On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:54:48 +0100, Terry Pinnell
wrote:


That link gave me a nice picture but can anyone recommend a specific 60W
and 100W UK supplier please?

CPC Farnell
LP00298 100W BC PEARL
£4.72 (inc VAT) for 10

They do not seem to do 60 watt but our local high street electrical
shop still sells both.

Jim Yanik wrote:
you need color rendering accuracy to READ?

I don't have a way of quantifying it, but a continous source is much easier
for me to use as a reading lamp. So a 20 watt halogen lamp on "low" is
easier to read than an 11 watt flourescent at the same distance.

Farther away it works the same way too, but I no longer have an incandesent
lamps except for special purpose ones (reading lamps, photgraphic safelights,
etc) to do an eaual distance comparison.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" wrote:

I would like to still be
able to get the proper bulbs for them that their designers intended to go in
them.

If you really didn't stock up before the bans, have you tried bulbs.com
or similar?

Arfa Daily wrote:
Well. 'looking a bit funny' might be fine in your home, but it's not in
mine. Light fixtures are part of the decor, chosen as much for their
appearance, as for their lighting function, and I would like to still be
able to get the proper bulbs for them that their designers intended to go in
them. I don't want candle bulbs that are half as long again as the 'real'
thing and stick out of the shades, or convoluted spirals that look
ridiculous in open or glass shaded fixtures.

That's my biggest problem with CFL's. I can live with the color problems,
I can live with the slow startup, but what bothers me is the extremely bright
end sticking beyond the fixture causing my eyes to compensate when I look in
that direction, making the rest of the room too dark until I look away and
they recover.

It's very annoying that while I have several globe fixtures that perfectly well
took 75 watt incadescent bulbs, there are no similar CFLs. Even the short
curly ones don't fit in the same space once they get beyond the equivalent
of a 40 watt incadescent bulb. :-(

Also what do you put in a refrigerator?????

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

Or £6.99 for 10 (post free) on ebay:-
item no. 230611860137

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Terry Pinnell"
"Arfa Daily"

Maybe you can't see anything wrong with them, and they suit your eyes,
But
they are no good for me on both counts. I, and many others both here and
over there, *can* see their deficiencies, and don't like them. As indeed
prompted the OP to make his post ...

Arfa: Agreed. My feelings exactly.


** Arfa has admitted to being colour blind.

So you are too - it seems.

Have trouble with 1% resistor codes do we???

12% of all males are colour blind - ie they fail one of the basic tests.

Only 1 or 2% of females are so afflicted - but THEY are the CARRIERS !



.... Phil



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
....

Arfa

Probably warm / soft white; any other fluorescent is
horror movie lighting. If you don't have the color temp
spec, hold a lit, known temperature bulb next to it and
see if it looks redder, bluer, or the same.

It is difficult to specify a "color temperature" for a non-continuous
source.

The bare bulbs look "white", leaning a bit to the warm side.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
They give you full brightness at switch on, unlike
compact fluorescents that take time to warm-up.

Yes, but...

The better CFLs are quite bright at turn-on -- bright enough that you
don't feel you bought a defective lamp.

The operative word being "quite". I thought you said that your Home
Despot
types came on quicker than an incandescent. Certainly doesn't sound that
way
from that description ... And as far as I'm concerned, any incandescent
replacement technology lamp that does not produce the *full* light output
within a few mS of switch on, or is ambient temperature dependant for its
performance, *is* a defective lamp.

The Home Depot lamps come on instantly at a level I'd judge to be around
60% -- maybe higher -- of full brightness. Full brightness takes another
30
seconds or so. This is a huge improvement over the bulbs from 15 years
ago.




With all due respect William, that is the most feeble justification that you
have come up with so far. It's like the government banning cars and making
everybody buy bikes instead, and then turning round and saying that riding a
bike is still better than when you had to walk before the bike was invented
.... If it has taken 15 years so far to get these dreadful things from
total crap to utter crap, then by the time they are actually at a point
where they can properly replace incandescent lamps, I will be a pile of dust
anyway. I'm afraid that I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, equate
"60%" and "30 seconds" to either "instant" or satisfactory replacement
technology. If they really were 'good', they wouldn't need defending against
all of the criticisms that are levelled against them by (colour blind ??)
people the world over.

