"Dave H." wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote...

I have now found an internet site selling all varieties of incandescents,
including 60 watt pearl, so I shall be stocking up post haste. I have
also just started trying out the halogen versions of traditional light
bulbs, which still seem to make it into the eco-bollox "book of energy
savers", even though they only consume a few watts less than their
equivalent light-output 'traditional' tungsten cousins. Thus far, I am
impressed. I now have a 70 watt actual, 100 watt equivalent, fitted to my
hallway main light fixture. It is very bright, very easy (for me anyway)
to see by, and has a good colour spectrum, not in the slightest way
offensive to my eyes, unlike the CFLs, which no matter how much anyone
says that *they* can't tell the difference with, *I* can ... d :-\



My Shed is lit by 75W "eco" halogens (only 3 of 'em so far) plus one in
the Danglepoise over the measuring and marking-out "table", very good
light. I'm fitting a 50W 12V halogen in the lathe's worklight (easier to
find than 50V incandescents around here) so will see (I hope) how that
works out.

Of course you can tell the difference re colour spectra - the CFLs (and
worse, "white" LEDs) give 3 narrow bands centred on the eye's
sensitivities to RGB light (which works ok with emittive displays) so only
illuminate 3 colours correctly when looking at reflective/absorbtive
materials - any colours in between the 3 narrow peaks won't be rendered
correctly, for values of "rendered under a full-spectrum light" as per
sunlight, incandescent lights, even full moonlight...

They're just adequate for the lav's, hallways, front porch and the
cluttered loft though.

Incandescents also have major green bonuses re recycling or landfill - by
design they don't contain any mercury, other toxic heavy metals,
radioactive materials or toxic organic materials (unlike CFLs), can be run
through a crusher to recover the glasses and metals separately, are far
cheaper and simpler to manufacture - one wonders whether the powers that
be actually considered the whole lifecycle of CFLs when promoting them as
"green"? In the USA and probably in the EU they're classified as
"hazardous waste" as they fail the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
test hence much more onerous disposal requirements.

Just my ha'pence worth,
Dave H.


Oh yes, Dave. You are preaching to the converted ! Probably, actually, to
the original pastor !! I'm famous on the 'net for crying about CFLs,
lead-free solder, and eco-bollox in general. I have had a good rant many
times about the eco 'credentials' of this so-called 'green' technology,
including the hidden costs of manufacturing, shipping, and disposing of
CFLs - and ugly windmills all over the land and seascapes and tidal
electricity mills and now fields of PV panels.

I just wish that some of the politicians and
'save-the-planet-green-mist-brigade-do-gooders', would actually stop for a
moment and temporarily put aside their evangelical fervour, and have a
realistic look at the wider picture. It's just so frustrating to see good,
proven, mature and reliable technologies, which were developed over many
years with very good reasons for the changes and developments to them,
displaced by these substitute (NOT replacement) technologies, which have
been hurried into production without due respect for many affected areas,
just to satisfy directives and personal 'missions' being thrust upon the
population by politicians, think tanks, and faceless committees and
commissions, desperately trying to either make a name for themselves, or
preserve their jobs and pensions ... :-(

I'm not against responsible use of the planet's resources, and recycling
where appropriate, but it has all turned into nothing short of a religion in
the last few years, without any consideration of issues besides the green
ones, and it really makes me mad that we're all rolling over and letting it
wash over us, in the name of 'doing our bit'.

See ? You've got me going again ... :-)

Arfa