Like most people, I guess,I'm working on changing as many of my lamps to
low energy. The great deep-thinking ones are thinking of banning the
sale of filament lamps anyway. I made a spreadsheet that showed I was
using about £250 a year on lights (big house). This should come down to
about £80 with LE, after allowing for not being able to dim them.

Problem is I need to change several light fittings and buy new
free-standing ones for reading etc. I don't want to do this until I know
more about the the sizes, output and light colour of the bulbs. I've
looked at various suppliers sites thrown up by Google, and the suppliers
I use for electrical bits, but the data is very limited. Short of buying
one of each lamp and testing them myself I'm not sure how to proceed.
Its not like a thermostat or a piece of pipe. Lighting is an important
part of the design of a room, so I want to get it right.

Has this topic been discussed on this ng lately? I've not browsed it for
a while. The uk.d-i-y faq has no information like this. Does anyone know
of another faq or info site?

If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be happy
to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if they
appeared to be consistent and useful (maybe I'll regret saying that!). I
could put this on my website with a link on the faq or it might go on
the faq itself.

What do people think?

Peter Scott

I'm sort of answering my own question. I have found three sites that
have more detailed information on them including colour temperature and
physical size:
www.lightbulbs-direct.com
www.bltdirect.com
www.yourwelcome.co.uk

Der...

That'll teach me to check *again* on Google before I post! Anyway, I
hope someone might find the addresses useful. I guess a faq is not needed?


If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be happy
to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if they
appeared to be consistent and useful (maybe I'll regret saying that!). I
could put this on my website with a link on the faq or it might go on
the faq itself.

What do people think?

Peter Scott

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be
happy to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if
they appeared to be consistent and useful

I think the biggest problem will be the rather subjective comments people
make. Some just don't like 'em, others are quite happy. What would be
useful is something that tabulates the make/model, rated power & lumens
output for each lamp and (in an ideal world) the real lumen ouput at
switch on from cold, at 1, 2, 5 and 10 mins, the colour temperature once
warm and if they start with or without a flicker. The latter half would
require an awful lot of effort though and decent measuring kit.

The first bit could be done by looking at the packaging as most, if not
all, lamps now have that info on them. There are a lot of lamps out there
but if a few people spent just 5 or 10 mins in the supermarket/DIY Shed
WHY making a note of the rating of all the lamps then sent that
information to a central point for collation it wouldn't be to much for
any single person to do, apart from collator! Mind you it wouldn't be
that hard to have a web interface to allow people to input their
findings.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Peter Scott wrote:

I'm sort of answering my own question. I have found three sites that
have more detailed information on them including colour temperature and
physical size:
www.lightbulbs-direct.com
www.bltdirect.com
www.yourwelcome.co.uk

Der...

That'll teach me to check *again* on Google before I post! Anyway, I
hope someone might find the addresses useful. I guess a faq is not needed?

If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be happy
to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if they
appeared to be consistent and useful (maybe I'll regret saying that!). I
could put this on my website with a link on the faq or it might go on
the faq itself.

What do people think?

Peter Scott

I think a faq is needed, this is a common question. IME there are good,
so-so and oh-no.

I've had good experiences with Osram, the toolstation ones were all so
so but not the best light quality, Philips I've not been tempted to buy
any more, and the one poundland one I bought out of curiosity was dire.

If you write something, here's a good place for it:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages


NT

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:02:41 +0000 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

Problem is I need to change several light fittings and buy new
free-standing ones for reading etc. I don't want to do this until I know
more about the the sizes, output and light colour of the bulbs.

The sizes are stated in various places. They range from lamps no
larger than GLS lamps to ones considerably larger. Some are also
considerably heavier, which may be of concern in some fittings.

Output and light colour is to some extent a matter of personal
prejudice. Some will swear blind that such lamps are dim, take too
long to warm up, are no good for almost anything and the available
figures on output and colour are all wrong. On the other hand some
have been using such lamps since the 1980s, have now got them almost
everywhere and don't see why some make a fuss about them.

