On 04/26/2013 11:05 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:45:40 +0200, nestork
wrote:




Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment.

It is a lot of money, but it is not a lot of light. I'm not
interested until they have equivalent of 75W or 100W. We don't have a
60 in the house that I can think of.

Are you using 75W incandescents or "75W equivalent" CFLs? If the latter
I think you'd be OK with the new Philips light as it doesn't play fast
and loose with "wattage equivalents" like everyone else has for years.

There are brighter LEDs on the market, but they're less efficient and
more expensive. I know Philips has them, but they're expensive and fall
prey to the same optimistic ratings as CFLs (e.g. the "75W equivalent"
LED bulb uses 17W, produces 1100 lumens and costs $40 and the "100W
equivalent" one is 22W, 1780 lumens, $55 whereas real 120V incandescent
bulbs would in fact be 75W/1200 lumens. Surprisingly the "100W
equivalent" appears to in fact be so.)

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel