On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:11:57 PM UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Gentlemen,

Back in the 1960s, when tubes were coming into service more and more, it
was a widely held belief that they were more expensive to run than
tungsten filament bulbs if turned on for short periods. It was said that
most of the power they consumed was drawn during the 'strike-up' phase so
if they weren't on for at *least* an hour, you might as well be using TF
bulbs.
Well, here we are 50+ years on and tubes are now very much old tech.
What, with the benefit of hindsight, have the Panel to say about those
old efficiency claims of the day?

Just curious.....

Might be cheaper to run but the frequency with which the ******* things in my kitchen (under-cabinet downlighters) need replaced outweigh the benefits.. Even with replacing the starter at the same time as the tube I'm lucky if they last a few months* Meanwhile the monolithic monsters in the garage which must be coming up for 20+ years old are still fine.

*I have looked into replacing the ballast but I'm buggered if I can find a simple how-to guide - it's all "if this then this otherwise this unless this". I might just skip straight to LEDs but find them a bit cold.