|
I was hoping to get some knowledge about drywall anchors, maybe pros and cons of a few different types. I am mounting a motorized projection screen to my ceiling, and unfortunately it is in line with the joists and where it needs to fall is close to the middle of the bay between them The screen has 4 mounting holes built into the case, 2 on each end, however they are only separated by about an inch from each other. So 2 holes, close together, then about a 90 inch span, then 2 more holes close together. The spec sheet tells me the entire assembly only weighs 2l lbs (it feels heavier but that's probly just cause its unwieldy). I dont have image hosting, I am just gonna link the types of Anchors I know about and have access to: Plastic Screw in http://www.lemurzone.com/rfg/wp-content/uploads/walldriller.jpg Zinc Screw in http://www.simpsonanchors.com/images/catalog/large/168a-2008.jpg Plastic toggle http://www.renovation-headquarters.com/images2/poly%20toggle%20cr%20rt.jpg Metal Toggle Bolt http://alldiyinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/a74385f66etoggle-bolts.jpg Anchor Screws http://www.macandchris.com/images/roof%20anchor%20screws.jpg I know 21 lbs is not a lot of weight, but it is also the kind of thing that could easily be grabbed and pulled and I want to make it as strong as possible. Any thoughts on the best type of anchors to use? Seems the metal toggles would be best but I am concerned about them being so close together since you have to make a fairly large hole in the drywall to fir the toggle through. Any input is appreciated.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
Cosmik Debris posted:If you don't mind the fact that there's mercury in it. Well then, get an LED bulb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
emocrat posted:I was hoping to get some knowledge about drywall anchors, maybe pros and cons of a few different types. I am mounting a motorized projection screen to my ceiling, and unfortunately it is in line with the joists and where it needs to fall is close to the middle of the bay between them... I know it will probably look weird, but were it me I would get two pieces of 5/8" trim board no more that a couple of inches wide (or wider, if you prefer) that are long enough to reach perpendicularly across the span between the joists, and screw them to the joists on top of the drywall, and them mount your screen to those. Drywall is not really stable for forces pulling straight out of it; drywall anchors count on the fact that they are used on vertical surfaces which can distribute the load parallel to the surface. Sand, finish & paint or stain the trim boards to pretty them up as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:Or just switch to a 60W-equivalent CFL, that actually draws around 15W. A 15W CFL should be fine in a 40W base, but I wouldn't put one in a 20W base. grover fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
emocrat posted:Plastic Screw in grover fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Speaking of light bulb chat, did the US thing about phasing out incandescent bulbs get stopped yet or is are we still being forced into using CFLs for everything over the next year or so? I ask because I couldn't find anything bigger than 100w in Lowes yesterday and IIRC the ban was supposed to start with the highest wattage ones and move down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Speaking of light bulb chat, did the US thing about phasing out incandescent bulbs get stopped yet or is are we still being forced into using CFLs for everything over the next year or so? I ask because I couldn't find anything bigger than 100w in Lowes yesterday and IIRC the ban was supposed to start with the highest wattage ones and move down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#United_States Wikipedia posted:United States grover fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
There is no ban. There never was. In fact, what you were told was a "ban" was actually higher efficiency standards that the lighting industry agreed to, knowing full well they could meet them. Furthermore a republican authored that bill in 2007, and president bush signed it. House republicans couldn't reverse their own legislation back in July, so they voted to defund the EPA from enforcing it. They passed that, but it either died in the senate or Obama vetoed it. http://www.frumforum.com/there-is-no-light-bulb-ban http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/12/incandescent-light-bulb-insanity-and-the-groucho-marx-republicans/ http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/incandescent-light-bulb-ban-0711 Cosmik Debris fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
I read an editorial in some electronics trade magazine about how there are some locations where am incandescent bulb is actually a better choice. Their example was a light bulb in a shed that is used only a few minutes every few days. It would take decades for the electricity savings to equal the cost of a CFL, not to mention the mercury. There was also some stuff about how the heat from the bulbs is a bonus in some climates and poor CFL reliability. Their take was basically "I'm a drat EE and I can figure out which bulb I need, keep government out of it" I am with them on the reliability point, the boxes say 10 or 20 years but they die in just a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
If they're not available in my local stores, where should I turn to buy bright-enough light bulbs? That legislation sounds great if it means I can get more lumens out of my 150w incandescents, but I'd be surprised if that was the actual end product. e: Also, is there really still mercury in CFLs?  Didn't we ban mercury-based switches in the US two decades ago?
