[Mike Scott]

I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/
saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?


--
Mike Scott (unet at scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

[Mary Fisher]

"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/ saving
over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not using them
....

Mary

[Mike Scott]

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/ saving
over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not using them

Not in the least - I've started replacing them as they go, including the
6x60W R60 spots in the kitchen: the 15W non-spot replacements seem to
light the place just as well. Shame about the dimmers in other rooms
though: are there dimmable low-power lights around?

I really did want to know about the energy economics, as these are being
pushed as "CO2-friendly". It's obviously not a direct relation to
running power. Someone, somewhere, surely has done the sums. Or not??


--
Mike Scott (unet at scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Mike Scott" wrote in
message ...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not
using them ...

Mary

Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be ignored
by the government when thrusting these token green measures on us. Just as
your average suburban domestic windmill will take more energy to manufacture
it than it will ever generate in its lifetime.

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near the
claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

[David in Normandy[_4_]]

Roger Mills says...

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near the
claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.


Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!
Perhaps its time to start stocking up on 100 watt filament
bulbs.
--
David in Normandy

[Clive George]

"David in Normandy" wrote in message
...

Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!

You could always recognise the fact that the equivalent light outputs are
always an overestimate, and choose a more sensible replacement based on
that - eg 27W rather than 22W.

cheers,
clive

[David in Normandy[_4_]]

In article , Clive
George says...
"David in Normandy" wrote in message
...

Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!

You could always recognise the fact that the equivalent light outputs are
always an overestimate, and choose a more sensible replacement based on
that - eg 27W rather than 22W.

cheers,
clive


I'll keep an eye open for higher wattage ones then. I don't
think I've ever seen ones higher than 20 / 22 watt.

Are the 27 watt ones the same size or larger?
--
David in Normandy

[Mary Fisher]

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

....

Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be
ignored by the government when thrusting these token green measures on us.
Just as your average suburban domestic windmill will take more energy to
manufacture it than it will ever generate in its lifetime.

Evidence?

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near the
claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.

Do you just have one tungsten bulb per room?

Mary

[Mary Fisher]

"David in Normandy" wrote in message
...
Roger Mills says...

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near the
claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.


Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!
Perhaps its time to start stocking up on 100 watt filament
bulbs.

It's your bill

Mary

[Mark]

I'll keep an eye open for higher wattage ones then. I don't
think I've ever seen ones higher than 20 / 22 watt.

Are the 27 watt ones the same size or larger?
--
David in Normandy



I've found these 60watt, equivant to 300 watt tungsten.

How much? king hell!

mark

[Mark]

"Mark" wrote in message
...

I'll keep an eye open for higher wattage ones then. I don't
think I've ever seen ones higher than 20 / 22 watt.

Are the 27 watt ones the same size or larger?
--
David in Normandy



I've found these 60watt, equivant to 300 watt tungsten.

How much? king hell!

oops! Forgot the link. Here it is:-

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=4119


mark

[Derek Geldard]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:15:06 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/ saving
over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not using them

Blimey, if it's not a "New Ice Age" it's "Global Warming" we've got
used to that, but we never expected "The Dark Ages" to come back.

I cannot believe you are criticising him for simply asking for help in
obtaining the knowledge he needs to make an informed choice.

If you do not have this information that's OK. No need to be
defensive.

Presumably you made your choice on a different basis. One that did not
require you to be be in possession of the facts. That's also OK.

Others prefer to make decisions from a position of being better
informed. This is OK as well.

If this position is anathema to you I suggest you do not read or
respond to their postings.

DG

[Mark]

Shame about the dimmers in other rooms
though: are there dimmable low-power lights around?


Yes.

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=4134


mark

[David in Normandy[_4_]]

In article , Mark
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

I'll keep an eye open for higher wattage ones then. I don't
think I've ever seen ones higher than 20 / 22 watt.

Are the 27 watt ones the same size or larger?
--
David in Normandy



I've found these 60watt, equivant to 300 watt tungsten.

How much? king hell!

oops! Forgot the link. Here it is:-

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=4119


mark


I'd be miffed if one of those blew after a few months.
--
David in Normandy

[David in Normandy[_4_]]

In article 478528f5$0$761$4c56ba96
@master.news.zetnet.net, Mary Fisher says...

"David in Normandy" wrote in message
...
Roger Mills says...

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near the
claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.


Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!
Perhaps its time to start stocking up on 100 watt filament
bulbs.

