On 25/10/2017 21:37, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:34:10 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 24/10/2017 02:45, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:28:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

====snip====

I found the filament style 60W equiv lamps
to be very good a true match for light output and a pretty good CRI.

That'll be on account the 806Lm lamps "Wattage" rating is based on the
more efficient American 120v 750 hour tungsten filament lamp type than
on our less efficient UK 240v 1000 hour lamp type.

It's taken quite a few years longer than promised by Cree but we're
finally seeing LED lamps with efficiencies above the best on offer of
81Lm per watt of the past five years now raised to somewhere in the
region of 120 to 130Lm per watt.

I'd think most know an LED is more efficient than tungsten. My problem
is buying one which says it is a 100 watt equivalent only to find it is
not -
and noticeably so.

If I'm happy with a particular light level/quality, that's what I want
of any replacement, since it is the primary purpose of a light. Seems to
me many think saving money is the primary purpose of a light. In which
case leave it switched off. ;-)

When CFLs first became available, the savings in running costs compared
to tungsten filament lighting was the main selling point, especially true
in locations such as hallways and landings where, for safety as much as
convenience, it would be preferable to leave those lights switched on
between dusk and bedtime.

Preferable to who? What safety?

What's wrong with a light switch in a convenient position to turn them
on and off when needed?

You might trip over trying to find the lightswitch, especially if
elderly or infirm.

Or more likely not bother turning the light on because it "seems" light
enough even though it isn't quite.

SteveW