Splizwarf fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
You can order them off Amazon pretty easily if you really can't find any in your locale (which is odd, if you have a Lowes or a Home Depot they should have them). A fluorescent lamp works by exciting mercury vapor which in turn produces ultra-violet light which causes the white phosphor coating on the inside of the bulbs to "fluoresce." If you get rid of the mercury then you don't have light. The reason they are so hated is because they are grossly inefficient. The design is virtually unchanged throughout their history, the last major development being in 1910 (tungsten filaments). 90% of the energy used to power them is heat. So a 60W bulb only puts out around 6W of light, or whatever that converts to in lumens. As an EE I'm all for making the decision about what types of lights to use on my own, and I work in the power industry so its in my best interest for people to use MORE electricity, but I think its time for them to go. CFLs are a bandaid because of the mercury content, once the cost of LED lighting goes down that will be what people will use primarily. Cosmik Debris fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Do we have LEDs that pump out that many lumens across the full daylight spectrum? I thought part of the problem with LEDs for non-specialized applications was the spectrum was very narrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:Do we have LEDs that pump out that many lumens across the full daylight spectrum? I thought part of the problem with LEDs for non-specialized applications was the spectrum was very narrow. From the teardowns I've seen, the nicer ones have a secondary LED that is used to fill out the spectrum. Another issue is that the light is very directional, so it is hard to make a bulb that shines in (almost) all directions like the bulbs we are used to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Not to mention they are about 50x the cost for the same light output. Just use CFLs and try not to drink the mercury. Edit: Oh and read this you big crybabies. peepsalot fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
How do CFLs behave in dimmers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
^they don't LEDs as general lightsources is a relatively new technology, and as with all technologies its cost will fall. I mean the efficiency, long life, and coolness of the lamps themselves is reason enough to switchover, even if the light is not as desirable as say an incandescent, although the cost is pretty high. But give em a few years, incandescents will be on the market until people stop buying them, and people will stop buying them when LED technology improves. Cosmik Debris fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Call me crazy but that seems like sort of a dealbreaker. Does the government expect us to not gently caress anymore? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:How do CFLs behave in dimmers? The depends on the CFL and the dimmer. Regular CFLs on the old type pot dimmers work like regular fluorescents on a dimmer: poorly. Dimmable CFLs on an old type dimmer can work ok. Some have problems with dimming very low, and can flicker or just not light at lower power. You'll get best results with dimmable CFLs and dimmers designed specifically for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
There are dimmable CFLs, just saw one yesterday at the hardware store. efb e2: googling makes me think CFLs labelled "Fully Dimmable" should dim almost all the way to off. For example, this one seems to get good reviews taqueso fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:How do CFLs behave in dimmers? Regular CFLs and regular dimmers behave horribly together. The bulb won't dim, it will just go from full-bright to off, and you're probably shortening the bulb life enormously. Modern dimmers aren't like old rheostats, they're actually semiconductor devices that switch the power to the lamp on and off repeatedly and rapidly to keep the filament at the desired brightness level, and that's not at all good for the electronic ballast in the CFL. There are dimmable CFLs. They're more expensive than the regular ones. And even then, you need the right kind of dimmer, since the lamp uses so little power. And even then, you'll generally get an abrupt transition from ~20% brightness to 'off' or from 80% brightness to 'all the way on,' or you can get a lot of flicker at low brightness levels. Plus, as you dim an incandescent, the color spectrum shifts towards the red as the filament cools, dimmer a CF doesn't do that; the light gets dimmer but its color stays exactly the same. So, basically: not very well even if you buy the right sort of CFL bulb and stick it in the right sort of dimmer. Plus, dimming an incandescent dramatically extends bulb life (at a tradeoff in efficiency, which is already not good, but you're still reducing electricity use), it doesn't do anything good for CF bulb life. kid sinister posted:The depends on the CFL and the dimmer. Regular CFLs on the old type pot dimmers work like regular fluorescents on a dimmer: poorly. Note that old-type potentiometer dimmers are *very* old. I can't remember the last time I've seen one installed. Much less efficient and bulkier than triac dimmers, and they dissipate a *lot* of heat (Example: say you have a 100W bulb, 120V lamp. Hot filament resistance is ~140ohms, bulb's drawing about .85 amps. Now stick a rheostat in the way, set to 140 ohms. Now you've reduced the circuit amperage to about .42, circuit's consuming 50 watts of power, but only 25 watts is being dissipated by the lamp. The other 25 watts is being turned into heat by the rheostat. Far worse efficiency than even an incandescent bulb.) taqueso posted:
