Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stop Press on CFL bulbs: Failed after 24 hours!
8 views
Skip to first unread message
MM
Oct 3, 2012, 1:54:00 AM10/3/12
to
Following my saga about disposal of these bulbs, the new bulb I put in
has failed already! It's only been two days and only one of the three
U-shaped tubes is lighting up this morning, and even that one is
flickering.
MM
has failed already! It's only been two days and only one of the three
U-shaped tubes is lighting up this morning, and even that one is
flickering.
MM
AndyW
Oct 3, 2012, 3:15:16 AM10/3/12
to
My 'old' house has old fashioned filament bulbs and have not had any
bulbs replaced for years (mostly as my local shops do not sell them)
My new section is all 'green' bulbs and I replace the often; the high
duty cycle bulbs such as the lavatory is replaced almost annually.
I'm holding out for LED lighting.
Andy
True Blue
Oct 3, 2012, 3:17:17 AM10/3/12
to
how tight you are, I feel bound to offer my most heartfelt sympathies,
at what be a most distressing time.
Ian Jackson
Oct 3, 2012, 3:35:14 AM10/3/12
to
In message <506bda6b$0$7385$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com>, AndyW
<An...@nojunqmail.com> writes
I started buying CFLs about ten years ago. Gradually, most of the
incandescents in the house have been replaced either when they've failed
- or as it's getting difficult to get them, just to acquire a reserve of
them in case I need one. Although I did replace one or two of the early
'dim-glim' types, so far I've never actually had CFL failure.
--
Ian
<An...@nojunqmail.com> writes
incandescents in the house have been replaced either when they've failed
- or as it's getting difficult to get them, just to acquire a reserve of
them in case I need one. Although I did replace one or two of the early
'dim-glim' types, so far I've never actually had CFL failure.
--
Ian
Message has been deleted
AlanG
Oct 3, 2012, 5:02:02 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:
>
>AndyW wrote:
>
>>My 'old' house has old fashioned filament bulbs and have not had any
>>bulbs replaced for years (mostly as my local shops do not sell them)
>>My new section is all 'green' bulbs and I replace the often; the high
>>duty cycle bulbs such as the lavatory is replaced almost annually.
>>
>>I'm holding out for LED lighting.
>
>Go for a quality make (I use Philips) and you won't go far wrong.
>
>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
I have never seen anything larger than 300.
> (which at least to my eyes
>is at least as bright), and the difference in purchase price is a
>tenner, then you'll regain the cost of purchase and use of the LED by
>the time the halogen would have failed (2000 hours), depending on your
>exact costs of purchase and electricity. The rest of the 15000 hours
>life of the LED is all gain, about �60. It's a no-brainer.
Not a saving if you are already using CFLs that were given away free
wrote:
>
>AndyW wrote:
>
>>My 'old' house has old fashioned filament bulbs and have not had any
>>bulbs replaced for years (mostly as my local shops do not sell them)
>>My new section is all 'green' bulbs and I replace the often; the high
>>duty cycle bulbs such as the lavatory is replaced almost annually.
>>
>>I'm holding out for LED lighting.
>
>
>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
I have never seen anything larger than 300.
> (which at least to my eyes
>is at least as bright), and the difference in purchase price is a
>tenner, then you'll regain the cost of purchase and use of the LED by
>the time the halogen would have failed (2000 hours), depending on your
>exact costs of purchase and electricity. The rest of the 15000 hours
>life of the LED is all gain, about �60. It's a no-brainer.
Not a saving if you are already using CFLs that were given away free
Message has been deleted
abelard
Oct 3, 2012, 6:15:47 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:02:02 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>
>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
i do hope you're not suggesting she's making it up as she goes along!
>
>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
Andy Burns
Oct 3, 2012, 6:26:15 AM10/3/12
to
abelard wrote:
> AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>
>>> If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>> Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>
is still tungsten.
> AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>
>>> If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>> Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>
> i do hope you're not suggesting she's making it up as she goes along!
50W GU10 lamps are commonly known as halogen, but the filament they use
is still tungsten.
abelard
Oct 3, 2012, 6:31:29 AM10/3/12
to
AlanG
Oct 3, 2012, 8:28:15 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:52:46 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
wrote:
>
>AlanG wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>AndyW wrote:
>>>
>>>>My 'old' house has old fashioned filament bulbs and have not had any
>>>>bulbs replaced for years (mostly as my local shops do not sell them)
>>>>My new section is all 'green' bulbs and I replace the often; the high
>>>>duty cycle bulbs such as the lavatory is replaced almost annually.