Has this topic been discussed on this ng lately?

There are search engines to answer that question.


--
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 Scott formulated on Thursday :
Problem is I need to change several light fittings and buy new free-standing
ones for reading etc. I don't want to do this until I know more about the the
sizes, output and light colour of the bulbs. I've looked at various suppliers
sites thrown up by Google, and the suppliers I use for electrical bits, but
the data is very limited. Short of buying one of each lamp and testing them
myself I'm not sure how to proceed. Its not like a thermostat or a piece of
pipe. Lighting is an important part of the design of a room, so I want to get
it right.

You should only consider using the low energy lamps where the light is
turned on and left on for a sensible period of time - for all other
uses ordinary filament lamps are best for both electrical economy and
lamp replacement economy, initial cost and you get 100% light output as
soon as switched on.

The low energy lamps just don't survive very long if frequently
switched, filament lamps are much better for this type of use.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In message , Peter Scott
writes
I'm sort of answering my own question. I have found three sites that
have more detailed information on them including colour temperature and
physical size:
www.lightbulbs-direct.com

You have solved my problem at least:-)

Compact gs23 9 watt fluorescents are only available in warm white from
my local outlets. We have a low ceiling in our kitchen and use recessed
twin lamps. Even with 5 units SWMBO is not happy. I tried changing the
opaque cover but she wasn't happy with that either. Cool white from the
above should do it.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

On 2007-01-18 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott said:

Like most people, I guess,I'm working on changing as many of my lamps
to low energy.

Really? Not based on shelf space devoted to them in most stores.


The great deep-thinking ones are thinking of banning the sale of
filament lamps anyway.

I think you mean small minded people who like to interfere in the
freedom of choice of others.


I made a spreadsheet that showed I was using about £250 a year on
lights (big house). This should come down to about £80 with LE, after
allowing for not being able to dim them.

I find that surprising. I also have a considerable number of lamps -
almost all tungsten of one technology or another and don't get to
anything like this figure.

If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be
happy to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if
they appeared to be consistent and useful (maybe I'll regret saying
that!). I could put this on my website with a link on the faq or it
might go on the faq itself.

What do people think?



I think that the exercise is pointless. I haven't yet found any low
energy lamps that I would entertain having in the house. I find the
light quality poor and colour rendition obtained distinctly artificial
looking and strange to the point of having a bilious effect.

The amount of energy saved I don't think is worth the effort just in
the context of lamp use, especially when mechanics and light
suitability are also taken into account, and in comparison with other
energy saving measures, it's really not worth bothering.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:58:08 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:02:41 +0000 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

Problem is I need to change several light fittings and buy new
free-standing ones for reading etc. I don't want to do this until I know
more about the the sizes, output and light colour of the bulbs.

The sizes are stated in various places. They range from lamps no
larger than GLS lamps to ones considerably larger. Some are also
considerably heavier, which may be of concern in some fittings.

Output and light colour is to some extent a matter of personal
prejudice. Some will swear blind that such lamps are dim, take too
long to warm up, are no good for almost anything and the available
figures on output and colour are all wrong. On the other hand some
have been using such lamps since the 1980s, have now got them almost
everywhere and don't see why some make a fuss about them.

Has this topic been discussed on this ng lately?

There are search engines to answer that question.



I am one such person. Unless lights are to be switched on for hours at a
time (such as my outside driveway lights) I think these energy saving
light bulbs are a waste of time and money when used inside the home.

They're horrible things and do not give the same light as a normal bulb,
despite what all the so called experts (aka marketing people) say.

If the light is only on for a an hour or so, (and often three minutes
when you use the bog) the energy saving is minuscule - 40w or something?
All the savings you'd get over a year or so are the equivalent of not
having one or two baths. A paltry amount. Cut the central heating down a
degree, stop using hairdryers so much etc, I am all for that. For a tiny
few watts here and there for light bulbs? Waste of time.

My 2c, not to offend anyone elses opinions of course.

--
===============================================
Thanks,

Steve

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Use ROT13 for my email:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

If not would people be willing to share their findings? I would be
happy to put together a spreadsheet and recordset of the findings if
they appeared to be consistent and useful

I think the biggest problem will be the rather subjective comments
people make. Some just don't like 'em, others are quite happy. What
would be useful is something that tabulates the make/model, rated
power & lumens output for each lamp and (in an ideal world) the real
lumen ouput at switch on from cold, at 1, 2, 5 and 10 mins, the
colour temperature once warm and if they start with or without a
flicker. The latter half would require an awful lot of effort though
and decent measuring kit.

The first bit could be done by looking at the packaging as most, if
not all, lamps now have that info on them.

You're assuming that manufacturers don't speak with forked tongues. In my
experience, rated equivalence doesn't begin to come near that of a
conventional incandescent bulb.

Sure, if you're prepared to dig though the small print you sometimes find
weasel words mentioning that they're actually equivalent to "soft tone"
bulbs but who the heck buys them?

Having said all that I was tempted by an offer in Tesco the other day (11W
GE bulbs for 19p each). I then spent the next couple of hours converting a
pendant in the hall to taking two of these bulbs. The output is almost
acceptable now.

Tim

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:04:03 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

You should only consider using the low energy lamps where the light is
turned on and left on for a sensible period of time

That was the advice when such lamps came out, but things have moved
on since then.

The low energy lamps just don't survive very long if frequently
switched,

Ditto. I have had a low energy bulb in a toilet for I suppose
getting on for a decade now. It is often just switched on for a few
minutes. It was still working fine this morning.

Some designs of low energy bulb are better than others in this duty
cycle, just like some designs of GLS bulb are.


--
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 :
Ditto. I have had a low energy bulb in a toilet for I suppose
getting on for a decade now. It is often just switched on for a few
minutes. It was still working fine this morning.

Some designs of low energy bulb are better than others in this duty
cycle, just like some designs of GLS bulb are.

So the advantage of putting a relatively expensive low energy lamp in
such a location would be what exactly? You do not save much if any
energy if it is only turned on for a couple of minutes and the
manufacturing process is not very green when compared to an ordinary
cheap filament lamp.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

Dave Liquorice wrote:

any single person to do, apart from collator! Mind you it wouldn't be
that hard to have a web interface to allow people to input their
findings.

we have,
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ecial:Allpages
and
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=CFL_Lamps


NT

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:06:36 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

Some designs of low energy bulb are better than others in this duty
cycle, just like some designs of GLS bulb are.

So the advantage of putting a relatively expensive low energy lamp in
such a location would be what exactly?

Not having to replace the bulb so often. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

You do not save much if any
energy if it is only turned on for a couple of minutes

One will indeed only save a little energy over the space of a few
minutes. However, little things add up over the years.

and the
manufacturing process is not very green when compared to an ordinary
cheap filament lamp.

That would be a factor, if both types of bulb lasted for the same
time and used the same energy.



--
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:
--
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

WTF does this mean exactly? Perhaps it's me, but it sounds like a
pompous lot of old ********.

Wiki woo to one and all.

Des Kay xx

Anita Palley wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

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

WTF does this mean exactly? Perhaps it's me, but it sounds like a
pompous lot of old ********.

You dont even know what it means, yet you know its pompous and
********. You must be a youngun to think that makes sense.


NT

David Hansen explained :
Not having to replace the bulb so often. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

On/off type of use is a killer for discharge type lights and they do
not achieve the full light output until a time after you would normally
be turning it off again.

You do not save much if any
energy if it is only turned on for a couple of minutes

One will indeed only save a little energy over the space of a few
minutes. However, little things add up over the years.

True, but you need to do the sums for what would be saved over the
years v the extra cost of the lamps and their reduced life from the
frequent switching.

and the
manufacturing process is not very green when compared to an ordinary
cheap filament lamp.

That would be a factor, if both types of bulb lasted for the same
time and used the same energy.

Discharge lamps only achieve economy once they have been turned on for
a while. I once saw the calculations for the short period use of a
fluorescent light versus an equivalent output filament lamp - taking in
all of the factors such as wear and tear, consumption, cost of labour
replacing etc.. The filament lamp proved to be more economic upto 1
hours use.

Before installing these types of energy saving lamps and flourescents,
I make a decision as to whether the extra expense is worth while for
the type of use the room receives. Economy is not always factored in,
because sometimes fluorescent provides a more suitable light to a
filament light. I have around 70' of fluorescent lighting in my garage,
this despite a small proportion being frequently switched, because this
type of lighting is more suitable for this type of use.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
...

Discharge lamps only achieve economy once they have been turned on for a
while. I once saw the calculations for the short period use of a
fluorescent light versus an equivalent output filament lamp - taking in
all of the factors such as wear and tear, consumption, cost of labour
replacing etc.. The filament lamp proved to be more economic upto 1 hours
use.

How long ago were you looking at these calculations? CFLs are now really
very cheap, and I suspect rather more reliable than several years ago.

cheers,
clive

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:20 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

On/off type of use is a killer for discharge type lights

That was the case. However, things have moved on and it is not as
great a factor as it once was.

and they do
not achieve the full light output until a time after you would normally
be turning it off again.

Ditto.

I once saw the calculations for the short period use of a
fluorescent light versus an equivalent output filament lamp

Presumably you are talking about linear tubes, rather then compact
fluorescents. What sort of control gear?. I have seen such
calculations too, but such calculations in 1966 would be different
to those in 2006.

Before installing these types of energy saving lamps and flourescents,
I make a decision as to whether the extra expense is worth while for
the type of use the room receives.

For the sake of argument I won't challenge your "extra expense"
assertion here. Do you think you are the only person who makes such
decisions? Do you think that others might reach different decisions,
or are your decisions the only ones that can be made?



--
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

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

Discharge lamps only achieve economy once they have been turned on for
a while. I once saw the calculations for the short period use of a
fluorescent light versus an equivalent output filament lamp - taking in
all of the factors such as wear and tear, consumption, cost of labour
replacing etc.. The filament lamp proved to be more economic upto 1
hours use.

Either the figures you looked at were grossly inaccurate, or perhaps
they were correct decades ago.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott said:

Like most people, I guess,I'm working on changing as many of my lamps
to low energy.

it's really not worth bothering.

No bother is involved, CFL relamping uses less total bother than
filament.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott said:

Like most people, I guess,I'm working on changing as many of my lamps
to low energy.

it's really not worth bothering.

No bother is involved, CFL relamping uses less total bother than
filament. When you factor in the number of hours you ahve to work to
pay the run costs, CFLs are way less bother.


NT

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low
energy lamps that I would entertain having in the house. I find the
light quality poor and colour rendition obtained distinctly artificial
looking and strange to the point of having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

Our main living room is generally lit by one CFL laying on a bit of
foil on a high shelf. It's on a time switch, comes on at dusk (10 mins
after the electric curtains close) and off at 12:30 ish. That lamp
has been up there for *ages*. The main center light has a filament
lamp in it because I haven't found a suitable (sized) CFL replacement
yet.

Dusk to dawn 9W CFL's in the front and rear lobby (they illuminate
the entire hall / kitchen and seem *very* bright when we come down in
the night), CFL's in bathroom, toilet, landing, dining room, middle
bedroom, Daughters room. Our bed room still has filament for the same
reasons as below. Twin flouro's in the kitchen.

Bottom line, we switch them on, they light up, we do our thing, rarely
needing to supplement these lights with anything else.

