Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-10-30 03:02:27 +0000, S Viemeister
said:
Driving conditions to London are better than to Norway, though.......

Well there is that, but the scenery's a lot better when you get there -
people are more agreeable as well :-)

The scenery visible through my living room window is incomparable! But
someday, I'd like to visit Norway.
When I'm in London, I'm visiting family, and they're all very agreeable.

Sheila

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:30:03 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

I tihnk people would rather just whine.

Given the savings they are claimed to produce is based on a lie, why not?

It is interesting that much the same group of people moan about new
innovations and instead want to take us back to the 1960s (nuclear
power stations, incandescent lamps, etc). All these new innovations
are supposedly fraudulent, according to the moaners.

You're missing the point. It's not that I'm moaning or whining - like I said
earlier, I consider myself to be reasonably eco-friendly but my eyes are
going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well as with an
ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody awful CFLs. They
just don't work for me at all.

Ev.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

NN being some arbitrary number. The equation would depend on what
it costs to change a tube, and the cost of having one fail. It would
cost more if it was done by an electrician in a factory 15 feet above
a shop floor full of machinery than by a D-I-Yer in his own kitchen.
Also it might become a health and safety issue if a tube that was
lighting an area where dangerous machinery was being used was to fail,
the machinery might have to be shut down with knock on effects.

For this reason in industry tubes tend to be replaced on a planned
preventive maintenance programme.

In other words, in power
terms it's not worth switching on or off a fluorescent tube unless it will
be on/off for at least 45 minutes.

It's a cost issue, not a power issue.

DG

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:57:31 GMT someone who may be "Bioboffin"
wrote this:-

I find the slow warm up is a benefit first thing in the morning in winter.

Indeed. I have used slow starting ones for my bedroom for this
reason. However, in the toilet the compact fluorescent comes on in
less than a second and doesn't get that much brighter after that.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:18:16 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

That would be by the same people that say you use more energy to heat a
house up in the morning than you do if you leave the heating on all night?

Or those who imply is more economic to heat a house with electric
light bulbs than with say gas fired central heating.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:15 -0000 someone who may be "Ev"
wrote this:-

my eyes are
going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well as with an
ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody awful CFLs.

It is impossible to tell whether you are comparing like with like.
Part of the trouble is that the various compact fluorescents are
optimised in different ways and rather less standardised than
incandescent lamps. However, I have yet to come across many
situations where they are not suitable.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:18:16 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

That would be by the same people that say you use more energy to heat a
house up in the morning than you do if you leave the heating on all night?

Or those who imply is more economic to heat a house with electric
light bulbs than with say gas fired central heating.


If it was nuclear generated electricity, and a carbon tax on the fuel to
the level imposed on car fuel were introduced, it probably would be. :-)

My heating oil is 30p a liter roughly. Its 90p a liter for the same muck
to put in the car.

Lets say domestic heating oil and gas tripled in price.

And industrial oil coal and gas also.

Nuclear reprocessing costs would pale into insignificance ...

Why, even electric cars and windmills would actually be cost effective..

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:15 -0000 someone who may be "Ev"
wrote this:-

my eyes are
going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well as with an
ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody awful CFLs.

It is impossible to tell whether you are comparing like with like.
Part of the trouble is that the various compact fluorescents are
optimised in different ways and rather less standardised than
incandescent lamps. However, I have yet to come across many
situations where they are not suitable.


Yeah, I had to hacksaw off the lampshade holder top to fit CFL's to
SWMBO's latest purchase of overpriced crap from Homebase.

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
For this reason in industry tubes tend to be replaced on a planned
preventive maintenance programme.

There's an other reason - their light output fails dramatically after a
period of use, but may still continue working for a very long time.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Derek ^" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

I don't remember that Derek, but it was over 30 years ago now so I'm sure
you're right. Is that the reason so many high-rise office buildings
throughout the world leave every single tube on all night every night?

Peter


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I have moved to Ireland from the UK and our energy prices are a lot
better than UK. E.G. we have 8 radiators, and our water on gas. The
last bill was €19 that was because my partner is on disability
benefit and gets an allowence against her bills. She also gets free
telephone line rental, and free travel on public transport including
the ferry! But unfortunately she wont go on a boat so cheap hols to the
UK are out! :-( But also we don't pay for our water here as we have no
council tax! We do have to pay a bin lift charge and if you haven't
paid they put a sticker on your bin and leave it full. I hear that is
coming into the UK soon? Anyway before you all book flights, remember
we have the Euro here and things are a bot more expensive. Clothes are
incredibly cheap though. We have the irish version of Primark called
Pennies and I got a pair of jeans for €4.50 the other day which is
about £3 but go to a pub and you are looking at about £3 to £4 for a
pint! That's why we usually drink at home til about 9:30 then go out.
Also pubs are shut on Good friday and Xmas day :-( So I guess it is
swings and rounabouts really.

