>that consumes no power and still produces light, it doesn't meet<br>their requirements... you need to have fixtures with special sockets<br>(like 13 W 4 prong electronic ballast florescent sockets).</p><p>Hopefully LED bulbs will be available in the not too distant future<br>with the required lumens per watt so somebody manufactures one<br>that can be put in the florescent sockets.  I'm not holding my breath<br>though.  Unless of course I break a florescent bulb... then I'll hold<br>my breath to avoid the mercury vapor.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LED technology is n't quite there yet , but when it is , it will have a fewadvantages over CFL : 1 ) You wo n't need a hazmat team to clean up when one breaks2 ) The lumens per watt demonstrated in the lab is better than CFLsI bought a handful of LED bulbs from donsgreenstore ( the site I boughtthem from seems to be gone now , no surprise ) and they were expensiveand they sucked .
Considerably worse efficiency than CFLs and theydid n't last as long as incandescents .
In California , there 's a requirementthat certain fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen meet a lumens per wattrequirement and they fell well short of that... not that it really mattersbecause the California requirement is on the fixture type , not the bulbtype .
If you have an incandescent fixture and put a magic bulbthat consumes no power and still produces light , it does n't meettheir requirements... you need to have fixtures with special sockets ( like 13 W 4 prong electronic ballast florescent sockets ) .Hopefully LED bulbs will be available in the not too distant futurewith the required lumens per watt so somebody manufactures onethat can be put in the florescent sockets .
I 'm not holding my breaththough .
Unless of course I break a florescent bulb... then I 'll holdmy breath to avoid the mercury vapor .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LED technology isn't quite there yet, but when it is, it will have a fewadvantages over CFL:1) You won't need a hazmat team to clean up when one breaks2) The lumens per watt demonstrated in the lab is better than CFLsI bought a handful of LED bulbs from donsgreenstore (the site I boughtthem from seems to be gone now, no surprise) and they were expensiveand they sucked.
Considerably worse efficiency than CFLs and theydidn't last as long as incandescents.
In California, there's a requirementthat certain fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen meet a lumens per wattrequirement and they fell well short of that... not that it really mattersbecause the California requirement is on the fixture type, not the bulbtype.
If you have an incandescent fixture and put a magic bulbthat consumes no power and still produces light, it doesn't meettheir requirements... you need to have fixtures with special sockets(like 13 W 4 prong electronic ballast florescent sockets).Hopefully LED bulbs will be available in the not too distant futurewith the required lumens per watt so somebody manufactures onethat can be put in the florescent sockets.
I'm not holding my breaththough.
Unless of course I break a florescent bulb... then I'll holdmy breath to avoid the mercury vapor.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279358</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Trayal</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still waiting for that AOLED display...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for that AOLED display.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for that AOLED display...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279728</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can now buy an LED light bulb for 10 bucks from Home depot. Seems like your major complaint about LED's had been solved... LEDs now pay for themselves when compared to a CFL within 1 year, and when compared to incandescent within 3 months.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can now buy an LED light bulb for 10 bucks from Home depot .
Seems like your major complaint about LED 's had been solved... LEDs now pay for themselves when compared to a CFL within 1 year , and when compared to incandescent within 3 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can now buy an LED light bulb for 10 bucks from Home depot.
Seems like your major complaint about LED's had been solved... LEDs now pay for themselves when compared to a CFL within 1 year, and when compared to incandescent within 3 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259604060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use.
</p><p>
Seriously it's the longer life.
</p><p>
Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use .
Seriously it 's the longer life .
Especially the increased on/off cycles , which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because with LEDs you only make the part of the spectrum that the tomatoes growing in the closet use.
Seriously it's the longer life.
Especially the increased on/off cycles, which is what kills almost all CFLs before their time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1259606580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Since this is an energy-saving technology, surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason</i>
<br> <br>
In this case the drawback is that they produce a light spectrum that makes you want to stab yourself in the eye after prolonged exposure.
<br> <br>
I know, it's a small nit-pick.  I'm probably just trying to justify my foregone decision to not change my "not stabbing myself in the eye" habit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is an energy-saving technology , surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason In this case the drawback is that they produce a light spectrum that makes you want to stab yourself in the eye after prolonged exposure .
I know , it 's a small nit-pick .
I 'm probably just trying to justify my foregone decision to not change my " not stabbing myself in the eye " habit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is an energy-saving technology, surely it has some fatal yet under-appreciated drawback that fully justifies my foregone decision never to change my habits or lifestyle for any reason
 
In this case the drawback is that they produce a light spectrum that makes you want to stab yourself in the eye after prolonged exposure.
I know, it's a small nit-pick.
I'm probably just trying to justify my foregone decision to not change my "not stabbing myself in the eye" habit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283910</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1259686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CFLs :<br>+ much more efficient, very long lifespan</i></p><p>The two CFLs (15W, spiraled) I've tried have both burned out within 6 months.  Am I just unlucky or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CFLs : + much more efficient , very long lifespanThe two CFLs ( 15W , spiraled ) I 've tried have both burned out within 6 months .
Am I just unlucky or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CFLs :+ much more efficient, very long lifespanThe two CFLs (15W, spiraled) I've tried have both burned out within 6 months.
Am I just unlucky or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287694</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1259700600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quality matters a lot with CFLs.  With old incandescent bulbs it was no big deal to buy the knockoff brand down at Save-Mo-Money, but if you try that with CFLs you'll get the terrible Chinese knockoff ones that put out dim flickery light, take forever to start up, and die after 6 months.  I reaplaced all of the bulbs in my home 6 years ago with the Commercial Electric (apparently now n:Vision) bulbs from Home Depot and have lost only a single bulb so far.  They come on immediately and have moderate to no warmup time (I have a couple that need about 45 seconds to warm up, most come on at full power right away).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quality matters a lot with CFLs .
With old incandescent bulbs it was no big deal to buy the knockoff brand down at Save-Mo-Money , but if you try that with CFLs you 'll get the terrible Chinese knockoff ones that put out dim flickery light , take forever to start up , and die after 6 months .
I reaplaced all of the bulbs in my home 6 years ago with the Commercial Electric ( apparently now n : Vision ) bulbs from Home Depot and have lost only a single bulb so far .
They come on immediately and have moderate to no warmup time ( I have a couple that need about 45 seconds to warm up , most come on at full power right away ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quality matters a lot with CFLs.
With old incandescent bulbs it was no big deal to buy the knockoff brand down at Save-Mo-Money, but if you try that with CFLs you'll get the terrible Chinese knockoff ones that put out dim flickery light, take forever to start up, and die after 6 months.
I reaplaced all of the bulbs in my home 6 years ago with the Commercial Electric (apparently now n:Vision) bulbs from Home Depot and have lost only a single bulb so far.
They come on immediately and have moderate to no warmup time (I have a couple that need about 45 seconds to warm up, most come on at full power right away).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288858</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently have a 3 watt light with ONE bulb  that gets decently warm (because I made a terrible hackjob powersupply).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently have a 3 watt light with ONE bulb that gets decently warm ( because I made a terrible hackjob powersupply ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently have a 3 watt light with ONE bulb  that gets decently warm (because I made a terrible hackjob powersupply).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279846</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>lotho brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259607300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me try to help...
<p>
Packaging large amounts of vacuum in incandescent lamps and CRTs  increases the concentration of air we've got to breath if we're not living in a lamp or CRT.
</p><p>
Switching to these so-called green technologies could see us run out of air!!!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me try to help.. . Packaging large amounts of vacuum in incandescent lamps and CRTs increases the concentration of air we 've got to breath if we 're not living in a lamp or CRT .
Switching to these so-called green technologies could see us run out of air ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me try to help...

Packaging large amounts of vacuum in incandescent lamps and CRTs  increases the concentration of air we've got to breath if we're not living in a lamp or CRT.
Switching to these so-called green technologies could see us run out of air!!
!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279428</id>
	<title>Re:Zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is also true for extremely small values of 2.5</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also true for extremely small values of 2.5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also true for extremely small values of 2.5</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280132</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1259697960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait... What?<br> <br>

Are you claiming that heat output only matters in warm climates? If you've ever been living in one of the northern countries you know that except for two months or so of the year, any extra heat sources in the home is a \_good\_ thing. Heat production is not wasted energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... What ? Are you claiming that heat output only matters in warm climates ?
If you 've ever been living in one of the northern countries you know that except for two months or so of the year , any extra heat sources in the home is a \ _good \ _ thing .
Heat production is not wasted energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... What? 

Are you claiming that heat output only matters in warm climates?
If you've ever been living in one of the northern countries you know that except for two months or so of the year, any extra heat sources in the home is a \_good\_ thing.
Heat production is not wasted energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280654</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1259661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.</p></div><p>Good, because CFL bulbs have been a major disappointment for me. In practice, the 10x longer lifespan compared to ordinary light bulbs turned out to be a lie. In my home they've lasted about equally long as ordinary light bulbs. They also weren't as bright as advertised; a bulb that was advertised as being as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb actually looks remarkably less bright.</p><p>They should not have promised lifespans and levels of brightness that they couldn't make good on. The bulky size, the ugly color and to a lesser extent the warm up time have gotten better over the years, but because I will not compromise on truth in advertisement(*), there isn't a brand of CFL bulbs left that I'm willing to buy.</p><p>(*) well, a decent approximation</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.Good , because CFL bulbs have been a major disappointment for me .
In practice , the 10x longer lifespan compared to ordinary light bulbs turned out to be a lie .
In my home they 've lasted about equally long as ordinary light bulbs .
They also were n't as bright as advertised ; a bulb that was advertised as being as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb actually looks remarkably less bright.They should not have promised lifespans and levels of brightness that they could n't make good on .
The bulky size , the ugly color and to a lesser extent the warm up time have gotten better over the years , but because I will not compromise on truth in advertisement ( * ) , there is n't a brand of CFL bulbs left that I 'm willing to buy .
( * ) well , a decent approximation</tokentext>
<sentencetext> so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.Good, because CFL bulbs have been a major disappointment for me.
In practice, the 10x longer lifespan compared to ordinary light bulbs turned out to be a lie.
In my home they've lasted about equally long as ordinary light bulbs.
