Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for

C

charles

Jan 1, 1970
0
From: (charles) In article
<[email protected]>, David Starr
/ should have limited use in todays world
Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my
yard lights. Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my
flashlights.

If I may ask., Where did you get the LED retrofit ? I have the 5cellPk
rechargeable.

I got them from a UK stockholder - "CPC". They were both Maglite kits.
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On 21 Jun 2008 03:04:34 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
|
|>
|>| The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
|>| standards.
|>
|>So you are saying that in 10 years, I can still buy incandescent bulbs for
|>the few places I actually need them?
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I can't predict what will happen five or ten years from now, but I
| would say most likely "yes". GE is busy developing a new generation
| of HEI incandescents that will be initially twice as efficient as what
| is available now and ultimately four times so (roughly the same
| efficacy as a CFL but at a lower initial cost).
|
| See:
| http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681

FYI, the article has a "permalink" that is shorter:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ge/20070223005120/en

Are these the ones with the low voltage double encased filament that runs at
super-halogen temperatures, and has a circuit inside to deliver the voltage
it needs?

Hi Phil,

Philips uses the approach you describe with their forthcoming
line-voltage EcoBoost products (apologies for the length of the links
provided below); I don't know if GE will do likewise, but it's
certainly possible the first generation of HEI lamps will employ
similar technology.

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

Additional info here:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

Note that this technology is already used in some of their low-voltage
MR16 products, less the voltage conversion circuitry, obviously
(sorry, text in German).

See:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/de_...404188919&id=de_de_lamps_product_news&lang=de


GE's new HIR Plus lamps might provide us with some clues.

See:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/products/hir_plus_halogen_par38/

Their 83-watt HIR Plus PAR38 produces 2,030 lumens, which pegs its
effacy a hair shy of 24.5 lumens per watt. By comparison, GE's
standard 75-watt halogen PAR38 has a rated light output of just 1,050
lumens, for an effacy of 14 lumens/watt. Thus, in addition to their
longer service life, these new HIR Plus lamps are nearly twice as
efficient as a conventional halogen PAR38.

Cheers,
Paul
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
|>What about ophidian lights? I've always used the standard base ones for this.
|>I suppose I could substitute a plant light or a small infrared.
|>
|>I was going to switch to low-voltage lamps for task lights, anyway, so I guess
|>for the most part this doesn't really affect me.
|>
|>We need a law that taxes or just outright bans importation of cheap CFLs.
|
| Hi Phil,
|
| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.

Hi Phil,

Alternatively, if you don't require that much light, you could simply
opt for a halogen lamp of a lesser wattage; e.g., a 40-watt Halogená
ES provides the same amount of light as a conventional 60-watt
incandescent and lasts up to four times longer.

If you're still contemplating a low-voltage solution, Philip's IRC
MR16 are some of the best available.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/halogen/pdf/p-5758.pdf

Cheers,
Paul
 
D

Dan Lanciani

Jan 1, 1970
0
|
|
| >
| > Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker
| > in my garage.
| >
| > ...Jim Thompson
|
|
| They're probably those crappy 34W energy saver tubes with magnetic
| ballasts that usually don't drive them harder than about 25W. Those were
| a hack from the 70s energy crisis and hardly work in a drafty room
| indoors.

I thought the 34W F40T12 energy miser tubes became common as a result
of the 1992 EPACT that also brought us the horrible 60W F96T12 tubes.
This was the law that was popularly described as banning (yes, I know,
there's that word again) cool white tubes.

I remember having a lot of trouble with short lives on the "compatible"
34W F40 tubes until I replaced the ballasts with dual-rated 40W/34W ones.
The 60W F96T12 tubes were just so dreary that I went for the much more
expensive improved color rendering 75W products that were exempt from the
requirements. These provided *almost* as much light as the original 75W
F96T12/CW tubes, so slightly less efficiency at a much higher price.

In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
 
R

RFI-EMI-GUY

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:30:17 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY

[snip]
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this
benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.

I think the large numeric dollar-value of "Big Oil" profits confuses
the ordinary guy on the street, and politicians use that to their
advantage.

What is "Big Oil's" ROI?

Are they not paying _market_ price for oil?

...Jim Thompson

You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
government.

Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
and elsewhere with the gasoline.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.


