Feds Say There Isn't A Single Safe 'Hoverboard' (engadget.com) 146
In the Consumer Product Safety Commission's letter to manufacturers, importers and retailers, it urged them to make sure the scooters they make and sell comply with the safety standards set by Underwriters Laboratories, the organization in charge of certifying that products are safe for use. According to UL Consumer Safety Director John Drengenberg, "no hoverboard has passed the certification process at this time."
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a single [] hoverboard. Big neas.
Re: (Score:2)
news, even.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one [youtube.com] that really is a hoverboard, although it does require a track with magnets embedded in it to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the CPSC's BS. (Score:5, Informative)
The UL standard is still a draft proposal. I know because I tried to acquire a copy late last week. UL only released the document 1/29 and was prepared to evaluate devices as of 2/6. This is a simply an inflammatory sound byte with no merit.
Here's UL's own blog post for more details.
http://www.ul-energy.com/start/the-new-ul-2272-standard-gets-a-handle-on-hoverboard-safety/
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
it's someone from UL trying to instill fear and drum up business for their private, for profit company.
I was going to drum up that UL is a not-for-profit, but it turns out that you're right and I'm behind the times. UL went 'for-profit' back in 2012. [cio.com] Though it seems that the for profit branch is still owned by the non-profit parent company [nrc.gov]. So I wonder how the hell that works out.
I mean, I like businesses. I like companies doing their best to make a profit. Part of the whole libertarian thing. But also as part of the libertarian thing, I'm extremely supportive of non and not-for profits like the UL use
Re: (Score:3)
it's someone from UL trying to instill fear and drum up business for their private, for profit company.
I was going to drum up that UL is a not-for-profit, but it turns out that you're right and I'm behind the times. UL went 'for-profit' back in 2012. [cio.com] Though it seems that the for profit branch is still owned by the non-profit parent company [nrc.gov]. So I wonder how the hell that works out.
I mean, I like businesses. I like companies doing their best to make a profit. Part of the whole libertarian thing. But also as part of the libertarian thing, I'm extremely supportive of non and not-for profits like the UL used to be, cooperatives, and employee-owned companies. My ideal utility company, for example, is a cooperative not-for profit.
UL discarding their 'not-for-profit' status makes me uncomfortable. Before, while I wouldn't term them perfect, I could at least say that the company's primary concern was safety above all else. Sure, they'd charge money - but they needed to keep the lights on. Not needing to turn a profit, they would be mostly immune to the corruption of having to satisfy their customers by passing goods that might not actually be as safe as they could be.
I used to work for a nonprofit which had a for-profit consulting company associated with them. I was on the nonprofit side. The for-profit side had better pay and benefits, for the exact same experience level and job function. The workers on the nonprofit side envied the for-profit side.
There are some disadvantages to being a nonprofit. Legitimate ones. Like the allowable retirement plans under IRS guidelines are different than the ones for normal companies and may not be as favorable to workers.
Re: (Score:2)
it's someone from UL trying to instill fear and drum up business for their private, for profit company.
Let's create a revised version then that isn't designed to drum up business:
Hoverboards (ESSENTIALLY All of them) are Unsafe. Don't buy one. If you have one, then return it if possible, but whatever you do: do not use it.
If you find one with a certification from a NRTL, then it may be less unsafe, but it is the exception to the rule that you will find this, so the prospective buyer is advi
Draft? None certified? Newegg disagrees (Score:2)
http://blog.newegg.com/hoverbo... [newegg.com]
Per newegg:
More importantly, the latest boards are UL certified. “Underwriters Laboratories” is an independent electronic safety certification so getting that UL stamp is a solid start for hovering confidence. Additionally, board makers have also been advertising their batteries as originating from Samsung or LG. So that’s something.
And here's one of the UL certified boards on their site:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/... [newegg.com]
From the specs, it says, "Battery and Charger are UL & CE Certified"
It doesn't say the board is certified, but does that matter if the batter and charger *are* certified?
Re: (Score:2)
Most wall wart chargers can be easily certified and these are available off the shelf from multiple suppliers so that doesn't mean anything.
