[Mr.T]

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
As I said Graham, your faith in a system of democracy that allows the
small
man to have a say, is heartning even, but rather out of date I think.

By a couple of thousand years IMO. Democracy started and ended in ancient
Greece. Then quasi (representitive) democracy was invented, when they could
even be bothered with the pretence. Which wasn't all that often anyway.

We have not had democracy of that sort in the UK for at least the last 10
years

You think you did have it under Maggie Thatcher :-)
But don't worry, The USA is worse under Bush, and so is Australia under
Howard.

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"Arny Krueger"


10-4 good buddy!


** Oh - how the once high and mighty have fallen.

Arny is now a grinning, dribbling, pathetic caricature of his once proud
self.

Dementia is most cruel.

But the Good Lord knows who to punish.

Arny's days are all numbered.





........ Phil

[Phil Allison]

Peter Wieck = CRIMINAL ****wit YANK ****



** Just ignore the above totally autistic YANK psychopath.


The basic truths about CFLs are all documented here.

The public is being massively LIED to by all involved.

Much of the info on the page below is my material.


http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm




........ Phil

[[email protected]]

On Jun 29, 10:45 am, "Phil Allison" wrote:

Much of the info on the page below is my material.

Phil:

You are proud of this?

It is as cogent, accurate and thoughtful as your manners are fit for
polite society. Just like knowledge, a little truth badly distorted is
a very dangerous thing.

There is a school of thought that fanatics are the worst possible
advocates for a cause as they are ideologically unable to accept
anything that is counter to their closely held beliefs. You are a
fanatic, and no help to your cause as anything looks reasonable by
comparison.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Phil Allison]

Peter Wieck = CRIMINAL ****wit YANK MORON



** Just ignore the above, totally autistic YANK psychopath.



The basic truths about CFLs are all documented here.

The public is being massively LIED to by all involved.

Much of the info on the page below is my material.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm





........ Phil

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore ASD retarded MORON"
dizzy wrote:


The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all
to warm
a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.


** Its a whole lot worse that just wrong.

It is massively asinine, autistic ****wit think.

The only kind the Graham Stevenson menace ever does.




........ Phil

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eeyore wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Graham


Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Mr.T]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing
extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room
thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod
all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Then you've never been in a TV studio

Hey you're both partly right. As it generates heat, it will add *something*
to the room temperature. But if the fitting is at ceiling height, and since
hot air rises, it is not an efficient way to warm the part of the room that
humans inhabit. And if you don't have ceiling insulation, it will do even
less.
It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

Of course the radiant heat from studio lamps is far greater than normal
domestic bulbs, but I wouldn't want to be paying for the electricity they
use either.
Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

MrT.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Eeyore wrote in
:



dizzy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing
extra heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room
thermostat (or radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod
all to warm a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.

Graham



Yes it is. Most of the heat is radiant. Just because the intensity falls
off fourfold per unit distance doesn't mean the energy vanishes. Even if
you consider the ceiling covering nearly half of the volume through which
heat tries to radiate through, the shallow angle of incidence means that
most of that reflects to join the rest to warm the walls and anything else
it can reach. The small amount of heat above the lamp is from convection,
and keeping the bulb clean will help to let the heat radiate more
efficiently and usefully.

Cieling heat isn't useless in heating a room anyway. While I think it IS a
bit daft, I remember a house I visited a few times as a kid, it had a low
temperature heater in the entire ceiling of one room. It was very low-grade
heat, but it still warned the room. I felt it on my face when I looked up
at it. Less so while sitting, but not much, because the area was so large.
Similarly, a lightbulb radiating across a ceiling adds heat usefully to the
whole room. More in fact (proportionally), because more of it is radiated
than conducted away above.

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in
u:

It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.


It is, and it's not wise. It places stresses on the body, strong enough to
make it ill. I remember getting into the strong localised heat one winter.
I ended up shivering if I moved away to another room, even if moving out of
the direct radiance. Going outside felt terrible. I had headaches and flu-
like symptoms. It was one of the more stupid experiments I ever tried.