Slainte'

Ev wrote:

You're missing the point. It's not that I'm moaning or whining - like I said
earlier, I consider myself to be reasonably eco-friendly but my eyes are
going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well as with an
ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody awful CFLs. They
just don't work for me at all.

Ev.

Did you compare the 100w to an 18w or a 25w cfl? 25w would be the real
equivalent, not 18, and theres quite a difference.

NT

Peter Taylor wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
.uk...

I suggest you learn some basic physics so you can ignore them.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was told that by an electrician back
in the 70's and never felt the need to question it. You could try
enlightening me yourself though, instead of being patronising - how DO you
work out how much energy a fluorescent fitting uses during start up? It
seems to me quite possible, based upon my obviously extremely limited
knowledge in these things, that an incandescent lamp turned on for a brief
look in a cupboard could conceivably use less energy than a fl lamp.

Peter

20w linear fl approx equivalent to 75w filament lamp.
Fl run power 22w, startup power twice that, 44w.
Filament lamp startup power 8-10x run, ie 650 to 750w, but only for a
fraction of a second, short enough to ignore in practical energy
calculations.

So, its 75w versus 44w for 2-3 seconds then 22w continuous.


NT

Derek ^ wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:

I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

NN being some arbitrary number. The equation would depend on what
it costs to change a tube, and the cost of having one fail. It would
cost more if it was done by an electrician in a factory 15 feet above
a shop floor full of machinery than by a D-I-Yer in his own kitchen.
Also it might become a health and safety issue if a tube that was
lighting an area where dangerous machinery was being used was to fail,
the machinery might have to be shut down with knock on effects.

For this reason in industry tubes tend to be replaced on a planned
preventive maintenance programme.

In other words, in power
terms it's not worth switching on or off a fluorescent tube unless it will
be on/off for at least 45 minutes.

It's a cost issue, not a power issue.

DG

This is just the more technical explanation of the myth. I calculated
it once, and the cost in reduced lamp life of switching the thing off
then on was so miniscule it wasnt even worth a minute of electricity.

NT

On 30 Oct 2006 06:25:05 -0800, DJ spider wrote:
remember
we have the Euro here and things are a bot more expensive.

Just out of interest, what's the mortgage rate like in Ireland? (that
being the single biggest bill most houseowners get).
When I was in spain last year I was offered a mortgage at 3.25% c.f
6% in the UK. given that both countries are in the eurozone, I expect
your rates to be the same.
This never seems to get a mention in the pro/con euro debate in the
UK. I'd've thought that for most people, halving their mortgage
would have them queueing up for euros - strange.

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:56:37 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


"Derek ^" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

I don't remember that Derek, but it was over 30 years ago now so I'm sure
you're right. Is that the reason so many high-rise office buildings
throughout the world leave every single tube on all night every night?


I think that's corporate vanity. They do it around here as soon as the
building is fitted out and before the business has moved in.

DG

On 30 Oct 2006 14:42:54 GMT someone who may be Huge
wrote this:-

But I agree that it's a disgrace to fall out of the pub at 10:30pm
in Canary Wharf and see all those buildings lit up top to bottom
without a single soul in them.

Perhaps it indicates that electricity is still too cheap?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 14:42:54 GMT someone who may be Huge
wrote this:-

But I agree that it's a disgrace to fall out of the pub at 10:30pm
in Canary Wharf and see all those buildings lit up top to bottom
without a single soul in them.

Perhaps it indicates that electricity is still too cheap?


definitely it is

700 litres of raid diesl - 600 quid.

2000 litres of heating oil 600 quid.

THATs why eletric cars are cheap to run...

On 2006-10-30 12:49:41 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:15 -0000 someone who may be "Ev"
wrote this:-

my eyes are going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well
as with an ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody
awful CFLs.

It is impossible to tell whether you are comparing like with like.
Part of the trouble is that the various compact fluorescents are
optimised in different ways and rather less standardised than
incandescent lamps. However, I have yet to come across many
situations where they are not suitable.