They also weren't as bright as advertised; a bulb that was advertised as being as bright as a 100W incandescent bulb actually looks remarkably less bright.They should not have promised lifespans and levels of brightness that they couldn't make good on.
The bulky size, the ugly color and to a lesser extent the warm up time have gotten better over the years, but because I will not compromise on truth in advertisement(*), there isn't a brand of CFL bulbs left that I'm willing to buy.
(*) well, a decent approximation
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283358</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1259683500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but your heat pump is currently 300\% efficient, though that may drop to 100\% when it gets really cold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but your heat pump is currently 300 \ % efficient , though that may drop to 100 \ % when it gets really cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but your heat pump is currently 300\% efficient, though that may drop to 100\% when it gets really cold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>gabebear</author>
	<datestamp>1259605260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away. All florescent bulbs(CFLs included) contain mercury. Also, CFLs that operate in freezing conditions are very expensive and still don't work that well. LEDs can also be dimmed easily and come in any color you want, or even <a href="http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/store/en/browse/sku\_detail.jsp?id=2L-1005&amp;sourceType=cs&amp;source=FG&amp;cm\_mmc=Shopping\%20Engines-\_-googleproduct-\_-Par\%2020\%20Led\%20Bulb\%208\%20Watt\%2088\%20Beam\%20Angle\%20-\%201-\_-2L-1005&amp;ci\_src=14110944&amp;ci\_sku=2L-1005" title="vitaminshoppe.com" rel="nofollow">every color</a> [vitaminshoppe.com].
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitz's\_Law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">LED technology is still progressing rapidly</a> [wikipedia.org], so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away .
All florescent bulbs ( CFLs included ) contain mercury .
Also , CFLs that operate in freezing conditions are very expensive and still do n't work that well .
LEDs can also be dimmed easily and come in any color you want , or even every color [ vitaminshoppe.com ] .
LED technology is still progressing rapidly [ wikipedia.org ] , so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the single best thing about the current LED bulbs is you can throw them away.
All florescent bulbs(CFLs included) contain mercury.
Also, CFLs that operate in freezing conditions are very expensive and still don't work that well.
LEDs can also be dimmed easily and come in any color you want, or even every color [vitaminshoppe.com].
LED technology is still progressing rapidly [wikipedia.org], so hopefully we will see LED bulbs that trounce CFL efficiency pretty soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279816</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1259607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brilliant!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1259672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel like a parrot because I post this so often:<br><br>If you live in the UK don't buy CFLs. Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric. Mention you like the look of CFLs. They will send you a box for nothing. They will also send you one of these new-fangled LCD energy meters, if you ask. They just sent me enough roof insulation to cover the whole roof space, 270mm thick, for sixteen quid.<br><br>They have to do this. It is the law. A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures. Everyone qualifies, not just new customers.<br><br>Yes, I work in the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like a parrot because I post this so often : If you live in the UK do n't buy CFLs .
Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric .
Mention you like the look of CFLs .
They will send you a box for nothing .
They will also send you one of these new-fangled LCD energy meters , if you ask .
They just sent me enough roof insulation to cover the whole roof space , 270mm thick , for sixteen quid.They have to do this .
It is the law .
A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures .
Everyone qualifies , not just new customers.Yes , I work in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like a parrot because I post this so often:If you live in the UK don't buy CFLs.
Phone your energy supplier and ask them how you can save electric.
Mention you like the look of CFLs.
They will send you a box for nothing.
They will also send you one of these new-fangled LCD energy meters, if you ask.
They just sent me enough roof insulation to cover the whole roof space, 270mm thick, for sixteen quid.They have to do this.
It is the law.
A certain amount of profit has to be given away for energy saving measures.
Everyone qualifies, not just new customers.Yes, I work in the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279454</id>
	<title>Senator....</title>
	<author>ff1324</author>
	<datestamp>1259603460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs"<br> <br>
Sounds like something a Congressional committee would come up with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs " Sounds like something a Congressional committee would come up with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs" 
Sounds like something a Congressional committee would come up with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280134</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1259697960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.</i> <br> <br>This is also an issue where it is cold enough to need heating.<br> <br> <i>You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.</i> <br> <br>It dosn't help that many AC systems move excess heat from inside to outside a building, typically into an all ready hot environment, rather than do something like pre-heating hot water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is heat output .
More or less , any energy that is n't becoming light is becoming heat .
Now in some areas of the world , that matters little to none .
However in hot climates , it does .
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house .
This is also an issue where it is cold enough to need heating .
You then have to run your AC more often .
So you end up paying double for the power , in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess .
It dos n't help that many AC systems move excess heat from inside to outside a building , typically into an all ready hot environment , rather than do something like pre-heating hot water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is heat output.
More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat.
Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.
However in hot climates, it does.
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.
This is also an issue where it is cold enough to need heating.
You then have to run your AC more often.
So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.
It dosn't help that many AC systems move excess heat from inside to outside a building, typically into an all ready hot environment, rather than do something like pre-heating hot water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279770</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah it seems like CFLs are a great example of YMMV.</p><p>I simultaneously replaced all lights in my home with CFLs three years ago. Good quality ones with a nice spectrum similar to old style incandescents (to my eye, at least).</p><p>Since then how many have failed? Only one.</p><p>I must say I'm quite impressed. Even the outdoor ones haven't died yet (exposed to a typical yearly temperature range of almost 50C). I wouldn't ever go back to incandescents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and frankly LEDs look even better (less waste heat, potentially better spectrum and range of colours).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it seems like CFLs are a great example of YMMV.I simultaneously replaced all lights in my home with CFLs three years ago .
Good quality ones with a nice spectrum similar to old style incandescents ( to my eye , at least ) .Since then how many have failed ?
Only one.I must say I 'm quite impressed .
Even the outdoor ones have n't died yet ( exposed to a typical yearly temperature range of almost 50C ) .
I would n't ever go back to incandescents ... and frankly LEDs look even better ( less waste heat , potentially better spectrum and range of colours ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it seems like CFLs are a great example of YMMV.I simultaneously replaced all lights in my home with CFLs three years ago.
Good quality ones with a nice spectrum similar to old style incandescents (to my eye, at least).Since then how many have failed?
Only one.I must say I'm quite impressed.
Even the outdoor ones haven't died yet (exposed to a typical yearly temperature range of almost 50C).
I wouldn't ever go back to incandescents ... and frankly LEDs look even better (less waste heat, potentially better spectrum and range of colours).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287724</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That very much depends on the specific LED, now that blue, and ultraviolet LEDs
have been produce, LEDs can create any spectrum that we wish. In practice
a white light combo LED is unlikely to have more that three specific emitters,
but for tasks, like hydroponics, custom LEDs are likely to have the advantage.
By contrast, florescent bulbs have a very blue tint that is probably unhelpful
for growing.
<p>
I'm actually rather surprised that LED have only the same life time cost as
fluorescents, I expected LED to be much cheaper, especially because of there
longer life. Increasing there use and better manufacture will likely bring down
the cost of LEDs in the futures, while fluorescents have been around so long i
doubt there's much improvement to be had.
</p><p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Home\%20Lighting/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Home Lighting</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That very much depends on the specific LED , now that blue , and ultraviolet LEDs have been produce , LEDs can create any spectrum that we wish .
In practice a white light combo LED is unlikely to have more that three specific emitters , but for tasks , like hydroponics , custom LEDs are likely to have the advantage .
By contrast , florescent bulbs have a very blue tint that is probably unhelpful for growing .
I 'm actually rather surprised that LED have only the same life time cost as fluorescents , I expected LED to be much cheaper , especially because of there longer life .
Increasing there use and better manufacture will likely bring down the cost of LEDs in the futures , while fluorescents have been around so long i doubt there 's much improvement to be had .
--- Home Lighting [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That very much depends on the specific LED, now that blue, and ultraviolet LEDs
have been produce, LEDs can create any spectrum that we wish.
In practice
a white light combo LED is unlikely to have more that three specific emitters,
but for tasks, like hydroponics, custom LEDs are likely to have the advantage.
By contrast, florescent bulbs have a very blue tint that is probably unhelpful
for growing.
I'm actually rather surprised that LED have only the same life time cost as
fluorescents, I expected LED to be much cheaper, especially because of there
longer life.
Increasing there use and better manufacture will likely bring down
the cost of LEDs in the futures, while fluorescents have been around so long i
doubt there's much improvement to be had.
---

Home Lighting [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</id>
	<title>LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?</p><p>I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible. What makes LED more attractive? Is it just the longer life time?<br>--<br>Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:<br>MADONNA IS THE BEST!!<br>Impeach Obama; install Madonna; end the war!</p><p>Currently listening to: Madonna - Like a Virgin; Justify My Sex remix.flac</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output ( lumens ) ? I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings ( watt rating ) is very negligible .
What makes LED more attractive ?
Is it just the longer life time ? --Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0 : MADONNA IS THE BEST !
! Impeach Obama ; install Madonna ; end the war ! Currently listening to : Madonna - Like a Virgin ; Justify My Sex remix.flac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible.
What makes LED more attractive?
Is it just the longer life time?--Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:MADONNA IS THE BEST!
!Impeach Obama; install Madonna; end the war!Currently listening to: Madonna - Like a Virgin; Justify My Sex remix.flac</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279346</id>
	<title>Wat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs</p></div><p>wat? how possible!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDswat ?
how possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDswat?
how possible!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279616</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1259605080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have not been very happy with them either. They do seem to burn out *years* before they should, often in the same timeframe or less then incandescent.<br>Worse, in small spaces, like a bathroom, two or more tend to get hot and off-gas (polyvinyl chloride base is my guess), and then when they do burn out they often get hotter still and turn brown or buzz.<br>Do I think the sky is falling? No, but this is not something I have great confidence in for a closed up for the winter household.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have not been very happy with them either .
They do seem to burn out * years * before they should , often in the same timeframe or less then incandescent.Worse , in small spaces , like a bathroom , two or more tend to get hot and off-gas ( polyvinyl chloride base is my guess ) , and then when they do burn out they often get hotter still and turn brown or buzz.Do I think the sky is falling ?
No , but this is not something I have great confidence in for a closed up for the winter household .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have not been very happy with them either.