Even the good reviews say they dim to about 10 or 20% brightness and then go off. Or turn off if you adjust the brightness too quickly. Or flicker at low brightness. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
edit != post
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:Edit: Oh and read this you big crybabies. This seems like a pretty retarded argument: "There was a lot more mercury in old thermometers and there's so much less in these bulbs than there was in those thermometers that there's nothing to worry about." and then "Incandescent bulbs result in more mercury pollution than CFLs even though they don't have any because incandescents consume more electricity which is produced by coal and burning coal releases mercury into the air, therefore"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
That's one advantage LEDs have over CFLs, insofar as you can dim them easily without sacrificing anything (and they actually use less power this way). You just use pulsewidth modulation to turn them off and on very quickly and since your brain can only process stuff at about 24 frames per second the faster they "blink" the more it looks like they're at full power and the slower they blink the more they look like they're dim, to a certain point where it then just looks like they are flickering. e: VV hm yes I guess that's true. My micro days are long behind be. Cosmik Debris fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Cosmik Debris posted:That's one advantage LEDs have over CFLs, insofar as you can dim them easily without sacrificing anything (and they actually use less power this way). You just use pulsewidth modulation to turn them off and on very quickly and since your brain can only process stuff at about 24 frames per second the faster they "blink" the more it looks like they're at full power and the slower they blink the more they look like they're dim, to a certain point where it then just looks like they are flickering. It usually doesn't blink faster, the rate stays the same but the OFF period gets longer while the ON period gets shorter. The total ON+OFF time stays the same. You can dim an LED down to essentially no output without flickering if the period is fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Cosmik Debris posted:That's one advantage LEDs have over CFLs, insofar as you can dim them easily without sacrificing anything (and they actually use less power this way). You just use pulsewidth modulation to turn them off and on very quickly and since your brain can only process stuff at about 24 frames per second the faster they "blink" the more it looks like they're at full power and the slower they blink the more they look like they're dim, to a certain point where it then just looks like they are flickering. Your brain can perceive things at way, way faster than 24Hz. 18fps can look smooth if it's motion-blurred, and 50Hz can look choppy if the images are very sharp. Modern projectors actually flicker at 48 or 72Hz, because the 24Hz flicker from the film pulldown would be very perceptible. Lots of people can detect regular old fluorescent bulbs flickering at 60Hz. LED bulbs suffer from the same problems with dimming as CFL bulbs: you need a bulb designed to be dimmed, and you need a dimmer that matches up well with the bulb, otherwise you can get the same flickering, abrupt dim-to-off transitions, and damage to the bulb driver circuitry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:LED bulbs suffer from the same problems with dimming as CFL bulbs: you need a bulb designed to be dimmed, and you need a dimmer that matches up well with the bulb, otherwise you can get the same flickering, abrupt dim-to-off transitions, and damage to the bulb driver circuitry. that's not true, most modern dimmers are PWM since it works just as well on incandesents, which work nicely with LEDs. As long as the LED bulb has built in circuitry to limit the voltage and current (they do) you cant really do anything to harm them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I think Phanatic might right here. If you put the dimming circuitry in the bulb, it can dim the LED perfectly and you will never be able to see flicker. But if you are dimming before the AC-DC converter in the bulb, that converter circuit will have to have been designed for dimming or it will probably either look like crap or kill the AC-DC converter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