It's far better to live with a well-spread heat source that doesn't cause
strong changes. That way the body can maintain thermal equilibrium and stay
safe, the immune system strengthens, and going outside is an easy extension
of internal activity. It makes it easier to get used to wider extremes.

If I have to use a radiant heater, I point it at distant furnishings at low
level but not at me. Most times I now rely on convection and low-grade
radiation from electrical devices, relying on their waste heat and on good
home insulation but also good ventilation. In short, anything that produces
heat but no strong thermal gradients. I've found it the most healthy way to
get heating done. A single strong lamp in the centre of the ceiling fits
into that well enough.

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
dizzy wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

Wrong.

Not wrong.


Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.

It's a hell of a lot hotter up where the lamps are.

Besides, TV spotlights are hardly a valid comparison with ordinary domestic lighting.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

I have one of those. It's quite nice in the winter.

Graham

[Phil Allison]

"Chris Jones"
Phil Allison wrote:

Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.

Not true in the US.


** So ****ing what ?

God you stinking YANKS are so ****ing parochial.

Actually, I think. ...


** Not a ****ing chance in hell of that.



Australia is VERY
UNUSUAL in having a lot of very cheap coal-generated electricity,


** ******** - lotsa places have abundant coal or natural gas.


... in Australia the general public does not even recognise that
resistive
electric heating is stupid.


** Far from true - it is the cleanest, safest means of heat possible a
home environment.

PLUS - fuel heating is not an option for a large fraction of home dwellers.



In most developed countries, the cost of
electricity is higher and therefore more efficient methods of heating
(such
as heat pumps or even just burning fossil fuel directly in the house - and
avoiding the pathetic 35% efficiency of power stations) - are much more
common.


** Burning oil or coal in a house where modest heating is only really
needed for one or two months a year is INSANE.



If the low efficiency and consequent heat generation of filament bulbs ie
an
"advantage" to you, then exactly how low would you like the efficiency to
be, for the ideal light bulb? Perhaps you could paint half of the bulb
black, to reduce the efficiency further, in you "better" bulb, and fit a
black lamp shade, and wear sunglasses....Then you could install ten times
more wattage of lamps and your lighting would be ideal...


** ROTFL !!!

What a posturing pile of sub human **** you are - Chris.



I agree with some of your other criticisms of at least some CFLs, and I
think that a ban on incandescent bulbs is stupid, but this idea that the
low efficiency (and consequent heat generation) of incandescent bulbs is a
good thing just doesn't make sense.


** Shame how simple facts make no sense to a asinine ****wit like you -
Chris.

Donkey rooting is about all the likes of you can manage.




....... Phil

[Chris Jones]

Phil Allison wrote:
Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.

Not true in the US.


** So ****ing what ?

God you stinking YANKS are so ****ing parochial.

Actually, I think that this is a bit hypocritical. Australia is VERY
UNUSUAL in having a lot of very cheap coal-generated electricity, so cheap
that in Australia the general public does not even recognise that resistive
electric heating is stupid. In most developed countries, the cost of
electricity is higher and therefore more efficient methods of heating (such
as heat pumps or even just burning fossil fuel directly in the house - and
avoiding the pathetic 35% efficiency of power stations) - are much more
common.

If the low efficiency and consequent heat generation of filament bulbs ie an
"advantage" to you, then exactly how low would you like the efficiency to
be, for the ideal light bulb? Perhaps you could paint half of the bulb
black, to reduce the efficiency further, in you "better" bulb, and fit a
black lamp shade, and wear sunglasses....Then you could install ten times
more wattage of lamps and your lighting would be ideal...

I agree with some of your other criticisms of at least some CFLs, and I
think that a ban on incandescent bulbs is stupid, but this idea that the
low efficiency (and consequent heat generation) of incandescent bulbs is a
good thing just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and being rude won't make you right, by the way.