The battery itself can also be "certified".
The problem is when you put the battery into a poorly designed and built "hoverboard" (i.e. no current limits, temperature sensors, random wires that can be shorted together, etc.) you can end up with the situation where these things have burned down houses.
Re: (Score:2)
The battery itself can also be "certified".
UL should probably prohibit manufacturers from using the UL logo on the packaging or sales material for a consumer product, except internal packaging on the listed components, unless all components and the entire product are listed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
enough for your insurance adjuster to buy you a new house when your hoverboard burns it down.
Whether a house is burnt down by a UL-listed skateboard or a non-UL-listed skateboard has no bearing on insurance coverage.... they have to pay for the new house (minus deductible), either way.
Non-sequitur. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not saying there are ones which comply, only that the summary makes invalid assumptions.
CE Mark as proxy? (Score:2)
Given these devices would need to pass European Certificate, if they were to be sold in Europe, would the presence of a CE mark be sufficient reassurance that the devices meet some sort of minimum acceptable standard, for sale in the USA? I realise this isn't a US certification, but in the absence of US certification, would this provide sufficient reassurance for them to be sold anywhere? Also, is there a federal US equivalent of the CE mark?
In this context, are there any 'self-balancing two wheel boards' (
Re: (Score:3)
Given these devices would need to pass European Certificate, if they were to be sold in Europe, would the presence of a CE mark be sufficient reassurance that the devices meet some sort of minimum acceptable standard, for sale in the USA?
No. Chinese companies put CE marks on all kinds of scandalous shit that has never been certified, and that would never pass certification.
Re: (Score:2)
CE is basically an honor system. It is organized so that you can just claim you meet the standard.
By the way, if you go on eBay to buy stuff from China; it is likewise possible to but cheap-o knock-offs with a fake UL logo on them, or you might even get a cheap knockoff buying some product from a respected merchant whose supply lines were compromised, so someone upstream substituted counterfeit goods.
I think CE and UL badged products are likewise alright, provided you purchase from a reputed source
Re: (Score:1)
If I bought one, I would charge it in my concrete battery bunker. I fly model aircraft and it is pretty standard practice to charge Lipos in bunker made of cinder blocks and rockboard, because, hey, batteries sometimes explode, it's the nature of the beast. It's like when you're doing corrosive etching, you don't do it in your kitchen, you do it in a dedicated fume hood with a safely vented extractor.
I do a great many things at my home laboratory that require special precautions, the problem is there are a
Re: (Score:1)
a) UL is a for-profit company. That the CSPC suggests that they are the gold standard should be prosecuted as government propaganda
b) The UL released standards a week ago; they're behind the curve and expect the CSPC to force the importers to pay them.
c) If you really want to see the cost of certification, see the cost of general aviation. Costs have gone up 10:1 merely because the cost of certification and liability insurance. Almost everything in general aviation is 60's era technology, mostly due to the
Re: (Score:2)
The certification costs in GA really are absurd. But a big problem holding advancement back are is also an outright resistance to advancement by fuddy old sticks-in-the-mud who think they know better than the engineers who build the equipment and refuse to drag *themselves* out of the '50s. [macsblog.com]
"Dag gummit... mah pappy mixed his fuel by 'imself. Mah gran-pappy mixed his fuel by 'imself. I don' need no new-fangled eeee-lec-tronic FADEC telling ME how to mix MY fuel."
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to? Continental went through the trouble of developing and certifying a FADEC piston engine for GA aircraft. But when they tried to sell it, no one could buy because the GA piloting community were under the illusion that they could manage the engine better than the computer.
More importantly (Score:5, Insightful)
They are lucky we live in a time with rule of law, because if we were living in Roman times, I would go burn down their factory and get away with it. Makes me mad every time I see those liars mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that we have used the word hoverboard to describe a mini Segway what are we going to call boards that hover when we get that figured out?
Re: (Score:1)
Floatboards, of course.
Re: More importantly (Score:1)
Can't; that's the name of my new electric roller skates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Waterboards.