They do seem to burn out *years* before they should, often in the same timeframe or less then incandescent.Worse, in small spaces, like a bathroom, two or more tend to get hot and off-gas (polyvinyl chloride base is my guess), and then when they do burn out they often get hotter still and turn brown or buzz.Do I think the sky is falling?
No, but this is not something I have great confidence in for a closed up for the winter household.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280374</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Sparr0</author>
	<datestamp>1259701020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 1W LEDs.  Imagine that same bulb with 30 of those.  And a massive heat sink, because it would put out a significant amount of heat.  While far less than the equivalent incandescent bulb, the problem is that LEDs don't like being that hot, while incandescent filaments continue working just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 1W LEDs .
Imagine that same bulb with 30 of those .
And a massive heat sink , because it would put out a significant amount of heat .
While far less than the equivalent incandescent bulb , the problem is that LEDs do n't like being that hot , while incandescent filaments continue working just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 1W LEDs.
Imagine that same bulb with 30 of those.
And a massive heat sink, because it would put out a significant amount of heat.
While far less than the equivalent incandescent bulb, the problem is that LEDs don't like being that hot, while incandescent filaments continue working just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279878</id>
	<title>Re:Zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or 2.5 = 1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or 2.5 = 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or 2.5 = 1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281936</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>coinreturn</author>
	<datestamp>1259674920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here. I have started marking my CFLs with the install date so I can feel justified in my bitchiness when they go out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I have started marking my CFLs with the install date so I can feel justified in my bitchiness when they go out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I have started marking my CFLs with the install date so I can feel justified in my bitchiness when they go out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281068</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1259665140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CFLs + Efficient, a bit longer lifespan</i> </p><p>Except they're not.  They use 20\% of the electricity but also give out about 40\% as much light.  To replace a single incandescent bulb and illuminate a room to the same level you need two or three good-quality CFLs.</p><p>I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms.  In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator.  With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel.  Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel.  Nothing else has changed, just the lights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CFLs + Efficient , a bit longer lifespan Except they 're not .
They use 20 \ % of the electricity but also give out about 40 \ % as much light .
To replace a single incandescent bulb and illuminate a room to the same level you need two or three good-quality CFLs.I 'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms .
In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout , hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator .
With the incandescents replaced with CFLs , we now see six hours from a tank of diesel .
Just to be clear , that 's * less * efficient , and using * more * fuel .
Nothing else has changed , just the lights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CFLs + Efficient, a bit longer lifespan Except they're not.
They use 20\% of the electricity but also give out about 40\% as much light.
To replace a single incandescent bulb and illuminate a room to the same level you need two or three good-quality CFLs.I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms.
In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator.
With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel.
Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel.
Nothing else has changed, just the lights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283144</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1259682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms. In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator. With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel. Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel. Nothing else has changed, just the lights.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then something's up with the lights you're using, your electrics or your generator.</p><p>Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms .
In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout , hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator .
With the incandescents replaced with CFLs , we now see six hours from a tank of diesel .
Just to be clear , that 's * less * efficient , and using * more * fuel .
Nothing else has changed , just the lights.Then something 's up with the lights you 're using , your electrics or your generator.Either way , it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms.
In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator.
With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel.
Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel.
Nothing else has changed, just the lights.Then something's up with the lights you're using, your electrics or your generator.Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279390</id>
	<title>Yea, it was a typo.</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1259602920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs" so.. "x = 2.5*x" therefore x=0<br>
<br>
"LEDs last<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 5 times longer than incandescents" so "x = 26*y" and "x=0" (from above) therefore y=0.<br>
<br>
So... now that we've discovered that LED's and incandescents both don't actually emit any light, we'll all switch to CFL's, right?<br>
<br>
To fail to be completely redundant, I hate the use of "2.5 times as long" followed immediately by "25 times longer". The two phrases mean different things. "2.5 times as long" is 2.5x, "25 times longer" is 26x.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs " so.. " x = 2.5 * x " therefore x = 0 " LEDs last ... 5 times longer than incandescents " so " x = 26 * y " and " x = 0 " ( from above ) therefore y = 0 .
So... now that we 've discovered that LED 's and incandescents both do n't actually emit any light , we 'll all switch to CFL 's , right ?
To fail to be completely redundant , I hate the use of " 2.5 times as long " followed immediately by " 25 times longer " .
The two phrases mean different things .
" 2.5 times as long " is 2.5x , " 25 times longer " is 26x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs" so.. "x = 2.5*x" therefore x=0

"LEDs last ... 5 times longer than incandescents" so "x = 26*y" and "x=0" (from above) therefore y=0.
So... now that we've discovered that LED's and incandescents both don't actually emit any light, we'll all switch to CFL's, right?
To fail to be completely redundant, I hate the use of "2.5 times as long" followed immediately by "25 times longer".
The two phrases mean different things.
"2.5 times as long" is 2.5x, "25 times longer" is 26x.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281162</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LEDs are crap. I bought 4, 3 months ago [40 watts because that's all you can buy here - horribly dim] and as of Saturday, they have all died... CFLs aren't much better on my track record either... lasting maximum of 6 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LEDs are crap .
I bought 4 , 3 months ago [ 40 watts because that 's all you can buy here - horribly dim ] and as of Saturday , they have all died... CFLs are n't much better on my track record either... lasting maximum of 6 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LEDs are crap.
I bought 4, 3 months ago [40 watts because that's all you can buy here - horribly dim] and as of Saturday, they have all died... CFLs aren't much better on my track record either... lasting maximum of 6 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282608</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259679840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been looking at LED's to replace my other lights, for 2 reasons, CFL's, like any flourescent, don't like turning off and on often, it wears them down faster, and my house has lots and lots of dimmer switches.  the "Dimmable" CFL's seem to go from 85\% bright to 100\% bright, and I can't stand them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been looking at LED 's to replace my other lights , for 2 reasons , CFL 's , like any flourescent , do n't like turning off and on often , it wears them down faster , and my house has lots and lots of dimmer switches .
the " Dimmable " CFL 's seem to go from 85 \ % bright to 100 \ % bright , and I ca n't stand them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been looking at LED's to replace my other lights, for 2 reasons, CFL's, like any flourescent, don't like turning off and on often, it wears them down faster, and my house has lots and lots of dimmer switches.
the "Dimmable" CFL's seem to go from 85\% bright to 100\% bright, and I can't stand them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290598</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>Insipid Trunculance</author>
	<datestamp>1259669640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey mate</p><p>i am with scottish power.Do these guys offer power meters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey matei am with scottish power.Do these guys offer power meters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey matei am with scottish power.Do these guys offer power meters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280364</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>blindseer</author>
	<datestamp>1259700960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Incandescent bulbs :<br>+ Cheap, we're used to the light<br>- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, <b>emit heat</b></p> </div><p>You say that as if it's a bad thing.  I live in the American Midwest.  A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.</p><p>In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent.  I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home.  I don't know what the deal is but the CFLs I've had don't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.</p><p>Living in a place that has four seasons it's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero.  I don't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and don't light up once I flip the light switch.  Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one doesn't help either.</p><p>I'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent.  I have seen prices come down from the obscene, to the merely profane, to expensive novelties, to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Incandescent bulbs : + Cheap , we 're used to the light- terrible efficiency , short lifespan , fragile , sensitive to vibration , emit heat You say that as if it 's a bad thing .
I live in the American Midwest .
A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent .
I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home .
I do n't know what the deal is but the CFLs I 've had do n't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.Living in a place that has four seasons it 's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero .
I do n't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and do n't light up once I flip the light switch .
Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one does n't help either.I 'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent .
I have seen prices come down from the obscene , to the merely profane , to expensive novelties , to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incandescent bulbs :+ Cheap, we're used to the light- terrible efficiency, short lifespan, fragile, sensitive to vibration, emit heat You say that as if it's a bad thing.
I live in the American Midwest.
A little gentle warming in the room from some incandescent bulbs can make a room more comfortable in the winter.In my experience a CFL is more fragile than incandescent.
I have yet to have a CFL out live an incandescent in my home.
I don't know what the deal is but the CFLs I've had don't last the years that the manufacturers claim they will.Living in a place that has four seasons it's nice to have light bulbs that come to full brightness quickly even when the temperatures are sub zero.
I don't care that CFLs save on my electric bill if they keep burning up before I forget what I paid for them and don't light up once I flip the light switch.
Having the threat of mercury being spread around in my home if I should happen to break one doesn't help either.I'd consider LEDs for lighting if the price can compete with incandescent.
I have seen prices come down from the obscene, to the merely profane, to expensive novelties, to something that might be considered practical if you tilt your head and squint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279844</id>
	<title>CFL life expectancy</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1259607300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the ballast used in the cfl's seem to have a limited on-off cycle life; or, the life expectancy is inversely proportional to the on time.  If the typical on time is on the order of 5 minutes, you'll see less than 20\% of the rated life expectancy.  To achieve the full life expectancy the on time has to be greater than 2 hours.  Don't use them in bathrooms and similar locations where they'll be switched on and off a lot -- use standard incandescent or better yet halogen bulbs in those applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ballast used in the cfl 's seem to have a limited on-off cycle life ; or , the life expectancy is inversely proportional to the on time .
If the typical on time is on the order of 5 minutes , you 'll see less than 20 \ % of the rated life expectancy .
To achieve the full life expectancy the on time has to be greater than 2 hours .
Do n't use them in bathrooms and similar locations where they 'll be switched on and off a lot -- use standard incandescent or better yet halogen bulbs in those applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ballast used in the cfl's seem to have a limited on-off cycle life; or, the life expectancy is inversely proportional to the on time.
If the typical on time is on the order of 5 minutes, you'll see less than 20\% of the rated life expectancy.
To achieve the full life expectancy the on time has to be greater than 2 hours.
Don't use them in bathrooms and similar locations where they'll be switched on and off a lot -- use standard incandescent or better yet halogen bulbs in those applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486</id>
	<title>I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At my old house they burned out a lot on me. Back then they were $5 a pop and it was rather irritating replacing the same bulb 3 times in a row during a several month period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At my old house they burned out a lot on me .
Back then they were $ 5 a pop and it was rather irritating replacing the same bulb 3 times in a row during a several month period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my old house they burned out a lot on me.