It's your bill

Mary



We often have to put the electric heater on here in
addition to the wood burning stove. So the extra heat
output of a 100 watt bulb is sometimes welcome! :-)
--
David in Normandy

[Derek Geldard]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:44:27 GMT, Mike Scott
wrote:

I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/
saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

It's hard to say because their introduction has been heavily
politicised, and personally I suspect corruption at high level in the
EU and for all i know the UK.

CFL's from China have been subject to an import levy for some years,
whilst GE has been subsidising their sale.

Philips who's "GloeilampenFabrieken" were losing money shut their GLS
factory down and have been lobbying the EU with some success to get
GLS lamps banned in the EU so that all their competitors will also
have to shut and they will be able to sell Chinese CFL's without
competition from any GLS lamps.

So much for free trade USW, USW, USW ...

As for how much energy goes into making a Chinese CFL. It's probably
easiest to say it's hasn't been published.

Energy in China produced from burning soft brown coal in power
stations built and staffed by people on slave labour pay will always
be much cheaper than ours, so price is not any indication either.

What one can say is that without doubt soft brown coal is one of *the
worst* fuels to burn from the point of view of the environmnent.

DG

[Derek Geldard]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:25:10 +0100, David in Normandy
wrote:


http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/var...l.asp?var=4119


mark


I'd be miffed if one of those blew after a few months.

I bought a few similar ones ones for research purposes, to see if they
were suitable for viewing mammography films. They weren't.

The one's I got were "daylight" and probably made for "Growing
vegetation in an environment sealed from daylight" IYSWIM.

They probably did give the light output promised (when new at least)
but the size/shape/geometry was unworkable for a domestic application.

Still maybe they are getting there.

When they can actually do it, *then* they should talk about it. :-)

(Quote from my Belgian boss).

DG

[[email protected]]

On 9 Jan, 20:04, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Roger Mills" wrote in message

...

...



Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be
ignored by the government when thrusting these token green measures on us.
Just as your average suburban domestic windmill will take more energy to
manufacture it than it will ever generate in its lifetime.

Evidence?



Well you could try asking someone who's got one. The trouble is there
is nowhere near enough wind in most urban/suburban settings. It's a
bit old hat - even the most credulous innumerate greenies now accept
they don't work where there are trees and buildings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ernativeenergy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arbonemissions
http://www.scoraigwind.com/citywinds/index.htm
http://www.bre.co.uk/newsdetails.jsp?id=456
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...Se arch&meta=

If you are by the coast, or on top of a hill, it may be a different.

T

[Alan]

In message , Clive George
wrote
"David in Normandy" wrote in message
.. .

Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!

You could always recognise the fact that the equivalent light outputs
are always an overestimate, and choose a more sensible replacement
based on that - eg 27W rather than 22W.


Consider also bulbs with a different temperature colour the 'dull' low
energy bulbs are all around 2700K colour temperature. I've fitted some
6500K bulbs - the light is much whiter.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

[The Medway Handyman]

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:15:06 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Mike Scott" wrote in
message ...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not
using them

Blimey, if it's not a "New Ice Age" it's "Global Warming" we've got
used to that, but we never expected "The Dark Ages" to come back.

I cannot believe you are criticising him for simply asking for help in
obtaining the knowledge he needs to make an informed choice.

The Green lobby don't really want people to have the knowledge to make an
informed choice - it would show that most of their claims don't stand up.


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

[The Medway Handyman]

Mike Scott wrote:
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Assuming that low energy bulbs are more efficient & give off less heat for a
given amount of light, would you not have to replace that heat in order to
maintain the same room temperature?


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

[The Natural Philosopher]

Mike Scott wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Scott" wrote in
message ...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Sounds as though you're snatching at a straw as a reason for not using
them

Not in the least - I've started replacing them as they go, including the
6x60W R60 spots in the kitchen: the 15W non-spot replacements seem to
light the place just as well. Shame about the dimmers in other rooms
though: are there dimmable low-power lights around?

I really did want to know about the energy economics, as these are being
pushed as "CO2-friendly". It's obviously not a direct relation to
running power. Someone, somewhere, surely has done the sums. Or not??


They have done them, but they aren't telling you the results.

Because they are laughable.

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:49:23 GMT, Mike Scott
wrote:

Shame about the dimmers in other rooms
though: are there dimmable low-power lights around?

