On 26 Feb, 15:38, "gmw" wrote:

CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Simply illogical.


The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Yes, so you need to pick a higher power bulb than the packaging says.
None too challenging.


The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in

which does not have the same chracteristics as the human eye.

Also CFLs do not have the same light distribution as filaments, due to
their different shape.


The CFL is a Philips

no wonder. Try a decent one.


and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

which is not a standard GLS bulb.


we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

why not put a higher power CFL in?


In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and
alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem.

Unlikely


CFLs would
be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving.

only if you choose to negate them by leaving them on all the time...
which would be an odd thing to do.


CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

they already are.


These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

no comment!


They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.

advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing
the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions.


NT