advice on problem low energy bulbs please

27 views
Skip to first unread message

John

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 2:38:17 PM11/6/07
to
We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.
These were said to have a life of 15,000 hours. As you may have guessed,
they haven’t. Last week one was dead, the importer sent a replacement but
said the batch was out of warrantee.

Yesterday another one went, and times its clear the problem exists with the
rest. There is cracking from the contact pins and lose fragments can be seen
in the bulbs which can be seen in the remaining ones.

As the rewiring was underway this and other building work made the house
un-inhabitable, we were living in a caravan until September. Over time as we
got the basic rooms habitable increasing the amount of time spent in the
house.

So we think we would have been fully using the kitchen from August. This is
a room with out direct natural lighting, so the lights are used when the
roomis in use. To be honist given the delay in the bulbs in reaching full
light, they are usually left on for quite long periods. Given time away,
weekends and holidays, I think 13 months in use. If we left the lights on
all the day, 7am to 11pm this is just under 6000 hrs. Indeed one halogen
bulb was put back with a week, as the low energy bulb just wasn’t bright
enough in one place, its still going strong!

I would be grateful for comments on:-

a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
than the manufactures claims?
b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
risk from these (one contact pin was lose!
c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
or we wasting?
d.. How do the different manufactures rate the bulbs fin terms of
replacing them if they fail (I can’t find any thing about Megaman having a
batch rather than life warrantee) has any one else experience of this?
e.. Can any one recommend a more reliable make of bulb?


I have contacted Megaman again but heard nothing back this time!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071105-1, 05/11/2007
Tested on: 06/11/2007 19:38:18
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 3:32:45 PM11/6/07
to
On 2007-11-06 19:38:17 +0000, "John"
<catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:

> We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
> replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.
> These were said to have a life of 15,000 hours. As you may have guessed,
> they haven’t. Last week one was dead, the importer sent a replacement but
> said the batch was out of warrantee.
>
> Yesterday another one went, and times its clear the problem exists with the
> rest. There is cracking from the contact pins and lose fragments can be seen
> in the bulbs which can be seen in the remaining ones.
>
>
>
> As the rewiring was underway this and other building work made the house
> un-inhabitable, we were living in a caravan until September. Over time as we
> got the basic rooms habitable increasing the amount of time spent in the
> house.
>
>
>
> So we think we would have been fully using the kitchen from August. This is
> a room with out direct natural lighting, so the lights are used when the
> roomis in use. To be honist given the delay in the bulbs in reaching full
> light, they are usually left on for quite long periods. Given time away,
> weekends and holidays, I think 13 months in use. If we left the lights on
> all the day, 7am to 11pm this is just under 6000 hrs. Indeed one halogen
> bulb was put back with a week, as the low energy bulb just wasn’t bright
> enough in one place, its still going strong!
>
>
>
> I would be grateful for comments on:-
>
> a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
> than the manufactures claims?

That's a question for the manufacturer. Your retailer has the
responsibility for recompense. Personally I wouldn't accept 13
months use against this life expectancy claim. If the investment is
significant, ask for a refund.


> b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
> risk from these (one contact pin was lose!
> c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
> or we wasting?

Really, the whole technology is a waste of time and money. You would
be far better off buying proper halogen lamps, getting decent light
quality and not messing about.


> d.. How do the different manufactures rate the bulbs fin terms of
> replacing them if they fail (I can’t find any thing about Megaman having a
> batch rather than life warrantee) has any one else experience of this?

The standard seems to be a rating down to 50% failure. This is
worthless and should not be permitted. a 5-10% failure point would be
more reasonable and convincing.


> e.. Can any one recommend a more reliable make of bulb?


Megaman are supposed to be one of the better brands.


>
>
> I have contacted Megaman again but heard nothing back this time!


What a surprise. Redress is with the retailer.

OG

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 3:37:53 PM11/6/07
to

"John" <catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M5mdnaG9qa02Xq3a...@eclipse.net.uk...

> We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
> replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.
> These were said to have a life of 15,000 hours. As you may have guessed,
> they haven't. Last week one was dead, the importer sent a replacement but
> said the batch was out of warrantee.
>
> Yesterday another one went, and times its clear the problem exists with
> the rest. There is cracking from the contact pins and lose fragments can
> be seen in the bulbs which can be seen in the remaining ones.

Take it up with the people who sold them to you. They were sold as having a
15,000 hour life, so that's what you should expect.


> As the rewiring was underway this and other building work made the house
> un-inhabitable, we were living in a caravan until September. Over time as
> we got the basic rooms habitable increasing the amount of time spent in
> the house.
>
>
>
> So we think we would have been fully using the kitchen from August. This
> is a room with out direct natural lighting, so the lights are used when
> the roomis in use. To be honist given the delay in the bulbs in reaching
> full light, they are usually left on for quite long periods. Given time
> away, weekends and holidays, I think 13 months in use. If we left the
> lights on all the day, 7am to 11pm this is just under 6000 hrs. Indeed one
> halogen bulb was put back with a week, as the low energy bulb just wasn't
> bright enough in one place, its still going strong!
>
>
>
> I would be grateful for comments on:-
>
> a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
> than the manufactures claims?

> b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
> risk from these (one contact pin was lose!

Send it to Megaman UK for their comment. You may have been sold a fake
batch, or they may have had poor QC on a batch.

> c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
> or we wasting?

In a very simple comparison, in terms of electricity cost you'll have saved
about £23 per buld (electricity costed at 10p/kw)

If you paid £7 - 8 per bulb you would be in profit by about £15 per bulb.

John

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 3:49:42 PM11/6/07
to
Thanks for reply's. Normally I would chase up retailer, but even just
keeping the main receipts I have two filing boxes, not including the lamps!
Which is why I went to Megaman. It would be interesting if the retailers try
the batch argument as well! At least we didn't lose money, so its worth
replacing the bulbs and making sure I keep the receipt this time but
hopfully its it was a bad batch and not need it!


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071105-1, 05/11/2007

Tested on: 06/11/2007 20:49:43

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 4:11:22 PM11/6/07
to
On 2007-11-06 20:49:42 +0000, "John"
<catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:

> Thanks for reply's. Normally I would chase up retailer, but even just
> keeping the main receipts I have two filing boxes, not including the lamps!
> Which is why I went to Megaman. It would be interesting if the retailers try
> the batch argument as well!

If they do, it's a perfect reason to ask for a refund.