>>>>
>>>>I'm holding out for LED lighting.
>>>
>>>Go for a quality make (I use Philips) and you won't go far wrong.
>>>
>>>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gu10+50W+philips&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Agu10+50W+philips
I used to work as a sparks at a coal mine. My weekend job was
repairing all the lights reported off. I cannot recall ever seeing a
50W incandescent lamp in any of the supplier catalogues
>
>>> (which at least to my eyes
>>>is at least as bright), and the difference in purchase price is a
>>>tenner, then you'll regain the cost of purchase and use of the LED by
>>>the time the halogen would have failed (2000 hours), depending on your
>>>exact costs of purchase and electricity. The rest of the 15000 hours
>>>life of the LED is all gain, about £60. It's a no-brainer.
>>
>>Not a saving if you are already using CFLs that were given away free
>
>There is an energy saving in favour of LEDs, which given their
>tendency to last far longer with full light output instead of the
>steadily-dimming output from CFLs, still works in their favour and
>makes them more cost-effective than CFLs including their initial
>purchase. In other words, you save money even if the CFLs were free.
CFLs don't dim.
You should see an eye doctor
>
>Do the arithmetic, then rid yourself of the albatross of CFLs and go
>over to modern efficient lighting. It will save you money.
You mean spend £15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
costs
wrote:
>
>AlanG wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>AndyW wrote:
>>>
>>>>My 'old' house has old fashioned filament bulbs and have not had any
>>>>bulbs replaced for years (mostly as my local shops do not sell them)
>>>>My new section is all 'green' bulbs and I replace the often; the high
>>>>duty cycle bulbs such as the lavatory is replaced almost annually.
>>>>
>>>>I'm holding out for LED lighting.
>>>
>>>Go for a quality make (I use Philips) and you won't go far wrong.
>>>
>>>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>
>
>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>
>You need to shop around more.
>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>
I used to work as a sparks at a coal mine. My weekend job was
repairing all the lights reported off. I cannot recall ever seeing a
50W incandescent lamp in any of the supplier catalogues
>
>>> (which at least to my eyes
>>>is at least as bright), and the difference in purchase price is a
>>>tenner, then you'll regain the cost of purchase and use of the LED by
>>>the time the halogen would have failed (2000 hours), depending on your
>>>exact costs of purchase and electricity. The rest of the 15000 hours
>>>life of the LED is all gain, about £60. It's a no-brainer.
>>
>>Not a saving if you are already using CFLs that were given away free
>
>tendency to last far longer with full light output instead of the
>steadily-dimming output from CFLs, still works in their favour and
>makes them more cost-effective than CFLs including their initial
>purchase. In other words, you save money even if the CFLs were free.
CFLs don't dim.
You should see an eye doctor
>
>Do the arithmetic, then rid yourself of the albatross of CFLs and go
>over to modern efficient lighting. It will save you money.
You mean spend £15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
costs
AlanG
Oct 3, 2012, 8:41:46 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:15:47 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
It's possible someone has produced a 50w non standard. I know there
used to be a 75w available at one time but they came in from the USofA
and we just changed them to 100w. There are lots of peculiar light
fittings out there today so it's possible 50w are used somewhere. A
case in point is my bedside lamp which has a halogen bulb that is
difficult to source in this country and costs as much as the lamp did
originally. I may well replace that with a LED reading lamp if I can
find one at reasonable cost.
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:02:02 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>
>>>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>
>i do hope you're not suggesting she's making it up as she goes along!
No.
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:02:02 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:19:50 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>
>>>If you replace a 50W tungsten with a 4W LED
>>
>>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>
>i do hope you're not suggesting she's making it up as she goes along!
It's possible someone has produced a 50w non standard. I know there
used to be a 75w available at one time but they came in from the USofA
and we just changed them to 100w. There are lots of peculiar light
fittings out there today so it's possible 50w are used somewhere. A
case in point is my bedside lamp which has a halogen bulb that is
difficult to source in this country and costs as much as the lamp did
originally. I may well replace that with a LED reading lamp if I can
find one at reasonable cost.
