In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I tried going round my parent's house, but a significant number
of the fittings won't take equivalent light output CFLs, only
much lower output ones.

Why?

Lamps are too long.
Also some with neck too fat, but I don't much care about those cases.

I can get 100W equvalent CFLS in the same size as a 100W light bulb..?

Where, or what make?
That will be a 20-25W CFL (although I'd settle for 18W at a pinch).
I've never seen any as short as a standard GLS lamp (108.5mm).
I've got quite a number at home, but shortest I've found is 130mm (and
that's dropping down to an 18W one). I could probably use a 120mm one
if I could find one.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On 03 Jul 2006 18:16:04 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

Lamps like the following are much the same size as GLS lamps
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/pro....asp?ProdID=75

Unfortunately not. All those are longer than an old GLS bulb,

Then they wouldn't fit in several fittings, for example some
bulkheads, which are a tight fit for a GLS bulb. However, they do in
several examples I can think of.

the 20W one (nearest to 100W equivalent output) is an inch
longer (and there would be even more size difference between
the newer smaller size GLS bulbs now being used).

100W GLS bulbs are generally for badly designed lighting systems.
Far better to modify it so that lower wattage bulbs can be used.

I tried going round my parent's house, but a significant number
of the fittings won't take equivalent light output CFLs, only
much lower output ones.

Was this in the past year or so? Until then that was the case,
usually due to the length.


--
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

On 03 Jul 2006 18:49:24 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.

People have remained wedded to "traditional" styles of fitting.
Whether this is a chicken or egg is debatable. When they started off
Thorn did sell a 2D conversion kit which had the control gear in a
box with a bayonet fitting on one end and a standard 16W 2D lamp on
the other.

The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on
the list of complaints about compact fluorescents.

With the modern fittings it takes perhaps half a second to strike
and reach decent brightness. I don't think there is now a reason to
complain about this aspect.

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback.

If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.



--
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

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:50:26 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?

In fact, all that happens is you burn more oil/gas to heat the
house..the stray heat from lights and cookers is a significant
contributor to house heating.

You are assuming that the house needs to be heated all year.


--
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

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:50:26 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.

I have an SL25 which is almost that age, and a few SL9's
which are probably 20 years old but not currently installed.
I did have one of the very first SL18's which would be over
25 years old, but I accidently left it behind when I moved
out of digs many years ago.

--
Andrew Gabriel

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback.

If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.

Isn't that what this whole discussion is about - how many people aren't
buying the lamps?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
With the modern fittings it takes perhaps half a second to strike
and reach decent brightness. I don't think there is now a reason to
complain about this aspect.

It's not the strike time, but the run-up time which is complained
about, which tends to be around 30-60 seconds (time taken for the
amalgam pellet to warm up and release currect quantity of mercury,
and for it to diffuse along the tube). Different lamps have
differing percentage of initial light output though.

The 2D lamps are actually some of the better ones for initial
light output, and I have used them in several of my own conversions,
particularly with instant start control gear. I don't think any of
the users have even realised these are not filament lamp fittings.

--
Andrew Gabriel

David Hansen typed

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback.

If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.

I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so
far, on the landing.

Some red garments appear an awful shade in their light.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:26:45 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.

Is that the one in the spare store room that gets switched on for 5 mins
every couple of years? B-)

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?

A lot of the "energy effciency" advertising extols only boiling the
amount of water you need rather than a whole kettle full each time.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

(Andrew Gabriel)typed

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback. There are a small number of complaints that much higher
CCT lamps are not easily available (which would emphasise the
features you dislike).

Well, they make me feel uneasy.

I won't have them anywhere I sit for a long time and certainly not where
I get dressed.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

On 2 Jul 2006 09:39:51 -0700, wrote:

A better solution would be to require info tags for new electrical
goods. These would state the annual use cost with stated conditions so
buyers suddenly have an incentive to buy more efficient goods. They
could also state estimated product life, though there would inevitably
be argument there. Items with tags saying 'no information' would be
permitted, but this is effectively admitting the worst, so many mfrs
would want to rate and declare their goods.

