On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
|!wrote:
|!
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
|!
|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.
|!
|! Incorrect.
|!
|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".
|!
|!
|!
|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers,
I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted
are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*


It really depends on what you want

If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
you don't care about light quality then fine.

However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something
that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look
into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall
a long way short of acceptability


--

..andy