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
They give you full brightness at switch on, unlike
compact fluorescents that take time to warm-up.

Yes, but...

The better CFLs are quite bright at turn-on -- bright enough that you
don't feel you bought a defective lamp.

The operative word being "quite". I thought you said that your Home
Despot
types came on quicker than an incandescent. Certainly doesn't sound that
way
from that description ... And as far as I'm concerned, any incandescent
replacement technology lamp that does not produce the *full* light output
within a few mS of switch on, or is ambient temperature dependant for its
performance, *is* a defective lamp.

The Home Depot lamps come on instantly at a level I'd judge to be around
60% -- maybe higher -- of full brightness. Full brightness takes another
30
seconds or so. This is a huge improvement over the bulbs from 15 years
ago.




With all due respect William, that is the most feeble justification that you
have come up with so far. It's like the government banning cars and making
everybody buy bikes instead, and then turning round and saying that riding a
bike is still better than when you had to walk before the bike was invented
.... If it has taken 15 years so far to get these dreadful things from
total crap to utter crap, then by the time they are actually at a point
where they can properly replace incandescent lamps, I will be a pile of dust
anyway. I'm afraid that I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, equate
"60%" and "30 seconds" to either "instant" or satisfactory replacement
technology. If they really were 'good', they wouldn't need defending against
all of the criticisms that are levelled against them by (colour blind ??)
people the world over.

Arfa

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.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

The Home Depot lamps come on instantly at a level I'd judge
to be around 60% -- maybe higher -- of full brightness. Full
brightness takes another 30 seconds or so.

That is some serious backpedaling from your earlier assertions.
Thanks for telling the truth this time around.

I'm not backpedaling in the least. They do, indeed, come on instantly. You
ASSUMED that "come on" means "light at full brightness".

Consider tubular fluorescent lights. Many DO NOT come on instantly. But when
they do light, it's at full brightness -- at THAT instant, which could be
considered the point of turn-on.

What do you put in a refrigerator?????

Refrigerator bulbs represent such a small percentage of energy consumption
there would be no point in switching to CFLs.

Once the color problems with LEDs are solved, there will no doubt be an LED
refrigerator lamp.

Arfa Daily wrote:
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

That's an interesting point. If 12% of the population is aflicted with a
gentic disorder, or one caused by a disease or trauma, then the National
Health should provide them with incadescent bulbs and a susbidy for
electricity to run them.

I know the US has the "Americans with Disabilities Act" that would require
it, and I'm sure there is something in British or EU law like that.

I would persue it based on what the National Health does for people
with macular degeneration and work backwards. At what point is the
inability to see defined and where does color blindness affect your
daily life.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

Arfa Daily wrote:
I'm afraid that I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, equate
"60%" and "30 seconds" to either "instant" or satisfactory replacement
technology.


Besides outdoor lighting where I needed hundreds of watts of incandesent
lighting, I used the first for indoor lighting in places that
traditionally have lights on timers. In a windowless bathroom an 8 watt CFL
provides enough light at so low a cost I just leave them on.

After all a timer uses electricty too, and figuring out when to have it go
on and off without leaving people in the dark is an art.

We don't turn lights on or off during the Sabbath, and used to leave the
main light in our apartment on all Friday night. We installed a timer
to turn it off at midnight (when the last of us goes to sleep) and on again
at six AM, (when the first of us gets up), but it will take 200 weeks
to even out the cost of the timer and installation versus the cost
of electricity. By that time, we will have long since moved out. :-(

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

Arfa Daily wrote:

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


It's time for the villagers to gather their pitchforks and burning
torch, and storm that infestation in Belgium.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:
I'm afraid that I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, equate
"60%" and "30 seconds" to either "instant" or satisfactory replacement
technology.