Back then they were $5 a pop and it was rather irritating replacing the same bulb 3 times in a row during a several month period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284070</id>
	<title>Re:Pimping LEDs</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1259686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents.</p></div><p>I have a 300W equivalent CFL I picked up from Home Depot.  It's a bit big to fit in most sockets, but it's pretty darned bright.  I put it in our tiny bathroom, and with the white walls and giant mirror, it was like walking into the heart of the sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents.I have a 300W equivalent CFL I picked up from Home Depot .
It 's a bit big to fit in most sockets , but it 's pretty darned bright .
I put it in our tiny bathroom , and with the white walls and giant mirror , it was like walking into the heart of the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents.I have a 300W equivalent CFL I picked up from Home Depot.
It's a bit big to fit in most sockets, but it's pretty darned bright.
I put it in our tiny bathroom, and with the white walls and giant mirror, it was like walking into the heart of the sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290292</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>ediron2</author>
	<datestamp>1259668140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Handwavium.</p><p>Yeah, and Someday we'll have aircars.</p><p>To be fair, I'll bet on 10-watt LED's before I'd bet on aircars, but everything looks better in the hypothetical future than measurable technology in the boring old here and now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Handwavium.Yeah , and Someday we 'll have aircars.To be fair , I 'll bet on 10-watt LED 's before I 'd bet on aircars , but everything looks better in the hypothetical future than measurable technology in the boring old here and now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Handwavium.Yeah, and Someday we'll have aircars.To be fair, I'll bet on 10-watt LED's before I'd bet on aircars, but everything looks better in the hypothetical future than measurable technology in the boring old here and now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</id>
	<title>Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259603160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is heat output. More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat. Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none. However in hot climates, it does. An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house. You then have to run your AC more often. So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess. That's one reason I rather like CFLs is that they heat up my place less. I live in the desert so that is a non-trivial thing.</p><p>Also, they can have a much more natural white point. I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day. Just a much nicer quality of light. You do generally need to pay more to get higher quality ones with a better spectrum, but I'd say it is worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is heat output .
More or less , any energy that is n't becoming light is becoming heat .
Now in some areas of the world , that matters little to none .
However in hot climates , it does .
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house .
You then have to run your AC more often .
So you end up paying double for the power , in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess .
That 's one reason I rather like CFLs is that they heat up my place less .
I live in the desert so that is a non-trivial thing.Also , they can have a much more natural white point .
I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000 , which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day .
Just a much nicer quality of light .
You do generally need to pay more to get higher quality ones with a better spectrum , but I 'd say it is worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is heat output.
More or less, any energy that isn't becoming light is becoming heat.
Now in some areas of the world, that matters little to none.
However in hot climates, it does.
An incandescent produces more heat which gets dumped in to the air in your house.
You then have to run your AC more often.
So you end up paying double for the power, in terms of using it and then eliminating the excess.
That's one reason I rather like CFLs is that they heat up my place less.
I live in the desert so that is a non-trivial thing.Also, they can have a much more natural white point.
I like the fact that you can get CFLs with a white around 6000, which is closer to what you get from the sun on a bright day.
Just a much nicer quality of light.
You do generally need to pay more to get higher quality ones with a better spectrum, but I'd say it is worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282366</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CFLs are sensitive to vibration... just put one in a ceiling fan (and whose fan gets real use). You'll replace that CFL about every 12 months, if you're lucky.<br>I'm sure some fans are better balanced than others making some difference... but the point being is, more vibration = shorter lifespan for CFL. Incansescents have actually lasted much longer in this install.</p><p>I have a hunch that LEDs would fare better, but I'm not paying $35 for an LED bulb which acts as a 40w incandescent replacement, especially given that the kitchen CFL is a 100W equivalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CFLs are sensitive to vibration... just put one in a ceiling fan ( and whose fan gets real use ) .
You 'll replace that CFL about every 12 months , if you 're lucky.I 'm sure some fans are better balanced than others making some difference... but the point being is , more vibration = shorter lifespan for CFL .
Incansescents have actually lasted much longer in this install.I have a hunch that LEDs would fare better , but I 'm not paying $ 35 for an LED bulb which acts as a 40w incandescent replacement , especially given that the kitchen CFL is a 100W equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CFLs are sensitive to vibration... just put one in a ceiling fan (and whose fan gets real use).
You'll replace that CFL about every 12 months, if you're lucky.I'm sure some fans are better balanced than others making some difference... but the point being is, more vibration = shorter lifespan for CFL.
Incansescents have actually lasted much longer in this install.I have a hunch that LEDs would fare better, but I'm not paying $35 for an LED bulb which acts as a 40w incandescent replacement, especially given that the kitchen CFL is a 100W equivalent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279910</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Z80xxc!</author>
	<datestamp>1259608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The heat issue goes both ways, too. Portland, OR recently started using LEDs in all of the street lamps, slowly fazing them in as the old incandescent bulbs fail and need to be replaced. Last winter during a huge snow and ice storm, they noticed that a lot of the LED street lamps couldn't be seen. The old warm incandescent bulbs would get so hot that they would melt all of the snow and ice off of the lamp cover. The new LEDs are so efficient that the snow doesn't melt, causing them to not be as visible when it snows. Fortunately it rarely snows much here, so it's not a huge concern, but it's funny how the inefficiency of the old lamps was actually a benefit nobody realized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The heat issue goes both ways , too .
Portland , OR recently started using LEDs in all of the street lamps , slowly fazing them in as the old incandescent bulbs fail and need to be replaced .
Last winter during a huge snow and ice storm , they noticed that a lot of the LED street lamps could n't be seen .
The old warm incandescent bulbs would get so hot that they would melt all of the snow and ice off of the lamp cover .
The new LEDs are so efficient that the snow does n't melt , causing them to not be as visible when it snows .
Fortunately it rarely snows much here , so it 's not a huge concern , but it 's funny how the inefficiency of the old lamps was actually a benefit nobody realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The heat issue goes both ways, too.
Portland, OR recently started using LEDs in all of the street lamps, slowly fazing them in as the old incandescent bulbs fail and need to be replaced.
Last winter during a huge snow and ice storm, they noticed that a lot of the LED street lamps couldn't be seen.
The old warm incandescent bulbs would get so hot that they would melt all of the snow and ice off of the lamp cover.
The new LEDs are so efficient that the snow doesn't melt, causing them to not be as visible when it snows.
Fortunately it rarely snows much here, so it's not a huge concern, but it's funny how the inefficiency of the old lamps was actually a benefit nobody realized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280934</id>
	<title>Re:I haven't had great luck with CFLs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259663880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is almost always caused by purchasing low-quality CFLs and/or having "dirty power."  Cheap ballasts don't stand up well to power surges and brownouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is almost always caused by purchasing low-quality CFLs and/or having " dirty power .
" Cheap ballasts do n't stand up well to power surges and brownouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is almost always caused by purchasing low-quality CFLs and/or having "dirty power.
"  Cheap ballasts don't stand up well to power surges and brownouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280624</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1259660820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?</em></p><p><em>I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible. What makes LED more attractive? Is it just the longer life time?</em><br>Huh?  You're doing it wrong, I lit an entire hallway with a total of 5W of LED bulbs, as compared with 54W of CFLs, or 220W of incandescents.  You save a *lot* of electricity with these things... As well as them lasting a lot longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output ( lumens ) ? I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings ( watt rating ) is very negligible .
What makes LED more attractive ?
Is it just the longer life time ? Huh ?
You 're doing it wrong , I lit an entire hallway with a total of 5W of LED bulbs , as compared with 54W of CFLs , or 220W of incandescents .
You save a * lot * of electricity with these things... As well as them lasting a lot longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know if LED lighting can save on power over CFL with the same output (lumens)?I purchased some LED bulbs and they tend to be much more expensive and the savings (watt rating) is very negligible.
What makes LED more attractive?
Is it just the longer life time?Huh?
You're doing it wrong, I lit an entire hallway with a total of 5W of LED bulbs, as compared with 54W of CFLs, or 220W of incandescents.
You save a *lot* of electricity with these things... As well as them lasting a lot longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285194</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1259691660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gallium Arsenide is the material the LED chip is made of, and it is most definitely in your home and not the fabrication plant.  Granted, it's usually in a plastic envelope, but as GP said it can easily leech into water when it is thrown out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gallium Arsenide is the material the LED chip is made of , and it is most definitely in your home and not the fabrication plant .
Granted , it 's usually in a plastic envelope , but as GP said it can easily leech into water when it is thrown out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gallium Arsenide is the material the LED chip is made of, and it is most definitely in your home and not the fabrication plant.
Granted, it's usually in a plastic envelope, but as GP said it can easily leech into water when it is thrown out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280156</id>
	<title>Re:Oh for fucks sake</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1259698140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280992</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1259664360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say the opposite. I live in a more northerly latitude, 56 degress 28 minutes north to be precise. At the moment whenever it is dark and I have my lights on I also have my thermostatically controlled central heating on. In effect my incandescent light bulbs currently have an efficiency of 100\%. If I where to switch to CFL or LED lights, then my thermostatically controlled central heating would simply work harder to make up the difference. Not only that where I live a significant proportion of the electricity consumed comes from low or zero carbon sources (mainly hydro and nuclear). My central heating is of course natural gas, though I do have a condensing boiler so it is wildly efficient.</p><p>Then the summer arrives, and it does not get dark to very late and I hardly have the lights on at all.</p><p>Now if I lived in Spain for example it would be an entirely different situation, however I don't so yet again this has been a pointless exercise, and advances our understanding no further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the opposite .
I live in a more northerly latitude , 56 degress 28 minutes north to be precise .
At the moment whenever it is dark and I have my lights on I also have my thermostatically controlled central heating on .
In effect my incandescent light bulbs currently have an efficiency of 100 \ % .
If I where to switch to CFL or LED lights , then my thermostatically controlled central heating would simply work harder to make up the difference .
Not only that where I live a significant proportion of the electricity consumed comes from low or zero carbon sources ( mainly hydro and nuclear ) .