ah you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:This seems like a pretty retarded argument: "There was a lot more mercury in old thermometers and there's so much less in these bulbs than there was in those thermometers that there's nothing to worry about." and then "Incandescent bulbs result in more mercury pollution than CFLs even though they don't have any because incandescents consume more electricity which is produced by coal and burning coal releases mercury into the air, therefore" What exactly is retarded about that? By the way LEDs have poisonous Arsenic and toxic Phosphors. Truly no one is safe from these terrible lighting products that will destroy us all! peepsalot fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Nov 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
Cosmik Debris posted:that's not true, most modern dimmers are PWM It can be thought of as a form of PWM, but it's not just narrower or wider pulses of constant voltage that a PWM switched power supply delivers. What the dimmer's doing is cutting off the output to the lamp when the AC voltage crosses the 0V reference, and then only restoring it once the voltage climbs again to a certain magnitude; this is called phase-cut dimming (technically forward phase-cut, there's also reverse phase-cut where the lamp gets energized during the increasing portion of each half-wave, but for incandescent bulb loads it doesn't matter). That's fine with an incandescent, because the filament's not going to have time to cool off appreciably during the periods when it's not receiving any current from the dimmer, but LEDs can change state much faster than that, so if that's all your dimmer's doing and your bulb isn't designed with that in mind, you can get flicker. Not all LED bulbs are designed with this sort of dimmer in mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:What exactly is retarded about that? Well, where to start? It's rich with possibilities. Here's a of low-hanging fruits: most buildings only have one thermometer, if that, but they sure seem to have a lot of lights; the second argument suggests that for example my washing machine produces more mercury than a CFL, when really it's an argument against coal power and has gently caress-all to do with light bulbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
quote:Lightbulb chat My only problem with CFLs so far is it seems hard to find the size I need. I've got about half a dozen lights in the house that are really, um, shallow(?), and the CFLs I've seen are always too long to fit. Guess I need to look harder, there have to be short ones available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Wow, thanks, that's a lot more information than I expected. I accidentally bought the wrong kind of bulb; I'd rather not risk anything, next time I'm at the store I'll get some 40Ws. You'll find a better selection of specialty sizes of CFLs online. You'll need to figure out what size you need first. Are these can lights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
What can the use of T50-type staples tell me about the age of remodeling work? I've read that the Arrow T50 staple gun was invented in the 1950s, but I haven't been able to find out whether or not this type of staple existed before then in any form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
gross posted:What can the use of T50-type staples tell me about the age of remodeling work? I've read that the Arrow T50 staple gun was invented in the 1950s, but I haven't been able to find out whether or not this type of staple existed before then in any form. Well, now that I looked up what an Arrow T50 staple was, I can tell you that all the original NM cable in my house is attached with them, and it was built in 1956. What exactly are you trying to determine the age of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
This is the third thread I've tried, does anyone have any recommendations for a metal to metal adhesive? I really like this pen. (not soldering or welding)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:28
|
|
|
JB-Weld. Clean it good and go over it with a wire brush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
Solid Oak Acorn posted:This is the third thread I've tried, does anyone have any recommendations for a metal to metal adhesive? I really like this pen. [Edit: Beaten, but I guess this can be viewed as a 'seconding']
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
Thirding JB Weld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
kid sinister posted:Well, now that I looked up what an Arrow T50 staple was, I can tell you that all the original NM cable in my house is attached with them, and it was built in 1956. What exactly are you trying to determine the age of? The staples were used to attach 12" ceiling tiles in a couple of rooms in my house. I already have someone stopping over to sample them for asbestos, but I'm still curious about when they were installed, and any general details that can help me figure out the age of the work in the other rooms. The house is like an archaeological dig since the previous owners liked to layer over everything one room at a time instead of replacing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 05:50
|
|