How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
changed.


12 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.


9 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.


6 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
bulbs.


4 to flame the spell checkers.


3 to correct spelling/grammar flames.


1 and we all know which one, to complain about top-posting.


6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6
to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive.


3 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
"lamp".


8 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
bulb" is perfectly correct.


17 to post that this News Group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a lightbulb forum.


13 to defend the posting to this group saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this NG.


25 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.


6 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs.


3 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL's.


5 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to
this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.


11 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".


3 to cross-post replies to twelve other News Groups.


4 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.


5 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?".


1 infrequent visitor to the group to respond to the original post 6
months from now and start it all over again.


Argh!

Phil wrote:

How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

Talking of light bulbs,
it seems extraordinary that they never say how much light they give out,
but only how much power they consume.

As their purpose is presumably to give out light,
it would seem more logical to say how much it provides.

I can't imagine a butcher telling you how much power
you need to cook a joint,
rather than how much it weighs.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

On 21 Mar 2005 05:43:30 -0800, Phil wrote:

How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

Yawn...........

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

In article .com,
Phil wrote:
How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a
lightbulb?

... and one to point out that if you have a fitting with two bulbs
you are much less likely to be left in the dark

... and another two point out that if you do this, you'll be
changing bulbs twice as often g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Phil wrote:
How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to bore everyone
senseless?


Just one or two a week.

Si

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a
lightbulb?

.. and one to point out that if you have a fitting with two bulbs
you are much less likely to be left in the dark

A win win situation...

.. and another two point out that if you do this, you'll be
changing bulbs twice as often g

No disadvantages allowed to be mentioned.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Mungo \"two sheds\" Toadfoot" wrote in
:



Just one or two a week.

Si
You're lucky, I get loads more than that

mike

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been
changed.


12 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently.


9 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.


6 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
bulbs.


4 to flame the spell checkers.


3 to correct spelling/grammar flames.


1 and we all know which one, to complain about top-posting.


6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6
to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive.


3 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is
"lamp".


8 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light
bulb" is perfectly correct.


17 to post that this News Group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a lightbulb forum.


13 to defend the posting to this group saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this NG.


25 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to
buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.


6 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs.


3 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL's.


5 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to
this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.


11 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including
all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".


3 to cross-post replies to twelve other News Groups.


4 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.


5 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?".


1 infrequent visitor to the group to respond to the original post 6
months from now and start it all over again.


Argh!


You forgot about me!
I say you should get a pro in to do it.

Arthur

Tony Bryer wrote:
In article .com,
Phil wrote:

How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a
lightbulb?

.. and one to point out that if you have a fitting with two bulbs
you are much less likely to be left in the dark

.. and another two point out that if you do this, you'll be
changing bulbs twice as often g


And another one called NT to point out this isnt a problem if your
lights are made accessible in the first place, and you keep the variety
of bulbs you use to sensible numbers and sensible prices, and you
overlap the lighting areas so that with one fitting out you still have
at least some light there.

And to point out that if you use a switchbank you also get 3 brightness
levels, saving energy and making the place more comfortable in the
evening.

And to explain this was common practice in the 20s & 30s when
electricity was seriously expensive, ie it is a well proven energy
saving method. Having used such an ancient installation, and ahving
used this method in modern days, I can say its a thoroughly good idea.


NT

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Phil wrote:

How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

Talking of light bulbs,
it seems extraordinary that they never say how much light they give out,
but only how much power they consume.

Look on the side of the packets.

There is often a number "1000 lumens" for example.
100lm/W is excellent, for the best fluorescants, 180lm/W is typically only
achievable with yellow sodium monochromatic low-pressure lights, 15lm/W or so
is fairly typical for your average tungsten light bulb, and CF lights can
be around 50-60lm/W.

Ian Stirling wrote:

Talking of light bulbs,
it seems extraordinary that they never say how much light they give out,
but only how much power they consume.

Look on the side of the packets.

There is often a number "1000 lumens" for example.
100lm/W is excellent, for the best fluorescants, 180lm/W is typically only
achievable with yellow sodium monochromatic low-pressure lights, 15lm/W or
so is fairly typical for your average tungsten light bulb, and CF lights
can be around 50-60lm/W.

Thanks very much,
I see that about half of my rather large store of light bulbs
have a lumen measure on them.

Tesco are just selling sets of 3 11 watt energy-saving bulbs very cheaply,
and these claim to give 600 lumen,
while a "soft tone" Phillips 60 watt bulb specifies 710 lumen,
which seems a little low by your measure.

