Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.
The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.


Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue
via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

I'd agree on the rat. The sensible way to make them more popular is to
solve the problems, and this is simple to do. Why no cfl mfr has done
it I dont know, maybe theyre too busy hiring monkeys for peanuts trying
to compete on cost, so have no-one to sit back and ask how they can
change the market and satisfy the customer better.


p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

I've not dealt with them.:
http://www.eurobatteries.com/sitepag...entcompact.asp
but CFLs upto 105w.


NT