On 29 abr, 14:51, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"lsmartino" wrote in message

...





On 29 abr, 12:01, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

...

Yes, indeed -- I am colour blind, and if that is what makes the
difference between someone who does have an issue with
CFLs, and someone who doesn't, then 12% -- one eighth --
of the population being forced to suffer because of this legislation,
seems a pretty poor show of arrogance by the powers that be, in
insisting that we suffer in the way that we are being made to.

I assume you suffer from protanopia or deuteranopia. My father did. (I
don't.)

I worked with a guy with that problem. One day he asked me to help him
pick
colors for a Web site. It was causing him all kinds of confusion. I
showed
him a fluorescent-green pen, and asked him what color it looked to
him --
"Orange". (That doesn't mean he saw it in the way a person with normal
color
vision would see orange. Rather, he could not distinguish it from what
we
would call orange.)

Peter Wensberg, the author of "Land's Polaroid" (a beautifully written
and
wonderfully entertaining book) told how, during a lunch of Chinese
takeout,
Dr Land administered one of the standard color perception tests (the
kind
with colored circles, where you indicate which letter or number you
see).
Wensberg utterly flunked it, getting every one wrong.

I've lived with fluorescent light for more than 60 years, and have
never
suffered (except in my early days at Microsoft, when the office lights
gave
me (and some others) headaches). It appears to me that your suffering
is
primarily aesthetic.

As I've said on a number of occasions, linear flourescent light doesn't
affect me in anything like the same way as CFL. I can read perfectly well
under it. I work perfectly well under it. I don't find the light
displeasing
in either colour or quality. I don't know how to reconcile this apparent
disparity, as I too have lived under flourescent light for over fifty
years.
I don't know what my type of colour blindness is called, nor whether it
is
common in type, or rare. I am apparently red blind and green insensitive,
as
far as I recall. It is many years since I took the test. I think it meant
that I couldn't see some shades of red at all, when they were mixed in
with
other colours, and that I couldn't distinguish some shades of green
amongst
other shades of green. Oddly enough though, the light from CFLs always
appears to have a slightly 'sick' green caste to me, irrespective of the
quoted colour temperature.

Arfa- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Linear flourescent tubes usually uses a type of phosphor called
halophosphate. That phosphor normally emits light in a very narrow
band of the spectrum, and since you are collor blind, probably what
happens is that your eyes are fully sensitive to that particular band.
In the other had, halophosphate phosphors aren´t suitable for CFL´s
because they produce less light output than triphosphors. A
triphosphor can be seen like a mix of three different phosphors, each
one emitting in a particular band. The sum of all three produces the
light coming from the CFL tube. Probably you are blind to one of these
bands, making you uncomfortable with the light.

This is just a theory, of course.

Nice explanation, and seems on the face of it, to hold water. Good that
someone can actually come up with a reasonable theory, instead of telling me
that the problem doesn't affect them, therefore I must be wrong, or using
the wrong CFLs. I really have tried to embrace these lamps since their first
inception, but the fact is that for practical reasons, as discussed, I
simply cannot get on with them. Yes, I hate the fact that they have been
forced on us for dubious reasons of ecology, and I freely admit that does
colour my perception of them a little, but my fundamental problem with them
is just that - they are a problem to my (obviously defective) eyesight.

Arfa- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Exactly. For instance, I do like CFL lamps, but I understand people
who find them objectionable just because they don´t like their shape
(I admit that spiral ones are ugly), or because they don´t like the
quality of the light produced by them. I also avoid store brand lamps
because most of the time they are rubbish. I usually find that store
brand lamps are either short lived, blueish, or completely lacking in
light output.

Thats why I only buy Osram, Philips or General Electric CFL´s. To my
tastes, the best CFL regarding light quality is the 2700K General
Electric. They are almost indistinguishable from an incandescent lamp,
and I find them perfect for household use. They start pretty quick at
a 70% ilumination level and have very good life. I have some that are
still running since I bought them 7 years ago, 5 - 6 hour of daily
use.That makes more than 15000 hours in each, and they are still going
strong. Then the second best one is the Philips, but I don´t like
their 2700K CFL´s because I find them a little pinkish for my tastes,
and sometimes they are hit or miss. If the ballast doesn´t get blown
the first year of use, they will last for a long time.

For general purpose use, like illuminating exterior areas, I prefer
4100 K lamps. Osram lamps are excellent for that application, they are
the longer lasting of all, but their 2700K lamps aren´t available in
my country, so I avoid they use at home.

I personally hate 6500 K lamps for general household use except inside
a task lamp. I think they don´t have a place in a household, perhaps
in a kitchen but they are too bluish for my tastes. In a commercial
environment they are ok, or in a photographic studio, but not in a
household.

In the end, I think that CFL´s will be superseded by led lamps, once
that led lamps become more powerful for general use. Problem is that
regarding light quality, led lamps have the same shortcomings of CFL
´s, at least right now.