Re: (Score:2)
'Boards that actually hover' or 'Back to the Future Boards'?
Re: (Score:1)
McFly Boards
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly there is little hope of that ever happening. (not counting hovering over specially prepared conducting surfaces which at least in principal works)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, but they do. Only briefly though, after the battery blows up.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
We should have a name for these imposter products cashing in on the geek kudos and general goodwill associated with the name "hoverboard".
Hoverfraud comes to mind. Any other suggestions?
Re: (Score:2)
Roverboard or scooterboard.
Re: (Score:1)
More importantly, they don't actually hover.
Or do they?
The underside might be coated with anti-gravitons and the wheels are just there as decoys, so the physicist establishment doesn't get upset and burn down the factory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are lucky we live in a time with rule of law, because if we were living in Roman times, I would go burn down their factory and get away with it.
Yeah good thing they didn't build their self balancing electric scooters in Roman times.
Re: (Score:2)
There is'n t a single safe hoverboard... (Score:2)
There is'n t a single safe hoverboard... all of the safe ones are married.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor skateboards, pogo sticks and baseball bats, among other toys. I guess we should eliminate everything but video games.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dontchu wish your hoverboard was hot like me...!"
Ahh the gray area (Score:2)
For me, things like this come down to the not-so-fine line between personal freedom and involuntary involvement in danger.
My view on this is the same for magnetic buckyballs, extreme sports, recreational drugs and virtually every other case of self-harm. We should focus on idiot-proofing idiots rather idiot-proofing their houses. Let capitalism allow for people to make their own wise decisions.
That said, there's a difference between accidentally eating two buckyballs and shoving them down the throat of som
Re:Ahh the gray area (Score:4, Interesting)
I would agree with you IF the hospitals didn't have to see them when they set themselves on fire or break their neck.
And capitalism is a poor choice for determining what is safe and what is not. The chase for the all mighty dollar would ensure nothing was safe if left to capitalism. You wouldn't have any of the safety features in cars for example that you have today if left to the manufacturers. They cost money after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes and electronic stability control were all offered as options before being government mandated.
Re: (Score:3)
Were they offered because the manufacturers were looking to upsell luxury buyers with in-demand safety features, or because they knew these features were going to be mandated on all cars in the near future, and getting people to pay for them as options was just a way to recoup something off the investment ahead of time?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add that padded dashboards, tire pressure monitors and backup cameras all preceded governmental requirements.
Your turn, name a few safety features which only appeared after regulation was announced.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly didn't know. I have a hazy memory of a fight over air bags requirements in cars in the late 1970s, with car makers opposed and now they are standard. I don't remember specific timelines or when proposed mandates became actual mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That can actually be said for pretty much all automotive safety improvements that are now mandatory. Even safety glass was an option at one time.
Someone above mentioned that if you wanted a Civic (without regulation) that had airbags, ESC, ABS, etc. that it would cost $70,000. Err... That specific car had all those as options before they became mandatory. It was not $70,000. I didn't bother to argue with 'em. I'm lazy and tired.
Re: (Score:2)
Well we could always have common sense added to the common core curriculum it would probably be a better choice than trying to teach everyone advanced quantum mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
Already tried that. It caused some problems:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I didn't see anything I would consider a problem in TFA you linked to.
The only things I think you might be referring to is A. Republicans like sheeple, B. People being able to make their own decisions is somehow a bad thing. or C. You were being sarcastic.
I'm going with A.
Anywho Algebra 3 will not help the 99% and we still teach that.
Why not make sure that they have basic skills like how to open a soda can, use a toilet, open and shut doors, switch lights, use deodorant, bathe, cross the street, etc.
W
Re: (Score:1)
You know that I respect your opinion, right? But... Commonsense requirements? Expectations? Next thing you're going to be talking about personal responsibility and accountability! No, we can't have that...
(Which does not mean that the companies who sell shit products in misleading ways are not responsible and/or accountable. They should be held to a high standard of integrity.)