A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
electrically different than the UK lamps. They're 230mA and over here
they all use electronic ballasts. I have some 40W choke ballasts from
over there but I haven't tried running a T8 with one yet.
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com


Trichromatic phosphor blends are much more common these days and a lot
cheaper than they used to be, so you can easily get 40W high CRI lamps.
 
| You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
| has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
| Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
| oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
| later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
| continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
| barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
| off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
| the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
| deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
| government.

So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy
per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven.


| Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
| butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
| about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
| you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
| and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too.
Show some proof.
 
A

Andrew Gabriel

Jan 1, 1970
0
A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
electrically different than the UK lamps.

Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
US and elsewhere.
They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.

They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
available for many years, but not when they first came out.
 
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
|> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|>
|
| Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
first place, if you need an example.


| As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| also do what they do best.

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.


| Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Regrettably, not everybody is open sighted to what all goes on in the world.
 
| In article <x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02>,
|>
|>
|>>
|>> T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
|>> provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
|>> used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
|>> control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.
|>
|>
|> A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
|> 4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
|> electrically different than the UK lamps.
|
| Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
| a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
| Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
| US and elsewhere.
|
|> They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.
|
| They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
| preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
| available for many years, but not when they first came out.

I wonder what it would be like in the USA if we wired our fluorescent lights
to 240 volts instead of 120 volts. Virtually all homes have it (or at least
208 volts). Of course we'd need 2-pole switches. But at least it's still
only 120 volts shock potential relative to ground.
 
R

RFI-EMI-GUY

Jan 1, 1970
0
| You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
| has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
| Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
| oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
| later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
| continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
| barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
| off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
| the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
| deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
| government.

So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy
per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven.


| Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
| butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
| about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
| you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
| and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up, too.
Show some proof.

Its simple; I have a ton of gasoline receipts from the period before and
after the Ethanol blend was mandated. I was suspicious after I started
noticing the fuel economy drop in my vehicle. I have monitored the gas
mileage and done the calculations. Its all very simple. The vehicle is
well maintained and I have an OBDII reader attached to the computer to
monitor gas economy and vehicle performance. Do your own research,
Google for gas mileage and Ethanol fuel and come to your own
conclusions. As far as pollution out the tailpipe, that is simple logic.
If I have to burn 12 gallons of fuel to go the same mileage as 10
gallons once carried me and 90% of that fuel is gasoline and 10% is
ethanol, I have a worsened pollution situation in that I am now dumping
byproducts from the 10.8 gallons gasoline plus 1.2 gallons of ethanol.

If you don't beleive me, look up the BTU energy of gasoline and Ethanol.
Ethanol has significantly less energy than gasoline.




--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
phil-news- said:
| [email protected] wrote:
|>
|> I do like the idea of taxing the incandescent bulbs. But I also like
|> the idea of taxing cheap imports.
|>
|
| Then there are those who are opposed to using tax laws to promote public
| policy. Taxes distort the marketplace.

And I am not one of those. The marketplace needs to be distorted in a few
places. The market for subprime mortgage origination comes to mind as my
first place, if you need an example.

The market for subprime mortgages is being distorted by a bailout
(and FannieMay). Without a bailout there would be no distortion.
Let 'em sink.
| As for taxing imports, this silliness was settled in the 18th Century in
| Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Smith proved that everybody benefits
| when nations do what they do best and freely trade with other nations who
| also do what they do best.

As long as all nations are on a level playing field, this would be so. But
it is a fact that most nations outside the USA have governments playing a
hand in the economies.

It's impossible for a government to *not* have a hand in economics
and silly to think they should (not).
| Regrettably, not everybody keeps up with the latest economic theories.

Regrettably, not everybody is open sighted to what all goes on in the world.

....or their own house.
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
| In article <x_b7k.231$zE6.202@trnddc02>,
|>
|>
|>>
|>> T8's were designed in Europe to retrofit into T12 fittings and
|>> provide energy savings. That doesn't work with the control gear
|>> used on US 120V mains, where I believe you require different
|>> control gear for the T8's and T12's of the same length.
|>
|>
|> A UK friend and I have discussed this at length and I've sent him some
|> 4' T8 lamps to play with. As I recall, we concluded that US T8 lamps are
|> electrically different than the UK lamps.
|
| Very likely -- they're different ratings too. A 4' T8 designed for
| a 40W ballast on 220-240V is rated 36W. Your 4' T8 is 32W IIRC.
| Likewise all the other T8 tube lengths are differently rated between
| US and elsewhere.
|
|> They're 230mA and over here they all use electronic ballasts.
|
| They're designed for switchstart operation here (known as
| preheat in the US). Of course, there are electronic ballasts
| available for many years, but not when they first came out.