Chris

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message

Then you've never been in a TV studio

Hey you're both partly right. As it generates heat, it will add *something*
to the room temperature. But if the fitting is at ceiling height, and since
hot air rises, it is not an efficient way to warm the part of the room that
humans inhabit. And if you don't have ceiling insulation, it will do even
less.



Military TV station in Alaska in the early '70s: Halogen studio
lights at the ceiling, and less than half in use at any one time. In the
winter I would open the back door to the studio to allow the sub zero
air into the studio to keep it below 80 degrees. In the summer, the
talking heads did the news in a dress uniform shirt and jacket, and
their underwear, because there was no air conditioning.


It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

Of course the radiant heat from studio lamps is far greater than normal
domestic bulbs, but I wouldn't want to be paying for the electricity they
use either.


Newer studio cameras need less light than the older models. That
reduces studio operating costs, and mantainenece costs, as well.


Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.


Its stupid NOT to have a reflector on any ceiling mounted lamp. When
it comes to studio lighting, there are different types of fixtues to
choose from. The choice depends on the lighting pattern that is
required. Also, small studio spotlights are used with brass Gobos to
project patterens on the studio walls. The last custom one I made was a
Shamrock, for an Irish preacher, who was visiting WACX TV.

http://www.sfxdesigninc.com/v2/ for examples of stock Gobos.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

[Arfa Daily]

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Phil Allison wrote:
Homes in Australia are mostly all electric.

Not true in the US.


** So ****ing what ?

God you stinking YANKS are so ****ing parochial.

Actually, I think that this is a bit hypocritical. Australia is VERY
UNUSUAL in having a lot of very cheap coal-generated electricity, so cheap
that in Australia the general public does not even recognise that
resistive
electric heating is stupid. In most developed countries, the cost of
electricity is higher and therefore more efficient methods of heating
(such
as heat pumps or even just burning fossil fuel directly in the house - and
avoiding the pathetic 35% efficiency of power stations) - are much more
common.

If the low efficiency and consequent heat generation of filament bulbs ie
an
"advantage" to you, then exactly how low would you like the efficiency to
be, for the ideal light bulb? Perhaps you could paint half of the bulb
black, to reduce the efficiency further, in you "better" bulb, and fit a
black lamp shade, and wear sunglasses....Then you could install ten times
more wattage of lamps and your lighting would be ideal...

I agree with some of your other criticisms of at least some CFLs, and I
think that a ban on incandescent bulbs is stupid, but this idea that the
low efficiency (and consequent heat generation) of incandescent bulbs is a
good thing just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and being rude won't make you right, by the way.

Chris

I'm not sure that anyone said it was actually a 'good' thing, just that it's
not as bad a thing, taken in context, as some factions would have us
believe. Doing stuff like blackening the bulb is not really a valid argument
to throw into the equation. No one is trying to advocate incandescent bulbs
as a form of heating. The argument is just that as the heat is a by product
of the production of the light, it has to be factored in where room heating
is the norm for large parts of the year.

Arfa

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and
1200 lumens for a
20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter
than a standard
40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

MrT.

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and
1200 lumens for a 20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter
than a standard 40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have lasted a
long, long time.

Graham

[Mr.T]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Military TV station in Alaska in the early '70s: Halogen studio
lights at the ceiling, and less than half in use at any one time. In the
winter I would open the back door to the studio to allow the sub zero
air into the studio to keep it below 80 degrees. In the summer, the
talking heads did the news in a dress uniform shirt and jacket, and
their underwear, because there was no air conditioning.

Its stupid NOT to have a reflector on any ceiling mounted lamp. When
it comes to studio lighting, there are different types of fixtues to
choose from. The choice depends on the lighting pattern that is
required. Also, small studio spotlights are used with brass Gobos to
project patterens on the studio walls. The last custom one I made was a
Shamrock, for an Irish preacher, who was visiting WACX TV.

http://www.sfxdesigninc.com/v2/ for examples of stock Gobos.