Re: Ahh the gray area (Score:1)
In addition to the freedom to buy dangerous incendiary devices marketed as toys and the freedom to sell them to unsuspecting buyers, is there not a freedom to be able to buy a device and be reasonably sure that it won't self-combust and kill you in your sleep?
Re: (Score:3)
The letter in question doesn't appear to have anything directly to do with hoverboard safety from a use perspective (falling off, balance, etc) but more from a mechanical/electrical perspective (component failure, faulty wiring, faulty design, etc). That said I wonder if UL's certification tries to backdoor some of these aspects. Lets face it, the CPSC doesn't have a great track record when it comes to letting people exercise personal responsibility. They're the kind of agency that tries to idiot proof t
Re: (Score:2)
If the issue with these handlebar-less segway-like-objects were people losing their balance and falling off and hurting themselves, or trying to do tricks and hurting themselves, I'd agree with you. In that case, it'd be no different than a skateboard or rollerblades, really. And yeah, people should know their limits and not try stunts without adequate precautions or eat magnets and so on. And we should not try to legislate away stupidity.
But this is not a case of user-clumsiness or stupidity. These thi
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not a case of user-clumsiness or stupidity. These things are bursting into flames during routine charging of their batteries when not in use. That makes them a defective product, and IMO crosses the line into the realm of regulation being appropriate.
And furthermore, when one bursts into flames, it tends to be while charging, which means it's *probably* in a house, which is *probably* in a neighborhood. That one fire is very likely to directly affect more people than just the owner of the board.
So, to the GP's statement, I agree:
For me, things like this come down to the not-so-fine line between personal freedom and involuntary involvement in danger.
... and in this case, it seems there's a really good case to be made that these do pose unnecessary risk, to both life and property, to innocent bystanders.
I'd rather have an electric skateboard though (zboard, boosted, marbel,
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. It's one thing that consumers should expect falls and the usual assortment of bruises and such that come with it, but they have a right to expect it not to burst into flames.
The sad thing is that as far as I can tell from videos and pictures, the problem is simply really shoddy construction leading to battery wires shorting, at least in the videos I've seen. It's possible that the ones blowing up on the charger are because the charger isn't tapering off properly, also inexcusable.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but drain cleaner is not sold to kids, unlike buckyballs or hoverboards (regardless of any fine print.)
kinda of backwards (Score:2)
Oh wait, their cheap Chinese batteries light on fire and burn your house down. I almost forgot that.
Re: (Score:2)
America's Funniest Videos was running out of puppy and kid vids, so this multi-disaster product is a godsend.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to expensive Chinese batteries? A strange statement considering most of the lithium comes from South America anyway...
Contrary to popular belief, the main ingredient in Lithium batteries isn't Lithium, but Cobalt.
The majority of the raw ore comes from Congo, but is refined by the Chinese.
Thunderf00t found the problem. (Score:2)
Thunderf00t found the problem. These boards have a faulty kill switch on their charging system that prevents the batteries from overcharging, or falling below 1% of battery power. A large number of these boards can be over charged which makes them blow up like they do. This is a defect that should be resolved by a class action against the manufacturer, and a recall of the boards to have the charging system retrofitted and upgraded.
Everyone already knew the problem (Score:2)
Thunderfuck did not find the problem. Everyone knew what the problem was.
Re: (Score:2)
a class action against the manufacturer
How do you think (assuming you're in the US) you're going to start a class action against a manufacturer somewhere in China, and who may have gone out of business already? Lawsuits are not the fix for your personal responsibility of due diligence when buying toys. These things are currently retailing at prices of (converted) under USD 200 a piece! Far less than I payed for my already cheap smartphone. Batteries, fairly strong motors, electronics - of course corners are being cut to meet such crazy low pric
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. This product's image has been damaged. Even if you came out with a safe one, it will take months for that to go through people's minds. Hoverboards are already outlawed in many cities.
As well as transportation between: December 10, 2015 (11am PST): Delta, United, and American Airlines announce that they have banned hoverboards from their flights.
UL? (Score:1)
too high of a current load (Score:1)
Extra word (Score:2)
What they really meant to say is,
"There isn't a single hoverboard".