I wonder what it would be like in the USA if we wired our fluorescent lights
to 240 volts instead of 120 volts. Virtually all homes have it (or at least
208 volts). Of course we'd need 2-pole switches. But at least it's still
only 120 volts shock potential relative to ground.


It would be like it is in most of Europe, choke ballasts with glowbottle
starters. A bit more efficient than our autotransformer ballasts, but
still less than modern electronic.
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
Who knows, a new technology may have come along and no one may be making
them due to lack of a market.

I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming
and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a
compromise in light output).

I expect LEDs to continue their pace of advancement, increment by
increment in performance, cost, and new varieties. But as LED technology
has been incrementing itself along increment by increment, I expect that
to remain the story for the next 10-15 years.
LED technology appears to me to only be advancing about half as fast as
computer technology, maybe a little slower.

There are also metal halide lamps, another technology that has been
advancing somewhat and is still advancing, though not as fast as LEDs are
advancing.

As a result, I expect displacement of incandescents to be a slow and
incremental process that can take another 10-20 years to *mostly*
accomplish. Heck, that process was already underway in the early 1980's,
when most low-voltage-powered front panel indicator lights were LEDs, and
before the mid 1970's those were at least 99% incandescent.

===============================

One area where LEDs (and to some extent in recent years other
technologies) are displacing incandescents is nightlights.

The old traditional model used a 7 watt incandescent, and often a shade
because 7 watt incandescents are rather bright for this job, and it takes
more effort to make an 120V incandescent of wattage much lower than 7
watts - or at least it used to.
Past 15 years or so, 4 watt incandescent nightlight "bulbs" have been
common - still bright enough to usually deserve a shade.

Now, there are many LED night lights available. With ineffeciencies of
safe voltage dropping at low cost, most current models of 120V LED night
lights are not more efficient than incandescents in photometric terms -
but they still achieve efficiency gains by having a spectrum more
favorable to making use of night vision when the lighting is dim (higher
"s/p ratio"), along with being dim enough to not need a shade. Power
consumption of these is mostly around 1/3 watt to 1 watt.
Better are green and blue models and the Feit Electric white C7 "bulb".
Most other LED light models using white LEDs will have light output
degrading significantly year-by-year or even a bit faster.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
P

Paul M. Eldridge

Jan 1, 1970
0
.... I expect CFLs to advance a little more, especially with gains in dimming
and maybe some models with CRI in the low-mid 90's rather than 82 (with a
compromise in light output)....

Hi Don,

I, for one, would happily trade-off some raw lumens for better colour
rendering. Do you know of any products available now or in the near
future with CRIs in the low to mid 90s?

Cheers,
Paul
 
B

Boden

Jan 1, 1970
0
metspitzer said:
WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a
result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic – the
Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like
banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more
than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light
bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.

Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts
of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and
disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when,
currently, all are made in China.

"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the
anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using
energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe
stated.

(Story continues below)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573
When we developed a product that didn't sell as expected (more properly,
as desired) the first stop was our Congressional delegation. It's
difficult to convince consumers to buy a product they don't need. It's
easier, with the help of a large PAC, to put a ring in the nose of
legislators and in some cases compel the consumer to buy the product.

CFLs in some portions of the country have become a joke. Look at the
cost of heating oil for next year and the cost of electrical energy.
It's more economical to heat with electricity. Turn on all the
incandescent lights and save money.

Boden
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
In alt.engineering.electrical Paul M. Eldridge
| Hi Phil,
|
| I'm not sure what wattage lamp you use, but if its light output
| exceeds 2,600 lumens, it falls outside this legislation. For example,
| a 150-watt Osram Sylvania A21 incandescent is rated at 2,780 lumens
| (clear) and 2,640 lumens (soft white).

So just run this on one of this half-wave rectifying dimmers to cut the
power in half and you have a nice warm 40 watt light that uses 75 watts.