And the relevence to the current discussion is ..... ????????

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have
lasted a
long, long time.

120V, or 240V like we have here?
Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years or
more.
I know which I prefer!

MrT.

[James Sweet]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have
lasted a
long, long time.

120V, or 240V like we have here?
Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years or
more.
I know which I prefer!

MrT.



The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.

Some are crap and fail quickly, others last years. Start cycles seems to
have a large effect on life, the ones that are in dusk till dawn lights
outdoors have lasted me to or beyond their rated life, save for one that
failed in the first couple weeks.

Full size fluorescent tubes do last a long time, though the ballast is the
reason for most of this. CFL ballasts are just not robust, they're built to
be disposable.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
In Australia the "reputable makes" are simply rebadged Chinese **** as
well.
Are you sure you are not simply being fooled as well?

I'd like to know if you've tried a Philips CFL.

Why don't you read what I have already written then?

IF you CAN read this, I will repeat once again, I have tried MANY Phillips
badged CFL's, of at least 3 different types.
NONE were any bloody good, one was DOA brand new! You're welcome to come
collect it and test it for yourself! :-)
I'm NOT buying any more of their overpriced ****e.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:t5Ihi.2134$DM4.1499@trndny06...
The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.

Which do fail.

Some are crap and fail quickly, others last years.

Never had one that lasted "years", and I've used dozens.
12-18 months is the best I've had, zero being the worst.

Start cycles seems to
have a large effect on life,

Of course, and turning off lights when not in use saves more power than
leaving CFL's on.

the ones that are in dusk till dawn lights
outdoors have lasted me to or beyond their rated life, save for one that
failed in the first couple weeks.

Wow, and how much power can you save by turning them off?
My outdoor lights are solar powered.

Full size fluorescent tubes do last a long time, though the ballast is the
reason for most of this. CFL ballasts are just not robust, they're built
to
be disposable.

Not all. I did buy a two part CFL once, and when the tube failed, no
replacements are available.
Back to standard tubes for me!

MrT.

[Phil Allison]

"James Sweet" wrote in message

The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.


** Where do fools like Sweet get this ******** from ??

120 volt and 240 volt CFLs drive circuits mostly have the very similar
topology.

The tubes for the latter simply run at half the current of the former.

See for 120 volt CFLs.

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/cflamp1.pdf

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/cflamp2.pdf

See for 240 volt CFLs.

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html


All 14 shown use a bridge rectifier at the AC input.


]

........ Phil

[John Phillips]

On 2007-07-01, Eeyore wrote:


"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have lasted a
long, long time.

I'm just onto my second set of CFLs (GE) in the living room. I estimate
the first set (Osram, 23W, bought at great expense some eight years ago),
lasted for between 7,300 and 8,800 hours of actual use.

The Osram 23W in the kitchen is original and eight years old. It doesn't
do so many hours but it does get switched on and off very frequently.
So I am not convinced of the argument I occasionally see that on/off
cycles kill CFLs.

--
John Phillips

[Phil Allison]

"John Phillips"

The Osram 23W in the kitchen is original and eight years old. It doesn't
do so many hours but it does get switched on and off very frequently.
So I am not convinced of the argument I occasionally see that on/off
cycles kill CFLs.



** It kills the ones that are designed to start and reach full output very
quickly.

The heaters are run hotter in them and have high initial current levels.

Many independent tests have been done to verify the destructive effect of
many short cycles and it IS true.


........ Phil

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have
lasted a long, long time.

120V, or 240V like we have here?

240V.


Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years or
more.
I know which I prefer!

The years depend on hours use per day of course but I have some that are used a
lot of the time (hall lighting for example) and I've had several years use from
them. Maybe around 3 years.