I am sure that this system relies on people not keeping a note of the
operating hours, much like most people don't keep receipts for
purchases in general anyway. As long as it seems better, that's
probably enough.

> At least we didn't lose money,

You did, because the products didn't meet expectations.

> so its worth
> replacing the bulbs and making sure I keep the receipt this time but
> hopfully its it was a bad batch and not need it!
>
>

You're buying more?

(Note to self - call broker and buy stock)

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 5:03:29 PM11/6/07
to
John nospam wrote:

> We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
> replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.
> These were said to have a life of 15,000 hours. As you may have guessed,
> they haven't. Last week one was dead, the importer sent a replacement but
> said the batch was out of warrantee.
>
> Yesterday another one went, and times its clear the problem exists with the
> rest. There is cracking from the contact pins and lose fragments can be seen
> in the bulbs which can be seen in the remaining ones.
>
>
>
> As the rewiring was underway this and other building work made the house
> un-inhabitable, we were living in a caravan until September. Over time as we
> got the basic rooms habitable increasing the amount of time spent in the
> house.
>
>
>
> So we think we would have been fully using the kitchen from August. This is
> a room with out direct natural lighting, so the lights are used when the
> roomis in use. To be honist given the delay in the bulbs in reaching full
> light, they are usually left on for quite long periods. Given time away,
> weekends and holidays, I think 13 months in use. If we left the lights on
> all the day, 7am to 11pm this is just under 6000 hrs. Indeed one halogen
> bulb was put back with a week, as the low energy bulb just wasn't bright
> enough in one place, its still going strong!
>
>
>
> I would be grateful for comments on:-
>
> a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
> than the manufactures claims?

You seem to be confusing mean life with individual bulb life. The
15,000 hr rating is mean life, ie average, so roughly 50% will
be dead by then. Compare to GLS lamps at 1000 hrs or halogens
at 1500-2000 hrs and you'll see a mean 15,000 is a significant
benefit. I'm excluding 4000 hr halogens from that comparison as they
are better avoided.


> b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
> risk from these (one contact pin was lose!

much less than with halogens. A smell equals a burnt component
does not equal fire risk.


> c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
> or we wasting?

If they all dropped dead at 6,000 you're still saving money. As it is
you should get more time out of them.


> d.. How do the different manufactures rate the bulbs

Batch testing, mean life is quoted.

> fin terms of
> replacing them if they fail

That's down to them, given that there is no evidence other than
your say so, and that what you've told us so far doesnt indicate any
problem with the goods.


> (I can't find any thing about Megaman having a
> batch rather than life warrantee)

bulbs have neither. They are simply covered by the sale of good
act, ie they must be as described. Which it sounds like they are.


> has any one else experience of this?

CFLs differ to filaments in that there is a percentage of early
failures. This doesnt change their mean life rating any.

> e.. Can any one recommend a more reliable make of bulb?
>
>
> I have contacted Megaman again but heard nothing back this time!

Education is down to you. There is a wiki article explaining
more about bulb life:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Lamp_Life


NT

Adam Aglionby

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 7:48:18 PM11/6/07
to
On Nov 6, 7:38 pm, "John" <catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk>
wrote:

> We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
> replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.
> These were said to have a life of 15,000 hours. As you may have guessed,
> they haven't. Last week one was dead, the importer sent a replacement but
> said the batch was out of warrantee.
>
> Yesterday another one went, and times its clear the problem exists with the
> rest. There is cracking from the contact pins and lose fragments can be seen
> in the bulbs which can be seen in the remaining ones.
>
> As the rewiring was underway this and other building work made the house
> un-inhabitable, we were living in a caravan until September. Over time as we
> got the basic rooms habitable increasing the amount of time spent in the
> house.
>
> So we think we would have been fully using the kitchen from August. This is
> a room with out direct natural lighting, so the lights are used when the
> roomis in use. To be honist given the delay in the bulbs in reaching full
> light, they are usually left on for quite long periods. Given time away,
> weekends and holidays, I think 13 months in use. If we left the lights on
> all the day, 7am to 11pm this is just under 6000 hrs. Indeed one halogen
> bulb was put back with a week, as the low energy bulb just wasn't bright
> enough in one place, its still going strong!
>
> I would be grateful for comments on:-
>
> a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
> than the manufactures claims?

6K hours isn`t bad going as other posters have pointed out.

> b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
> risk from these (one contact pin was lose!

Check that the fittings have some ventilation around them not
smothered in rockwool for instance. Toasted ballst components can
smell nasty, perhaps part of it is toasted thermal fuse.

> c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
> or we wasting?

6K hours of less than satisfactory light, has it saved you money.
Have you considered other alternatives, lightpipes to obtain daylight,
good quality fluro T8 ceiling fittings on ceiling and T5/LED below
cupboards.
Halogen just swiched on when you need it :-)

> d.. How do the different manufactures rate the bulbs fin terms of
> replacing them if they fail (I can't find any thing about Megaman having a
> batch rather than life warrantee) has any one else experience of this?

`Who`s calling......`

> e.. Can any one recommend a more reliable make of bulb?

Its a lot to compact into a 50mm cylinder,Megaman generally thought of
as being one of better specialist lamp makers.
Plaster out the cutouts and fit some nice quality T8 surface fittings.

> I have contacted Megaman again but heard nothing back this time!

see point d.

Adam

Andrew May

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 5:47:15 AM11/7/07
to
meow...@care2.com wrote:

> You seem to be confusing mean life with individual bulb life. The
> 15,000 hr rating is mean life, ie average, so roughly 50% will
> be dead by then. Compare to GLS lamps at 1000 hrs or halogens
> at 1500-2000 hrs and you'll see a mean 15,000 is a significant
> benefit. I'm excluding 4000 hr halogens from that comparison as they
> are better avoided.

And you seem to confusing mean with median. A 15,000 hr mean life says
nothing at all about what proportion will fail before that time. It
depends on the distribution.

On the other hand a median of 15,000 hrs says precicely that 50% will
fail before then.

Andrew

manat...@hotmail.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:14:25 AM11/7/07
to
On Nov 6, 9:11 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On 2007-11-06 20:49:42 +0000, "John"
> <catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:
>
> > Thanks for reply's. Normally I would chase up retailer, but even just
> > keeping the main receipts I have two filing boxes, not including the lamps!
> > Which is why I went to Megaman. It would be interesting if the retailers try
> > the batch argument as well!
>
> If they do, it's a perfect reason to ask for a refund.
>
> I am sure that this system relies on people not keeping a note of the
> operating hours, much like most people don't keep receipts for
> purchases in general anyway. As long as it seems better, that's
> probably enough.
>
> > At least we didn't lose money,
>
> You did, because the products didn't meet expectations.