Since tag information is all optional, you can still buy whatever you
want if you like. It will create a market for energy efficiency. And
importantly, it avoids forcing a hypothesised and expensive solution on
everyone, it allows manufacturers, sellers and buyers to say no to the
scheme, it allows for the scheme to not work if thats how it turns out
without a load of new costs and obligations being lumbered on everyone.

A good idea. However I'm not sure how accurate the data would be for,
say, a Media Centre PC. You would have to make wild guesses on its
usage as the power drawn would vary immensely. I can't think you
could describe a typical pattern of use that easily.

Mark

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
(Andrew Gabriel)typed

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback. There are a small number of complaints that much higher
CCT lamps are not easily available (which would emphasise the
features you dislike).

Well, they make me feel uneasy.

I won't have them anywhere I sit for a long time and certainly not where
I get dressed.

Are you saying that you have so many clothes of similar yet subtley
different shades that you simply can't remember what goes with what?
Is this really a problem for you?

Personally I find normal house lighting to give a different colour to
daylight anyway. So dressing in any artificial light will not match
daylight.

I would have thought that most people would know what went with what in
their wardrobe.

--
Steve F

Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
I am fortunate not to have any of these lamps, but were I to purchase a new
house, one of the first tasks would be to consign them to the skip where they
belong

Please freecycle them in my direction :-)

and to replace them with lighting of my choice and not that of the
government.

I have CFLs in practically everything, because the appalling design of
this place means I have scarcely any natural light and have to use
electric 16 hours a day even in midsummer. :-(

Owain

Ouch. Sounds like suntiles would give you very good ROI,
http://www.suntileuk.com/shop_details.php?i=1006
even more so if you use a piece of wired glass plus their extension kit
instead of buying the suntile.

I've used external reflectors to double light levels, even better ROI


NT

The message .com
from "Fitz" contains these words:

I would have thought that most people would know what went with what in
their wardrobe.

I'm too colourblind to tell so I've learned not to care.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:37:12 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

I think that you wouldn't. The solution, however, is to simply rip
them out after completion.

Aye, and there by wasting all the energy consumed in their manufacture,
transport etc. Like I said a "fing stupid way to go about things".

I think the usual practice is the builder has one set that gets
installed (then promptly replaced) over and over. The wasted labour is
worth far more than any wasted materials. Tis an idiot law.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:49:24 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote

The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on
the list of complaints about compact fluorescents. Light output
being below the claimed tungsten equivalent also comes moderately
high up the list, and is often given as a reason for someone
having tried one once, and decided not to use them. (This is
why I always say ignore the claimed equivalent power on the box,
and just multiply by 4 to get tungsten equivalent.)

the trouble is that it takes a very long time to get over poor first
impressions, especially when the promoters try to pretend that functionality
and aesthetics are the same. If there had been more honesty it might have
been a different story.

I think CFLs are falling prey to the same phenomenon that wiped linear
fluorescnet out as a domestic lighting option. Linear fl is an
excellent method of lighting houses _if_ its done right. The problem is
it can go so very wrong. Inevitably ignorant end users install the
wrong type of light in the wrong type of way, and the result is awful.
Lacking the awareness to discriminate between different types of tubes,
fittings and installation methods, users then condemn all fls as awful.

There are very good quality cfls, but there are also al ot that have a
funny and unpleasant pinkish tint to them. All deliver well below
claimed output too, so the result for an unaware end user is crap
lighting.

CFL mfrs are really shooting themselves in the foot by continuing with
their disingenuous equivalent power claims.


NT

Mark wrote:
On 2 Jul 2006 09:39:51 -0700, wrote:

A better solution would be to require info tags for new electrical
goods. These would state the annual use cost with stated conditions so
buyers suddenly have an incentive to buy more efficient goods. They
could also state estimated product life, though there would inevitably
be argument there. Items with tags saying 'no information' would be
permitted, but this is effectively admitting the worst, so many mfrs
would want to rate and declare their goods.

