On 2007-10-13 11:09:14 +0100, Lobster said:

John Rumm wrote:
Adam Aglionby wrote:

Oh, you've done it now...

Or maybe you're a troll?


Seems a little harsh Lobster....

Sorry, wasn't intended.... perhaps I should have included a :-)

Oh dear what have I said, or is it a CFL fan club in here.

Na, we are pretty equally divided on them ;-)

Not sure about that, ISTR every time downlighters are mentioned here
there seems to be a resounding chorus of disapproval!

Not from me there isn't. I think that they are excellent for a
number of situations. It would be nice if they used a little less
power, but they are not used all day normally, nor all year. When
they are in use, the heat energy is added to that in the house.



We have quite a few at home, fitted by yours truly at SWMBO's behest.
Personally I don't particularly like them, mainly because of the power
consumption issue

LV downlighters get better efficiency lumens per watt than line voltage
incan lamps.

If you say so; but the practicality is that they only illuminate a
downward pool of light rather than the whole room, which is why my
small bathroom needs 4 of the buggers totalling 140W, whereas a 20W CFL
would light the room more effectively, at one-seventh of the power
usage.



To me this is all about context. You have just made a point about
120W of energy, used at certain times in the bathroom - i.e. occasional
use even with women in the house.

Set this into the context of the energy used to heat the house, and
it's a teaspoon and bucket discussion. There is no need for sack cloth
and ashes unless your name is Hilary Benn, for whom it would be
completely appropriate.

Intrinsically, one should know that when the government is trying to
legislate for something that has proved commercially unattractive that
there is some other agenda that that presented going on.