GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Maybe so, but the mercury in landfills will end up in rivers and streams and in not only the fish we consume, but also the vegetation. Completely unrelated to the issue of CFLs poisoning people in their homes. The primary point I was trying to make is that the amount of mercury in CFLs is negligible. Having said that, they should still be recycled, since well over 90% of the material can be recovered, including the mercury. I would also like to think that most people don't break all that many lightbulbs. You've got to be awfully clumsy, especially with a CFL (it's way less likely for the metal base to become separated from the plastic compartment that contains the starter than it is for a metal base to snap off an incandescent bulb. Even then you're not shattering the glass containing the mercury), to break them. You'll get no arguement from me... Well said... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 When I sit down in my 'studio' just turning on my pc, monitors, speakers, keyboards, mixers, effects processors, uses quite a bit of juice. The money I'd save on CFL bulbs (if you ignore the initial higher cost) is negligible. Then again, I am the kind of person that turns stuff off when not in use. Or if I am not in a certain room, I don't keep the lights on. We have so much equipment that are 'vampires' in terms of sucking energy. Some electronic equipment still use power even when they are off. Like phone chargers, your new HDTV, your home theater system, Turn all that stuff off when not in use will same you money as well, more so than changing over to these new bulbs. Other stuff that is constantly on, home security systems. All other things being equal (since your electronics, motors, speakers, etc will be running on your bills regardless of the types of bulbs you're using) you save a considerable amount on CFL bulbs, ignoring the upfront costs. Your bill is calculated by watts per hour. A CFL consumes ~13w where an incandescent would consume 60w. All other things being equal 13w << 60w. So yeah. They make a big difference. Let's go back to initial costs though. A package of incandescent bulbs costs less than half as much as CFLs. A CFL lightbulb is supposed to last 7 years or more, while an incandescent bulb ought to last roughly 3 years. Technically, that would make them roughly the same price or a tiny bit in favour of the CFL. Taking into consideration the savings between the two bulbs on hydro (13w << 60w), CFLs are much cheaper. The problem, however, is that the bulbs do not last 7 years. In fact, every single CFL lightbulb that I have purchased has been OUTLASTED by incandescent bulbs. I know that evidence is anecdotal and may not be the case for everyone. In my experience, though, it has been EVERY CFL that I have purchased. Given this considerable limitation, I speculate that the actual cost of a CFL is either the same or higher than an incandescent over the life of the bulb, considering initial costs. Moreover, they take longer to reach full brightness, require special handling when they expire, do not work as well when they are 3-way bulbs and are harder to read under. Given all of these limitations and there being little if any cost savings, I prefer to use incandescents. Quote
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) All other things being equal (since your electronics, motors, speakers, etc will be running on your bills regardless of the types of bulbs you're using) you save a considerable amount on CFL bulbs, ignoring the upfront costs. Your bill is calculated by watts per hour. A CFL consumes ~13w where an incandescent would consume 60w. All other things being equal 13w << 60w. So yeah. They make a big difference. Let's go back to initial costs though. A package of incandescent bulbs costs less than half as much as CFLs. A CFL lightbulb is supposed to last 7 years or more, while an incandescent bulb ought to last roughly 3 years. Technically, that would make them roughly the same price or a tiny bit in favour of the CFL. Taking into consideration the savings between the two bulbs on hydro (13w << 60w), CFLs are much cheaper. The problem, however, is that the bulbs do not last 7 years. In fact, every single CFL lightbulb that I have purchased has been OUTLASTED by incandescent bulbs. I know that evidence is anecdotal and may not be the case for everyone. In my experience, though, it has been EVERY CFL that I have purchased. Given this considerable limitation, I speculate that the actual cost of a CFL is either the same or higher than an incandescent over the life of the bulb, considering initial costs. Moreover, they take longer to reach full brightness, require special handling when they expire, do not work as well when they are 3-way bulbs and are harder to read under. Given all of these limitations and there being little if any cost savings, I prefer to use incandescents. It's all a matter of time and type... I too had the same feelings about them regarding the "first batch" of CFLs that became available in stores... Didn't last up to expectations, mine didn't either, there was a "bad batch" of bulbs sold in Canada, so much so that some CFL manufacturers offered FREE replacement bulbs for the OLDER CFL bulbs as well as FREE new CFL bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs on a bulb for bulb basis... Manitoba Hydro also came on board with FREE CFL bulbs giving you 2 additional CFL Bulbs for every CFL bulb you buy... Bottom line: It's cost me virtually nothing to completly change over my house to CFLs... They've also lasted, I haven't replaced a bulb since the "new batch" came