Graham

[n cook]

Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote
Eeyore wrote

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W
incandescent.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W
and
1200 lumens for a 20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly
brighter
than a standard 40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

I noticed that from the start. They never stood up to the brightness
claims they made about them, but it isn't even just that. There is
something dingy in the quality of light that isn't fixed by going up
in power.


That's pretty much my (or at least, my wife's) view. She can't stand
the
light they give, much prefers halogens for reading and incandescents
for
background lighting. Ths was part of the reason why I was trying to
find
out
if converting to CFLs would really help reduce energy use, or just move
the
energy equation from UK electricity use at home to Chinese energy usage
in
the factory, which is most likely produced from dirtier sources. So
far,
I
haven't seen any reliable figures for end-to-end engy usage on CFLs,
just
consumption and lifetime.

A 23W CFL will save 462 kWh over a 100W incandescent during a typical
low
end
6000 hour lifetime. Adjust upwards for 12,000 and 15,000 hour examples.

There's no question of simply 'exporting pollution'. Also, don't forget
to
factor in the energy to make anywhere between 6 and 15 incandescent
bulbs
for
every CFL.

Graham

But also factor in the many more processes and transport movements to make
that one CFL. The PCB material has to be made. That then has to be shipped
to a PCB manufacturer, and from there to the lamp manufacturer. All of the
components on the PCB have to be made and shipped, and the materials to
make
*them* made and shipped. Just think of an electrolytic cap for instance,
There's aluminium, steel, nickel, copper, rubber, paper, acid. Switching
tranny has copper, ferrite, steel, nickel, glue. Semicons have similar
metals plus silicon plus doping agents plus plastic. Every one of those
items has it's own manufacturing processes, spread all over the world, all
using energy, and no doubt creating their own pollutants. Plus workers
that
have to be transported to and from a factory that has to be kept warm ( or
air-co'd ) and lit. They also have to be fed whilst they are there. Each
transport operation is another inefficient energy user, as the weight of
the
transporting vehicle has to be shifted every time, as well as the load it
is
carrying. Shifting the weight of a ship or aircraft is significant
compared
to the weight of cargo it carries. Once all of those parts have arrived at
Philips or wherever, then they have to be assembled up into a CFL. I
don't
really see how this whole process doesn't constitute "exporting pollution"
??

Also factor in the 'proper' recycling that is going to have to be done in
order for them to comply with the WEEE directive which already exists, but
for some reason, does not seem to be being applied to these devices at
this
time. Clearly, the energy budget calculation for the manufacturing,
lifetime
use, and disposal of these CFLs is very complex and probably almost
impossible to actually do with any accuracy but, when it comes down to it,
I'm willing to bet that there would not actually be much in it when
compared
to manufacturing, using and disposing of 10 incandescents with their very
limited materials, processes and transport counts.

Unfortunately, these lamps are just another example of eco-hype, where it
is
very easy to fool the average punter ( and politician, it would seem )
with
a bit of pseudo science regarding their apparent 'green' credentials with
regard to power consumption and lifetime. I don't dispute that they have
their place, and in pure terms of how much money they are going to take
out
of my pocket in running costs, they almost certainly win over
incandescents.
However, as others have mentioned, the light that they produce is not very
pleasant to 'use', nor is it very decorative, no matter how the
manufacturers mix up the phosphors to try to match the colour temperature
of
an incandescent. Also, as Don says, where the useage period is short, and
there is not enough time for them to warm up properly, or where instant
full
light is required, as when entering a room in the dark, they are less than
satisfactory. This problem is exacerbated in Northern Europe winters,
where
it is both dark AND cold ...

Arfa



The colour supplement
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/0,,180242,00.html
of this paper on Saturday had pictures( p5 5,38,39 )of the end result of
those otherwise empty shipping containers going back to the east and WEEE
directive.
For little more than the admin costs they can fill the containers with our
e-waste. Mountains of CRTs , circuit boards having been heat stripped of
components , lead and tin and dumped in the Indian countryside.