My central heating is of course natural gas , though I do have a condensing boiler so it is wildly efficient.Then the summer arrives , and it does not get dark to very late and I hardly have the lights on at all.Now if I lived in Spain for example it would be an entirely different situation , however I do n't so yet again this has been a pointless exercise , and advances our understanding no further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the opposite.
I live in a more northerly latitude, 56 degress 28 minutes north to be precise.
At the moment whenever it is dark and I have my lights on I also have my thermostatically controlled central heating on.
In effect my incandescent light bulbs currently have an efficiency of 100\%.
If I where to switch to CFL or LED lights, then my thermostatically controlled central heating would simply work harder to make up the difference.
Not only that where I live a significant proportion of the electricity consumed comes from low or zero carbon sources (mainly hydro and nuclear).
My central heating is of course natural gas, though I do have a condensing boiler so it is wildly efficient.Then the summer arrives, and it does not get dark to very late and I hardly have the lights on at all.Now if I lived in Spain for example it would be an entirely different situation, however I don't so yet again this has been a pointless exercise, and advances our understanding no further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259663760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The still did not take into account the combination of daylight hours and when central heating systems are on. This is an important consideration for more northerly latitudes. At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100\% efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The still did not take into account the combination of daylight hours and when central heating systems are on .
This is an important consideration for more northerly latitudes .
At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100 \ % efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The still did not take into account the combination of daylight hours and when central heating systems are on.
This is an important consideration for more northerly latitudes.
At the moment my incandescent light bulbs are 100\% efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280712</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>fendragon</author>
	<datestamp>1259661660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>LEDs [...] no toxic materials</i>
</p><p>
Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.</p></div><p>The new ones will use <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16496-cheap-superefficient-led-lights-on-the-horizon.html" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">Gallium Nitride</a> [newscientist.com] <br>I've seen a 4W Gallium Nitride LED lamp (on someone's kitchen ceiling, next to 11W CFL equivalents) and it's very effective. In that case it's an advantage that the LED is directional - the original incandescents for which they substitute would have been reflector bulbs. The light is yellower and more like an incandescent than the CFLs next to it.
</p><p>
As for energy cost of manufacturing, the original article claims to have factored that in to the total lifetime cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LEDs [ ... ] no toxic materials Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen , and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water ( after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill .
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste , and it requires large amounts of energy.The new ones will use Gallium Nitride [ newscientist.com ] I 've seen a 4W Gallium Nitride LED lamp ( on someone 's kitchen ceiling , next to 11W CFL equivalents ) and it 's very effective .
In that case it 's an advantage that the LED is directional - the original incandescents for which they substitute would have been reflector bulbs .
The light is yellower and more like an incandescent than the CFLs next to it .
As for energy cost of manufacturing , the original article claims to have factored that in to the total lifetime cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> LEDs [...] no toxic materials

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.The new ones will use Gallium Nitride [newscientist.com] I've seen a 4W Gallium Nitride LED lamp (on someone's kitchen ceiling, next to 11W CFL equivalents) and it's very effective.
In that case it's an advantage that the LED is directional - the original incandescents for which they substitute would have been reflector bulbs.
The light is yellower and more like an incandescent than the CFLs next to it.
As for energy cost of manufacturing, the original article claims to have factored that in to the total lifetime cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279862</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will beg to differ on the Incandescent bulbs. Specifically, they actually last a very long time at low watts, especially the older "less efficient" ones that used thicker filiments made of different materials. Problem is those older ones put out crap light spectrum... better than candle but not nearly as good as modern incandescent bulbs, which is why they were changed.</p><p>There's such a push to use the newer technologies and incentives to just drop incandescents that nobody seems to be doing any research into ways to make them better. I think that they will go away for most applications but the rush to ban them outright is still a little premature, IMHO.</p><p>There's another issue that is often overlooked- you can make an incandescent bulb of almost any shape and still have plenty of lumes... the LED and CFL technology is still a lot bulkier for the same light output but is slowly getting better. But you just don't have the artistry that the incandescent bulbs offer.</p><p>So on my scale:<br>Incandescent:<br>+ Simple tech, Cheap, Artistic, No fixture replacements needed, Operating temperature range is fairly wide.<br>- Poor efficiency, short lifespan at acceptable light output levels, emit medium heat (Halogens would be high heat), sensitive to <i>Shock</i> (not vibration), reduced lifespan when rapidly switched on/off</p><p>CFL<br>+ Long lifespan, high energy efficiency<br>- Not nearly as "compact" as the name implies requiring some fixture replacement, Lumes decrease over lifetime, hazardous materials, fragile and sensitive to shock, poor operation in cold, reduced lifespan when switched on/off, subject to strobing/flickering in many environments</p><p>LED<br>+ Very efficient, long lifespan, highly durable, toggle does not reduce life, fast startup, wide operating temp range, no toxic materials, resistent to shock<br>- Not well tested, very expensive, wide range of quality in manufacturing, spectrum range issues, non-LED portions of the 'bulb' completely untested, bulky for the lumes.</p><p>Summary: It's hard to compare the Incandescent bulbs to the new technologies in a real fashion. There hasn't been much, if any, new development in this tech area. CFL's are progressing well, but still have issues with being bulky, ugly, and not operating consistently. LED's are almost completely untested, still very expensive, don't have equivalent light output, and introduce new parts of the overall "bulb" that may vary widely between products and which are also highly untested.</p><p>My recommendation: Get CFL's for the bulk of your light fixtures in indoor or temperature-friendly areas, the energy savings is worth it. Keep your incandescent bulbs in custom, specialty, and artistic fixtures, and in temperature zones that cause issues for the CFL's. Hold off on the LED's except on a very limited experimental basis.<br>In the next 5 to 10 years we will see a lot of changes in the LED arena, and changes in the CFL but not as many, incandescent bulbs will remain the same &amp; become unavailable due solely to political pressures. By the time your current CFL's wear out and you exhaust your stockpiles of (soon to be "illegal") incandescent bulbs, the arena will have changed enough that you'll want to re-evaluate the choices over-all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will beg to differ on the Incandescent bulbs .
Specifically , they actually last a very long time at low watts , especially the older " less efficient " ones that used thicker filiments made of different materials .
Problem is those older ones put out crap light spectrum... better than candle but not nearly as good as modern incandescent bulbs , which is why they were changed.There 's such a push to use the newer technologies and incentives to just drop incandescents that nobody seems to be doing any research into ways to make them better .
I think that they will go away for most applications but the rush to ban them outright is still a little premature , IMHO.There 's another issue that is often overlooked- you can make an incandescent bulb of almost any shape and still have plenty of lumes... the LED and CFL technology is still a lot bulkier for the same light output but is slowly getting better .
But you just do n't have the artistry that the incandescent bulbs offer.So on my scale : Incandescent : + Simple tech , Cheap , Artistic , No fixture replacements needed , Operating temperature range is fairly wide.- Poor efficiency , short lifespan at acceptable light output levels , emit medium heat ( Halogens would be high heat ) , sensitive to Shock ( not vibration ) , reduced lifespan when rapidly switched on/offCFL + Long lifespan , high energy efficiency- Not nearly as " compact " as the name implies requiring some fixture replacement , Lumes decrease over lifetime , hazardous materials , fragile and sensitive to shock , poor operation in cold , reduced lifespan when switched on/off , subject to strobing/flickering in many environmentsLED + Very efficient , long lifespan , highly durable , toggle does not reduce life , fast startup , wide operating temp range , no toxic materials , resistent to shock- Not well tested , very expensive , wide range of quality in manufacturing , spectrum range issues , non-LED portions of the 'bulb ' completely untested , bulky for the lumes.Summary : It 's hard to compare the Incandescent bulbs to the new technologies in a real fashion .
There has n't been much , if any , new development in this tech area .
CFL 's are progressing well , but still have issues with being bulky , ugly , and not operating consistently .
LED 's are almost completely untested , still very expensive , do n't have equivalent light output , and introduce new parts of the overall " bulb " that may vary widely between products and which are also highly untested.My recommendation : Get CFL 's for the bulk of your light fixtures in indoor or temperature-friendly areas , the energy savings is worth it .
Keep your incandescent bulbs in custom , specialty , and artistic fixtures , and in temperature zones that cause issues for the CFL 's .
Hold off on the LED 's except on a very limited experimental basis.In the next 5 to 10 years we will see a lot of changes in the LED arena , and changes in the CFL but not as many , incandescent bulbs will remain the same &amp; become unavailable due solely to political pressures .
By the time your current CFL 's wear out and you exhaust your stockpiles of ( soon to be " illegal " ) incandescent bulbs , the arena will have changed enough that you 'll want to re-evaluate the choices over-all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will beg to differ on the Incandescent bulbs.
Specifically, they actually last a very long time at low watts, especially the older "less efficient" ones that used thicker filiments made of different materials.
Problem is those older ones put out crap light spectrum... better than candle but not nearly as good as modern incandescent bulbs, which is why they were changed.There's such a push to use the newer technologies and incentives to just drop incandescents that nobody seems to be doing any research into ways to make them better.
I think that they will go away for most applications but the rush to ban them outright is still a little premature, IMHO.There's another issue that is often overlooked- you can make an incandescent bulb of almost any shape and still have plenty of lumes... the LED and CFL technology is still a lot bulkier for the same light output but is slowly getting better.
But you just don't have the artistry that the incandescent bulbs offer.So on my scale:Incandescent:+ Simple tech, Cheap, Artistic, No fixture replacements needed, Operating temperature range is fairly wide.- Poor efficiency, short lifespan at acceptable light output levels, emit medium heat (Halogens would be high heat), sensitive to Shock (not vibration), reduced lifespan when rapidly switched on/offCFL+ Long lifespan, high energy efficiency- Not nearly as "compact" as the name implies requiring some fixture replacement, Lumes decrease over lifetime, hazardous materials, fragile and sensitive to shock, poor operation in cold, reduced lifespan when switched on/off, subject to strobing/flickering in many environmentsLED+ Very efficient, long lifespan, highly durable, toggle does not reduce life, fast startup, wide operating temp range, no toxic materials, resistent to shock- Not well tested, very expensive, wide range of quality in manufacturing, spectrum range issues, non-LED portions of the 'bulb' completely untested, bulky for the lumes.Summary: It's hard to compare the Incandescent bulbs to the new technologies in a real fashion.