Sort of, but as you dim them the colour rendering, which isn't
particularly good to begin with, gets badly skewed and the resulting
output tends to be shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum
creating exactly the opposite effect to the one you want.

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:39:54 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

It's hard to say because their introduction has been heavily
politicised, and personally I suspect corruption at high level in the
EU and for all i know the UK.

Its not corruption but bribery - which the EU doesn't regard as
corrupt because France and Italy for a start rely upon it to get their
way. Osram, Philips and GE have been the major proponents of this
legislation (Osram in particular who apparently wrote the first
draft) and have developed a halogen equivalent of the incandescent
bulb which fits in the new legislation (what a surprise) saves about
10% on electricity in its production form and sells for 10 times the
cost. Most importantly it is patent protected in the EU which allows
inefficient EU manufacturers to keep out nasty foreign competition.

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
David in Normandy wrote:

Roger Mills says...

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near
the claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.


Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!
Perhaps its time to start stocking up on 100 watt filament
bulbs.


I already have!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Clive George wrote:

"David in Normandy" wrote in message
...

Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!

You could always recognise the fact that the equivalent light outputs
are always an overestimate, and choose a more sensible replacement
based on that - eg 27W rather than 22W.

cheers,
clive


So is there one that will give as much light as a 150 watt tungsten bulb?

No, I thought as much!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:

The one's I got were "daylight" and probably made for "Growing
vegetation in an environment sealed from daylight" IYSWIM.

They would be completely wrong for that.
Actually, the high colour temperature "daylight" tubes are
completely wrong for almost every application you can think
of.

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

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mary Fisher wrote:

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...

...

Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be
ignored by the government when thrusting these token green measures
on us. Just as your average suburban domestic windmill will take
more energy to manufacture it than it will ever generate in its
lifetime.

Evidence?

Tom Harrigan has kindly supplied that by the bucketful - saving me looking
up the references.


I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near
the claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.

Do you just have one tungsten bulb per room?

Mary

No of course not. But if I can't replace tungsten with low energy on a one
for one basis, I'll have to install a lot more lighting points which - quite
apart from any cost and Part-P inplications - will spoil the look of many of
my rooms.

Some rooms have low voltage halogen downlighters. What am I supposed to
replace *those* with?
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

[Roger Mills]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Roger Mills wrote:



So is there one that will give as much light as a 150 watt tungsten
bulb?
No, I thought as much!

Ah, I stand corrected. I see that there *is* a 60w jobby which claims to be
the equivalent of 300w - so will probably match 150w in reality.

But at nearly 50 quid a throw - forget it!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:42:26 UTC, "Roger Mills"
wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
David in Normandy wrote:

Roger Mills says...

I've not yet found a low energy light bulb which comes anywhere near
the claimed tungsten equivalent for light output.


Ditto. I've been disappointed with low energy bulbs. They
don't seem to last any longer than ordinary filament bulbs
and the equivalent light output claimed is just plain
wrong. So where a good light level is wanted such as the
main living room and bathroom I've switched back to
ordinary bulbs. It's nice to be able to see again!!!
Perhaps its time to start stocking up on 100 watt filament
bulbs.

I already have!

Same here.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

[Bob Eager]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:49:05 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:

The one's I got were "daylight" and probably made for "Growing
vegetation in an environment sealed from daylight" IYSWIM.

They would be completely wrong for that.
Actually, the high colour temperature "daylight" tubes are
completely wrong for almost every application you can think
of.

Try to buy them soon, and the Drug Squad will probably be knocking on
your door. Then you'll be needing a licence to buy them, and ...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:04:34 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be
ignored by the government when thrusting these token green measures on us.
Just as your average suburban domestic windmill will take more energy to
manufacture it than it will ever generate in its lifetime.

Evidence?

The Warwickshire Wind Energy Project, urban sites on houses are
generating negligible amounts of electricity, often less than that
consumed by their control gear never mind their production/shipping
energy cost. Typically in an urban environment you will generate
electricity worth about £4 in one year.

The Barratt Chorley trial and St Albans Ecohome have produced
similarly trivial levels of electricity, way below that which would
pay back the energy of production, distribution and installation.

In all the locations above the sites were assessed as being suitable
for wind generation before installation.

[OG]

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Mike Scott wrote:
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how
much extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a
standard incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net
/overall/ saving over the bulb life? If so, how much?

Assuming that low energy bulbs are more efficient & give off less heat for
a given amount of light, would you not have to replace that heat in order
to maintain the same room temperature?