Ron
Oct 3, 2012, 8:48:03 AM10/3/12
to
On 03/10/2012 06:54, MM wrote:
--
Message has been deleted
AlanG
Oct 3, 2012, 9:27:44 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:07:54 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
I'm not discussing lifecycle costs.
You claimed to have a 50W incandescent bulb of the type being phased
out
>
wrote:
>
>AlanG wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:52:46 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>
>
>AlanG wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:52:46 +0100, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>Where do you get a 50W incandescent?
>>>
>>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gu10+50W+philips&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Agu10+50W+philips
>>>
>>>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>>>
>>>You need to shop around more.
>>
>>I used to work as a sparks at a coal mine. My weekend job was
>>repairing all the lights reported off. I cannot recall ever seeing a
>>50W incandescent lamp in any of the supplier catalogues
>
>You know remarkably little about lifecycle costs, sparks or no.
>>>
>>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gu10+50W+philips&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Agu10+50W+philips
>>>
>>>>Standard incandescent sizes are 5w 15w 25w 40w 60w 100w 150w 300w.
>>>>I have never seen anything larger than 300.
>>>
>>>You need to shop around more.
>>
>>I used to work as a sparks at a coal mine. My weekend job was
>>repairing all the lights reported off. I cannot recall ever seeing a
>>50W incandescent lamp in any of the supplier catalogues
>
I'm not discussing lifecycle costs.
You claimed to have a 50W incandescent bulb of the type being phased
out
>
Message has been deleted
Mike Scott
Oct 3, 2012, 9:56:45 AM10/3/12
to
On 03/10/12 14:07, Kim Bolton wrote:
.....
>> CFLs don't dim.
>
> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
How about
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
Then there's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm
which has a few useful points to make.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
.....
>> CFLs don't dim.
>
> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
How about
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
Then there's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm
which has a few useful points to make.
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
abelard
Oct 3, 2012, 10:16:52 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:56:45 +0100, Mike Scott
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On 03/10/12 14:07, Kim Bolton wrote:
>.....
>>> CFLs don't dim.
>>
>> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
>> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
>> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
>
>
>How about
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
>
>or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
>
>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>
>Then there's
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm
>
>which has a few useful points to make.
a race between the one or two % improvement every year,
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On 03/10/12 14:07, Kim Bolton wrote:
>.....
>>> CFLs don't dim.
>>
>> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
>> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
>> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
>
>
>How about
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
>
>or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
>
>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>
>Then there's
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm
>
>which has a few useful points to make.
jevons's paradox, the water melons and fossil fuel depletion....
it's just one thing after another!
AlanG
Oct 3, 2012, 11:04:58 AM10/3/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:56:45 +0100, Mike Scott
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
<usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On 03/10/12 14:07, Kim Bolton wrote:
>.....
>>> CFLs don't dim.
>>
>> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
>> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
>> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
>
>
>How about
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
>
>or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
>
>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
Yes we know.
>.....
>>> CFLs don't dim.
>>
>> There was a report out from a laboratory that measured the dimming at
>> 25 percent per annum, over a wide range of makes and wattages. It was
>> about three years ago, and I regret not keeping the reference.
>
>
>How about
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229062/Energy-saving-lightbulbs-dimmer-time.html
>
>or, for those who don't trust the d.m.,
>
>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
That's why I use two CFLs at a total of 22W to replace a 100w
incandescent lamp. It's still only using about a quarter of the power
for more light
>
>Then there's
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm
>
>which has a few useful points to make.
attempted to measure it
Ian Jackson
Oct 3, 2012, 11:16:15 AM10/3/12
to
In message <qqko681ec259aups6...@4ax.com>, AlanG
<inv...@invalid.co.uk> writes
All FLs become dimmer as they age. CFLs are no exception.
--
Ian
<inv...@invalid.co.uk> writes
--
Ian
Message has been deleted
F Murtz
Oct 3, 2012, 12:19:13 PM10/3/12
to
Periander
Oct 3, 2012, 1:20:30 PM10/3/12
to
On 3-Oct-2012, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> It's a no-brainer
Hence its popularity with the ladies <runs for cover>
--
All the best,
Periander
AndyW
Oct 4, 2012, 3:05:07 AM10/4/12
to
On 03/10/2012 13:28, AlanG wrote:
> CFLs don't dim.
> You should see an eye doctor
My problem with the high duty cycle bulbs I use is that they start to
> CFLs don't dim.
> You should see an eye doctor
take longer and longer to reach a decent operating level.