There hasn't been much, if any, new development in this tech area.
CFL's are progressing well, but still have issues with being bulky, ugly, and not operating consistently.
LED's are almost completely untested, still very expensive, don't have equivalent light output, and introduce new parts of the overall "bulb" that may vary widely between products and which are also highly untested.My recommendation: Get CFL's for the bulk of your light fixtures in indoor or temperature-friendly areas, the energy savings is worth it.
Keep your incandescent bulbs in custom, specialty, and artistic fixtures, and in temperature zones that cause issues for the CFL's.
Hold off on the LED's except on a very limited experimental basis.In the next 5 to 10 years we will see a lot of changes in the LED arena, and changes in the CFL but not as many, incandescent bulbs will remain the same &amp; become unavailable due solely to political pressures.
By the time your current CFL's wear out and you exhaust your stockpiles of (soon to be "illegal") incandescent bulbs, the arena will have changed enough that you'll want to re-evaluate the choices over-all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279908</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>well CFLs each contain something like 30mg of mercury, which I might add, VAPOURISES in the CFL (in order to produce the light).

<a href="http://parentingsquad.com/lights-out-why-im-no-longer-energy-efficient" title="parentingsquad.com" rel="nofollow">http://parentingsquad.com/lights-out-why-im-no-longer-energy-efficient</a> [parentingsquad.com]

Only Congress could mandate less environmentally friendly technology to replace existing technology.  Don't pollute the environment with carbon dioxide emissions from power plants! NO! keep the mercury pollution in your house rather!</htmltext>
<tokenext>well CFLs each contain something like 30mg of mercury , which I might add , VAPOURISES in the CFL ( in order to produce the light ) .
http : //parentingsquad.com/lights-out-why-im-no-longer-energy-efficient [ parentingsquad.com ] Only Congress could mandate less environmentally friendly technology to replace existing technology .
Do n't pollute the environment with carbon dioxide emissions from power plants !
NO ! keep the mercury pollution in your house rather !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well CFLs each contain something like 30mg of mercury, which I might add, VAPOURISES in the CFL (in order to produce the light).
http://parentingsquad.com/lights-out-why-im-no-longer-energy-efficient [parentingsquad.com]

Only Congress could mandate less environmentally friendly technology to replace existing technology.
Don't pollute the environment with carbon dioxide emissions from power plants!
NO! keep the mercury pollution in your house rather!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30301378</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Bake Ovens</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1259571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure the most recent EZbake formulary doesn't actually require the bulb any more.  Just mix the chemicals in the appropriate proportions and bam, 20 minutes later you get a delicious substance almost, but not entirely unlike brownies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure the most recent EZbake formulary does n't actually require the bulb any more .
Just mix the chemicals in the appropriate proportions and bam , 20 minutes later you get a delicious substance almost , but not entirely unlike brownies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure the most recent EZbake formulary doesn't actually require the bulb any more.
Just mix the chemicals in the appropriate proportions and bam, 20 minutes later you get a delicious substance almost, but not entirely unlike brownies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279540</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You make a valid point however the reality is it takes far more energy to remove the heat than its own energy value. I think that a rough estimate standard number is around 4/1. So for every kWh of wasted energy you have to spend around 4 kWh removing that energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a valid point however the reality is it takes far more energy to remove the heat than its own energy value .
I think that a rough estimate standard number is around 4/1 .
So for every kWh of wasted energy you have to spend around 4 kWh removing that energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a valid point however the reality is it takes far more energy to remove the heat than its own energy value.
I think that a rough estimate standard number is around 4/1.
So for every kWh of wasted energy you have to spend around 4 kWh removing that energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279852</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the opposite is true.  In a modern air conditioning unit, say one rated at 10 EER, it would take approximately 1 kWh of energy to remove 10 kWh of heat at steady state operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the opposite is true .
In a modern air conditioning unit , say one rated at 10 EER , it would take approximately 1 kWh of energy to remove 10 kWh of heat at steady state operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the opposite is true.
In a modern air conditioning unit, say one rated at 10 EER, it would take approximately 1 kWh of energy to remove 10 kWh of heat at steady state operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279366</id>
	<title>Error!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.</p></div><p>Error: Stack overflow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs , and 25 times longer than incandescents.Error : Stack overflow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study uses the assumption that LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs, and 25 times longer than incandescents.Error: Stack overflow.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279726</id>
	<title>Re:LED lighting vs. CFL question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The droop issue with LEDs has not yet been solved and may never be.  As the brightness of LEDs increase their effeciency decreases.  This is why you see knarly heat sinks on the brighter led products and why some products tend to use the more-is-merrier approach.</p><p>CFLs would rock if there was an effective recycling/education program to manage the lifecycle of these bulbs.</p><p>LEDs would rock but possible health issues (blue light hazard) is scary and the output of led lights still look crappy.  What you see as a "color" is an illusion.. Your eyes can only see an average of wavelengths absorbed.  (Your eyes can't tell if green is being emitted or yellow and blue separatly)  Even if stuff doesn't look "blue" to you doesn't mean the issue does not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The droop issue with LEDs has not yet been solved and may never be .
As the brightness of LEDs increase their effeciency decreases .
This is why you see knarly heat sinks on the brighter led products and why some products tend to use the more-is-merrier approach.CFLs would rock if there was an effective recycling/education program to manage the lifecycle of these bulbs.LEDs would rock but possible health issues ( blue light hazard ) is scary and the output of led lights still look crappy .
What you see as a " color " is an illusion.. Your eyes can only see an average of wavelengths absorbed .
( Your eyes ca n't tell if green is being emitted or yellow and blue separatly ) Even if stuff does n't look " blue " to you does n't mean the issue does not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The droop issue with LEDs has not yet been solved and may never be.
As the brightness of LEDs increase their effeciency decreases.
This is why you see knarly heat sinks on the brighter led products and why some products tend to use the more-is-merrier approach.CFLs would rock if there was an effective recycling/education program to manage the lifecycle of these bulbs.LEDs would rock but possible health issues (blue light hazard) is scary and the output of led lights still look crappy.
What you see as a "color" is an illusion.. Your eyes can only see an average of wavelengths absorbed.
(Your eyes can't tell if green is being emitted or yellow and blue separatly)  Even if stuff doesn't look "blue" to you doesn't mean the issue does not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283656</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't incandescent just black bodies like the sun?  As a result, their spectrum extends from the visible to the IR to the deep IR and thus produce both light AND heat?  Does anyone know how to calculate the spectrum of a black body source based off the temperature of said source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't incandescent just black bodies like the sun ?
As a result , their spectrum extends from the visible to the IR to the deep IR and thus produce both light AND heat ?
Does anyone know how to calculate the spectrum of a black body source based off the temperature of said source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't incandescent just black bodies like the sun?
As a result, their spectrum extends from the visible to the IR to the deep IR and thus produce both light AND heat?
Does anyone know how to calculate the spectrum of a black body source based off the temperature of said source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281850</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way to replace overhead lights with them? You are using older generation LED lights and have obviously not used the newer LED lights! I already light my house with them, and they are indistinguishable from incandescents. I purchased these lights from here:</p><p>http://www.lightplanet.co.uk/led-light-bulbs/60-watt-replacement-led-bulbs-c-321\_335.html</p><p>I also have a 40 watt equivalent desk lamp using 3 LED bulbs that is very bright from here:</p><p>http://www.goecostore.co.uk/led-light-bulbs-1062-0.html</p><p>The costs per bulb are around &pound;15-20, but will easily pay for itself over its 100,000 hour lifespan. For a technology site, it never ceases to amaze me how many posters on slashdot just don't keep up with technology advancements and post opinions based from their experience with older stuff! LED household lighting is her now, decent and affordable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way to replace overhead lights with them ?
You are using older generation LED lights and have obviously not used the newer LED lights !
I already light my house with them , and they are indistinguishable from incandescents .
I purchased these lights from here : http : //www.lightplanet.co.uk/led-light-bulbs/60-watt-replacement-led-bulbs-c-321 \ _335.htmlI also have a 40 watt equivalent desk lamp using 3 LED bulbs that is very bright from here : http : //www.goecostore.co.uk/led-light-bulbs-1062-0.htmlThe costs per bulb are around   15-20 , but will easily pay for itself over its 100,000 hour lifespan .
For a technology site , it never ceases to amaze me how many posters on slashdot just do n't keep up with technology advancements and post opinions based from their experience with older stuff !
LED household lighting is her now , decent and affordable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way to replace overhead lights with them?
You are using older generation LED lights and have obviously not used the newer LED lights!
I already light my house with them, and they are indistinguishable from incandescents.
I purchased these lights from here:http://www.lightplanet.co.uk/led-light-bulbs/60-watt-replacement-led-bulbs-c-321\_335.htmlI also have a 40 watt equivalent desk lamp using 3 LED bulbs that is very bright from here:http://www.goecostore.co.uk/led-light-bulbs-1062-0.htmlThe costs per bulb are around £15-20, but will easily pay for itself over its 100,000 hour lifespan.
For a technology site, it never ceases to amaze me how many posters on slashdot just don't keep up with technology advancements and post opinions based from their experience with older stuff!
LED household lighting is her now, decent and affordable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448</id>
	<title>No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1259603460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has been unproven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain. The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2\% of their total lifetime energy cost &mdash; a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light.</p></div><p>A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one), including the retail markup, and saves maybe $40/year in electricity for supposedly 7+ years. I know manufacturers probably get their energy a bit cheaper than home electric rates, but it can't possibly be the 56+ times cheaper that it would take for the $5 to cover more energy than the $40*7 saved does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light , it has been unproven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain .
The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2 \ % of their total lifetime energy cost    a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light.A CFL costs maybe $ 5 each ( if you buy a pack with more than one ) , including the retail markup , and saves maybe $ 40/year in electricity for supposedly 7 + years .
I know manufacturers probably get their energy a bit cheaper than home electric rates , but it ca n't possibly be the 56 + times cheaper that it would take for the $ 5 to cover more energy than the $ 40 * 7 saved does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is well known that the newer lighting technologies use a fraction of the energy of incandescents to produce the same amount of light, it has been unproven whether higher manufacturing energy costs kept the new lighting from offering a net gain.