They have saved him money, see OGs calculation. How does that equate
to losing money?

MBQ

John

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:48:45 AM11/7/07
to
The contributions on bulb life has apeared to have moved away from what the
makers clams. They are NOT saying avrage, the information I found on the web
site says the G10 bulbs "delivers breakthrough lighting performance and
superior operating life expectancy of 15,000 hours" and with "With an
operating life some 7.5 times longer than halogen".

Directly I have however been told warrantee is linked to when the bulbs are
made,batch, and "our lamp life is calculated at the point when 50% of the
lamps are extinguished, even though the other 50% of the lamps are still
working well". So to claim 15,000 is to me a lille misleading.

But however they work it out, an actual life of 2 out of 5 bulbs being at
best 6,000 hrs rather than the 15,000 climed is not very good. The remaining
3 all have notisable fragments showing in the lamp end its intresting how
much more life they have. The lamps are in the adjustable Recessed ceiling
lamp like
http://www1.uk.conrad.com/scripts/wgate/zcop_uk/~flN0YXRlPTIxNjU0MTA3OTQ=?~template=PCAT_AREA_S_BROWSE&glb_user_js=Y&shop=UK&zhmmh_lfo=&zhmmh_area_kz=&product_show_id=574486&p_init_ipc=X&p_page_to_display=fromoutside&~cookies=1&cookie_n[1]=uk_insert&cookie_v[1]=EG&cookie_d[1]=&cookie_p[1]=%2f&cookie_e[1]=Sun%2c+09-Dec-2007+11%3a50%3a52+GMT&scrwidth=1280

With no insolation used, so there is plenty of venterlation. They have had
"normal" use in good conditions.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 071106-0, 06/11/2007
Tested on: 07/11/2007 11:48:47

Adrian C

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 7:46:19 AM11/7/07
to
John wrote:
> We had a rewire last year; in place of 50W halogen bulbs in the kitchen I
> replaced these fitted with 11 watt Megaman GU10 low energy light bulbs.

<snip>

OT, but have a look at Megaman's 7 minute factory video.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf-LOmMZoIw>

70% automation but the workers must sure be smoking some crack to remain
interested in working there... or the food must be good ;-)


--
Adrian C

Stuart Noble

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 8:08:59 AM11/7/07
to

Lots of young girls and a decent canteen. Where do I apply?

John

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 8:48:52 AM11/7/07
to

Makes you wonder how they could fail to last there full life!
Interesting to see how uniformly young the workers were in the film. Looked
like the micro processor plant publicity at one time, until it emerged that
so many were very badly effected from fumes and having there eyesight
destroyed by the work that workers only lasted a few years there.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 071106-0, 06/11/2007

Tested on: 07/11/2007 13:48:54

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 9:02:30 AM11/7/07
to

I didnt really see it as relevant to the thread, but yes of course
there is no certainty that half have failed at mean life. As a
ballpark
figure its good enough.


NT

Stephen Dawson

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 2:25:07 PM11/7/07
to

"John" <catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M5mdnaG9qa02Xq3a...@eclipse.net.uk...

We had to change a load of megaman 11W GU10 pattern lamps for the 9W
version, as the lamps failed prematurley. We also noted the supplier change
the lamp in the fittings as well to 9W.

Rgds
Steve


OG

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 2:38:05 PM11/7/07
to

<manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194434065.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

To be honest he may not have saved as much money as I calculated.
We're not sure he actually got 6000 hours use out of the bulbs, and he
probably wouldn't have had Halogen GU10s on for the same 6000 hours if he
had used them instead - he was only leaving the lights on so much because
they take some time to get to full brightness.

As with many things, CFLs are suitable for some areas, but not for others.
As efficient use of energy becomes more important we probably ought to be
looking for more intelligent use of lighting, so that we use a combination
of energy efficient space lighting (maybe at a lower level than we're
currently used to, and effective task lighting (localised lighting for work
surfaces etc). The existence of expensively floodlit living spaces becomes
unjustifiable when we live in a world where profligate use of energy has
significant long-term effects.

rob...@invalid.invalid

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 2:55:35 PM11/7/07
to

>>
>> I would be grateful for comments on:-
>>
>> a.. Is such a short life the real life expectancy of such bulbs rather
>> than the manufactures claims?
>> b.. As the last one had a strong smell when taken out, is there a fire
>> risk from these (one contact pin was lose!
>> c.. In this length of time, if we had 6,000 hrs are we still saving money
>> or we wasting?
>> d.. How do the different manufactures rate the bulbs fin terms of
>> replacing them if they fail (I can't find any thing about Megaman having a
>> batch rather than life warrantee) has any one else experience of this?
>> e.. Can any one recommend a more reliable make of bulb?

Notice that on a Megaman Candelight the 15000 hours is specified as
IEC60969 - maybe someone has access to a copy and can enlighten us
(sorry!).
Robert

Si

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 3:21:09 PM11/7/07
to
In message <5peihhF...@mid.individual.net>, OG
<ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> writes

>As with many things, CFLs are suitable for some areas, but not for
>others.

Are LEDs viable as kitchen downlighters yet? They seem to be available
for around GBP15-18 with 12/19 white LEDs using around 1.2W. What would
the colour be like? And the brightness?

--
Si

John

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 4:14:31 PM11/7/07
to
We have LED's fitted in our caravan. They are also used in bed spot lights.
They would not be usable in "normal" use yet. They are getting much
brighter, but as yet the latter bulbs, using 48 led.s, are very directional
and would need a lot of them for an area. The caravan lights are close
together and are just usable, they have great advantages when power is from
a battery charged by solar panels! I looked into using LED's for our kitchen
and gave up due to the number hat would have had to be used!

The supplier I have used is http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/ but there are an
increasing number and the products available are changing fast!


"Si" <SimonW@ag&r$vo.f$3o&m> wrote in message
news:ITfAUvF1...@stejonda.org.uk...

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 071106-0, 06/11/2007

Tested on: 07/11/2007 21:14:33

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:36:39 PM11/7/07
to
On 2007-11-07 11:14:25 +0000, "manat...@hotmail.com"
<manat...@hotmail.com> said:

Oh dear.

Because the product didn't do what was claimed.