Besides outdoor lighting where I needed hundreds of watts of incandesent
lighting, I used the first for indoor lighting in places that
traditionally have lights on timers. In a windowless bathroom an 8 watt CFL
provides enough light at so low a cost I just leave them on.


I have several motion sensor lights in my house so I don't have to
search for a light switch when I have my hands full, or I'm half asleep.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"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

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
...
On 2011-04-29, Phil Allison wrote:
** Here, all that has to happen is someone report the shop keeper to the
relevant Energy Authority.

Very Orwellian, and I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Rather than fawning all over the "royal couple" (it's hard to imagine a
more worthless set of parasitical leeches than the "royal" family), it may
be time for the Brits to start planning revolution.

Not wishing to be rude, Roger, but what exactly is it that you purport to
know about my country's Royal Family in general, or indeed the couple who
today got married, that gives you the right to rubbish them in this way ?
For the most part, they work very hard in ambassadorial roles for our
country around the world. The one that got married today is a nice enough
lad who's a serving officer in our military, and his new wife is a very nice
girl who is not herself from a royal background. I have seen little evidence
of people 'fawning' over this event. Most seem genuinely pleased for them,
and if, in these difficult and depressing financial times, the occasion
provides the general population with a bit of a boost, what's wrong with
that ?



Arfa

Geo wrote:

Or £6.99 for 10 (post free) on ebay:-
item no. 230611860137

Thanks Geo.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

(Re-posted from the lower traffic sci.electronics.misc group.)

Does anyone know where I can buy 'normal' filament lamp bulbs in the UK
please? I just cannot get on with the new economy type. My remaining stock
of 60W and 100W is dwindling rapidly.

http://www.wrightshardware.co.uk/Eaccess.htm

Thanks Adrian. Phoned at 7pm but I see they're closed all day Thursdays
anyway. I'll try again on Saturday after the Wedding. Doesn't look like
they have any online ordering but presumably they will despatch? Bath's a
little too far to justify the trip!

He told me he intends to open the shop tomorrow (Friday).

I warned him that, if he had a website, people would expect him to do
mail order, but I don't know if he is ready for it yet.

Adrian: I phoned this morning but it appears as you suspected that Mr
Wright supplies only to those visiting his shop. He did say he'd have a
think and "talk to Adrian...". However, I'm pleased to say I've now found
another local source. I bought 20 x 60W and they've ordered the same
number of 100W.

BTW, I was surprised to learn that no 'pearl' types are now made, all are
clear glass.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
...
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

(Re-posted from the lower traffic sci.electronics.misc group.)

Does anyone know where I can buy 'normal' filament lamp bulbs in the
UK
please? I just cannot get on with the new economy type. My remaining
stock
of 60W and 100W is dwindling rapidly.

http://www.wrightshardware.co.uk/Eaccess.htm

Thanks Adrian. Phoned at 7pm but I see they're closed all day Thursdays
anyway. I'll try again on Saturday after the Wedding. Doesn't look like
they have any online ordering but presumably they will despatch? Bath's
a
little too far to justify the trip!

He told me he intends to open the shop tomorrow (Friday).

I warned him that, if he had a website, people would expect him to do
mail order, but I don't know if he is ready for it yet.

Adrian: I phoned this morning but it appears as you suspected that Mr
Wright supplies only to those visiting his shop. He did say he'd have a
think and "talk to Adrian...". However, I'm pleased to say I've now found
another local source. I bought 20 x 60W and they've ordered the same
number of 100W.

BTW, I was surprised to learn that no 'pearl' types are now made, all are
clear glass.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Yes Terry. See my other posts making mention of this. Apparently, pearlised
types were the first to be phased out, because they consume more energy to
make than clear ones. Oh brother ! And I suppose that CFLs, with their
hundreds of manufacturing processes, don't ... ?

Arfa

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.

Terry Pinnell wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

(Re-posted from the lower traffic sci.electronics.misc group.)