The study found that the manufacturing and distribution energy costs of all lightbulb technologies are only about 2\% of their total lifetime energy cost — a tiny fraction of the energy used to produce light.A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one), including the retail markup, and saves maybe $40/year in electricity for supposedly 7+ years.
I know manufacturers probably get their energy a bit cheaper than home electric rates, but it can't possibly be the 56+ times cheaper that it would take for the $5 to cover more energy than the $40*7 saved does.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978</id>
	<title>Pimping LEDs</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies. But the article consistently pushed LEDs. The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production). The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.</p><p>Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet. The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents. Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs. And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.</p><p>LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs. Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs. They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard. Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get. But not yet. This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now. It's marketing disguised as reporting. Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That study as reported in the details did n't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies .
But the article consistently pushed LEDs .
The headline mentioned only LEDs ; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted , the mercury in CFLs were pointed out ( but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production ) .
The article 's picture shows LEDs , not CFLs.Yet LEDs do n't really compete with CFLs yet .
The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs , though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents .
Meanwhile , LEDs still generally are n't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs .
And LEDs ' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling , which consumes more energy.LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs .
Their colors will be better than CFLs , their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs .
They 're smaller , probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard .
Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power ( or its battery storage ) than AC CFLs can get .
But not yet .
This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs , but they 're not now .
It 's marketing disguised as reporting .
Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That study as reported in the details didn't show significant difference between overall LED and CFL efficiencies.
But the article consistently pushed LEDs.
The headline mentioned only LEDs; LEDs were mentioned every time continuing advances were touted, the mercury in CFLs were pointed out (but not the toxic byproducts unique to LED production).
The article's picture shows LEDs, not CFLs.Yet LEDs don't really compete with CFLs yet.
The article does mention that even a 60W incandescent equivalent is just experimental in LEDs, though CFLs have brightnesses at all levels even far past equivalence to 100W incandescents.
Meanwhile, LEDs still generally aren't as efficient as their equivalent brightness CFLs.
And LEDs' extra inefficiency puts heat into rooms that then require extra cooling, which consumes more energy.LEDs are probably going to outperform CFLs.
Their colors will be better than CFLs, their efficiencies probably better than double CFLs.
They're smaller, probably able to be less toxic to produce and discard.
Their DC power offers better efficiency direct from solar power (or its battery storage) than AC CFLs can get.
But not yet.
This article makes LEDs seem better than CFLs, but they're not now.
It's marketing disguised as reporting.
Probably the lack of numbers in an article about engineering performance should be the tipoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279810</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>WhiplashII</author>
	<datestamp>1259606880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs. Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems.  Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns, I think there are some pretty serious issues.  I'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved, CFLs would likely see broader adoption.<br><br>For my house I ended up installing "real" fluorescent lights.  They work extremely well - I've been very pleased.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have tried CFLs many times ( in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years ) , and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs .
Our house is n't that strange , so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems .
Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns , I think there are some pretty serious issues .
I 'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved , CFLs would likely see broader adoption.For my house I ended up installing " real " fluorescent lights .
They work extremely well - I 've been very pleased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have tried CFLs many times (in the two condos I have lived in for the last few years), and they have never lasted as long as incandescent bulbs.
Our house isn't that strange, so I have to assume that CFLs have some pretty serious problems.
Since every time one of these articles gets posted on Slashdot we see many people voicing the same concerns, I think there are some pretty serious issues.
I'm not sure why they are continuously ignored - if those issues are solved, CFLs would likely see broader adoption.For my house I ended up installing "real" fluorescent lights.
They work extremely well - I've been very pleased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670</id>
	<title>What did the study say about.....</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1259605680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....the fact that you can't freaking READ by the damn lights.    CFL == Crappy Fscking Light.   I wish it weren't true, but I've tried dozens of brands, and even the ones that make me most happy are only good for general purpose hallway lights and such.   I hate putting them in anywhere I have to read.   For as bright as they seem to be, they are so narrow in spectrum as to be sort of lacking in their ability to illuminate.</p><p>So far, no experience with LED's on this subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....the fact that you ca n't freaking READ by the damn lights .
CFL = = Crappy Fscking Light .
I wish it were n't true , but I 've tried dozens of brands , and even the ones that make me most happy are only good for general purpose hallway lights and such .
I hate putting them in anywhere I have to read .
For as bright as they seem to be , they are so narrow in spectrum as to be sort of lacking in their ability to illuminate.So far , no experience with LED 's on this subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....the fact that you can't freaking READ by the damn lights.
CFL == Crappy Fscking Light.
I wish it weren't true, but I've tried dozens of brands, and even the ones that make me most happy are only good for general purpose hallway lights and such.
I hate putting them in anywhere I have to read.
For as bright as they seem to be, they are so narrow in spectrum as to be sort of lacking in their ability to illuminate.So far, no experience with LED's on this subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281350</id>
	<title>Re:Bu.. bu.. but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how <a href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-disrupt-the-flow-of-prana/" title="wind-watch.org" rel="nofollow">windmills screw with feng shui</a> [wind-watch.org]</p></div><div><p>Where do you find this shit man? This is one of those moments when you feel reassured as to your "faith" in critical thinking, thank you.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how windmills screw with feng shui [ wind-watch.org ] Where do you find this shit man ?
This is one of those moments when you feel reassured as to your " faith " in critical thinking , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how windmills screw with feng shui [wind-watch.org]Where do you find this shit man?
This is one of those moments when you feel reassured as to your "faith" in critical thinking, thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279460</id>
	<title>Except that you cannot really buy LED lighbulbs ye</title>
	<author>name99</author>
	<datestamp>1259603580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems a bit premature to go on about how great LED lighbulbs are when they don't seem to be purchasable.
Sure you can buy crappy novelty bulbs -- 15W or 25W replacements. But your workhorse bulbs, your 100W equivalents --- I've never seen any for sale, and a brief web search didn't turn up anything useful.

One day, yes, they will be a great leap forward. Until then, how about we maintain contact with reality?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a bit premature to go on about how great LED lighbulbs are when they do n't seem to be purchasable .
Sure you can buy crappy novelty bulbs -- 15W or 25W replacements .
But your workhorse bulbs , your 100W equivalents --- I 've never seen any for sale , and a brief web search did n't turn up anything useful .
One day , yes , they will be a great leap forward .
Until then , how about we maintain contact with reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a bit premature to go on about how great LED lighbulbs are when they don't seem to be purchasable.
Sure you can buy crappy novelty bulbs -- 15W or 25W replacements.
But your workhorse bulbs, your 100W equivalents --- I've never seen any for sale, and a brief web search didn't turn up anything useful.
One day, yes, they will be a great leap forward.
Until then, how about we maintain contact with reality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280264</id>
	<title>Re:Another things to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GLOBAL WARMING RINGWORLD AAAAHHH</p><p>Seriously though I've always wondered just how much heat all of human civilization puts out. We have to generate the electricity or use explosions for most large, mobile stuff, and a large part of that goes to waste through moving parts and whatever. Computers alone probably generate enough to make up for whatever other animals that we displace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GLOBAL WARMING RINGWORLD AAAAHHHSeriously though I 've always wondered just how much heat all of human civilization puts out .
We have to generate the electricity or use explosions for most large , mobile stuff , and a large part of that goes to waste through moving parts and whatever .
Computers alone probably generate enough to make up for whatever other animals that we displace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GLOBAL WARMING RINGWORLD AAAAHHHSeriously though I've always wondered just how much heat all of human civilization puts out.
We have to generate the electricity or use explosions for most large, mobile stuff, and a large part of that goes to waste through moving parts and whatever.
Computers alone probably generate enough to make up for whatever other animals that we displace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506</id>
	<title>Re:No shit, sherlock.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259603940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one)</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/32-CFL-GE-ENERGY-SMART-13-WATT-LIGHT-BULBS-60-WATT-EQUI\_W0QQitemZ370288439782QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH\_DefaultDomain\_0?hash=item5636e931e6" title="ebay.com">brand-name CFL's delivered to your door</a> [ebay.com] are a little over $1 each.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A CFL costs maybe $ 5 each ( if you buy a pack with more than one ) Actually brand-name CFL 's delivered to your door [ ebay.com ] are a little over $ 1 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A CFL costs maybe $5 each (if you buy a pack with more than one)

Actually brand-name CFL's delivered to your door [ebay.com] are a little over $1 each.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280064</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>cryptoluddite</author>
	<datestamp>1259610660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Halogens:<br>+ Cheap, we're used to the warm light, longish lifespan, resistant to power fluctuations, instant on, dimmable, non polluting, non toxic, can be used in recessed and enclosed fixtures.<br>- Bad efficiency (as opposed to terrible)</p><p>Halogens already solve all the main lighting problems except efficiency.  But if you're in a cold climate the waste heat offsets the heating bill, raising their effective efficiency.  I've never seen this factored into any analysis, but for instance if you compare a 20w CFL to a 60w halogen the cost savings are based on the straight 40w difference.  So if you have a heat pump averaging at twice the efficiency of electric heating the CFL real cost is 40w... instead of being 3x more efficient it's 1.5x more efficient.  On a freezing cold day CFLs in the home may be <i>no more efficient at all</i> than incandescent lights.</p><p>Given all the problems with CFLs, in cold climates they seem like a pretty bad choice to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Halogens : + Cheap , we 're used to the warm light , longish lifespan , resistant to power fluctuations , instant on , dimmable , non polluting , non toxic , can be used in recessed and enclosed fixtures.- Bad efficiency ( as opposed to terrible ) Halogens already solve all the main lighting problems except efficiency .
But if you 're in a cold climate the waste heat offsets the heating bill , raising their effective efficiency .
I 've never seen this factored into any analysis , but for instance if you compare a 20w CFL to a 60w halogen the cost savings are based on the straight 40w difference .
So if you have a heat pump averaging at twice the efficiency of electric heating the CFL real cost is 40w... instead of being 3x more efficient it 's 1.5x more efficient .
On a freezing cold day CFLs in the home may be no more efficient at all than incandescent lights.Given all the problems with CFLs , in cold climates they seem like a pretty bad choice to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Halogens:+ Cheap, we're used to the warm light, longish lifespan, resistant to power fluctuations, instant on, dimmable, non polluting, non toxic, can be used in recessed and enclosed fixtures.- Bad efficiency (as opposed to terrible)Halogens already solve all the main lighting problems except efficiency.