The total cost of ownership includes at least:

- purchase price of the bulbs
- cost of electricity
- cost of time to buy them originally
- cost of time to buy replacements
- fuel to go to store for above
- time taken to research and write letters of complaint
- time taken to follow up to get results


Most people think only of the first two, which is not correct. The
remaining factors are typically far more than the first two and are
directly related to how many interactions are required with the
supplier. Assuming that one has done the correct calculation and
included all of this, then there would be a loss in comparison wih what
should have been.

Moreover, it would have probably been cheaper to have bought ten proper
bulbs and ditched them when they fail because the cost is negligible
anyway. As soon as a high capital cost of the product comes into
play, inevitably people will look more closely at premature failure and
may want to seek recompense. That takes time and therefore money to
achieve.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:39:43 PM11/7/07
to

All of which is rather pointless because the light quality os poor anyway.


>
> As with many things, CFLs are suitable for some areas, but not for others.

Outside, in inaccessible places is about the only one


> As efficient use of energy becomes more important we probably ought to be
> looking for more intelligent use of lighting, so that we use a combination
> of energy efficient space lighting

Efficient use of energy isn't important. Efficient production is,
which is precisely why a nuclear program needs to be instituted rather
than pissing around with silly lightbulbs.


> (maybe at a lower level than we're
> currently used to, and effective task lighting (localised lighting for work
> surfaces etc). The existence of expensively floodlit living spaces becomes
> unjustifiable when we live in a world where profligate use of energy has
> significant long-term effects.

Except that it doesn't. The issue is not use but generation.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:41:15 PM11/7/07
to
On 2007-11-07 11:48:45 +0000, "John"
<catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:

> The contributions on bulb life has apeared to have moved away from what the
> makers clams. They are NOT saying avrage, the information I found on the web
> site says the G10 bulbs "delivers breakthrough lighting performance and
> superior operating life expectancy of 15,000 hours" and with "With an
> operating life some 7.5 times longer than halogen".
>
>
>
> Directly I have however been told warrantee is linked to when the bulbs are
> made,batch, and "our lamp life is calculated at the point when 50% of the
> lamps are extinguished, even though the other 50% of the lamps are still
> working well". So to claim 15,000 is to me a lille misleading.

It's very misleading. If I were buying these things other than for
outside lights in a few cases, there would be a court action.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:42:13 PM11/7/07
to
On 2007-11-07 13:48:52 +0000, "John" <john(no
spam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:

>
> Makes you wonder how they could fail to last there full life!
> Interesting to see how uniformly young the workers were in the film. Looked
> like the micro processor plant publicity at one time, until it emerged that
> so many were very badly effected from fumes and having there eyesight
> destroyed by the work that workers only lasted a few years there.
>

Doesn't matter. There's a billion more where they came from.


OG

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 6:58:08 PM11/7/07
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message news:47324cbf@qaanaaq...

Both are important, but reduction in demand is ultimately more important.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 7:20:26 PM11/7/07
to
On 2007-11-07 23:58:08 +0000, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said:
>>
>>
>>> (maybe at a lower level than we're
>>> currently used to, and effective task lighting (localised lighting for
>>> work
>>> surfaces etc). The existence of expensively floodlit living spaces
>>> becomes
>>> unjustifiable when we live in a world where profligate use of energy has
>>> significant long-term effects.
>>
>> Except that it doesn't. The issue is not use but generation.
>
> Both are important, but reduction in demand is ultimately more important.

That's cloud cuckoo land.

Economies are not going to be thrown into reverse just to suit some
peripheral agenda.

Messing about with lightbulbs and suggesting a need to return to he dim
world of candles is ridiculous. Next there'll be subsidies for sconces
and goldfish bowls.

The whole thing is a combination of inappropriate marketing so that
people feel that they are "doing their bit" and sack cloth and ashes.

In the meantime, the issues that actually matter such as generation of
sufficient electricity to fuel growing economy become swamped by this
nonsense.

The Medway Handyman

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 7:28:22 PM11/7/07
to

Hear hear!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257


OG

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 7:52:28 PM11/7/07
to

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message news:4732564a@qaanaaq...

> On 2007-11-07 23:58:08 +0000, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (maybe at a lower level than we're
>>>> currently used to, and effective task lighting (localised lighting for
>>>> work
>>>> surfaces etc). The existence of expensively floodlit living spaces
>>>> becomes
>>>> unjustifiable when we live in a world where profligate use of energy
>>>> has
>>>> significant long-term effects.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't. The issue is not use but generation.
>>
>> Both are important, but reduction in demand is ultimately more important.
>
> That's cloud cuckoo land.
>
> Economies are not going to be thrown into reverse just to suit some
> peripheral agenda.

Did you see the report that the world is currently using 40% more resources
than the Earth can sustainably deliver?

This means that in terms of energy, food and resource production we are
spending capital, which means that it cannot be sustained.

With the world population likely to grow by another 50%, even if there is no
improvement in average worldwide living standards (which you would measure
by success in increased consumption), the demand is likely to exceed
sustainable resources by 100% within the next 40 years or so. If 'growth' is
the answer to the economic problems of the rest of the world (i.e. if we
aspire for the world's poor to share in the world's economic success), the
resource demand will approach 3 times the available resources.

> Messing about with lightbulbs and suggesting a need to return to he dim
> world of candles is ridiculous. Next there'll be subsidies for sconces
> and goldfish bowls.


> The whole thing is a combination of inappropriate marketing so that people
> feel that they are "doing their bit" and sack cloth and ashes.
>
> In the meantime, the issues that actually matter such as generation of
> sufficient electricity to fuel growing economy become swamped by this
> nonsense.
>

As I said, both are important; but ultimately the reduction in demand is
more important. We're already overspending, and we can't just hope for
'something' to come along to make our ever expanding way of life
sustainable.


Adam Aglionby

unread,
Nov 7, 2007, 9:20:56 PM11/7/07
to
On Nov 7, 8:21 pm, Si <SimonW@ag&r$vo.f$3o&m> wrote:
> In message <5peihhFqcc5...@mid.individual.net>, OG
> <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> writes

>
> >As with many things, CFLs are suitable for some areas, but not for
> >others.
>
> Are LEDs viable as kitchen downlighters yet? They seem to be available
> for around GBP15-18 with 12/19 white LEDs using around 1.2W. What would
> the colour be like? And the brightness?
>
> --
> Si

As main area lighting they are just about there but at quite some
cost, multiple 5 mm LEDs in an MR16 is never that great.Better in
saturated colours than white. The more recent high power LED based
MR16s are considerably better.