Apart from the bilious colour of the light of course...

On 30 Oct 2006 06:49:47 -0800, wrote:


This is just the more technical explanation of the myth. I calculated
it once, and the cost in reduced lamp life of switching the thing off
then on was so miniscule it wasnt even worth a minute of electricity.


I'm sure that's true now with cheap unmarked far eastern tubes from
RING for less than £1.00, GE tubes from wholesalers for not much more.

But I encountered the myth Ca 1955 when my Uncle's greengrocer's shop
upgraded from tungsten lamps. Tubes in those days weren't triflingly
cheap, they were many times the price of tungsten lamps.

DG

Andy Hall typed


On 2006-10-30 12:49:41 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:04:15 -0000 someone who may be "Ev"
wrote this:-

my eyes are going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well
as with an ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody
awful CFLs.

It is impossible to tell whether you are comparing like with like.
Part of the trouble is that the various compact fluorescents are
optimised in different ways and rather less standardised than
incandescent lamps. However, I have yet to come across many
situations where they are not suitable.

Apart from the bilious colour of the light of course...


I would not want to apply make-up in a room lit by CFLs.

I accept Mr Hansen is unlikely to wear this.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

In article ,
Derek ^ writes:
But I encountered the myth Ca 1955 when my Uncle's greengrocer's shop
upgraded from tungsten lamps. Tubes in those days weren't triflingly
cheap, they were many times the price of tungsten lamps.

There was also the inconvenience of starting them with the
original 4-pin thermal starters, which took quite a bit longer
than the current glow-bottle starters (the thermal inertia of
the old starters slowed the whole process down dramatically).

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
"Ev" writes:
You're missing the point. It's not that I'm moaning or whining - like I said
earlier, I consider myself to be reasonably eco-friendly but my eyes are
going a bit faulty and I just can't see properly or as well as with an
ordinary 100W incandescent lamp when using these bloody awful CFLs. They
just don't work for me at all.

Find a 25W compact fluorescent to replace a 100W bulb.
They are available up to about 30W (Homebase).
In the case of a 100W R80 reflector lamp, the 23W GE Genura
(which uses a different internal technology) has a higher
light output. It's expensive, but still gives a large cost
saving over its life.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
"Peter Taylor" writes:
You could try enlightening me yourself though, instead of being
patronising - how DO you work out how much energy a fluorescent
fitting uses during start up?

So what's the answer then Dennis?

With everything else in the house switched off, watch your
electricity meter as you switch on a fluorescent lamp.
You won't find the disc spins any faster when it comes on
than once it's been on for a while.

--
Andrew Gabriel

wrote:

Did you compare the 100w to an 18w or a 25w cfl? 25w would be the real
equivalent, not 18, and theres quite a difference.

I have just been to Morrisons and they are selling 18w and 20w bulbs
(different makes) which are claimed to be 100w equivalent. They do not
sell anything brighter.

The fact is that many people are saying that CFL are not as good as
traditional bulbs because of this. Even my 12 year old son commented
the other day that it was dark in our breakfast room and this is
because it has a so called 100W equivalent cfl bulb in it, which from
what I can gather is probably 75W equivalent at best.

This is a real problem as there is a real lack of availability of these
higher wattage bulbs.

I have just looked on Tesco website and they don't have any cfl of
greater than 20W. Mind you they do have GE 11W bulbs for only 77p!
Morrisons are the same as are Wilkinsons. TLC do one 24W bulb, but only
in one style.

Has anyone got any practical advice on how to get decently bright bulbs
at a reasonable price.

wrote:

Has anyone got any practical advice on how to get decently bright bulbs
at a reasonable price.

http://www.toolstation.com
http://www.screwfix.com
http://www.energysavers-direct.com/v...ail.asp?var=16
http://www.justlamps.net/
http://www.bltdirect.co.uk/
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/LL6580.html
http://www.megamanuk.com/products/product.php?sid=1
http://www.ebulbshop.com/
http://www.thelightingsuperstore.co.uk

or if you really want power,
http://www.eurobatteries.com/sitepag...entcompact.asp

or if you live in outer mongolia and need a high power light:
http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/hamster.htm

or if your time's worthless:
www.deltalight.co.uk


NT

Peter Lynch wrote:

UK. I'd've thought that for most people, halving their mortgage
would have them queueing up for euros - strange.

Pete

I dont think converting to euros would halve the cost of mortgages. Or
have any positive effect on them. Many things cost more here, the
reasons lie elsewhere.