Since tag information is all optional, you can still buy whatever you
want if you like. It will create a market for energy efficiency. And
importantly, it avoids forcing a hypothesised and expensive solution on
everyone, it allows manufacturers, sellers and buyers to say no to the
scheme, it allows for the scheme to not work if thats how it turns out
without a load of new costs and obligations being lumbered on everyone.

A good idea. However I'm not sure how accurate the data would be for,
say, a Media Centre PC. You would have to make wild guesses on its
usage as the power drawn would vary immensely. I can't think you
could describe a typical pattern of use that easily.

Mark

There are a few issues like this to address. Pattern of use is probably
one of the easier ones, as firstly the assumptions would be stated on
the label, and if they look unrealistic the end user that reads it
would see that. Secondly a typical mixture of computer use isnt hard to
come up with, just monitor a handful of employee home PCs with a
killawatt meter for a week, job done. In practice there would also be
the extra step of massaging the figures as much as possible.

Some standard conditions might be established so figures were
comparable and realistic across the board, and mfrs would need to state
the BS whatever figures as well as their own more optimistic ones. This
is how cars are mpg rated, and although its not accurate it does give a
reasonable comparison. Imagine buying cars with no mpg info, it really
helps to have the info available.

The biggest issues are predicted lifetime, which is harder to estimate
and easy to get wrong, plus the question of what do you do with
lifetime claims that turn out to be wrong. However if the expected
lifetime on the tag is 5 years, the consumer at least has a stronger
legal position when claiming for premature failure outside of warranty,
this might provide the necessary feedback mechanism.

If that doesnt prove an effective feedback mechanism, what else to do
about false lifetime claims I dont know. Its an idea that needs these
things addressing if its to work well, but even if they all remain
unaddressed the consumer will still be more aware and make choices
based on these factors more often. Its just a questoin of how much gain
such a scheme could bring.

It would make us all a bit richer too, since we would be better
equipped to make good choices and thus would end up with more goods for
the same money in the long run, or the same for less.


NT

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:12:47 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.

Mostly. Except for a while Ikea sold CFLs that died after about a year.

And "Hub" sold me some CFLs that died after a few weeks. I will be
avoiding cheap CFLs after that.

Mark.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:24:16 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On 03 Jul 2006 18:49:24 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.

People have remained wedded to "traditional" styles of fitting.
Whether this is a chicken or egg is debatable. When they started off
Thorn did sell a 2D conversion kit which had the control gear in a
box with a bayonet fitting on one end and a standard 16W 2D lamp on
the other.

Why should one have to mess about with that nonsense?



The low initial output and run-up time is always very high on
the list of complaints about compact fluorescents.

With the modern fittings it takes perhaps half a second to strike
and reach decent brightness. I don't think there is now a reason to
complain about this aspect.

People not liking the colour in the way you describe is not
something I've ever seen any complaints about in consumer
feedback.

If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.


It clearly is a serious problem because people don't buy them.

If you stand at any self service fixture in a supermarket or DIY store for
5-10 minutes and watch what people are choosing to buy, it is standard
tungsten lamps, halogen lamps and spot lamps. Occasionally one sees
somebody pick up a CFL.

These things are not flying off the shelves and the reasons why are obvious.

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:18:05 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.

Is that the one in the spare store room that gets switched on for 5 mins
every couple of years? B-)

Almost. Otherwise it would almost certainly have conked out by now.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.

Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?

A lot of the "energy effciency" advertising extols only boiling the
amount of water you need rather than a whole kettle full each time.

A very good idea, but in an individual house one will not save
megawatts by doing so, even over a year. However, over the whole of
the UK...


--
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

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:12:47 +0100, Guy King
wrote:

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
The benefit of CFL's appears in about tow years when you realise they
actually do have the sort of life claimed for them.
Mostly. Except for a while Ikea sold CFLs that died after about a year.

