Mercury actually came to the point of "we dont care anymore", as the proposed ban on it was dropped. As for public lighting replacement projects, its same as UK, those projects are initiatives of local councils and utilities anyway (taht have been tricked but that is a different story), so won't change as result of one or another president winning the elections, unless the president is somehow expert in the thing himself and wants a say on the subject

Anyhow, dont tell me you vote based on lighting preferences. Allthough in this case, they correlate very well with other things this candidate talks sensibly about

I have been thinking of teaching him the truth of lighting, somehow.

Mercury actually came to the point of "we dont care anymore", as the proposed ban on it was dropped. As for public lighting replacement projects, its same as UK, those projects are initiatives of local councils and utilities anyway (taht have been tricked but that is a different story), so won't change as result of one or another president winning the elections, unless the president is somehow expert in the thing himself and wants a say on the subject

Anyhow, dont tell me you vote based on lighting preferences. Allthough in this case, they correlate very well with other things this candidate talks sensibly about

I doubt we can decide on who to vote for based on lighting preferences as I haven't seen anything on where they stand on lighting. Bernie could be AntiLED and Donald could be ProLED as far I could know! LOL!

Well, I'm not much of a democrat or bernout but with me it's either Don or Gare-bear Johnson. (Dale gribble intensifies) lol. I don't want interfere with this discussion by bringing USA politics in, so I'm leaving it at that.

Quote from: Ash on June 25, 2016, 04:08:07 PM

Mercury actually came to the point of "we dont care anymore", as the proposed ban on it was dropped. As for public lighting replacement projects, its same as UK, those projects are initiatives of local councils and utilities anyway (taht have been tricked but that is a different story), so won't change as result of one or another president winning the elections, unless the president is somehow expert in the thing himself and wants a say on the subject

Anyhow, dont tell me you vote based on lighting preferences. Allthough in this case, they correlate very well with other things this candidate talks sensibly about

I doubt we can decide on who to vote for based on lighting preferences as I haven't seen anything on where they stand on lighting. Bernie could be AntiLED and Donald could be ProLED as far I could know! LOL!

Then there will be a big lighting debate!

I honestly don't have a clue lol. Rick the bulb said that Don isn't about all the green energy crap and would bring back merc and t12 if we emailed him about that. Doubt it would happen, but anything is possible. Is have to ask the Don himself.

I honestly don't have a clue lol. Rick the bulb said that Don isn't about all the green energy crap and would bring back merc and t12 if we emailed him about that. Doubt it would happen, but anything is possible. Is have to ask the Don himself.

I seriously don't think it's worth a nuclear war with other countries or retrograde of rights and liberties if Don was elected to have T12s and MVs back. Plus T12s are still around. I see T12 for sale in box stores. I dunno if it's a law to use T8s in new commercials places or the owners simply wants T8s.

MVs you still buy bulbs. Ballasts is get MHs ones. Disable igniters for PSMHs. 70w PSMH for 100w MVs. 150w PSMH for 175w. I'm not sure about any beyond 175w. Supposedly match wattage but disable igniters. Anyone confirm that for me?

I'm pretty sure that beyond 175 it's just match the same wattage merc with same wattage ballast, excluding 700w because I don't know if they have a 700w MH.

I'm pretty sure that beyond 175 it's just match the same wattage merc with same wattage ballast, excluding 700w because I don't know if they have a 700w MH.

700w MVs I won't bother with since how many of us has one? In the US anyway.

When I said 175w and beyond I meant for PSMHs. Probe start ballasts are easy. Match the wattage and you're good to go. The higher OCV from the MH ballasts are a nice bonus. Easier to start stubborn MVs. Though at that point the bulb would be too dim for the job anyway and have to be replaced.

I doubt we can decide on who to vote for based on lighting preferences as I haven't seen anything on where they stand on lighting. Bernie could be AntiLED and Donald could be ProLED as far I could know! LOL!

Take any specific subject - be it lighting in our case, but it could be anything. Most of the population have no clue in the subject and dont care about subject. Especially something that interests small group of peeps like lighting. So it is fair guess that none of the candidates are PRO or ANTI anything lighting related, and most likely won't intervent in the lighting business directly in any way whatsoever



But now to the more interesting part :

For what i observed (and while i am not a US citizen, but i observe the same thing everywhere), there is correlation between candidate's opinion/attitude on various subjects :

One choice says :
 - GREEN (and ban everything that is not)
 - PEACE (and if you dont participate in it, we'll agree to your terms and conditions so you leave us alone)
 - Ban guns
 - Allow immigrants
..

Other choice says :
 - GREEN ? meh (not your SUV, not your business)
 - PEACE (and if you dont participate in it, you'll get your lower back handed to you by our military forces)
 - Allow guns
 - Ban immigrants
..