out... Edited February 7, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 All other things being equal (since your electronics, motors, speakers, etc will be running on your bills regardless of the types of bulbs you're using) you save a considerable amount on CFL bulbs, ignoring the upfront costs. Your bill is calculated by watts per hour. A CFL consumes ~13w where an incandescent would consume 60w. All other things being equal 13w << 60w. So yeah. They make a big difference. That complete depends on where you live. Like I said before the savings you get in Canada are much less because you have increased heating costs when you use CFL bulbs. If you are heating for 9 months out of the year, then those incandescant bulbs are acting as nice little 100% efficient 100 watt heaters, and the only time CFL's are saving you ANY money is during the summer months. An incandescant bulb is exactly as efficient as any other kind of electrical heat. In most of Canada those bulbs will only REALLY save you 15 or 20% as much as they would if you lived in Arizona, or anywhere where most of your energy goes into cooling as opposed to heating. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 ...An incandescant bulb is exactly as efficient as any other kind of electrical heat. Ummm...no it isn't...an electric heat pump is more efficient per watt-hour consumed. It is more efficient to move heat than to create it from scratch. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Ummm...no it isn't...an electric heat pump is more efficient per watt-hour consumed. It is more efficient to move heat than to create it from scratch. An electric heatpump isnt a source of electric heat. Its just a pump. My point completely stands, and how much energy those bulbs really save you (if they save you anything at all) depends completely on how much time you spend heating VS cooling. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Sir Bandelot Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 A package of incandescent bulbs costs less than half as much as CFLs. A CFL lightbulb is supposed to last 7 years or more, while an incandescent bulb ought to last roughly 3 years. Technically, that would make them roughly the same price or a tiny bit in favour of the CFL. Taking into consideration the savings between the two bulbs on hydro (13w << 60w), CFLs are much cheaper. The problem, however, is that the bulbs do not last 7 years. In fact, every single CFL lightbulb that I have purchased has been OUTLASTED by incandescent bulbs. I know that evidence is anecdotal and may not be the case for everyone. In my experience, though, it has been EVERY CFL that I have purchased. Given this considerable limitation, I speculate that the actual cost of a CFL is either the same or higher than an incandescent over the life of the bulb, considering initial costs. Moreover, they take longer to reach full brightness, require special handling when they expire, do not work as well when they are 3-way bulbs and are harder to read under. Given all of these limitations and there being little if any cost savings, I prefer to use incandescents. Then there are the disposal costs, which will involve either recycling or hazardous waste collection of expired CFL's. THis cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. I prefer to use a combination of both CFL's and incandescents. I like the CFL's where the application involves leaving the light on for long periods of time. CFL's work best that way, and last longest. They are not good for outdoor however, because in my experience they don't like to start, "ignite" in very cold weather. I prefer incandescents where the light is switched on frequently but only briefly. Like lights in the staircase, or the bathroom which also uses a smaller sized buld with the candela base. And in some cases where I want a low level of light, like in the hall outside the bedroom. CFL's, while they are low wattage are not low in light level. Sadly, in the near future I the consumer will no longer have a choice. Thanks to government interference, the incandescents will be BANNED, making their sale, ownership and use illegal. What a bunch of jackasses run this country, and the bigger jackasses are the ones who vote for them, again and again. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 An electric heatpump isnt a source of electric heat. Its just a pump. My point completely stands, and how much energy those bulbs really save you (if they save you anything at all) depends completely on how much time you spend heating VS cooling. No, you are still wrong because of the inherent inefficiencies of an incandescent bulb compared to or used as resistive heat. Many other factors will impact the efficacy of heating by incandescent bulb vs. other forms of electric heating. As a child, my sister use to cook food in an Easy Bake Oven powered by incandescent bulbs, but it was not the most efficient design. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) No, you are still wrong because of the inherent inefficiencies of an incandescent bulb compared to or used as resistive heat. Many other factors will impact the efficacy of heating by incandescent bulb vs. other forms of electric heating. As a child, my sister use to cook food in an Easy Bake Oven powered by incandescent bulbs, but it was not the most efficient design. No sorry youre just flat out wrong. You cant get around the laws of physics. All electric sources of heat are exactly 100 percent efficient. Anyone that tells you their electric heater is "high efficiency" is a liar. 4 500 watt toasters will generate the same ammount of heat for the same money as a 2000 watt baseboard heater, as will 20 incandescant light bulbs. There IS no inherent inefficiencies in an incandescant light bulb. All resistance based electric heaters are basically 100% efficient. Youre parroting an urban legend. You cant get around the laws of physics. This guy explains it pretty nicely. There is a big myth (or urban legend if you will) running around that one electric space heater works better than another. For example that oil filled heaters (like Holmes / Delonghi / Windmere / Lakewood / Honeywell / Duracraft) work better than a cheap light bulb because they heat the oil and the oil keeps radiating after the power is removed by the thermostat. The truth is that all electric heaters are 100% efficient. It doesn't matter if it is a light bulb filament, a fancy quartz heater, the elements in your electric furnace, the elements in your electric hot water heater or your toaster. The fact is that 100% of the electrical energy is converted into heat and there is nothing you can do to increase or decrease that energy conversion. I get a big kick out of the expensive heater that are sold in the home improvement stores and home improvement magazines. The only major difference is that some are much safer than other but NOT more efficient. Edited February 7, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) No sorry youre just flat out wrong. You cant get around the laws of physics. All electric sources of heat are exactly 100 percent efficient. Anyone that tells you their electric heater is "high efficiency" is a liar. 4 500 watt toasters will generate the same ammount of heat for the same money as a 2000 watt baseboard heater, as will 20 incandescant light bulbs. No they won't....you need to understand not only the physics, but methods and designs of heating systems. They are not all resistive toasters. There IS no inherent inefficiencies in an incandescent light bulb. All resistance based electric heaters are basically 100% efficient. Not when it comes to being an efficient heater working in a given fluid medium. Your "basically" isn't precise enough for real engineers who do this work for a living. To make a long story short, an incandescent light bulb is a lousy heater design because of the glass-air interface and surface area. Edited February 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wild Bill Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 I'm quite happy to have totally converted my house to CFLs, and YES I can see a difference in my Hydro Bills... - see my post - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17916&view=findpost&p=623348 How can you possibly tell? According to your post, you did a whole PILE of stuff! How much of your savings came from the CFLs? Seems pretty obvious that the only way to tell would be to do ONLY the CFLs and then see your bill! Anyhow, my laundry dryer has an Energy Star rating of typically 111 KWHs per month. The typical CFL is 11-13 watts. So simple math says that I would have to burn 111,000 divided by 13 = 8538 CFL bulbs! Tell us again how much CFLs save on your total bill! As I said in my previous post, the lighting portion of a typical homeowner's monthly bill is mice nuts! What gobbles up the watts and kilowatts is stove and oven burners, dryers and anything with a motor, like a refrigerator/freezer or a furnace blower. The math is pretty indisputable. Light bulbs are not a big deal, of ANY kind! Now, we just got a new high-efficiency gas furnace that uses modern DC motors inside. We checked out our latest electricity bill. Looks like in addition to the gas savings we also save about $20/month on electricity. If you want to use the new fangled bulbs because it makes you feel you've saved the planet that's fine. If you want to make the claim they save you significant amounts of money the physics and the math do not back it up. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) No they won't....you need to understand not only the physics, but methods and designs of heating systems. They are not all resistive toasters. Not when it comes to being an efficient heater working in a given fluid medium. Your "basically" isn't precise enough for real engineers who do this work for a living. To make a long story short, an incandescent light bulb is a lousy heater design because of the glass-air interface and surface area. Again youre just flat out wrong. An incandescent light bulb is just as efficient as any space heater you can buy on the market. Youve been had by space heaters manufacturers making all kinds of bogus claims, but at the end of the day they all run into the same laws of thermal efficiency. Heres another guy dispelling your urban legend. Myth # 2 : You have to buy a really good electric heater. The manufacturers of space heaters will enthrall and confuse you as to the merits of their product. Don't believe any claims about increased efficiency. All electric heaters are 100% or very close to 100% efficient. Ceramics and oil don't increase efficiency. You still have to heat up the ceramic or oil first. If you want to save the most money, go with the cheapest heater you can find. To make a long story short, an incandescent light bulb is a lousy heater design because of the glass-air interface and surface area. No its a perfect design and theres no such thing as an electric heater thats more efficient. The ONLY expection to this rule is the one you origionally mentioned. A heat pump. The exception to this 100% efficiency rule for electric heaters is a heat pump, which is briefly described at the end of this article. Heat pumps can provide more heat output per unit of electrical energy input than resistance-based heaters, so this leads some heat pump marketers to refer to them as more than 100% efficient, but this is somewhat misleading. Edited February 7, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