--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Mr.T wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

I see 1710, 1730 and 1750 on packages having "standard" incandescents,
as low as 1670 for 750 hour soft white.

The lowest wattage CFLs I have seen produce 1700-plus lumens are the
Philips 25 watt SLS (1750 lumens) and 26 watt spirals.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and
1200 lumens for a 20W.

I think some 18 watt ones produce 1200 lumens. A standard 75W
incandescent (120V 750 hour) produces 1190-1210 lumens. So optimistically
an 18W CFL in new condition will match that.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter
than a standard 40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

They're probably comparing to an industrial service 60W incandescent,
which does indeed produce only about 600 lumens.

In my experience, a 13W CFL in new condition matches a 60W standard
incandescent when things are going well for the CFL.

The usual actual "standard incandescent" equivalences of CFLs in new
condition:

9W spiral - 40 watts

13W spiral - optimistically 60 watts
15W spiral - 60 watts fairly easily

18-20W spirals - 75 watts

23 watt spirals - between 75 and 100, good to perform as well as a 75
after they have aged or are running at non-optimum temperature.

25 watt Philips and 26 watt spirals - 100 watts

30 watt spirals - 100 watts after aging or when temperature is non-optimum

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

That is for 3 hours per start in a 25 degree C ambient. This is the
actual industry standard for fluorescents. I think that a more
appropriate one for incandescent-replacement CFLs should be 1 hour per
start in a 40 degree C ambient.

Meanwhile, I do have CFLs normally last a few thousand hours.

- Don Klipstein , http://www.misty.com/~don/cfx.html)

[Don Klipstein]

In article , Mr.T wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:t5Ihi.2134$DM4.1499@trndny06...
The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.

Which do fail.

Some are crap and fail quickly, others last years.

Never had one that lasted "years", and I've used dozens.
12-18 months is the best I've had, zero being the worst.

I had plenty last a few thousand actual operating hours, some that get
switched more maybe 2,000-3,000. Most of mine lasted a few years.

Start cycles seems to
have a large effect on life,

Of course, and turning off lights when not in use saves more power than
leaving CFL's on.

the ones that are in dusk till dawn lights
outdoors have lasted me to or beyond their rated life, save for one that
failed in the first couple weeks.

Wow, and how much power can you save by turning them off?
My outdoor lights are solar powered.

Full size fluorescent tubes do last a long time, though the ballast is the
reason for most of this. CFL ballasts are just not robust, they're built
to be disposable.

Not all. I did buy a two part CFL once, and when the tube failed, no
replacements are available.

Was that a Lights of America product? I have noticed a lot of
complaints about them. A few are for making products that require
proprietary bulbs that they since discontinued. More are for
life/reliability issues and for falling short of claimed light output.

If it was not LOA, then chances are the tubes are industry standard ones
with replacements of GE, Philips, and Osram/Sylvania being available.
Look in home centers, hardwares stores, and electrical/lighting supply
shops.

Back to standard tubes for me!

The standard ones are superior. CFLs are mainly for retrofitting
incandescent fixtures or for use in small fixtures of size like that of
incandescent fixtures.

- Don Klipstein )

[Steve Urbach]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:05:11 GMT, Eeyore
wrote:



"Mr.T" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and
1200 lumens for a 20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter
than a standard 40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.
Most of the CFL's I have installed make it to 9000 hours.
I mark the "in service" date on the base body. I have a few lamps that run
24/7 that repeatedly make it to rated time.
I have also had a number of DOA's (dead from the start) and a number that
failed in the first 30 days. Note: in all cases, CFL's were installed in open
fixtures and NOT on dimmers (or electronic timers).
Some long service time failures were spectacular (lots of smoke).

Non-CFL (AKA regular fluorescent) have starter failures that are more frequent
than CFL failures. These lamps are in locations that are not suitable for CFL
(Closed fixtures, High/low temperatures) , Yard lights, Bathroom fan and
Attic crawl spaces.