NT

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:15:33 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

Not a problem with 50p CFLs from the supermarket, but TFT monitors
OTOH... I set the power timeout so they're on for 30 mins minimum.

cheers,
Pete.

On 30 Oct 2006 13:05:54 -0800, wrote:

Has anyone got any practical advice on how to get decently bright bulbs
at a reasonable price.

Get someone to do a home enregy survey, might not be possible unless you
qualify by getting Working Tax Credit or some other benefit. Box of 6
CFLs arrived for free last week as a result of a recent enregy survey
(that was about all they could suggest or provide help with), 4 x 14W and
2 x 11W Philips branded. Pity you don't get a choice of fitting, the
lounge has 6 x 9W MES, other fittings are ES all these free lamps are BC
still I expect they will be used somewhere.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:18:56 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

Apart from the bilious colour of the light of course...

The 9W CFLs we have in the lounge are pretty much the same colour as the
tungsten 40W candles they replaced, I did a test with both fitted.
Certainly not the very strange colours that original CFL lamps where
*many* moons ago.

Thats the trouble with the marketing CFLs, over optimistic equivalence
rating and nothing to indicate the "colour temperature". The equivalence
should be an easy comparison for anyone with half a brain cell as both
tungsten and CFL have the lumen rating on the packaging, at least decent
makes do. B-)

The low level start I find very pleasant when my eyes are dark adapted
and doesn't bother me at other times. The lower level provides more than
ample light to move about without crashing into the dining table or WHY.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:24:13 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:15:33 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

Not a problem with 50p CFLs from the supermarket, but TFT monitors
OTOH... I set the power timeout so they're on for 30 mins minimum.


They are backlit by cold cathode tubes AIUI.

So no damage to cathodes by being driven before they are up to
temperature.

DG.

wrote:
wrote:
Did you compare the 100w to an 18w or a 25w cfl? 25w would be the real
equivalent, not 18, and theres quite a difference.

I have just been to Morrisons and they are selling 18w and 20w bulbs
(different makes) which are claimed to be 100w equivalent. They do not
sell anything brighter.

The fact is that many people are saying that CFL are not as good as
traditional bulbs because of this. Even my 12 year old son commented
the other day that it was dark in our breakfast room and this is
because it has a so called 100W equivalent cfl bulb in it, which from
what I can gather is probably 75W equivalent at best.

This is a real problem as there is a real lack of availability of these
higher wattage bulbs.

I have just looked on Tesco website and they don't have any cfl of
greater than 20W. Mind you they do have GE 11W bulbs for only 77p!
Morrisons are the same as are Wilkinsons. TLC do one 24W bulb, but only
in one style.

Has anyone got any practical advice on how to get decently bright bulbs
at a reasonable price.

I find the 11W which is supposed t be 0W equivalent is at best 40W
equiv. I use the 22W which are supposed to be 100W, but are dimmer than
a 50W halogen ..they are about the same as a 60W normal. Nothing like
what they are cracked up to be, but better..

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Derek ^ writes:

But I encountered the myth Ca 1955 when my Uncle's greengrocer's shop
upgraded from tungsten lamps. Tubes in those days weren't triflingly
cheap, they were many times the price of tungsten lamps.

yes, they likely would have had shorter lifetimes too. But it still
would only add up to minutes at most.

It might have been true right at the start in '38/39, when getting hold
of fl equipment was almost impossible, it dramatically reduced high
filament lighting running costs, transformed factory lighting,
motivated staff, and was thus a serious boost to any factory in war
time.


There was also the inconvenience of starting them with the
original 4-pin thermal starters, which took quite a bit longer
than the current glow-bottle starters (the thermal inertia of
the old starters slowed the whole process down dramatically).

I used to have IIRC a couple of old thermal starter units, 4 pin
things, and dont remember them being slow starting. They were much
better than glowstarts in that there was no flicker and flash, they
just preheated and came on. Where they fell down was on inability to
restart after a moment's off time, so a bad connection would switch the
lights off.


NT

On Oct 30, 9:14 pm, wrote:
wrote:
Has anyone got any practical advice on how to get decently bright bulbs
at a reasonable price.http://www.toolstation.comhttp://www...duct.php?sid=1

Thanks, but having looked at these sites it really proves the point
that BRIGHT cfls are a rarity and are also expensive, compared to the
sub £1 prices that all the supermarkets, sheds etc. seem to be doing,
for the more common wattages.