The closest thing I've seen is the Lexus maglev board+track pair, but that's just a gimmick.
Re: (Score:2)
The Lexus hoverboard uses superconducting electromagnets and a skate park with magnets in the surface; it requires both charging and refills of liquid nitrogen.
The Hendo hoverboard works on a magnetic interference effect. It requires a conductive but nonmagnetic surface - copper or aluminum, say - and just needs recharging, but it's rather loud.
The Hendo is bulkier than the Lexus, but copper or aluminum have GOT to be a lot cheaper than building a magnetic park.
5 best hoverboards (Score:2)
Top Hoverboards - Updated February 2016
Our extensive analysis of the top hoverboards and our pick for your best bet.
http://bestreviews.com/5-best-... [bestreviews.com]
"In the end, it comes down to personal preference. These things are an absolute joy to ride around, and it’s no wonder they have become an international phenomenon. If you have the risk appetite for it, you will be sure to have a lot of fun zipping through the street on the hottest toy in town."
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong link.
You accidentally posted a link to a page with mini-segways rather than hoverboards.
Huh, works for me Opera 12 and Vivaldi ; and it's a worthwhile article.
http://bestreviews.com/ [bestreviews.com] then scroll down to Miscellaneous > Hoverboards
or add to the link http://bestreviews.com/ [bestreviews.com] 5-best-hover-boards
Re: (Score:2)
hottest toy in town.
Quite literally
Quoting the article
"The few hoverboards that have caught on fire were knockoffs whose battery packs did not pass inspect UL certification (UL is a global independent testing laboratory that tests consumer products for safety). As a result, many carriers including Amazon, banned all models from their shelves until the manufacturers could prove that they went through the proper UL inspection procedures."
Call them FIREboards (Score:2)
Media's obsession with the pleasant lie is something we may never solve, but we don't have to encourage them.
L. Neil Smith was right... (Score:1)
It seems the libertarian Sci-Fi authors were right. It is illegal to redesign the skateboard with fewer wheels and add electric motors.
LOL!
reverse that ... (Score:1)
43% of US voters view federal corruption as their main concern.
Re:Don't Listen to UL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Your main argument is nonsensical.
UL is a private company. If you believe that companies would compromise safety in the name of profit if they could get away with it, why don't you think that UL (a company) would compromise safety in the name of profit?
You're also indirectly making an argument that safer = more expensive, which is idiotic.
Re: (Score:3)
And no, I'm not "indirectly" saying that safer == more expensive, I am SAYING that "safer (whatever THAT means) increases manufactured cost", which, in my experience, is true; and I've built products both for UL and CSA approvals.
Re:Don't Listen to UL (Score:5, Insightful)
There are actually some cases where OP is correct; a certifiable product may be less safe than a non-certifiable product given different design priorities.
That said, the same OP's issue is true of every trade organization or "independent" third party. Good luck getting ASHRAE, IEEE, GSM, or any other standards body information freely. If you want a certification, you are stuck paying for it, be it LEED, Uptime Institute, NCEES, or whatever. It was only recently that municipalities had to make building codes available freely online.
Re: Don't Listen to UL (Score:2, Informative)
GSM standards, including the test conditions, procedures and expected results are all free. Check 3gpp.org and go to the specs area.
Re: (Score:3)
NoNon is correct. I also design products that get listed with UL,CSA, & other listing agencies. I've not seen where getting a product certified ever made it "less safe". I suppose it's possible but I can't imagine how.
Getting listed with UL is not all that hard but then I've never sent something to them that wasn't already tested. Bigger problem is timing, meaning getting the fucking marketing pukes to understand it has to be done & takes time & money. Oh & getting the check requests si
Re:Don't Listen to UL (Score:5, Informative)
NoNon is correct. I also design products that get listed with UL,CSA, & other listing agencies. I've not seen where getting a product certified ever made it "less safe". I suppose it's possible but I can't imagine how.
