On 2006-08-23 22:16:36 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:19:43 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

They are not inefficient at all.

Yet you then go on to contradict this assertion.

No I don't



It depends on your criteria and scale of values.

Everything does.

If you measure efficiency as being light out vs. electricity in then
that may well be a factor.

In other words they are inefficient.

No they aren't. It depends on your criteria for efficiency. If
something is completely worthless because it doesn't meet the basic
criteria of acceptability, then it is inefficient. It can't possibly
ever achieve any greater status than that.



If you measure it in terms of aesthetic benefit vs. cost employed then
they are highly efficient.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, but that is nothing to
do with efficiency.

Nothing to do with beauty.

If something doesn't meet basic acceptability requirements, it is
inefficient. To be precise, efficiency is zero.