guyser Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 ... 3 years ago I converted to Geothermal heating and cooling and I couldn't be happier... What loop system did you use? Water or just ground? Any supplemental as in a wood stove ? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Again youre just flat out wrong. An incandescent light bulb is just as efficient as any space heater you can buy on the market. Youve been had by space heaters manufacturers making all kinds of bogus claims, but at the end of the day they all run into the same laws of thermal efficiency. Nope...you lose...because of other factors that you insist on ignoring. Heating system efficiencies take into account many other factors. Otherwise we would all be using big ass light bulbs for electric heating. An incandescent bulb is not the best choice for both a light source and heater at the same time. The ONLY expection to this rule is the one you origionally mentioned. A heat pump. Tell me something I don't know. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Nope...you lose...because of other factors that you insist on ignoring. Heating system efficiencies take into account many other factors. Otherwise we would all be using big ass light bulbs for electric heating. An incandescent bulb is not the best choice for both a light source and heater at the same time. Tell me something I don't know. I never said it was the best choice. I said it was 100% efficient. You get the same ammount of thermal energy per watt than any other electric heater. My origional point was that CFL lightbulbs save much less energy in areas where you are heating for 8-10 months per year, because those old bulbs were actually reducting your heating costs. You then started spouting nonsense about the "inherent inneficiencies" but there ISNT ANY. Now you seem to have abandoned that claim. An incandescant lightbulb will put exactly the same ammount of heat into your home per watt of electricity as any other electrical heat source. Otherwise we would all be using big ass light bulbs for electric heating. No we wouldnt because incandescant light bulbs burn out. Resistance based heaters with solid metal elements (like baseboard heaters, space heaters, or toasters) can last many decades with no maintenance. Thats the reason why filaments are not used in space heaters. It has nothing at all to do with efficiency. Tell me something I don't know. Well then why the hell did you spend half an hour arguing that there were other exceptions? Jesus... Edited February 7, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 How can you possibly tell? According to your post, you did a whole PILE of stuff! How much of your savings came from the CFLs? Seems pretty obvious that the only way to tell would be to do ONLY the CFLs and then see your bill! Anyhow, my laundry dryer has an Energy Star rating of typically 111 KWHs per month. The typical CFL is 11-13 watts. So simple math says that I would have to burn 111,000 divided by 13 = 8538 CFL bulbs! Tell us again how much CFLs save on your total bill! As I said in my previous post, the lighting portion of a typical homeowner's monthly bill is mice nuts! What gobbles up the watts and kilowatts is stove and oven burners, dryers and anything with a motor, like a refrigerator/freezer or a furnace blower. The math is pretty indisputable. Light bulbs are not a big deal, of ANY kind! Now, we just got a new high-efficiency gas furnace that uses modern DC motors inside. We checked out our latest electricity bill. Looks like in addition to the gas savings we also save about $20/month on electricity. If you want to use the new fangled bulbs because it makes you feel you've saved the planet that's fine. If you want to make the claim they save you significant amounts of money the physics and the math do not back it up. We keep very good records... My wife is an accountant and I'm a genius ... My factual savings, considering my basement and kitchen already were flourescents, from changing incandescent to CFLs inside and outside my house (with the exception of 6 exterior 150w sensored security floodlamps that remain incandescent) when averaged is roughly $7 a month or $84 a year... My switching to Geothermal heating and cooling from natural gas and electric air conditioning as well as switching from a Gas Hot Water tank to an electric hot water tank (which allows the Geothermal heat taken out of the house in summer to preheat the water) is by far the biggest factor in the energy savings I have from the things I've done... A saving of about $120 a month on average... My lowest bill this last summer including cooling & all electricity was $38 including taxes and fixed charges and my highest was just last month (xmas and extreme cold Dec/Jan) at $173 for heating and all electricity used... BTW Bill, how much did your new furnace cost? Did you also buy a new air conditioner or are you still using your old ineficient one? How much saving on energy are you getting from your new furnace vs the old one? Do you know? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Then there are the disposal costs, which will involve either recycling or hazardous waste collection of expired CFL's. THis cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. I prefer to use a combination of both CFL's and incandescents. I like the CFL's where the application involves leaving the light on for long periods of time. CFL's work best that way, and last longest. They are not good for outdoor however, because in my experience they don't like to start, "ignite" in very cold weather. I prefer incandescents where the light is switched on frequently but only briefly. Like lights in the staircase, or the bathroom which also uses a smaller sized buld with the candela base. And in some cases where I want a low level of light, like in the hall outside the bedroom. CFL's, while they are low wattage are not low in light level. Sadly, in the near future I the consumer will no longer have a choice. Thanks to government interference, the incandescents will be BANNED, making their sale, ownership and use illegal. What a bunch of jackasses run this country, and the bigger jackasses are the ones who vote for them, again and again. Right on! Let me add that the BIGGEST jackasses of all are the people that don't vote (even though they can) or vote completely uninformed... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 An incandescant lightbulb will put exactly the same ammount of heat into your home per watt of electricity as any other electrical heat source. No it won't...do you think the light is free? No we wouldnt because incandescant light bulbs burn out. Resistance based heaters with solid metal elements (like baseboard heaters, space heaters, or toasters) can last many decades with no maintenance. Thats the reason why filaments are not used in space heaters. It has nothing at all to do with efficiency. Now you are smarting up. The surface area of a well designed passive or forced air resistive heater makes for a much better experience! Well then why the hell did you spend half an hour arguing that there were other exceptions? Because there are, but far more exotic than this Nichrome wire toaster discussion. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
PIK Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Posted February 7, 2011 CFL bulbs are made for one reason ,there are green and it is good for the world. But really they have a bigger footprint them any other bulb. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
dre Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) No it won't...do you think the light is free? Now you are smarting up. The surface area of a well designed passive or forced air resistive heater makes for a much better experience! Because there are, but far more exotic than this Nichrome wire toaster discussion. Again... you need to do some research. Youre trying to violate the laws of physics. Whats more youve derailed this thread, by trying to pretend that my origional post was wrong when it was completely accurate. Because there are, but far more exotic than this Nichrome wire toaster discussion. Any such solution is going to much LESS efficient if it involves a change of phase. There is no such thing as a way to convert electricity into heat thats more efficient than a resistance element. Edited February 7, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 No, you are still wrong because of the inherent inefficiencies of an incandescent bulb compared to or used as resistive heat. Many other factors will impact the efficacy of heating by incandescent bulb vs. other forms of electric heating. As a child, my sister use to cook food in an Easy Bake Oven powered by incandescent bulbs, but it was not the most efficient design. Oh my, you're right! We're seeing the end of the Easy Bake Oven... Can't let that happen! Release the dogs of WAR! Child power must UNITE over this obvious attack on young females (and a few males too) and REBEL against such tyranny by those who hold power over you... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Nope, Manitoba does not [b]import[/b] ANY Electricity... No need to... Manitoba currently generates approx. 10x the electricity Manitoba needs... It's 100% renewable Hydro Electric, for Canada and the U.S. midwest To increase it's capacity 2 New Hydro Dams are being built (primarily for U.S. consumption needs), currently underway and the subject of much dispute in Manitoba as to the transmission route... To match the U.S. Midwest's future needs the choice is buying clean Hydro from Manitoba or building more Nuclear or coal fired plants in places like North Dakota... Your choice... Manitoba imports power at night. It saves up hydro power, and sells it for more at peak, making a profit. http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/ENV000000009.pdf Quote
waldo Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 Manitoba imports power at night. It saves up hydro power, and sells it for more at peak, making a profit. http://www.gcc.ca/pdf/ENV000000009.pdf I'll raise your dated 2005, 'all Canada' doc, for a more current 2008 graphic showing Manitoba imports mice-nuts... Quote
waldo Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 CFL bulbs are made for one reason ,there are green and it is good for the world. But really they have a bigger footprint them any other bulb. bigger footprint? Citation request Quote
waldo Posted February 7, 2011 Report Posted February 7, 2011 ...halogena light bulbs? I've been using them for several years: The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting’s Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself. The line, for now sold exclusively at Home Depot and on Amazon.com, is not as efficient as compact fluorescent light bulbs, which can use 75 percent less energy than old-style bulbs. But the Energy Saver line is finding favor with consumers who dislike the light from fluorescent bulbs or are bothered by such factors as their slow start-up time and mercury content. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.