But if you're in a cold climate the waste heat offsets the heating bill, raising their effective efficiency.
I've never seen this factored into any analysis, but for instance if you compare a 20w CFL to a 60w halogen the cost savings are based on the straight 40w difference.
So if you have a heat pump averaging at twice the efficiency of electric heating the CFL real cost is 40w... instead of being 3x more efficient it's 1.5x more efficient.
On a freezing cold day CFLs in the home may be no more efficient at all than incandescent lights.Given all the problems with CFLs, in cold climates they seem like a pretty bad choice to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>LEDs [...] no toxic materials</i>
</p><p>
Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.
</p><p>
Currently a 1W desk lamp (of which I happen to have two) uses about 30 LEDs. It is cool to the touch, but the light is mostly blue, and the intensity of the light is just enough to use it as a night light. I like these lamps for what I'm using them, but there is no way currently to replace the overhead lights with them, they are 100x too weak and 10x too expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LEDs [ ... ] no toxic materials Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen , and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water ( after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill .
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste , and it requires large amounts of energy .
Currently a 1W desk lamp ( of which I happen to have two ) uses about 30 LEDs .
It is cool to the touch , but the light is mostly blue , and the intensity of the light is just enough to use it as a night light .
I like these lamps for what I 'm using them , but there is no way currently to replace the overhead lights with them , they are 100x too weak and 10x too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> LEDs [...] no toxic materials

Gallium arsenide is a carcinogen, and arsenic is released when the crystal is exposed to water (after the LED light is thrown out and ends up in a landfill.
) Manufacturing of semiconductors is producing poisonous waste, and it requires large amounts of energy.
Currently a 1W desk lamp (of which I happen to have two) uses about 30 LEDs.
It is cool to the touch, but the light is mostly blue, and the intensity of the light is just enough to use it as a night light.
I like these lamps for what I'm using them, but there is no way currently to replace the overhead lights with them, they are 100x too weak and 10x too expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279754</id>
	<title>Re:Easy Bake Ovens</title>
	<author>Guysmiley777</author>
	<datestamp>1259606280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy Bake Ovens don't use lightbulbs anymore, they have a small electric heating element built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy Bake Ovens do n't use lightbulbs anymore , they have a small electric heating element built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy Bake Ovens don't use lightbulbs anymore, they have a small electric heating element built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279632</id>
	<title>Re:The study is bullshit</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1259605200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree the numbers have been pulled out of their asses. However if you would bother to actually look at the numbers for commercially. The gains for LED's are actually a lot more beneficial than the study says. The stated life expectancy for newer LED's are around 100,000 hours. Around 10 X that of CFL's. not 2.5X. You pointlessly blaming this on the "environmental movement" Its just stupid. If anything the environmental movement would overstate the benefits of LEDs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... not underestimate......:"dumbass"....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree the numbers have been pulled out of their asses .
However if you would bother to actually look at the numbers for commercially .
The gains for LED 's are actually a lot more beneficial than the study says .
The stated life expectancy for newer LED 's are around 100,000 hours .
Around 10 X that of CFL 's .
not 2.5X .
You pointlessly blaming this on the " environmental movement " Its just stupid .
If anything the environmental movement would overstate the benefits of LEDs ..... not underestimate...... : " dumbass " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree the numbers have been pulled out of their asses.
However if you would bother to actually look at the numbers for commercially.
The gains for LED's are actually a lot more beneficial than the study says.
The stated life expectancy for newer LED's are around 100,000 hours.
Around 10 X that of CFL's.
not 2.5X.
You pointlessly blaming this on the "environmental movement" Its just stupid.
If anything the environmental movement would overstate the benefits of LEDs ..... not underestimate......:"dumbass"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283612</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1259684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting you mention that. A few months ago my father got a number of LED bulbs for a few applications. A couple of bulbs have already failed. In one case he was able to repair the bulb, but it's been a frustrating experience nonetheless.</p><p>I'm not sure why failures are so common. Is it that we're dealing with Chinese made crap and no one can be bothered with some basic quality control? Are they that desperate to bring down the price?</p><p>I generally haven't had problems with my CFLs but I can't say I'm entirely pleased with their performance. Different bulbs have different warm up times, some are good almost immediately, others take 30+ seconds to get to full intensity. And a couple of times I've gotten bulbs in a different color temperature than is indicated on the package. I still use incandescents for my dimmable bulbs because I don't like all the buzzing coming from the dimmable CFLs. The 3-way CFLs have a tendency to buzz too while they're warming up. I haven't had a problem with my CFLs failing prematurely, but other people I know have, in one case a bulb failing quite spectacularly.</p><p>I suppose these are just growing pains as the technology matures. But whether they're ready for widespread use, particularly LED bulbs, is debatable. The ones that may be more reliable are far too expensive to be worth considering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting you mention that .
A few months ago my father got a number of LED bulbs for a few applications .
A couple of bulbs have already failed .
In one case he was able to repair the bulb , but it 's been a frustrating experience nonetheless.I 'm not sure why failures are so common .
Is it that we 're dealing with Chinese made crap and no one can be bothered with some basic quality control ?
Are they that desperate to bring down the price ? I generally have n't had problems with my CFLs but I ca n't say I 'm entirely pleased with their performance .
Different bulbs have different warm up times , some are good almost immediately , others take 30 + seconds to get to full intensity .
And a couple of times I 've gotten bulbs in a different color temperature than is indicated on the package .
I still use incandescents for my dimmable bulbs because I do n't like all the buzzing coming from the dimmable CFLs .
The 3-way CFLs have a tendency to buzz too while they 're warming up .
I have n't had a problem with my CFLs failing prematurely , but other people I know have , in one case a bulb failing quite spectacularly.I suppose these are just growing pains as the technology matures .
But whether they 're ready for widespread use , particularly LED bulbs , is debatable .
The ones that may be more reliable are far too expensive to be worth considering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting you mention that.
A few months ago my father got a number of LED bulbs for a few applications.
A couple of bulbs have already failed.
In one case he was able to repair the bulb, but it's been a frustrating experience nonetheless.I'm not sure why failures are so common.
Is it that we're dealing with Chinese made crap and no one can be bothered with some basic quality control?
Are they that desperate to bring down the price?I generally haven't had problems with my CFLs but I can't say I'm entirely pleased with their performance.
Different bulbs have different warm up times, some are good almost immediately, others take 30+ seconds to get to full intensity.
And a couple of times I've gotten bulbs in a different color temperature than is indicated on the package.
I still use incandescents for my dimmable bulbs because I don't like all the buzzing coming from the dimmable CFLs.
The 3-way CFLs have a tendency to buzz too while they're warming up.
I haven't had a problem with my CFLs failing prematurely, but other people I know have, in one case a bulb failing quite spectacularly.I suppose these are just growing pains as the technology matures.
But whether they're ready for widespread use, particularly LED bulbs, is debatable.
The ones that may be more reliable are far too expensive to be worth considering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279352</id>
	<title>Re:Great assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they never work at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they never work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they never work at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283724</id>
	<title>Re:What did the study say about.....</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1259685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've had an 18W CFL in my reading light by my bed for several years now.  It's a bit bright so I have it aimed at the wall so I just get the reflective light from that.  It's just as good as an incandescent except that I haven't needed to replace it yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had an 18W CFL in my reading light by my bed for several years now .
It 's a bit bright so I have it aimed at the wall so I just get the reflective light from that .
It 's just as good as an incandescent except that I have n't needed to replace it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had an 18W CFL in my reading light by my bed for several years now.
It's a bit bright so I have it aimed at the wall so I just get the reflective light from that.
It's just as good as an incandescent except that I haven't needed to replace it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279780</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1259606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me put this again, with correct values:<br>Incandescent:<br>
&nbsp; + Cheap, good light.<br>
&nbsp; - Bad efficiency in hot living areas (in cold areas the heat will decrease amount of heating needed)</p><p>CFLs<br>
&nbsp; + Efficient, a bit longer lifespan<br>
&nbsp; - All you mention plus nowhere near the light output claimed (11W is not 60W), nowhere near claimed lifespan (usually maybe 2x), fire hazard (the base on some cheap ones can heat up too much), requires recycling.</p><p>LEDs<br>
&nbsp; + Efficient (about same as CFLs), very long lifespan<br>
&nbsp; + Others you mention<br>
&nbsp; - Bloody expensive, color horrible, not enough light output to replace e.g. 60W incandescent, requires recycling (due to electronics inside, not due to mercury or like)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me put this again , with correct values : Incandescent :   + Cheap , good light .
  - Bad efficiency in hot living areas ( in cold areas the heat will decrease amount of heating needed ) CFLs   + Efficient , a bit longer lifespan   - All you mention plus nowhere near the light output claimed ( 11W is not 60W ) , nowhere near claimed lifespan ( usually maybe 2x ) , fire hazard ( the base on some cheap ones can heat up too much ) , requires recycling.LEDs   + Efficient ( about same as CFLs ) , very long lifespan   + Others you mention   - Bloody expensive , color horrible , not enough light output to replace e.g .
60W incandescent , requires recycling ( due to electronics inside , not due to mercury or like )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me put this again, with correct values:Incandescent:
  + Cheap, good light.
  - Bad efficiency in hot living areas (in cold areas the heat will decrease amount of heating needed)CFLs
  + Efficient, a bit longer lifespan
  - All you mention plus nowhere near the light output claimed (11W is not 60W), nowhere near claimed lifespan (usually maybe 2x), fire hazard (the base on some cheap ones can heat up too much), requires recycling.LEDs
  + Efficient (about same as CFLs), very long lifespan
  + Others you mention
  - Bloody expensive, color horrible, not enough light output to replace e.g.
60W incandescent, requires recycling (due to electronics inside, not due to mercury or like)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30292900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30301378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30309542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30297938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_0059250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30297938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30301378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30290292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30284070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30288938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280654
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283744
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30292900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30309542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30287694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30282238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30281132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30283656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30285208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_0059250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30279632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_0059250.30280952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