Not really sure what the solution is, but I suspect that as thse bulbs
get used more then demand for brighter ones will increase and hopefully
the prices will start to match those of the more commonly available
sizes.

On 30 Oct 2006 20:19:21 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

In the case of a 100W R80 reflector lamp, the 23W GE Genura
(which uses a different internal technology) has a higher
light output. It's expensive, but still gives a large cost
saving over its life.

And they give a very good light, though they do take perhaps 15
seconds to warm up to full brightness.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
.. .
"dennis@home" wrote in message
.uk...


I suggest you learn some basic physics so you can ignore them.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was told that by an electrician
back in the 70's and never felt the need to question it.

It is often repeated, so often in fact that I suspect it was quoted on some
popular TV or radio show back in the '70s, maybe something like Nationwide
or The Jimmy Young show, and who would have doubted such authority back
then? ;-)

H

I bought some low energy light bulbs from on special offer from
Morrisons recently equivalent to 100w, I have to say that they are
almost the same as 100w normal light bulb, however the amazing thing
was the price they were only 50p each !!! I was so impressed I went
back and bought lots more.

Have changed all the bulbs over, pay back should be only a few months
at this price, I have to say I am very impressed.

On Oct 30, 4:25 am, wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
Even when fully warmed up their output just isn't the equivalent as
stated. I replaced a 100 watt large globe bulb with one claimed to be 100w
and it wasn't.
I've said this several times before, but the reason for this is
they are compared with softone filament lamps, which are painted
and lower efficiency, and are not what most people use.
Ignore the quoted equivalent on the box, and just assume a 4:1
ratio. For any kind of integral reflector bulb, it's probably
worse, i.e. somewhere nearer 3:1.I tihnk people would rather just whine.

NT

andrew wrote:
I bought some low energy light bulbs from on special offer from
Morrisons recently equivalent to 100w, I have to say that they are
almost the same as 100w normal light bulb, however the amazing thing
was the price they were only 50p each !!! I was so impressed I went
back and bought lots more.

Have changed all the bulbs over, pay back should be only a few months
at this price, I have to say I am very impressed.

I would guess these are the subsidised ones, I recently bought quite a
few on line at 80p each and these most definitely were subsidised.

--
Chris Green

Peter Taylor wrote:

I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time. In other words, in power
terms it's not worth switching on or off a fluorescent tube unless it will
be on/off for at least 45 minutes. Does this apply to CFL's too? How much
power do they consume before they're up to full output?

Peter
..
Does not seem to 'add up'/
Our kitchen has 40 watt fluorescent tube lighting which starts almost
instantly; maybe 2 seconds, if that, at longest.
A 40 watt incandescent bulb also comes on instantly, well within one
fiftieth/2 (half a cycle) of a second at the longest anyway!
So even if the 40 watt fluor. tube used ten times as much power for
those 2 seconds of 'start up', which is highly doubtful, it would be
the equivalent of the tube being 'on' after its start up, for 20
seconds; right?
Even if it used 100 times as much power (4000 watts!) for those two
seconds during start up, which could possibly blow the fuse/circuit
breaker, it still equates to only 200 seconds of normal 'on' time.
So where that electrician got his 45 minutes from is a mystery! Maybe
it was a a mis-reference to the fact that some claim that frequently
turning a fluorescent on and off reduces the life of the lamps by some
factor? Maybe each 'extra' switch on/off reduces fluor. lamp life by
45 minutes. Hence large installations are left on constantly.

Peter Taylor wrote:
"Derek ^" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0000, "Peter Taylor"
wrote:


I was once told that fluorescent tubes use the same amount of power during
start-up as they do in 45mins normal running time.

With respect, I believe what used to be said was it was uneconomic to
switch off fluorescent tubes if they'll be off for less than NN
minutes. This was because the starting up from cold does most damage
to the cathodes, shortening of the life of the tubes. Theis may/may
not be the case nowadays with better ballasts.

I don't remember that Derek, but it was over 30 years ago now so I'm sure
you're right. Is that the reason so many high-rise office buildings
throughout the world leave every single tube on all night every night?

Peter

And in many climates that lighting energy (and any
wastage/inefficiency) contributes to heating the building. Many
buildings are electrcially heated anyway!
So even if lights are turned off after the cleaning staff have finished
at say around 11.00PM it may still be a cost trade off as whether
trhey should be turned back on again at say 5.00 AM in order to help
heat the building?