And im pretty sure you can name some more debates that are more US specific, while what i mentioned applies more or less to the entire western world

So there it is : Its most likely, that you agree with one side in most subjects, and disagree with the other in most subjects. It is not very likely to be 50/50. So if you agree with side X on one subject, it is likely that you will agree with it on wider array of subjects too

So, for quite an extent, you can pick what a candidate says on one topic, as a gauge to estimate his probable opinion on another topic, even where he said nothing about it

Like, Cmon, see it happening before your eyes :

 - LED LG member (so far one) - Bernie

 - NonLED LG members (so far 3 ?) - Don Don Don

And that is while none of the candidates said ANYTHING about lighting



For running Merc lamp on the ballast you want :

 - The Merc lamp arc voltage to be tleast as high as the proper lamp's (fully warmed up) voltage, to not overload the ballast

 - The current coming from the ballast to be somewhere above ~2/3's .. 3/4's of the merc lamp's rated current, so it fully warms up (it will even if quite underpowered, and be fine with underpowering that HPS or MH would not be happy with). Overdriving the lamp - that depends on lamp build quality and size, generally the bigger lamp, the less carefull you can be, but still stay within reason

Also for bigger lamps you may be able to find combinations of smaller ballasts wired in parallel that would work

Some peeps have 700e mercs, but they're about $50 a pop on fleabay.

Ash - It's one member who said Don not three members. LOL!

Even if Bernie was 100x antiLED than you Ash I'd still vote for him. Don is too dangerous to let him sit in the Oval Office for 4 years.

I rather have a LED free future than nuclear winter. It's one less lighting choice. There are plenty others to pick from. So I won't lose much lighting wise but win greatly future wise for the generations after us.

My choices:
Keep my LEDs? Face a radioactive wasteland future.
Lose my LEDs? Prosperity for generations.

Good bye LED. Enjoyed using you to light my house while you were around. Not your corn cob cousins from eBay. They sucked period.

Its 3 : Ginger cat, Pokemon master (not US citizen, but considered a while back who i would choose if i was, and it have nothing to do with lighting), and Nightshade

It depends on what you see as dangerous. Pick yours :

 - Don - is dangerous (with or without the nukes)

 - Immigrants, Enemy countries getting to nuke power - are dangerous

 - Another "Brock" in the office promoting "Brockcare"s - is dangerous

 - Guns - are dangerous, or Gun control'ers - are dangerous



And LEDs are not related to choosing a president, so they can stay a separate subject

Pretty much what I've said Ash. I don't let their lighting stances decide for me.

What's important to me is:
- The young ones getting affordable college after high school. (Smart people who's able to improve the country for future generations.)

- Affordable healthcare for everyone. Healthcare should be a right not a privilege for the rich people.

- Sensible gun controls. Now, I'm not saying take your 2nd amendment away. Just from people who have no sense of responsibility of owning guns. Felons and mentally unstable people are those who aren't meant to possess them. No military grade weapons for civilians. (What's the point of them. If the government is gonna take your freedom away or whatever your excuses for such weapons. A drone or helicopter high up in the sky with a hellfire missile will take you out. No bullets have the range to even get close.)

- Proper care of our veterans who fought for our freedoms (no matter what war they fought in). Help them re-assimilate into civilian life and help them find a good job to sustain themselves and their families. (That includes helping with their medical costs.)

- No more senseless wars. If a country attacks you. Make sure you're gonna pummel the right country in retaliation. Making sure your intelligence gathering agencies are doing them jobs before sending young Americans to their potential deaths.

- Bring back jobs from offshore to the US. No more abandoned US factories and high unemployment. No more decaying cities with said abandoned factories. Pay a LIVING wage that varies by locales. Higher pays in expensive places. Lower wages for cheap places.

What I don't want to happen is:
- College graduates getting stuck with obscene debts that can be paid in 20 years or more.

- Unaffordable healthcare but to only the rich. Or complicated insurance policies that makes no sense or would drop you off their protection at the drop of a hat.

- Guns without any sensible controls. Bad guys can legally buy guns and high capacity clips for the guns. Mentally unstable people can get them as easily. Military grade weapons available for sale to civilians. Who needs a full auto for target shooting or hunting? Ammo are expensive so raining lead all over the place doesn't make sense.

- Leaving our veterans soldiers go homeless without a helping hand.

- Senseless wars for no reason except profits for the corporations who makes the military hardware. Sending young people to certain deaths for no good reason. Toppling governments without a clear plan for afterwards. Using nuclear weapons!

- Allows more and more companies to offshore American jobs and laying off hardworking Americans. Pay minimum wages regardless of living costs. Same paycheck size in expensive places as cheap places.

Quote from: Medved on June 25, 2016, 01:48:01 PM

Quote from: wattMaster on June 25, 2016, 01:30:28 PM

But at least the UK is liberated from the strangling EU regulations for lighting and efficiency.

Well, I would guess those regulations will come anyway - it is originally an international political game mainly against China, which went out of hands and even when it is turning against us now, dropping it would mean quite a victory for China...

Wait, lighting regulations are actually causing a war with China?

They (better to say all the "EcoDesign madness") were assuming the Chinese won't be able to keep up with the regulations and so will be pushed out of the market. Not arguing about the stupidity of such assumption, but that was the motivation of the politicians. How they were wrong, we see every day: To be formally compiant with those bul####ts was of course the easiest thing to overcome for the cheepeese and then the politicians were surprised.
But one of the arguments to keep China frfom the free trade is the "environmental impact of China's production". Now if the politicians pull off the Ecodesign nonsense, it will sweep away that one of the last hopes to keep import duties on Chinese production - with that China will easily argue "You should not say a word about an enviroonmental impact, when you gave up environmental protection". Yes, it is all nonsense, but that all the diplomacy and politics is about...

This thread is full of information on what the UK leaving the EU can do to the lighting industry and has gone off course, so going to close it now.