Colour is great as long as you like cool white and dont like red
meat :-) Warm white LEDs are becoming available but efficiency is not
so good. Or as have done use white with added amber in strips under
cupboards, warms up the light and got sick of duff T5 fittings and
amber LED above kick plates saves kicking the cat when raiding fridge.

It doesn`t neccesarily mean dimming all the lighting all the time, use
lighting appropriate to the task.

Ever wondered why supermarkets have no skylighting in their sheds, if
you want to chase energy consumers its not what your buying its where
your buying it </soapbox>

Similar discussion going on sci.engr.lighting regading LED for general
lighting, advantage LED has is its easier to put the light where its
needed, in things like a GU10 CFL trying to get the light out the
front is a challenge. Thanks to Terry NcGowan for the link, US based
so no halogen downlighters, but a GU10 has front face of 2" the 13
and 15 W CFLs in this demo had front face of 6" which whould make
them more efficient:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/RecessedDownlight.pdf

For the OP what about low voltage halogen and good transfomers and
good quailty 35W lamps or 20W if your used to the level of the CFLs,
straight drop in replacement.

Adam

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 12:50:43 AM11/8/07
to

Certainly usable, but fluorescents are a better option in most
respects.

http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=LED_Lighting


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 12:53:53 AM11/8/07
to

so true

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:05:36 AM11/8/07
to
On 2007-11-08 00:52:28 +0000, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said:
>
> Did you see the report that the world is currently using 40% more resources
> than the Earth can sustainably deliver?

I see variants of these every week. Most of them are unsubstantiated,
broad brushed waffle.


>
> This means that in terms of energy, food and resource production we are
> spending capital, which means that it cannot be sustained.

If that's the case, the situation will be corrected naturally.


>
> With the world population likely to grow by another 50%, even if there is no
> improvement in average worldwide living standards (which you would measure
> by success in increased consumption), the demand is likely to exceed
> sustainable resources by 100% within the next 40 years or so. If 'growth' is
> the answer to the economic problems of the rest of the world (i.e. if we
> aspire for the world's poor to share in the world's economic success), the
> resource demand will approach 3 times the available resources.

Who said anything about aspiration for the world's poor to share in the
world's economic success? It hasn't happened in the past and it's
unlikely to happen in the future either.

Human nature, and on a more basic level, animal behaviour doesn't work
in that way - self preservation is always the driving force.

Western governments have aid programs to developing nations, charities
come for our donations for Africa and everybody feels cosy because they
"are doing their bit". On the governmental level, this is only
happening to appear to be civilised or where there is a political,
influential or economic prize to be had. The amounts involved are
usually the tiniest drop in a bucket. In all cases, if times get
hard, that kind of thing dries up.

In the meantime, look at China, doing some kind of a successful job of
bootstrapping itself into world economy. How is it managing that?
Simple. Setting its own rules and getting away with it (e.g.
commissioning a new coal fired power station every week) but mainly
because it has a ready and open market of people wanting to buy cheap
goods.. Is that likely to change soon? I don't think so.


>
>> Messing about with lightbulbs and suggesting a need to return to he dim
>> world of candles is ridiculous. Next there'll be subsidies for sconces
>> and goldfish bowls.
>
>
>> The whole thing is a combination of inappropriate marketing so that people
>> feel that they are "doing their bit" and sack cloth and ashes.
>>
>> In the meantime, the issues that actually matter such as generation of
>> sufficient electricity to fuel growing economy become swamped by this
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> As I said, both are important; but ultimately the reduction in demand is
> more important.

If that is the case, then there will be a long wait, because nobody is
going to deliberately throw economic growth into reverse on a long term
basis for it to happen.

Certainly tinkering around with light bulbs is the equivalent to
putting 50p in the Christian Aid envelope at Christmas.


> We're already overspending, and we can't just hope for
> 'something' to come along to make our ever expanding way of life
> sustainable.

That, however, is what will happen. If resources become more scarce,
as always they will become more expensive. Those with the ability to
pay will buy them, those without won't. More efficient ways to
produce and use resources will undoubtedly be found. As they become
more expensive, it becomes viable to do so.

Other than some tinkering at the edges, that is the way that it will pan out.


meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:23:22 AM11/8/07
to
OG wrote:
> "Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message news:4732564a@qaanaaq.
> > On 2007-11-07 23:58:08 +0000, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said:

> >>> Except that it doesn't. The issue is not use but generation.
> >>
> >> Both are important, but reduction in demand is ultimately more important.
> >
> > That's cloud cuckoo land.
> >
> > Economies are not going to be thrown into reverse just to suit some
> > peripheral agenda.
>
> Did you see the report that the world is currently using 40% more resources
> than the Earth can sustainably deliver?
>
> This means that in terms of energy, food and resource production we are
> spending capital, which means that it cannot be sustained.

No it doesnt, it means another pseudoscientist has sought to cash
in on this daft notion that seems to have gained some popularity.


> With the world population likely to grow by another 50%, even if there is no
> improvement in average worldwide living standards (which you would measure
> by success in increased consumption), the demand is likely to exceed
> sustainable resources by 100% within the next 40 years or so.

Not a chance in hell.


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:26:16 AM11/8/07
to

How is quoting a mean life misleading? Or in this unusual case
median life?


NT

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 2:15:51 AM11/8/07
to

Median life is quite clear as long as you understand basic statistics.

However, the manufacturers and sellers are not being honest.

For example, if you go to Megaman's main web site and look at a typical
product it says "Lifetime: 15,000hr". There isn't even a little '*'
pointer to a disclaimer that qualifies what 15000hrs means.

Then take a look at a selection of web suppliers of these bulbs and you
will find that it says the same or perhaps something like "rated life",
but without saying what that means. To the astute, that ought to be
a flag that this does not appear to be what it says and that "rated
life" has a meaning that is not a basic one of "this lamp will last a
minimum of 15000 hours."

I believe that this 50% failure criterion has been industry practice
for a while, including proper tungsten bulbs as well, although probably
most people have ignored it because the cost of these is buttons anyway.

Now that we have a type of product with high initial cost with part of
the justification being longer lifetime then either the basis for
measurement and supply should be changed (e.g. manufacturer guarantees
a minimum lifetime); or the basis should be spelled out more clearly.