There appears to be two main types of bulb; I have bulbs that are
instantly on and up to a good light level and others that start dim and
brighten. As the latter start to fail the time to optimum light level
takes longer and longer until the point when I am leaving the lavatory
before it is bright.
They are effectively dim.
Andy
Gloomy Goblin
Oct 4, 2012, 3:15:11 AM10/4/12
to
Secondly CFL bulbs have very limited life if there is likely to be any appreciable degree of voltage fluctuation in the property where they are installed, but information on this is carefully hidden and in some cases end users will buy numerous bulbs before realising something is wrong.
Message has been deleted
Paul Hyett
Oct 4, 2012, 3:56:25 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 at 02:19:13, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote in
uk.legal :
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
uk.legal :
>>
>> CFLs don't dim.
>
>
>Don't need to I have a meter to prove it instead.
>
I just buy proper 100w incandescent bulbs via Amazon anyway...
>> CFLs don't dim.
>
>
>Don't need to I have a meter to prove it instead.
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Redman
Oct 4, 2012, 2:36:12 PM10/4/12
to
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ekkn68l0d8skkec1l...@4ax.com...
> Following my saga about disposal of these bulbs, the new bulb I put in
> has failed already! It's only been two days and only one of the three
> U-shaped tubes is lighting up this morning, and even that one is
> flickering.
>
> MM
They're wank m8, I've gone back to the good old fashioned incandescent
> has failed already! It's only been two days and only one of the three
> U-shaped tubes is lighting up this morning, and even that one is
> flickering.
>
> MM
lightbulb after I bought 2 and they lasted about a month, only gullible AGW
fuckwits that think they're saving the planet buy them, we're DOOMED
Bwhehehehehehehe
Redman
Curlytop
Oct 4, 2012, 2:48:48 PM10/4/12
to
AndyW set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> I'm holding out for LED lighting.
It's already here. Maplins sells 7W LED bulbs equivalent to 60W tungsten.
I've got two of them to replace a couple of those compact fluorescent
thingies. The CFT's still had plenty of life in them, so I've still got
them as a fallback, but the LED bulbs have several advantages over them -
no flickering at switch-on and they come to full brightness straight away.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
> I'm holding out for LED lighting.
I've got two of them to replace a couple of those compact fluorescent
thingies. The CFT's still had plenty of life in them, so I've still got
them as a fallback, but the LED bulbs have several advantages over them -
no flickering at switch-on and they come to full brightness straight away.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Periander
Oct 4, 2012, 5:45:11 PM10/4/12
to
On 4-Oct-2012, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
> >> It's a no-brainer
> >
> >Hence its popularity with the ladies <runs for cover>
>
Hehehehe x
Cynic
Oct 11, 2012, 12:34:41 PM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:28:15 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>CFLs don't dim.
>You should see an eye doctor
You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your
own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
>>Do the arithmetic, then rid yourself of the albatross of CFLs and go
>>over to modern efficient lighting. It will save you money.
>You mean spend �15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
>costs
I don't care about recoving such a trifling cost. I want a light that
(a) lights to full brightness as soon as I switch it on, and (b) that
I can use a dimmer in rooms that I require variable brightness and (c)
is a reasonable colour temperature - certainly not a sickly yellow.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>CFLs don't dim.
>You should see an eye doctor
own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
>>Do the arithmetic, then rid yourself of the albatross of CFLs and go
>>over to modern efficient lighting. It will save you money.
>You mean spend �15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
>costs
(a) lights to full brightness as soon as I switch it on, and (b) that
I can use a dimmer in rooms that I require variable brightness and (c)
is a reasonable colour temperature - certainly not a sickly yellow.
--
Cynic
AlanG
Oct 11, 2012, 12:53:39 PM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:34:41 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:28:15 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>CFLs don't dim.
>>You should see an eye doctor
>
>You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your
>own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
>with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
>I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
I have yet to experience noticable dimming.
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:28:15 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>CFLs don't dim.
>>You should see an eye doctor
>
>You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your
>own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
>with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
>I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
If I do I will then weigh up the costs of buying LEDs against just
replacing the CFLs with one of the 30 spares I have in a drawer
>
>>>Do the arithmetic, then rid yourself of the albatross of CFLs and go
>>>over to modern efficient lighting. It will save you money.
>
>>You mean spend �15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
>>costs
>
>I don't care about recoving such a trifling cost.