I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have lasted a
long, long time.

Graham

[Steve Urbach]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 19:38:39 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In article , Mr.T wrote:


Was that a Lights of America product? I have noticed a lot of
complaints about them. A few are for making products that require
proprietary bulbs that they since discontinued. More are for
life/reliability issues and for falling short of claimed light output.
I have had good luck with LOA and terrible longevity issues with Feit in the
same service location.


If it was not LOA, then chances are the tubes are industry standard ones
with replacements of GE, Philips, and Osram/Sylvania being available.
Look in home centers, hardwares stores, and electrical/lighting supply
shops.

Back to standard tubes for me!

The standard ones are superior. CFLs are mainly for retrofitting
incandescent fixtures or for use in small fixtures of size like that of
incandescent fixtures.

- Don Klipstein )

[clifto]

Steve Urbach wrote:
I have had good luck with LOA and terrible longevity issues with Feit in the
same service location.

So far I've had nothing but Feit 23W CFLs and I'm averaging 2-1/2 years on
a bulb. Don't think any lasted less than two years.

--
Happy Birthday, Canada!
July 1, 1867 - July 1, 2007
In honor of Canada's birthday, all Canadians are directed to spend Sunday
in their birthday suits.

[Mr.T]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years
or
more. I know which I prefer!

The years depend on hours use per day of course but I have some that are
used a
lot of the time (hall lighting for example) and I've had several years use
from
them. Maybe around 3 years.

Which is still a hell of a lot less than I get from standard fluoro tubes.
And I think my observations are more directly comparable for my
applications.
You can use whatever works for you.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
I see 1710, 1730 and 1750 on packages having "standard" incandescents,
as low as 1670 for 750 hour soft white.

The lowest wattage CFLs I have seen produce 1700-plus lumens are the
Philips 25 watt SLS (1750 lumens) and 26 watt spirals.

But even then not for their full life expectency unfortunately.

30 watt spirals - 100 watts after aging or when temperature is non-optimum

And they seem to be both hard to obtain, and expensive. And since the
wattage is approx 1/3rd, the savings are less than claimed.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

That is for 3 hours per start in a 25 degree C ambient. This is the
actual industry standard for fluorescents. I think that a more
appropriate one for incandescent-replacement CFLs should be 1 hour per
start in a 40 degree C ambient.

40degC ambient???
Is that how you get the claimed life expectency, no wonder I never do.

Meanwhile, I do have CFLs normally last a few thousand hours.

And I still dream of even getting that much. I guess it will happen one day.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
The standard ones are superior. CFLs are mainly for retrofitting
incandescent fixtures or for use in small fixtures of size like that of
incandescent fixtures.

Small size standard tubes have been available for decades.
The cost of replacing fittings is worth it IME.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Steve Urbach" wrote in message
...
Most of the CFL's I have installed make it to 9000 hours.
I mark the "in service" date on the base body. I have a few lamps that
run
24/7 that repeatedly make it to rated time.

With people running lamps 24/7, no wonder we have an energy problem.
Domestic houses don't require permanant emegency lighting in Australia.
And if that's how you get a CFL to last, then there are no power savings to
be had.

I have also had a number of DOA's (dead from the start) and a number that
failed in the first 30 days.

My experience too.

Note: in all cases, CFL's were installed in open
fixtures and NOT on dimmers (or electronic timers).
Some long service time failures were spectacular (lots of smoke).

And fires have been caused by them as well. A real worry for those 24/7
lamps.

Non-CFL (AKA regular fluorescent) have starter failures that are more
frequent
than CFL failures.

Certainly not IME. I've had some non electronic starters last over 20 years!

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve Urbach" wrote ...
Most of the CFL's I have installed make it to 9000 hours.
I mark the "in service" date on the base body. I have a
few lamps that run 24/7 that repeatedly make it to rated time.

That seems consistent with the theory that you get a
(much) longer life expectancy out of them when run
continuously vs. on-off.