150 watt incandescent with a diode consumes about 88 watts, give or take
a bit. The 2640-2780 lumens decreases to about 800-870 lumens (light
output of "standard", "soft white" and even 1500 hour, maybe "double life"
60 watt incandescents).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
I thought the 34W F40T12 energy miser tubes became common as a result
of the 1992 EPACT that also brought us the horrible 60W F96T12 tubes.
This was the law that was popularly described as banning (yes, I know,
there's that word again) cool white tubes.

I remember having a lot of trouble with short lives on the "compatible"
34W F40 tubes until I replaced the ballasts with dual-rated 40W/34W ones.
The 60W F96T12 tubes were just so dreary that I went for the much more
expensive improved color rendering 75W products that were exempt from the
requirements. These provided *almost* as much light as the original 75W
F96T12/CW tubes, so slightly less efficiency at a much higher price.
In the past few years I've noticed that the commodity F40 and F96 tubes
at the home centers are once again 40W and 75W respectively, so I assume
they all now qualify for the good color rendering (or other) exemption
from the requirements. (Or are they lying about the wattage?)

Many of the ones exempt on basis of better color rendering do so with
compromise in light output, *unless*: The CRI (color rendering index)
is in the low-mid 80's! CRI around/above 90 "pretty much requires"
significant to severe compromise in light output.
Furthermore, if CRI is in the low-mid 80's the color distortions are
often mostly *favorable* (main exception of reds being distorted slightly
to orangish). Otherwise, color distortions are mostly to darker/duller
for reds and greens, especially reds. The color distortions are less when
CRI is around 90 or in the low 90's, but still usually largely in
unfavorable directions.

As for F40 with uncompromised light output and color distortions mainly
*not* dulling/darkening - Philips "Ultralume". I think that Sylvania's
"Interior Design"/"Designer" is fairly similar. Watch for color
temperature rating - these come in more than one, especially Philips
"Ultralume"!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
D

Don Klipstein

Jan 1, 1970
0
| You are missing the point. If I buy gas from a Shell station and Shell
| has decided to adulterate the fuel with a compound (ethanol) that saves
| Shell money and returns less BTU energy content to the consumer. Shell
| oil is receiving a direct benefit by immediate increased profit and
| later by selling more of the adulterated product so that consumers can
| continue on their crippled journey. I don't care what Shell paid for a
| barrel of oil on the market, that is not the point. It is a flagrant rip
| off, a criminal act that the Florida government is complicit with. If
| the public fails to realize this, they are very ignorant, and perhaps
| deserve what they get from their government and corporations who run the
| government.

So provide some proof that this addition of ethanol reduces the total energy
per dollar AND emits the same level of pollution per mile driven.

Pollution increase - maybe not, likely not - ethanol has been added to
decrease pollution.

Nitrogen oxide emissions tend to be decreased since dilution by ethanol
decreases the combustion temperature.

CO emissions are decreased when fuel is diluted (for leaner burn) in
cars not making heavy use of oxygen sensors to adjust fuel/air mix.

But energy/power from a gallon of fuel is much less with ethanol than
with undiluted gasoline.

Gasoline - from an old figure in the 1961 edition of the CRC Handbook -
20,750 BTU per pound, 6.152 pounds per gallon - multiplies out to 127,654
BTU/gallon.

Ethanol - 327.6 kcal/mole, 327.6 kcal per 46.07 grams, 1,300.029
BTU/46.07 grams, 1,300.029 BTU/58.368 ml, 22,273 BTU/liter, 84,311
BTU/gallon.

MTBE was another agent to "oxygenate" gasoline (I would say "dilute"
with "partially oxidized fuel").
| Imagine if you went the store to buy a pound of hamburger, but the
| butcher decides that to increase his bottom line, he will take away
| about 2 ounces of beef and substitutes two ounces of wet sawdust. Would
| you be "OK" with that? That is exactly what is happening here in Florida
| and elsewhere with the gasoline.

I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you are making all this up,
too. Show some proof.

I suspect ethanol addition to gasoline is largely nationwide.

I don't mind biofuels - but the current big Federal program is for
specifically ethanol specifically from USA-grown corn. I think that we
need to lose the restrictions to ethanol from plant species favored by
lobbyists!

I have been hearing good things about ethanol from switchgrass! Also,
biofuel is not limited to ethanol despite what is said by lobbyists from
the cornbelt and especially the ones for Archer Daniels Midland!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
Top