And "Hub" sold me some CFLs that died after a few weeks. I will be
avoiding cheap CFLs after that.

Mark.

I have had about three that were DOA or shortly after. They were NOT cheap.

The current crop seems to be pretty good. I managed to smash the tube in
one as I inserted it. It STILL WORKED with a section of glass missing -
the discharge happily jumped the gap. Weird eh? No, I didn't leave it
there to see how long it would last :-)

On 04 Jul 2006 07:25:23 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

Actually, that brings up another point. A secondary reason for
reduced light output is that the light comes from a different
position relative to the lamp base. A case in point was a bulkhead
into which I recently fitted a CFL. It has a reflector positioned
to direct the light in the right direction. With a CFL, no light
is seen coming off the reflector because what you see in the
reflector is a reflection of the control gear and the bottom dim
ends of the tubes. This issue of the light coming from a different
position relative to the lamp base is one cause of apparent reduced
light output, when it doesn't match the design of the luminare
optics.

It is, but on those fittings where it is a problem is usually easily
rectified.

They are getting
better -- probably commonly an inch shorter than a few years ago,
and another inch or even half an inch shorter would open them up
to even more use.

The GE mini-extra, or is it extra-mini can't be bothered to look it
up, is actually shorter than a GLS bulb certainly in the smaller
sizes.



--
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 wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:18:05 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.
Is that the one in the spare store room that gets switched on for 5 mins
every couple of years? B-)

Almost. Otherwise it would almost certainly have conked out by now.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.
Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?
A lot of the "energy effciency" advertising extols only boiling the
amount of water you need rather than a whole kettle full each time.

A very good idea, but in an individual house one will not save
megawatts by doing so, even over a year. However, over the whole of
the UK...


With a decent CH system you won't save ANY power at all.

The CH system will use precisely the same amount of energy less as you
have used to boil the excess water.

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler, no fossil
fuel savings result whatsoever.

Ok in SUMMER when you aren't running the heating, there are gains to be
made...but one tends to drink cold drinks then anyway...

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:29:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:18:05 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

I have one that is now almost 25 years old.
Is that the one in the spare store room that gets switched on for 5 mins
every couple of years? B-)

Almost. Otherwise it would almost certainly have conked out by now.

Wjat IO find more amusing is that cry that yo will save megawatts by
boiling half a kettle. Or reepalcing bulbs.
Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?
A lot of the "energy effciency" advertising extols only boiling the
amount of water you need rather than a whole kettle full each time.

A very good idea, but in an individual house one will not save
megawatts by doing so, even over a year. However, over the whole of
the UK...


With a decent CH system you won't save ANY power at all.

The CH system will use precisely the same amount of energy less as you
have used to boil the excess water.

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler, no fossil
fuel savings result whatsoever.

Ok in SUMMER when you aren't running the heating, there are gains to be
made...but one tends to drink cold drinks then anyway...

Yes but you're missing the point. It fits with the big greeny wet dream.

Science, practicality, economics, personal choice and common sense don't have
anything to do with it.

Andy Hall typed


If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.


It clearly is a serious problem because people don't buy them.

It is serious; I don't buy them cos their light makes me unhappy. I
can't be alone.

I try to do my bit for the planet but won't let it make me feel ill (or
is that off-colour?)
I have a tendency towards SAD and CFLs don't help.

(Big south-west facing windows at the back of the house and north-east
windows in front do help, though I'm a tad hot right now...)

If you stand at any self service fixture in a supermarket or DIY store for
5-10 minutes and watch what people are choosing to buy, it is standard
tungsten lamps, halogen lamps and spot lamps. Occasionally one sees
somebody pick up a CFL.

These things are not flying off the shelves and the reasons why are obvious.

Too right.
They will need a much better emission spectrum, they'll need to fit most
luminaires, they'll need to be easily available in all sizes and shapes
etc, etc, etc...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler, no fossil
fuel savings result whatsoever.

