On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:57:42 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

But this totally underlines my point about them being a 'substitute' rather
than 'replacement' technology. Many many household fittings are either
enclosed, semi-enclosed, or use a bulb that hangs down. In fact I would have
to say that fittings that have the bulb base facing up, other than perhaps
in table lamps, are few and far between, and fittings that do employ such a
scheme, and are then able to take CFLs, are even rarer. My son has a
three-branch 'chandelier' fitting in his hallway. He has fitted CFLs to
this, and because of the larger bases that these have to accommodate the
ballast electronics, they stick out of the tops of the glass shades, and
look ridiculous.

Agreed on all points. The lifetime of the CFL bulb seems to be
dramatically less if the bulb is enclosed in any manner (covered lamp
or reflector). See upper bar graph for 1,000 hr test at:
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/newsroom/pdf/2007/PEARL8511.pdf
80% of the bare bulbs made it past 1,000 hrs (which still sucks),
while only about 35% of the covered bulbs survived. If you run a lamp
for 6 hrs per day (evening only), then 1000 hrs is only about 6
months. Not exactly my idea of "long life" CFL bulbs, many of which
claim 6,000 to 15,000 hr lifetimes. If the 20% failure rate at 1,000
hrs figure is assumed, then after 5000 hrs, all of the test bulbs will
be dead.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558