Since I am in the presence of such luminous knowledge,
why does one never see very bright energy-saving bulbs -
I mean the equivalent of a 150 or 200 watt standard bulb?

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

In article ,
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Since I am in the presence of such luminous knowledge,
why does one never see very bright energy-saving bulbs -
I mean the equivalent of a 150 or 200 watt standard bulb?

You can get very bright 'per square inch' fluorescents - we use them in
filming - but the tubes, and possibly control gear, are very pricey.

--
*Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tesco are just selling sets of 3 11 watt energy-saving bulbs very cheaply,
and these claim to give 600 lumen,
while a "soft tone" Phillips 60 watt bulb specifies 710 lumen,
which seems a little low by your measure.

Soft tone is less efficient than pearl - the more diffusing the glass
the more light it absorbs, and also the slight tint of soft tone is
caused by absorption of light. Opal is worse than pearl but better than
coloured soft tone, clear is more efficient than any of the others (but
of limited use of course).

All this assumes that you have the same filament, gas fill etc.


--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder dot co dot uk

Timothy Murphy wrote:

Tesco are just selling sets of 3 11 watt energy-saving bulbs very
cheaply,
and these claim to give 600 lumen,
while a "soft tone" Phillips 60 watt bulb specifies 710 lumen,
which seems a little low by your measure.

check the lifetime rating of those, dont bother if theyre the 1200 hr
ones.


Since I am in the presence of such luminous knowledge,
why does one never see very bright energy-saving bulbs -
I mean the equivalent of a 150 or 200 watt standard bulb?

Questionable British regulations forbid loads of 50w with no waveform
correction, which is too expensive, so people just use 150/200
filaments instead. A daft situation.

NT

In article ,
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Since I am in the presence of such luminous knowledge,
why does one never see very bright energy-saving bulbs -
I mean the equivalent of a 150 or 200 watt standard bulb?

Because they turn out to be rather unreliable. They are available
in the US, but the tube cooks the control gear leading to early
control gear failures, and they are usually restricted to being
operated base down in open luminares, making them unsuitable for
many applications. The highest power rating I've seen in the shops
in UK is a Philips 30W one with ES lampbase at Homebase, which is
probably 120W equivalent. You can find some higher rated ones by
searching mail order specialists.

At the moment, for higher power ratings, you are better off with
a lamp with separate (remoted) control gear so the heat from the
tube doesn't cook it.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:46:28 +0000 (UTC), "Arthur"
wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
roups.com...
How many posters in this Newsgroup does it take to change a lightbulb?

[mega-snip]

You forgot about me!
I say you should get a pro in to do it.

And John Prescott, who is going to make you.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)

wrote:

Questionable British regulations forbid loads of 50w with no waveform
correction, which is too expensive, so people just use 150/200
filaments instead. A daft situation.

I assume that's a reference to the EMC standard IEC/EN 61000-3-2 which
sets limits for the harmonic content of the mains current drawn by
various types of load. AFAIK the 50 W limit only applies to Class D,
and that's when the waveform correction may be required.

Lighting equipment has its own class (Class C) where the harmonic limits
are specified in terms of percentages of the fundamental. AFAICS
there's nothing there that would prohibit CFLs of higher ratings.

--
Andy

Chris Hodges wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Tesco are just selling sets of 3 11 watt energy-saving bulbs very
cheaply,
and these claim to give 600 lumen,
while a "soft tone" Phillips 60 watt bulb specifies 710 lumen,
which seems a little low by your measure.

Soft tone is less efficient than pearl - the more diffusing the glass

the more light it absorbs, and also the slight tint of soft tone is
caused by absorption of light. Opal is worse than pearl but better
than
coloured soft tone, clear is more efficient than any of the others
(but
of limited use of course).

limited use? I wish I could get them more easily. Theyre just as good
for light fittings where the bare bulb isnt visible, and look much
better in some types of light.

NT

wrote:
Chris Hodges wrote:
snip
Soft tone is less efficient than pearl - the more diffusing the glass


the more light it absorbs, and also the slight tint of soft tone is
caused by absorption of light. Opal is worse than pearl but better

than

coloured soft tone, clear is more efficient than any of the others

(but

of limited use of course).


limited use? I wish I could get them more easily. Theyre just as good
for light fittings where the bare bulb isnt visible, and look much
better in some types of light.

That's certainly true. I'm often unable to find what I want in
B&Q/Sainsbury's, but can nearly always get slightly unusual bulbs in a
shop near where I work. The big Asda/walmart in Bristol is sometimes
good as well, but I don't go there very often, so everything has moved
by the next time I'm in there.


--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder dot co dot uk