Does anyone know where I can buy 'normal' filament lamp bulbs in the UK
please? I just cannot get on with the new economy type. My remaining
stock
of 60W and 100W is dwindling rapidly.

http://www.wrightshardware.co.uk/Eaccess.htm

Thanks Adrian. Phoned at 7pm but I see they're closed all day Thursdays
anyway. I'll try again on Saturday after the Wedding. Doesn't look like
they have any online ordering but presumably they will despatch? Bath's a
little too far to justify the trip!

He told me he intends to open the shop tomorrow (Friday).

I warned him that, if he had a website, people would expect him to do
mail order, but I don't know if he is ready for it yet.

Adrian: I phoned this morning but it appears as you suspected that Mr
Wright supplies only to those visiting his shop. He did say he'd have a
think and "talk to Adrian...". However, I'm pleased to say I've now found
another local source. I bought 20 x 60W and they've ordered the same
number of 100W.

Thanks for letting me know, I'll pass the information on to him. He
didn't seem at all keen on posting them when I spoke to him this
morning, the chance of breakage is too high.

The website was intended to draw in local trade and his stock changes so
rapidly that I have never managed to get it up to date.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:20:35 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.


I don't think so. Expanding beyond just fluorescent versus incandescent
we can observe more of what is being discussed. For most people, mercury
vapor (MV) lighting is easier to read by but tends to make people look
ghastly, especially in photographs. On the other hand people look better
and photographs look better with high pressure sodium (HPS) lighting, and
many find it easier to see large objects especially at very low light
levels, but reading is more difficult. It is primarily a matter of
spectral intensities and the placement of the various strong lines. Many
comparisons of MV vs HPS lighting are available but most rarely touch on
these issues, especially the reading and fine resolution issue. Now that
white (fluorescent) LED lighting is becoming more available with yet
different color balances, the whole subject becomes even more complicated.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:05:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

They give you full brightness at switch on, unlike
compact fluorescents that take time to warm-up.

Yes, but...

The better CFLs are quite bright at turn-on -- bright enough that you
don't feel you bought a defective lamp.

The operative word being "quite". I thought you said that your Home Despot
types came on quicker than an incandescent. Certainly doesn't sound that
way
from that description ... And as far as I'm concerned, any incandescent
replacement technology lamp that does not produce the *full* light output
within a few mS of switch on, or is ambient temperature dependant for its
performance, *is* a defective lamp.

The Home Depot lamps come on instantly at a level I'd judge to be around
60% -- maybe higher -- of full brightness. Full brightness takes another 30
seconds or so. This is a huge improvement over the bulbs from 15 years ago.


Mine are 'faster' still. Hitting about 85% to 90% faster than i can
detect with my eyes, say under 100 ms.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:54:48 +0100, Terry Pinnell
wrote:

M.Joshi wrote:


'Terry Pinnell[_3_ Wrote:
;2636067'](Re-posted from the lower traffic sci.electronics.misc
group.)

Does anyone know where I can buy 'normal' filament lamp bulbs in the UK
please? I just cannot get on with the new economy type. My remaining
stock
of 60W and 100W is dwindling rapidly.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Do you mean that your light fittings cannot accomodate the larger
compact fluorescent bulbs?

No, my gripes are more basic: I like instant light when I flick a switch
and I like bright light to work and read by. I also resent what seems to
be downright misleading statements by the manufacturers about 'equivalent'
ratings. I've never found one that warrants the claim.

Agreed, i have always had to go one lamp higher output.

If so, there are halogen bulbs available in the same form factor as the
old incandescent filament bulbs. These are classed as lower energy than
a standard incandescent and can be purchased from most supermarkets and
DIY stores. See the link below:

http://tinyurl.com/68nocgh

They give you full brightness at switch on unlike compact fluorescents
that take time to warm-up.

Thanks, I'll investigate and try a few, although from what I've read
up-thread it sounds as if I'll still favour the old filament types.

That link gave me a nice picture but can anyone recommend a specific 60W
and 100W UK supplier please?

"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

"josephkk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 05:20:35 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

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.