I am sure that manufacturers are not going to want to reduce their
lifetime figure down to perhaps 4000 hours for example or whatever
other measurement point would give them an acceptable replacement rate
under warranty, so at least they should have to quote their figures
with the basis for measurement made completely clear.


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 3:08:26 AM11/8/07
to
In article <ITfAUvF1...@stejonda.org.uk>,

The ones you can current buy in retail outlets are about the
same efficiency as MR16 halogens, so it will be equivalent to
a 1.2W halogen lamp, i.e. 16 of them would be equivalent to
one 20W halogen lamp, which is the lowest power MR16 commonly
available.

There are much higher efficiency LED lamps around, but currently
at far too high prices for general purpose domestic lighting.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Message has been deleted

John

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 4:18:09 AM11/8/07
to
One thing that I thought off is the film showing the bulb testing has them
all upright. Very few bulbs are used that way, most hang down. I recall that
bulbs last, for whatever reason much longer upright. I think it was said
they are designed to work that way, but this may be for tungsten, but even
so the honest test would be of the bulbs the way most are used. So the
testing, if that's true, is done on a false basis to start with!

"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message news:4732b7a7@qaanaaq...

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 071107-0, 07/11/2007
Tested on: 08/11/2007 09:18:14

sm_jamieson

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 5:24:26 AM11/8/07
to
On 8 Nov, 09:18, "John" <john(no spam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> One thing that I thought off is the film showing the bulb testing has them
> all upright. Very few bulbs are used that way, most hang down. I recall that
> bulbs last, for whatever reason much longer upright. I think it was said
> they are designed to work that way, but this may be for tungsten, but even
> so the honest test would be of the bulbs the way most are used. So the
> testing, if that's true, is done on a false basis to start with!
>

The electronics would be getting a lot hotter with the bulbs upside
down.
What they need to show is a statistical plot of the full lifecycle
testing results.
There may be a hump of failures after a very short time, and any of
these examples should be returned under warranty.
Simon.

Man at B&Q

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 7:22:26 AM11/8/07
to
On Nov 7, 11:36 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On 2007-11-07 11:14:25 +0000, "manatba...@hotmail.com"

> <manatba...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 9:11 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >> On 2007-11-06 20:49:42 +0000, "John"
> >> <catchall(nospam)@trefonen.eclipse.co.uk> said:
>
> >>> Thanks for reply's. Normally I would chase up retailer, but even just
> >>> keeping the main receipts I have two filing boxes, not including the lamps!
> >>> Which is why I went to Megaman. It would be interesting if the retailers try
> >>> the batch argument as well!
>
> >> If they do, it's a perfect reason to ask for a refund.
>
> >> I am sure that this system relies on people not keeping a note of the
> >> operating hours, much like most people don't keep receipts for
> >> purchases in general anyway. As long as it seems better, that's
> >> probably enough.
>
> >>> At least we didn't lose money,
>
> >> You did, because the products didn't meet expectations.
>
> > They have saved him money, see OGs calculation. How does that equate
> > to losing money?
>
> > MBQ
>
> Oh dear.

Oh dera, indeed.

>
> Because the product didn't do what was claimed.

How does that affect the equation?

>
> The total cost of ownership includes at least:
>
> - purchase price of the bulbs
> - cost of electricity

So iff OG's calculations were correct, he's more than broken even, ie
saved money.

> - cost of time to buy them originally

Applies whatever type of bulb or how long they last. Can be combined
with other shopping trips so negligible marginal cost.

> - cost of time to buy replacements

Ditto.

> - fuel to go to store for above

Ditto.

> - time taken to research and write letters of complaint
> - time taken to follow up to get results

Assuming he bothers. He's on top already, so no extra cost there.

MBQ

Kostas Kavoussanakis

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 7:27:18 AM11/8/07
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Andy Hall wrote:

> the light quality os poor anyway.

I have seen this claim repeatedly. What does it mean (ie what is the
user experience)?

Thanks!

Kostas

Ian Stirling

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:02:33 AM11/8/07
to

To put some numbers on this.

Let's take a 100W light bulb as an example.

This puts out some 1300lumens and uses 100W, for an efficiency of around
13lm/W.

For a compact fluorescant, these numbers change to 22W, and 60lm/W, and cost maybe 3 pounds (unsubsidised)

For a large linear flourescant tube, 13W, and 100lm/W, costing a poundish.

LEDs now.
http://luxeonstar.com/item.php?id=5135&link_str=1394&partno=LXML-PWC1-0070 for example.

These cost $3.30 (in 100s), and put out 70lm/W in neutral white when run at 1W.

This is 19 LEDs to equal the above 100W light, which take 19W, call it 22W
when the ballast losses are counted.

Costing maybe (in the shops) 60 quid per bulb.

If you drive the LEDs harder, you can drop it to 10 LEDs, and maybe 30 quid,
but the efficiency drops my 40% or so.

However.

With the appropriate driver circuitry, this can reasonably be expected to be producing light fairly efficiently in ten years constantly on.

In short - they are probably barely competitive with CFL at the moment, for applications where otherwise you'd need someone to come out and replace
the bulb.
Say in awkward locations in stairwells.

However again, it's only in the past couple of years that LEDs have approached this efficiency, and while the physics won't let you double the
brightness/power easily (they are already some 20% efficienct, getting to
40% would require major technological changes), getting another factor of
10 down in price should be quite feasible in the next 5 years.

At that point, they do become competitive.


Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:28:17 AM11/8/07
to
On 2007-11-08 12:27:18 +0000, Kostas Kavoussanakis
<kavo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk> said:

To me, they are dim and the colour effect is somewhat bilious

Tournifreak

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:34:22 AM11/8/07
to

Ah, you're all heart aren't you Andy?

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 8:46:54 AM11/8/07
to
On 2007-11-08 12:22:26 +0000, Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> said:

> On Nov 7, 11:36 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> On
>>

>> Because the product didn't do what was claimed.
>
> How does that affect the equation?

Because corrective action was taken and time is required to do that


>
>>
>> The total cost of ownership includes at least:
>>
>> - purchase price of the bulbs
>> - cost of electricity
>
> So iff OG's calculations were correct, he's more than broken even, ie
> saved money.
>
>> - cost of time to buy them originally
>
> Applies whatever type of bulb or how long they last. Can be combined
> with other shopping trips so negligible marginal cost.

Incrementalism is not the correct way to view a loss. Each should
be taken in isolation and properly taken into account.

Seeking redress for the failed product is the primary purpose of the
shopping trip, the rest being incidental.