If what I have works then I see no reason to pay more to change it
> I want a light that
>(a) lights to full brightness as soon as I switch it on, and (b) that
>I can use a dimmer in rooms that I require variable brightness and (c)
>is a reasonable colour temperature - certainly not a sickly yellow.
accorded the same
Cynic
Oct 11, 2012, 12:55:58 PM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:04:58 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>Yes we know.
>That's why I use two CFLs at a total of 22W to replace a 100w
>incandescent lamp. It's still only using about a quarter of the power
>for more light
So you save 78 watts, which is about a unit of electricity for every
12 hours the light is on. Which for a room light will average out at
about £1 per month at the electricity tariff I am on.
For most people that saving is too small to be a major factor in their
choice of lighting. My main problems with CFL lighting is that it is
extremely dim at switch-on, and takes a minute or so to achieve a
reasonable brightness, and that I cannot use a dimmer control - which
I find useful in the living room and bedroom. Another problem for me
is that many types interfere with HF radio, which I use occassionally
as a hobby, and with my MSF clocks.
So for myself, CFL lighting would make sense only for lights that are
left on all night every night - and I don't have any of those in the
place I am living at present.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>Yes we know.
>That's why I use two CFLs at a total of 22W to replace a 100w
>incandescent lamp. It's still only using about a quarter of the power
>for more light
12 hours the light is on. Which for a room light will average out at
about £1 per month at the electricity tariff I am on.
For most people that saving is too small to be a major factor in their
choice of lighting. My main problems with CFL lighting is that it is
extremely dim at switch-on, and takes a minute or so to achieve a
reasonable brightness, and that I cannot use a dimmer control - which
I find useful in the living room and bedroom. Another problem for me
is that many types interfere with HF radio, which I use occassionally
as a hobby, and with my MSF clocks.
So for myself, CFL lighting would make sense only for lights that are
left on all night every night - and I don't have any of those in the
place I am living at present.
--
Cynic
AlanG
Oct 11, 2012, 1:38:44 PM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:55:58 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:04:58 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>
>>Yes we know.
>>That's why I use two CFLs at a total of 22W to replace a 100w
>>incandescent lamp. It's still only using about a quarter of the power
>>for more light
>
>So you save 78 watts, which is about a unit of electricity for every
>12 hours the light is on. Which for a room light will average out at
>about �1 per month at the electricity tariff I am on.
I save every penny I can on fuel.
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:04:58 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>http://lasttechage.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/fluorescents-3-not-as-bright/
>
>>Yes we know.
>>That's why I use two CFLs at a total of 22W to replace a 100w
>>incandescent lamp. It's still only using about a quarter of the power
>>for more light
>
>So you save 78 watts, which is about a unit of electricity for every
>12 hours the light is on. Which for a room light will average out at
>about �1 per month at the electricity tariff I am on.
>
>For most people that saving is too small to be a major factor in their
>choice of lighting. My main problems with CFL lighting is that it is
>extremely dim at switch-on, and takes a minute or so to achieve a
>reasonable brightness, and that I cannot use a dimmer control - which
>I find useful in the living room and bedroom. Another problem for me
>is that many types interfere with HF radio, which I use occassionally
>as a hobby, and with my MSF clocks.
I confess tonight I have just changed the two lights in the living
>For most people that saving is too small to be a major factor in their
>choice of lighting. My main problems with CFL lighting is that it is
>extremely dim at switch-on, and takes a minute or so to achieve a
>reasonable brightness, and that I cannot use a dimmer control - which
>I find useful in the living room and bedroom. Another problem for me
>is that many types interfere with HF radio, which I use occassionally
>as a hobby, and with my MSF clocks.
room. The new ones are appreciably brighter. But since I have a drawer
full I can change them every two years and still not need to buy new
ones for at least ten years
>
>So for myself, CFL lighting would make sense only for lights that are
>left on all night every night - and I don't have any of those in the
>place I am living at present.
than a 20W halogen I have in the bedside lamp.
If the price of LEDs comes down to a couple of pounds I might change
Cynic
Oct 12, 2012, 7:59:21 AM10/12/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:38:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>I use a 5W CFL in reading lamps. More than adequate and cheaper to run
>than a 20W halogen I have in the bedside lamp.