I don't think so. Expanding beyond just fluorescent versus incandescent
we can observe more of what is being discussed. For most people, mercury
vapor (MV) lighting is easier to read by but tends to make people look
ghastly, especially in photographs. On the other hand people look better
and photographs look better with high pressure sodium (HPS) lighting, and
many find it easier to see large objects especially at very low light
levels, but reading is more difficult. It is primarily a matter of
spectral intensities and the placement of the various strong lines. Many
comparisons of MV vs HPS lighting are available but most rarely touch on
these issues, especially the reading and fine resolution issue. Now that
white (fluorescent) LED lighting is becoming more available with yet
different color balances, the whole subject becomes even more complicated.

Interesting. See my reply to Ismartino, elsewhere in the thread.

Arfa

They give you full brightness at switch on, unlike
compact fluorescents that take time to warm-up.

Yes, but...

The better CFLs are quite bright at turn-on -- bright enough that you
don't feel you bought a defective lamp.

The operative word being "quite". I thought you said that your Home
Despot
types came on quicker than an incandescent. Certainly doesn't sound that
way
from that description ... And as far as I'm concerned, any incandescent
replacement technology lamp that does not produce the *full* light
output
within a few mS of switch on, or is ambient temperature dependant for
its
performance, *is* a defective lamp.

The Home Depot lamps come on instantly at a level I'd judge to be around
60% -- maybe higher -- of full brightness. Full brightness takes another
30 seconds or so. This is a huge improvement over the bulbs from 15 years
ago.

With all due respect William, that is the most feeble justification that
you
have come up with so far. It's like the government banning cars and making
everybody buy bikes instead, and then turning round and saying that riding
a
bike is still better than when you had to walk before the bike was
invented
... If it has taken 15 years so far to get these dreadful things from
total crap to utter crap, then by the time they are actually at a point
where they can properly replace incandescent lamps, I will be a pile of
dust
anyway. I'm afraid that I cannot, by any stretch of my imagination, equate
"60%" and "30 seconds" to either "instant" or satisfactory replacement
technology. If they really were 'good', they wouldn't need defending
against
all of the criticisms that are levelled against them by (colour blind ??)
people the world over.

From my perspective, I don't know why I /need/ to justify the better current
CFLs. To only slightly paraphrase Sam Spade... "They're good. They're very
good."

I don't think objections come solely from people with non-standard color
vision (though, obviously, they're more-sensitive to non-continuous
spectra). There are multiple issues.

People are used to lights reaching "full" brightness very quickly. This is
of no concern to me, if the lamp more-than-sufficiently bright when it's
turned on. (This one reason I use only 90W or 100W-equivalent CFLs. When
you're using only one-fourth the energy of a standard incandescent, why use
anything smaller?)

People object to the shape of coiled CFLs -- at least when they're visible.
The choice of shade should fix this.

People object to being forced to buy something they don't want. This is a
political issue that should perhaps be discussed later.

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.

That's hardly "odd" if you have little or no red sensitivity. It's to be
expected.

The obvious question is... Why doesn't tungsten lighting show a similar
green cast? The answer might be that tungsten lighting puts out more red
energy, over a wider band.

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.

On Apr 29, 4:49*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
you need color rendering accuracy to READ?

I don't have a way of quantifying it, but a continous source is much easier
for me to use as a reading lamp. So a 20 watt halogen lamp on "low" is
easier to read than an 11 watt flourescent at the same distance.

Flicker frequency? CFLs flicker in the kHz range. Imperceptable.
Bigger difference is incandescents are more of a point light source,
which is easier to read fine details -- including letter fonts --
by.
I still prefer them for paint and finishing work, where I need
more accurate color (halogens are second only to sunlight)
and shadow rendition.

Farther away it works the same way too, but I no longer have an incandesent
lamps except for special purpose ones (reading lamps, photgraphic safelights,
etc) to do an eaual distance comparison.

Bunsen grease spot photometer:
http://users.snip.net/~veraandscienc.../Bunsen_P.html
Essentially a sheet of paper with a grease spot in the
middle.

On Apr 29, 8:05*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
Probably warm / soft white; any other fluorescent is
horror movie lighting. *If you don't have the color temp
spec, hold a lit, known temperature bulb next to it and
see if it looks redder, bluer, or the same.

