A few years ago I needed to increase the light in a kitchen lit by an overhead fluorescent fixture. As I found it, it had two 4-foot T8 735 tubes and an "energy-saving" (read: light-reducing) instant-start ballast. To make it brighter without the hassle and expense of replacing the lamp fixture, I replaced the ballast with the highest-overdriving ballast I could find that could drive a pair of F32 T8's. After some online research, I wound up buying a Philips Advance IOP3P32HL90CSC (a.k.a. IOP3P32HL90CSC3SI , sometimes with several hyphens inserted for readability). It can drive either 2 or 3 bulbs, but overdrives more when used with 2 bulbs. This was a few years ago, there might be something better now, but 1.37 ballast factor replacing a 0.87 or something makes a substantial improvement in brightness. I also upped the brightness slightly by replacing the TL735 bulbs with TL830 or TL835's which are slightly brighter and have better color rendering, which the eye perceives as adding brightness. Re: Philips TL930/TL950 :I've used both the Philips TL930 (95CRI) and TL950 (98CRI) 4-foot tubes., which fortunately I was able to buy two at a time from the local retailer. The TL950s illuminated my kitchen; the 930s went into a basement rec room where they match the color temperature of halogen downlights. The TL950s won't blow you away upon first turning them on - they look like typical cool/sunlight fluorescents at first. Its just that the different colors really pop out well and cleanly and the colors jump out at you rather than being dulled. The kitchen there has no windows, and in the morning sunlight, I noticed the ambient light from the windows across the apartment matched the TL950 light in the kitchen perfectly. If I take pictures with a film camera loaded with standard color film (daylight-balanced), pictures taken with available light indoors under typical "cool white" fluorescents lend an awful greenish cast to everything, but those shot under TL950s had perfect color. That says boatloads about the TL950's color accuracy. As for the lower lumen output, I again compensated by overdriving them by about 25%. I needed a rapid-start ballast for these fixtures, and went with a GE/Motorola ballast that overdrives a pair of F32 T8's with a ballast factor of about 1.20 IIRC, not as bright as the Philips I mentioned above but adequate for my needs here, plus I needed rapid-start rather than instant-start for this application. There are (were?) 2700K, 3500K, 4100K, and 6500K versions of these bulbs sold in Europe. Too bad they aren't sold in North America.

wryorwhite -- Don't be scared by all this talk of yellowing. It's exaggerated. Bear in mind that oil-based paint was essentially all that was used in American homes through the 1980s -- so unless you're a teenager, you were around when any house you'd walk into (including the one in which you grew up) had its walls painted with oil-based paint. Trust yourself and your own experience...do you ever remember walking into a house and thinking to yourself "My, these walls are awfully yellowed!"? I sure don't. When's the last time you've heard someone say "Oh, look at those walls! They've gone from looking like snow to looking like Big Bird! This is certainly oil-based paint!"? Never. Yes, oil-based paint yellows very slighly with time. So do all oil-based products, including the clear polyurethane with which wood floors are most often finished. This "yellowing" effect is minimal, and it's not something that jumps out at you or is offensive or anything like that. You have to actively look for it, and the only people who do that are (a) homosexuals, and (b) people who work in the marketing departments of latex-based paint companies. The drawbacks of latex-based paint have largely been resolved in the past few years. The latex-based paints of 2008 are a far cry from the ones of 20 years ago. This is especially true with the high-quality brands like Pratt & Lambert. Modern high-end latex pains bond to drywall well, hold up to moisture and cleaning well, etc. However - latex-based paints aren't as good as oil-based paints when it comes to moisture and dirt resistance, standing up to scrubbing, and bonding to wood. They never can be, because oil (unlike latex) naturally resists water, and naturally soaks into wood (rather than just sitting on top like a skin). Think of what happens when you mix oil and water -- they don't mix; instead, they just separate and keep apart. So moisture and dirt don't bond to the oil-based paint, so it's very easy to clean without damage. In addition, oil-based paint soaks into wood -- unlike latex-based paint, which forms into a skin that you can peel off. This is one of the big drawbacks of using latex paint on high-traffic wood items (like kitchen cabinets). My house has latex-based paint on the walls and ceilings, and oil-based paint on all the wood trim (including the doors and windows and cabinets) -- this is a time-tested and popular arrangement, and it has held up very well for me and my neighbors. Speaking of polyurethane -- there are two types, oil-based and water-based (latex-based) - same as paint. ALL of the manufacturers -- Minwax, Cabot, etc. -- recommend strongly in favor of using the oil-based polyurethane on floors. It's tougher, it holds up better to traffic and moisture, and this "yellowing" effect that the self-proclaimed experts yammer on about are so minimal as to be non-existent. The same is true with the oil-based vs. water-based (latex-based) paints. Again, trust yourself and your own experiences -- how many times have you walked into a home and thought to yourself that the painted walls and ceilings, or the wood floors, were yellowed?

There is no energy code problem with using old windows MA although I would advise against it since the likehood of earlier insulating glass seal failure is so great. It's not a good investment. The residential energy code for Massachusetts is contained in Appendex J of the Building Code which contains no mention of the Energy Star program which is a voluntary energy conservation program sponsered by the EPA. In MA the windows of a house have no minimum standard; they are considered one element contributing to the total heat loss of the structure. The easiest way to show compliance is to enter heat loss and equipment efficiency information for the entire structure into a computer program called "REScheck" (supplied by the state) which returns a pass or fail notice. Another way to prove compliance is to have an engineer calculate the heat loss of the structure and certify compliance. Compliance proof must be submitted with the application for a building permit. There is an exception clause for additions to existing houses which sets the acceptable U & R values for each element of the addition rather than requiring analysis of the entire house. The maximum U-value for fenestration in an addition is .39 The current residential energy code in CT is the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) published by the ICC. "REScheck" software can be used to show compliance just like in MA. Here is a link that might be useful: MA residential energy code

Vic: I really appreciate all your great info! Excuse my ignorance....is a 3/4" ogee the most simple one? If so, that is the one I want. Actually, this is for my Bathroom 6 foot x 22", double bowl, and a 49"x22", single bowl, in other bathroom. I should not have any seams with this size vanity....is that correct? I have received 3 quotes from 3 different certified fabricators in my area. Both are basically the same price for the 6 ft vanity....!$1900, but vary in price with the 2nd smaller vanity top....being $1100-1350 from first 2 fabricators. The 3rd fabricator gave me a price of $1680 for 1st vanity, $551.00 for 2nd vanity with a $250.00 upcharge (what is that?), which makes it less expensive than the first two. The first 2 said it didn't matter if I was buying a slab or not, cost-wise, but the 3rd said they could give me a break because of my buying a slab. Is this true? They all charge $75.00 - $79.00 for mounting the sinks which I am suppying, but do not do plumbing except for the 1st one, which is a Bath shop that uses a fabricator. Gees. This is confusing. Should I ask them for references? I'm leaning towards the 3rd fabricator as they are more reasonable than the others. Sorry for being so long on this, but I want to make the right decision on this one. Thanks, again, Vic. Jani