Yes but
If your room needs heating, use a heater and put it where the heat needs to
be. It's madly inefficient to put a heater about 10 inches from the ceiling
(which is in effect what you are doing with incandescent bulbs). It's not as
though the 'heat' produced by the bulb is a minor part of the cost of
running such a bulb; for every 50p spent on a powering a standard 100W bulb
(probably the typical daily cost at this time of year), at least 37.5p goes
into heating; but your 37.5p would be much more efficective if spent
powering a 'proper' heater.

You pay 50p but only get 12.5p worth of light.
You can do far better spending your 37.5p on powering a proper heater.

[OG]

"Mike Scott" wrote in message
...
I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/ saving
over the bulb life? If so, how much?

I've not got any figures, but taking the worst case conditions

Costs will break down into 3 components
Material costs (cost of raw materials) Assume = zero
Assembly costs (cost of getting people to put them together) Assume = zero
Energy costs (what you are asking about).

In China energy costs are about 1/3 of ours*, so given that UK retailers can
sell at bulbs at £1 we can set an upper limit for the energy cost of 30KWh
per bulb in China . We also assume that the manufacturer, importer and
retailer are all selling the bulb at cost price.

If we compare 6000 hours of CFL useage at 25W with 6000 hours of GLS at
100W, we get an energy useage of
150 KWh for the CFL and 600KWh for the GLS

Assuming the very worst case (that the GLS bulb had absolutely no energy
cost at all), we can see that there is still a 420KWh lifetime benefit per
bulb. (70% reduction in electricity saving)




Cost of Electricity in China
* http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...ent_585299.htm

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:26:40 UTC, "OG" wrote:

If we compare 6000 hours of CFL useage at 25W with 6000 hours of GLS at
100W

A 25W GLS actually produces as much light as 100W incandescent? I think
not.

Assuming the very worst case (that the GLS bulb had absolutely no energy
cost at all), we can see that there is still a 420KWh lifetime benefit per
bulb. (70% reduction in electricity saving)

Disposal costs? Additional transport costs? (they're heavier). Just
pointing out that the picture is bigger..
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:27:57 UTC, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:26:40 UTC, "OG" wrote:

If we compare 6000 hours of CFL useage at 25W with 6000 hours of GLS at
100W

A 25W GLS actually produces as much light as 100W incandescent? I think
not.

Of course, I meant CFL!


Assuming the very worst case (that the GLS bulb had absolutely no energy
cost at all), we can see that there is still a 420KWh lifetime benefit per
bulb. (70% reduction in electricity saving)

Disposal costs? Additional transport costs? (they're heavier). Just
pointing out that the picture is bigger..


--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

[Si[_2_]]

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:49:23 GMT, Mike Scott
wrote:

Shame about the dimmers in other rooms
though: are there dimmable low-power lights around?

Sort of, but as you dim them the colour rendering, which isn't
particularly good to begin with, gets badly skewed and the resulting
output tends to be shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum
creating exactly the opposite effect to the one you want.

You presumably have measured this Peter. My human experience of dimming
my 70W CFL is that the colour balance is reddish when first switched on,
becomes more neutral as it warm up, and having got to temp' doesn't
change as it's dimmed.

--
Si

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
"Roger Mills" writes:

So is there one that will give as much light as a 150 watt tungsten bulb?

No, I thought as much!

There's a 30W one, ES only, in Homebase.
Using the 1:4 rule (and ignoring any equivalence on the packaging),
that's equivalent to about 120W. These higher power CFL's generate
enough heat to significantly shortent their life if operated base-
up or in enclosed fittings.

Alternatively, make your own 162W compact fluorescent...
http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/hamster.htm

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

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:56:46 +0000, Si $3o&m wrote:

You presumably have measured this Peter. My human experience of dimming
my 70W CFL is that the colour balance is reddish when first switched on,
becomes more neutral as it warm up, and having got to temp' doesn't
change as it's dimmed.

No, it was from "Lighting" magazine which tested about a dozen
different types and reported on it a month ago. I'll see if I still
have the copy around.

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:44:27 GMT someone who may be Mike Scott
wrote this:-

I'm curious. "Low energy" bulbs are very much in the news - but how much
extra energy is expended in their manufacture compared to a standard
incandescent? I assume it's more - so is there a real net /overall/
saving over the bulb life?

The people who have studied these things in detail say so and I
believe them. If you want to look at the figures try using a search
engine to study them.



--
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