It is difficult to specify a "color temperature" for a non-continuous
source.

The bare bulbs look "white", leaning a bit to the warm side.

It's amazing how blue a 3500K warm white bulb will look when
held next to a 2700K.

On Apr 29, 3:50*pm, lsmartino wrote:

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.

26/100 watt 6500s are excellent for growing plants under.
42/150s are even better, but cost twice as much for 50%
more output.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LEDs are point sources and produce harsher, less
comfortable light.

LEDs are point sources and produce harsher, less
comfortable light.

GE is or will be selling LED lamps in conventional bulbs.

I still prefer [halogens] for paint and finishing work, where
I need more accurate color (halogens are second only to
sunlight) and shadow rendition [???].

Regardless of perceived color temperature, a discontinuous source is more
likely to cause problems with metamerism.

Given proper filtration, any tungsten source should be fully equal to
daylight.

By the way, noon daylight appears, to me, slightly yellow.

"Father Haskell"

Flicker frequency? CFLs flicker in the kHz range. Imperceptable.

** The light of a CFL is modulated at 100 Hz too.

Cos the internal DC supply is very poorly filtered.

In general, the 100Hz ( or 120Hz) light modulation is less than experienced
with regular fluoros and low wattage ( 60 or 70 W) incandescent lamps.



..... Phil

On Apr 29, 12:11*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

There are multiple issues.

People are used to lights reaching "full" brightness very quickly. This is
of no concern to me, if the lamp more-than-sufficiently bright when it's
turned on. (This one reason I use only 90W or 100W-equivalent CFLs. When
you're using only one-fourth the energy of a standard incandescent, why use
anything smaller?)

My torchieres were designed to fit 50-100-150 W bulbs. No one makes a
globe or bullet brightness equivalent, much less a three-way CFL. I
tried a "100 W equivalent" twisty bulb, and promptly brushed it
against the ceiling, turning my living room into a hazmat scene.



People object to the shape of coiled CFLs -- at least when they're visible.
The choice of shade should fix this.

I should just throw away my torchiere lamps? Already I can find no CFL
equivalent for my 60 W hall fixture -- an incandescent bulb that has
lasted at least 20 years -- it hasn't been changed since we bought the
house. I guess I'll stock up on clears since it is a cloudy decorated
globe fixture.

On 29 abr, 19:33, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Father Haskell"

Flicker frequency? *CFLs flicker in the kHz range. *Imperceptable.

** The light of a CFL is modulated at 100 Hz too.

Cos the internal DC supply is very poorly filtered.

In general, the 100Hz ( or 120Hz) light modulation is less than experienced
with regular fluoros and low wattage ( 60 or 70 W) incandescent lamps.

.... *Phil

That is also true. Specially in cheap (read: bad quality) CFL´s. The
effect becomes worse as the CFL ages, I guess that happens because the
poor quality filter caps inside the ballast lose capacitance as the
heat generated by the electronics cooks them.

Inside brand CFL´s I have found 105ºC caps inside, cheap ones usually
have 85ºC caps and with less capacitance. In some CFL´s the internal
fuse opens when one of the filter capacitors fail shorted, often after
venting, in some others the filter capacitor just opens electrically
and the CFL starts to flicker badly at 120 Hz. That also happens with
cheap chinese ballasts for linear fluorescent tubes.

One more reason to avoid *no name* CFL´s.

On Apr 29, 8:44*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
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

That's an interesting point. If 12% of the population is aflicted with a
gentic disorder, or one caused by a disease or trauma, then the National
Health should provide them with incadescent bulbs and a susbidy for
electricity to run them.

I know the US has the "Americans with Disabilities Act" that would require
it, and I'm sure there is something in British or EU law like that.

I would persue it based on what the National Health does for people
with macular degeneration and work backwards. At what point is the
inability to see defined and where does color blindness affect your
daily life.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

Geof:

You and a previous poster are sexist. It is 12% of males that are
color-blind to varying degrees. That's only 6% of the total
population if we assume more or less equal males and females.