>
>> - cost of time to buy replacements
>
> Ditto.
>
>> - fuel to go to store for above
>
> Ditto.
>
>> - time taken to research and write letters of complaint
>> - time taken to follow up to get results
>
> Assuming he bothers. He's on top already, so no extra cost there.

Unfortunately he isn't and there is.

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 9:13:17 AM11/8/07
to

I am. I wish it weren't true. Think about the stream of mining
and factory accidents as just one example.


Kostas Kavoussanakis

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 9:45:43 AM11/8/07
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Andy Hall wrote:

> On 2007-11-08 12:27:18 +0000, Kostas Kavoussanakis <kavo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk>
> said:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Andy Hall wrote:
>>
>>> the light quality os poor anyway.
>>
>> I have seen this claim repeatedly. What does it mean (ie what is the user
>> experience)?
>

> To me, they are dim and the colour effect is somewhat bilious

Thanks. Does that mean that the quoted figures for equivalence with
incandescents (both in terms of output and in terms of colour-temp.)
are "optimistic"?

Kostas

Man at B&Q

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 10:20:07 AM11/8/07
to
On Nov 8, 1:46 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:

> On 2007-11-08 12:22:26 +0000, Man at B&Q <manatba...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > On Nov 7, 11:36 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >> On
>
> >> Because the product didn't do what was claimed.
>
> > How does that affect the equation?
>
> Because corrective action was taken and time is required to do that
>
>
>
> >> The total cost of ownership includes at least:
>
> >> - purchase price of the bulbs
> >> - cost of electricity
>
> > So iff OG's calculations were correct, he's more than broken even, ie
> > saved money.
>
> >> - cost of time to buy them originally
>
> > Applies whatever type of bulb or how long they last. Can be combined
> > with other shopping trips so negligible marginal cost.
>
> Incrementalism is not the correct way to view a loss. Each should
> be taken in isolation and properly taken into account.
>
> Seeking redress for the failed product is the primary purpose of the
> shopping trip, the rest being incidental.

Err, no. The item above is about the trip for the initial purchase. If
you want to make individual trips for every item you purchase then
that's up to you but it's a very expensive and wasteful way to live
your life. Personally, I make a list and shop when it suits me,
combining multiple purchases in one trip. The cost of purchasing any
particular item is some fraction of the cost the trip, based on
individual values, quantities, weights or some other metric. If you
buy 10 items via the internet and pay £5 P&P, they didn't each cost
you £5 P&P.

>
>
>
> >> - cost of time to buy replacements
>
> > Ditto.
>
> >> - fuel to go to store for above
>
> > Ditto.
>
> >> - time taken to research and write letters of complaint
> >> - time taken to follow up to get results
>
> > Assuming he bothers. He's on top already, so no extra cost there.
>
> Unfortunately he isn't and there is.

If he's saved money over a particular period compared to the
alternative then he is. He can just take the profit and shop
elsewhere. There's no additional cost in not complaining.

MBQ

Message has been deleted

Derek Geldard

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 12:49:02 PM11/8/07
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:28:17 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>
>To me, they are dim

They are dim if you measure them. They are dim when newly installed
(about 33% less than they claim) and then they tail off, IME at about
48% per year.

>and the colour effect is somewhat bilious

The spectrum of the light output is very spiky, natural daylight is
more continuous, tungsten lamps also have a continuous spectrum,
although a bit different to daylight.

The effect is with CFL's what you see depends very significantly on
the how much light energy happens to be reflected from the scene in
the region of the spikes. This means that humans take on a strange
unnatural skin colour.

The human eye is very sensitive to this, it has been bred into us,
since time immemorial being the first indicator of serious illness.
One day my neighbour's wife said to him "Geoff You don't look right,
you'd better go to the Doctor's", he said "I feel fine there's nothing
wrong with me" but went anyway. He died 5 weeks later of stomach
cancer ...

For the same reason CFL's are also totally useless for colour matching
any paints, dyes, fabrics etc.

The mills making the best high class woollen suit materials used to
have their final inspection department on the top floor of the mill in
a room light by natural daylight.

DG

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 1:17:29 PM11/8/07
to
On 2007-11-08 15:20:07 +0000, Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> said:

> On Nov 8, 1:46 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> On 2007-11-08 12:22:26 +0000, Man at B&Q <manatba...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 11:36 pm, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>>> On
>>
>>>> Because the product didn't do what was claimed.
>>
>>> How does that affect the equation?
>>
>> Because corrective action was taken and time is required to do that
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The total cost of ownership includes at least:
>>
>>>> - purchase price of the bulbs
>>>> - cost of electricity
>>
>>> So iff OG's calculations were correct, he's more than broken even, ie
>>> saved money.
>>
>>>> - cost of time to buy them originally
>>
>>> Applies whatever type of bulb or how long they last. Can be combined
>>> with other shopping trips so negligible marginal cost.
>>
>> Incrementalism is not the correct way to view a loss. Each should
>> be taken in isolation and properly taken into account.
>>
>> Seeking redress for the failed product is the primary purpose of the
>> shopping trip, the rest being incidental.
>
> Err, no.

Err yes.

> The item above is about the trip for the initial purchase. If
> you want to make individual trips for every item you purchase then
> that's up to you but it's a very expensive and wasteful way to live
> your life.

You're missing the point completely.

The issue behind all of this is that the manufacturers of these things
are being downright dishonest about the light output, the colour
rendition, the lifetime and energy saving aspects of their products.

In terms of consumer legislation, redress for that is with the
retailer, not the manufacturer.

In addition to the cost of the product, the consumer is entitled to
reasonable damages.

So I have a faulty product that hasn't met its specifications as
presented top the consumer.

I am sure that the retailer would love me to say "Don't worry about the
cost of my time and petrol, I had to come and buy cornflakes anyway".

I'm not going to do that. I am returning the product because it is
not fit for purpose and has been misrepesented. That equates to
refund plus the cost of doing so.

I'm not going to accept anything less than compensation for the whole
exercise, ignoring what other purchases I might be making.

After all, he didn't sell me the product on the basis of whether or
not I was buying cornflakes at teh same time. Why would he expect to
have a different arrangement for the return and refund of the product?

> Personally, I make a list and shop when it suits me,
> combining multiple purchases in one trip. The cost of purchasing any
> particular item is some fraction of the cost the trip, based on
> individual values, quantities, weights or some other metric. If you
> buy 10 items via the internet and pay £5 P&P, they didn't each cost
> you £5 P&P.