I use a rechargable battery LED reading lamp that lasts me over a week
between charges (and will charge in about 30 minutes from a 20W
charger). So your 5W CFL is costing you *many* times more than my
reading lamp. Spendthrift!
>If the price of LEDs comes down to a couple of pounds I might change
My reading lamp was under �10 from Amazon - plus another �5 or so for
the rechargeable battery.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>I use a 5W CFL in reading lamps. More than adequate and cheaper to run
>than a 20W halogen I have in the bedside lamp.
between charges (and will charge in about 30 minutes from a 20W
charger). So your 5W CFL is costing you *many* times more than my
reading lamp. Spendthrift!
>If the price of LEDs comes down to a couple of pounds I might change
the rechargeable battery.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Oct 12, 2012, 8:02:55 AM10/12/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:53:39 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
just get used to the dimmer output without noticing it.
>>>You mean spend £15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
>>>costs
>>I don't care about recoving such a trifling cost.
>I do.
I'm sorry to hear that.
>If what I have works then I see no reason to pay more to change it
One thing can work, but something else can work better.
>> I want a light that
>>(a) lights to full brightness as soon as I switch it on, and (b) that
>>I can use a dimmer in rooms that I require variable brightness and (c)
>>is a reasonable colour temperature - certainly not a sickly yellow.
>I'm quite happy for you to use whatever you like as long as I am
>accorded the same
I have not suggested otherwise.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>CFLs don't dim.
>>>You should see an eye doctor
>>
>>You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your
>>own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
>>with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
>>I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
>
>I have yet to experience noticable dimming.
I can believe that. The dimming occurs over a long period and so you
>>>CFLs don't dim.
>>>You should see an eye doctor
>>
>>You are welcome to your own opinions, but you are not welcome to your
>>own facts. CFLs *definitely* suffer a falling off of light output
>>with age. You will find many sources that confirm that statement (and
>>I challenge you to find a credible source that says otherwise).
>
>I have yet to experience noticable dimming.
just get used to the dimmer output without noticing it.
>>>You mean spend £15 on a lamp that will take 20 years to recover the
>>>costs
>>I don't care about recoving such a trifling cost.
>I do.
>If what I have works then I see no reason to pay more to change it
>> I want a light that
>>(a) lights to full brightness as soon as I switch it on, and (b) that
>>I can use a dimmer in rooms that I require variable brightness and (c)
>>is a reasonable colour temperature - certainly not a sickly yellow.
>I'm quite happy for you to use whatever you like as long as I am
>accorded the same
--
Cynic
AlanG
Oct 12, 2012, 8:21:49 AM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 11:59:21 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:38:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I use a 5W CFL in reading lamps. More than adequate and cheaper to run
>>than a 20W halogen I have in the bedside lamp.
>
>I use a rechargable battery LED reading lamp that lasts me over a week
>between charges (and will charge in about 30 minutes from a 20W
>charger). So your 5W CFL is costing you *many* times more than my
>reading lamp. Spendthrift!
But I have had the lamps for 20 years. They originally took 40w
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:38:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I use a 5W CFL in reading lamps. More than adequate and cheaper to run
>>than a 20W halogen I have in the bedside lamp.
>
>I use a rechargable battery LED reading lamp that lasts me over a week
>between charges (and will charge in about 30 minutes from a 20W
>charger). So your 5W CFL is costing you *many* times more than my
>reading lamp. Spendthrift!
ediswans but I chnged them for CFLs when they needed renewal
>
>>If the price of LEDs comes down to a couple of pounds I might change
>
>My reading lamp was under �10 from Amazon - plus another �5 or so for
>the rechargeable battery.
If it works don't fix it
Cynic
Oct 12, 2012, 10:49:05 AM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:21:49 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>>My reading lamp was under �10 from Amazon - plus another �5 or so for
>>the rechargeable battery.
>Plus the charger
I use that for so many things that it would be like including the cost
of the wall-socket.
>If it works don't fix it
But that's not what you did with your lights.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>My reading lamp was under �10 from Amazon - plus another �5 or so for
>>the rechargeable battery.
>Plus the charger
of the wall-socket.
>If it works don't fix it
--
Cynic
AlanG
Oct 12, 2012, 11:05:27 AM10/12/12
to
I put CFLs in some when we moved in then changed the few ediswans when
they failed. I actually still have a 40W ediswan in the cupboard under
the stairs and a 60w in the attic. I forgot about those :)
0 new messages