On 13/12/2016 16:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim+ wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2016-12-03, John Rumm wrote:

I tried many CFLs over the years, and only managed to find one or two
that were at best adequate. Most (especially the early ones) had
such poor colour rendition they seemed to make any room cold and
unnatural looking with a green tinge thrown in for good measure. Its
odd, because I find the light from linear tri-phospher florries
quite acceptable.

I retired all the CFLs as soon as I found decent LEDs!

I still have CFLs in stock, but I only use them in outside lights &
multi-lamp indoor fittings (e.g., the dining room ceiling has a
thing-on-a-chain with 3 lamps pointing up).

Outside lights is one where CFLs can perform badly as the mercury vapour
pressure can be low and they will take ages to get going.

One of the things that killed the CFL market was the overstated light
output equivalence figures that were banded about.

Yes, they were complete bunk!

Indeed, but they always were and it didn't stop the sale of them. If
better LEDs hadn't come along we'd probably still be using the wretched
things.

Early LEDs tended to exaggerate the light output too. They seem to be a
bit better now - but still don't equate to the sort of tungsten most used
before.

They do! I got caught out by my first "60W" equivalent LED bulb being
way too bright for the small bathroom that I bought it for.

In fact they are slightly brighter than UK 240v incandescents because
their set point is calibrated against thicker brighter US 120v coiled
coil filaments which are more efficient than UK ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incand...haracteristics


--
Regards,
Martin Brown