Oh, you're miles off there. Power stations are typically between
30-40% efficient. Even an old central heating boiler is twice as
good as that, and a modern one even more so.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:29:07 +0100 someone who may be The Natural
Philosopher wrote this:-

The CH system will use precisely the same amount of energy less as you
have used to boil the excess water.

Do tell us about this perfect heating system, installed in a perfect
house.

And since the conversion efficiency of the power station and
transmission is pretty similar to the central heating boiler,

That will be why all houses are heated by electricity then.

If what you said was remotely true then nobody, other than a few
enthusiasts, would go to the bother of a wet heating system with gas
boiler. Electric heating is always going to be cheaper in initial
and installation cost, if its running costs were low enough it would
be very popular.


--
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

On 4 Jul 2006 03:32:51 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

I think CFLs are falling prey to the same phenomenon that wiped linear
fluorescnet out as a domestic lighting option. Linear fl is an
excellent method of lighting houses _if_ its done right. The problem is
it can go so very wrong. Inevitably ignorant end users install the
wrong type of light in the wrong type of way, and the result is awful.
Lacking the awareness to discriminate between different types of tubes,
fittings and installation methods, users then condemn all fls as awful.

I think there is plenty of truth in that.


--
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

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:06:10 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so
far, on the landing.

There is a fair range of colours emitted from such lamps. They are
not all the same.


--
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

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:05:19 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.

People have remained wedded to "traditional" styles of fitting.
Whether this is a chicken or egg is debatable. When they started off
Thorn did sell a 2D conversion kit which had the control gear in a
box with a bayonet fitting on one end and a standard 16W 2D lamp on
the other.

Why should one have to mess about with that nonsense?

What nonsense? Plug the control gear into the bayonet, fit bulb.
When the bulb fails replace bulb. No mess, no nonsense.

These things are not flying off the shelves and the reasons why are obvious.

The reasons are indeed obvious. Many people don't know much about
lighting, but are keen to follow what they think is the current
fashion. There are other reasons, but I think ignorance is the most
important one.


--
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

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:06:16 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

They will need a much better emission spectrum, they'll need to fit most
luminaires, they'll need to be easily available in all sizes and shapes
etc, etc, etc...

With regard to your last two points things have changed a lot in the
past couple of years. For example, there is a fair range at
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/bro...ode=pg&CatID=6

With regard to your first point things have also changed a lot in
the past couple of years. However this has not always been for the
better with some lamps:-(


--
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 typed


On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:06:10 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so
far, on the landing.

There is a fair range of colours emitted from such lamps. They are
not all the same.


Yebbut how can a hapless (or is it hopeless) consumer get an idea of the
quality of the emitted light before spending £lots?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so
far, on the landing.

There is a fair range of colours emitted from such lamps. They are
not all the same.

The trouble is it's very subjective. You can't take someone else's word
for it, you have to experience that particular bulb yourself, and for
many people the prospect of buying half a dozen different CFLs just to
find one they like doesn't appeal.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:38:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:06:10 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so
far, on the landing.

There is a fair range of colours emitted from such lamps. They are
not all the same.




So there is your problem right there.

Unless you are a greeny eco-activist, it simply isn't worth the candle to tit
around with these things.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:06:16 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote
(in article ):

Andy Hall typed


If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.


It clearly is a serious problem because people don't buy them.

It is serious; I don't buy them cos their light makes me unhappy. I
can't be alone.

I try to do my bit for the planet but won't let it make me feel ill (or
is that off-colour?)
I have a tendency towards SAD and CFLs don't help.

That I do understand. I have a number of friends and acquaintances in
northern parts of the Nordic countries and this is a big issue. Light boxes
are popular and effective, although this tends to be through light intensity
and the higher end of the light spectrum.


(Big south-west facing windows at the back of the house and north-east
windows in front do help, though I'm a tad hot right now...)

If you stand at any self service fixture in a supermarket or DIY store for
5-10 minutes and watch what people are choosing to buy, it is standard
tungsten lamps, halogen lamps and spot lamps. Occasionally one sees
somebody pick up a CFL.

These things are not flying off the shelves and the reasons why are obvious.

Too right.
They will need a much better emission spectrum, they'll need to fit most
luminaires, they'll need to be easily available in all sizes and shapes
etc, etc, etc...

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:41:06 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:05:19 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

If there was actually a good range of home fittings which took
remote ballasted compact fluorescents, it might have worked.

People have remained wedded to "traditional" styles of fitting.
Whether this is a chicken or egg is debatable. When they started off
Thorn did sell a 2D conversion kit which had the control gear in a
box with a bayonet fitting on one end and a standard 16W 2D lamp on
the other.

Why should one have to mess about with that nonsense?

What nonsense? Plug the control gear into the bayonet, fit bulb.
When the bulb fails replace bulb. No mess, no nonsense.

It is nonsense. The light should fit the fitting that the customer already
has. That's it. People don''t want to tit about with extra bits.



These things are not flying off the shelves and the reasons why are obvious.

The reasons are indeed obvious. Many people don't know much about
lighting, but are keen to follow what they think is the current
fashion. There are other reasons, but I think ignorance is the most
important one.



This may be how you justify the situation to yourself. You would score 0/10
in business school with this argument.

The product has to be the right price. It has to look right. It has to be
appealing. It has to fit easily and right and be no worse than what the
customer can easily buy.

Until you can address those arguments, you are ****ing in the wind.

You can make points about ignorance as much as you like and feel smug if you
want to. The cemetery is littered with the corpses of people, businesses
and technologies who thought that they knew better than the market.

It was once said, in the context of exchange rates

" ..if by artificially controlling the exchange rates between countries you
try to buck the market, you will soon find that the market bucks you ‹ and
hard."


CFLs are nothing like as important as financial exchange and economics but
the principle is the same.

Here we have a situation where you think that CFLs are the greatest thing
since Adam had intercourse with Eve. Unfortunately, the market doesn't share
your passion.

I know that that may be a disappointment, but life is hard.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht wrote this:-

Yebbut how can a hapless (or is it hopeless) consumer get an idea of the
quality of the emitted light before spending £lots?

In the big red sheds they often have many of them turned on. Not a
perfect way, but worth looking at.


--
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

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:41:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Unless you are a greeny eco-activist, it simply isn't worth the candle to tit
around with these things.

Other than a few specialised ones they cost the same as a pint or
two of beer now days.


--
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

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:10:50 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:41:14 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Unless you are a greeny eco-activist, it simply isn't worth the candle to
tit
around with these things.

Other than a few specialised ones they cost the same as a pint or
two of beer now days.




Lovely, but it's not compelling.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:03:00 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

What nonsense? Plug the control gear into the bayonet, fit bulb.
When the bulb fails replace bulb. No mess, no nonsense.

It is nonsense. The light should fit the fitting that the customer already
has.

It did.

The product has to be the right price.

This goes back to ignorance, or we can call it something else. In
most markets the informed will often buy a more expensive product if
they can, if they feel the price buys them something they want.

Offering something at the cheapest price in the market is not a
guarantee of success.

It has to look right.

Different people put different emphasis on how things look,
especially if the product is to be installed inside something else.
Compact fluorescent lamps come in a various of looks anyway.

It has to be appealing.

Ditto.

It has to fit easily and right

In most cases push in and twist, just like the GLS bulb one is
replacing. There can be an issue with physical size, but there can
be with GLS bulbs too.

and be no worse than what the customer can easily buy.

Compact fluorescent bulbs are a lot better in many respects.
Electricty/cost saving and not having to change the thing so often
are two examples.

Here we have a situation where you think that CFLs are the greatest thing
since Adam had intercourse with Eve.

It is always reassuring when the best people can do is distort the
arguments of others. If they have better arguments they usually put
them forward.


--
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