I can. Use of new materials that for every conceivable test are stronger or less brittle or less toxic or whatever other safety measure is considered may constitute a fail if that material hasn't yet been approved by the checklists UL use. Even if TUV and others have approved it, and even recommend it over the less safe alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
I can. Use of new materials that for every conceivable test are stronger or less brittle or less toxic or whatever other safety measure is considered ...
Is this hypothetical? Or can you actually cite a real example of this happening?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Arth1 did remind me of a situation caused by not so much listing agencies but of new regulations. California passed the "no-lead" in plumbing law followed by all of the U.S. In the end CSA also adopted it so it covers all of North America. Free machining brass (C360000) can't be used on wetted surface in potable water systems. This brass has been used for quite some time & I am not sure of the science behind the regulation. I've read both sides of the argument & it's hard to know for s
Re: (Score:2)
This is unlikely to be a safety issue but it will result in more leaks & floods in homes. So there is an example!
I see. So my pipes would be less likely to leak if I was more willing to accept neurological damage and lower IQ in my children. Great example.
The plumbing in my house is PVC. It doesn't leak.
Re: (Score:2)
PVC cracks & leaks all the time. However, chances are good that you won't have a problem (as with all indoor plumbing systems, it works 99.9% of the time). Unless your complete plumbing system is a new, you have fittings/valves/faucets made out of C360000 brass. If memory serves, it has 3% lead in it. Sooo... TO LATE! No worries though, really. As I said, they outlawed it with no science, just lobbyists from the owners of the IP around the low-lead alloys. Your plumbing system will not poison yo
Re: (Score:2)
UL has a reputation to hold up. I can understand such a situation happening, but I can't understand it to last long. UL will have to come up with very good reasons not to approve of a new material/technology that other well established institutes already approved of. If UL would drag their feet, that'd likely mean first loss of business (safety certificates requested from others) and later bad publicity ("we have to lower quality to get UL certification!") leading to loss of reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
UL is a private company. If you believe that companies would compromise safety in the name of profit if they could get away with it, why don't you think that UL (a company) would compromise safety in the name of profit?
Circular logic. Why wouldn't a government agency do it too? After all, they're owned by businesses, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the only safe way to do it is by eliminating all regulations and then via government mandate of lowest bidder privately run monopoly rules. Vote Trump! See also Walker in Wisconsin where the entire Civil Service has been turned into a Governor run patronage brothel.
If you say so, but last I looked UL was doing a good job.
Re: (Score:1)
I have been asked to make changes to products and processes in order to pass some top-of-the-head, non-documented BS that a certification evaluator (I wouldn't give them the courtesy of calling them an engineer) made up, which would have made them less secure. We designed a product to deal with highly sensitive company data and did so with security in mind; the company auditing the security of the product wanted to weaken security, for no good reason other than to obtain their stamp of approval. Some exampl
Re: Don't Listen to UL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been in any number of situations where the businessmen involved were serious and sincere about following the law. They went out of their way to do so. This "people will cheat" nonsense is just outright misanthropic. Amend it to "a small number of people will cheat" and you're more correct.
PS UL is a bitch to deal with, their company is arrogant and expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
They're serious about following the law because they think they'll be caught if they don't. If you remove the enforcement -- and enforcement is what safety certifications are for -- then they'll cheat a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably most hoverboards are unsafe, but definitely no all. All Ninebot devices (The owner of Segway) have real time battery temperature monitoring, charge state reporting through bluetooth and even speed throttling. These include even the $300 Ninebot mini. I'm half expecting a knee jerk reaction bill to block the use of an otherwise perfectly fine vehicle just because a couple factories flooded the market with crap. I'll bet it would be soon illegal for me to add my own temperature/charge monitoring c
UL = ripoff (Score:2)
>>The only reason UL exists is to generate income for UL. Having been through several "certification" cycles on various products, it's very clear that they exist only to run a highly-organized shakedown.
That's true. UL is ripping off companies. The US market often does not accept the lawful alternatives (NRTLs), and often you have to explain US law to a US customer. Strange. FYI, a UL certification from UL costs 2-3 times more than the exact same certification according to the exact same UL/ISO/IEC st
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you don't have any incandescent light bulbs then?