This is irrelevant.


>>
>
> If he's saved money over a particular period compared to the
> alternative then he is.

Wrong.

> He can just take the profit and shop
> elsewhere. There's no additional cost in not complaining.

On the contrary. Unless it hits the retailer in the pocket, there is
no push back on the manufacturer.

Andy Champ

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 3:29:32 PM11/8/07
to
Andy Hall wrote:
> On 2007-11-08 00:52:28 +0000, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> said:
<snip>

>> This means that in terms of energy, food and resource production we are
>> spending capital, which means that it cannot be sustained.
>
> If that's the case, the situation will be corrected naturally.
>
</snip>

You don't want to be there when it happens. The correction will be
caused by massive mortality, whether through plague, famine, or war.

Imagine our lifestyle without any fossil fuel use - even for farming.

Andy

Kostas Kavoussanakis

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 3:42:49 PM11/8/07
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Derek Geldard wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:28:17 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> To me, they are dim
>
> They are dim if you measure them. They are dim when newly installed
> (about 33% less than they claim) and then they tail off, IME at about
> 48% per year.
>
>> and the colour effect is somewhat bilious
>
> The spectrum of the light output is very spiky, natural daylight is
> more continuous, tungsten lamps also have a continuous spectrum,
> although a bit different to daylight.

This is all very useful to me (I hope to others too). Can I confrim if
this applies to halogen energy-savers only, or all types. I have
installed Softone energy savers that are remarkably worse (and
certainly not soft) than the GE, twisting tube type Scottish Gas (I
think it was) sent me for free. Is this all a lost cause?

Kostas

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 3:45:27 PM11/8/07
to

Of course.

That is how it is always corrected, always has been and always will be.

Sad I know, but attempts at achieving otherwise, given time, will be as
successful as the efforts of King Knut.

We may like to think that by doing various things to affect
consumption, that it will be different, that somehow we operate on a
higher moral plan than the rest of the animal kingdom. This is easy to
accept and to implement all the time that it is only causing slight
pain in much the same way as beds of nails and so on.

However, when it comes to the most basic instinct of all, self
preservation, what will happen?

I have a hard time believing that there will be any substantial
self-sacrifice. There is no historical precedence for that.


Derek Geldard

unread,
Nov 8, 2007, 4:11:40 PM11/8/07
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:45:27 +0000, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:

>


>That is how it is always corrected, always has been and always will be.
>
>Sad I know, but attempts at achieving otherwise, given time, will be as
>successful as the efforts of King Knut.

Got him a service station on the M6.

Better than a chip shop in Congleton.

DG

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 12:23:27 AM11/9/07
to

Sort of. If the LEDs claim the same colour temp (CCT) as
incandescents, then thats what they'll have. But the CRI is very
different, resulting in a much poorer quality of light. Also there
may
be uneven distribution of colour components, giving variation in CCT
and the output level may only be measured at peak output position,
whereas incandescents are more or less omnidirectional.

So where figures casually appear to match those of incandescents,
the result won't match. That doesnt mean the figured are wrong, its
just more complex than first appears.


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 12:30:09 AM11/9/07
to

How optimistic. The whole point of advertising is to mislead. It
applies to all products. It is down to the consumer to read the small
print to see what it really means.

Lightbulbs have more or less always been rated as mean life, not
median.


NT

Andy Hall

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 12:58:03 AM11/9/07
to

I try to be.


> The whole point of advertising is to mislead.

That's jaundiced. It should at least be honest and truthful as far
as it goes, even if it doesn't tell the whole truth and leaves it for
the purchaser to make assumptions that might or might not be correct.

However, this steps over the line of truthfulness since it is not
qualified in the material that is provided to the prospective purchaser.

> It
> applies to all products. It is down to the consumer to read the small
> print to see what it really means.

Absolutely. In that case, the small print should be there.


>
> Lightbulbs have more or less always been rated as mean life, not
> median.
>

Either one is misleading unless explicitly stated. Even then it is
not reasonable to expect the purchaser to know what these actually are.
Based on the statement of "lifetime 15000hrs" it's much more
reasonable that people would expect the lifetime to be that as a
minimum and that if the product doesn't achieve it, then
refund/replacement.

It hasn't been a big issue before because lightbulbs have not been sold
on the basis of lifetime.

Now that this is one of the main planks of the selling proposition,
this aspect needs to be clarified.

I'm going to contact the ASA about it and possibly Trading Standards
because this is not acceptable advertising or product representation.

Man at B&Q

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 6:04:25 AM11/9/07
to
On Nov 8, 5:49 pm, Derek Geldard <d...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The mills making the best high class woollen suit materials used to
> have their final inspection department on the top floor of the mill in
> a room light by natural daylight.
>

Not just mills, and not just on the top floor. Lots of places had
"northlight" windows to get diffuse natural light.

MBQ

David Hansen

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 7:33:57 AM11/9/07
to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:39:43 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote this:-

>All of which is rather pointless because the light quality os poor anyway.

Only in the mind of a few people, many/most of whom would probably
not notice anything if they walked into a room which was already
illuminated by compact fluorescent lights.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 7:40:57 AM11/9/07
to
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:17:29 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote this:-

>The issue behind all of this is that the manufacturers of these things

>are being downright dishonest about the light output, the colour
>rendition, the lifetime and energy saving aspects of their products.

Yawn. In your opinion perhaps. While you are entitled to that
opinion you should not try and browbeat others who have a different
opinion. I have lit nearly every room in my various houses with at
least some compact fluorescent bulbs for a very long time. I don't
fall over things because of the "poor light output", the lifetime
figures quoted have been an underestimate and the energy saving is
something I have measured.

People should be very careful about believing your assertions on
this and other matters, without testing them for themselves. I have
tested your assertions and found them to be incorrect.

Stuart Noble

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 11:38:09 AM11/9/07
to
David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:39:43 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
> <an...@hall.nospam> wrote this:-
>
>> All of which is rather pointless because the light quality os poor anyway.
>
> Only in the mind of a few people, many/most of whom would probably
> not notice anything if they walked into a room which was already
> illuminated by compact fluorescent lights.
>
>
>
>

Those I've seen take an age to reach the gloom they term full power, by
which time I might well have fallen down the stairs. Easy solution is to
leave them on the whole time...

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 11:51:15 AM11/9/07
to

Unaware consumers make all sorts of assumptions, sellers
routinely trade on this