Hi Arfa,

Arfa Daily wrote:

What was the rationale behind phasing out the 60's before the 100's?
Frosted before clear?

AS far as I have been able to ascertain, the reasoning behind earlier
phase-out of 60s, was that it was felt that CFLs had reached the point
where they could substitute for them in terms of equivalence of light
output, whereas they still had some way to go to be able to make that

Ah, that makes sense!

claim for 100s. As to why pearl before clear, I have not been able to
find a definitive answer to that one. I have seen it suggested that the
pearl envelope is more inefficient than the clear one, in that it blocks
more of the light output of the filament, causing it to be lost as heat.
I'm not at all sure that I believe that as a valid reason, and
subjectively, I've always thought that a pearl bulb in fact *appears*

It could, perhaps, be related to the fact that clear bulbs tend to
be "exposed" as part of the "artistry" of the light fixture
whereas frosted bulbs are typically behind a shade? I.e., if
the clear ones were replaced early, people would gripe more
about "how ugly" the CFL replacements are (??)

(who the hell knows... maybe they flipped a coin in some back
room?)

brighter than a clear one. Certainly, the fact that the light is
diffuse, seems to make it less prone to generating sharp shadows, and
from a purely aesthetic point of view, pearl bulbs look much more
attractive in fittings where they are visible. Clear bulbs always seem
to conjour up that 'seedy' feel that you get from old thirties gangster
and private eye movies.

Ah, here we see clear bulbs "exposed" in fixtures more than
frosted equivalents (unless you are talking about "*functional*
lighting fixtures")