Are we just 'coping', don't think so. Are we interested in style over
function or economy / environment (energy use / lamp life), no. Can't
remember anyone coming in and commenting how dark it is in here or
'isn't that light a funny coloured ... shrug.

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

Horses for courses though I guess.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

On 2007-01-18 11:08:20 +0000, Kaiser Sose said:

I am one such person. Unless lights are to be switched on for hours at a
time (such as my outside driveway lights) I think these energy saving
light bulbs are a waste of time and money when used inside the home.

They're horrible things and do not give the same light as a normal bulb,
despite what all the so called experts (aka marketing people) say.

If the light is only on for a an hour or so, (and often three minutes
when you use the bog) the energy saving is minuscule - 40w or something?
All the savings you'd get over a year or so are the equivalent of not
having one or two baths. A paltry amount. Cut the central heating down a
degree, stop using hairdryers so much etc, I am all for that. For a tiny
few watts here and there for light bulbs? Waste of time.

Absolutely agree. This is just a sop for people to think that they
are doing something, done as a diversion from the real issues that
actually do make a difference but which are considered to be too hard.


My 2c, not to offend anyone elses opinions of course.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Opinions are like ani.
Everybody has one.

On 2007-01-18 12:56:42 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:04:03 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

You should only consider using the low energy lamps where the light is
turned on and left on for a sensible period of time

That was the advice when such lamps came out, but things have moved
on since then.

The low energy lamps just don't survive very long if frequently switched,

Ditto. I have had a low energy bulb in a toilet for I suppose
getting on for a decade now. It is often just switched on for a few
minutes. It was still working fine this morning.


Good location for one....

On 2007-01-18 13:06:36 +0000, Harry Bloomfield
said:

David Hansen wrote :
Ditto. I have had a low energy bulb in a toilet for I suppose
getting on for a decade now. It is often just switched on for a few
minutes. It was still working fine this morning.

Some designs of low energy bulb are better than others in this duty
cycle, just like some designs of GLS bulb are.

So the advantage of putting a relatively expensive low energy lamp in
such a location would be what exactly? You do not save much if any
energy if it is only turned on for a couple of minutes and the
manufacturing process is not very green when compared to an ordinary
cheap filament lamp.

You salve your conscience if you are gullible enough to be taken in by
the hype surrounding all of this.

On 2007-01-18 14:26:02 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:06:36 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

Some designs of low energy bulb are better than others in this duty
cycle, just like some designs of GLS bulb are.

So the advantage of putting a relatively expensive low energy lamp in
such a location would be what exactly?

Not having to replace the bulb so often. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.

You do not save much if any energy if it is only turned on for a couple
of minutes

One will indeed only save a little energy over the space of a few
minutes. However, little things add up over the years.

Incrementalism like this is a very weak argument

On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.
The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.



Our main living room is generally lit by one CFL laying on a bit of
foil on a high shelf. It's on a time switch, comes on at dusk (10 mins
after the electric curtains close) and off at 12:30 ish. That lamp
has been up there for *ages*. The main center light has a filament
lamp in it because I haven't found a suitable (sized) CFL replacement
yet.

Dusk to dawn 9W CFL's in the front and rear lobby (they illuminate
the entire hall / kitchen and seem *very* bright when we come down in
the night), CFL's in bathroom, toilet, landing, dining room, middle
bedroom, Daughters room. Our bed room still has filament for the same
reasons as below. Twin flouro's in the kitchen.

Bottom line, we switch them on, they light up, we do our thing, rarely
needing to supplement these lights with anything else.

Are we just 'coping', don't think so. Are we interested in style over
function or economy / environment (energy use / lamp life), no. Can't
remember anyone coming in and commenting how dark it is in here or
'isn't that light a funny coloured ... shrug.

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue
via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such
as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.

Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain"
argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is
very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement
for sin.

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best. As soon as the element of
government compulsion comes into the mix with these weak
justifications, I close the shutters.



Horses for courses though I guess.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards. I don't care about the light quality
for that but it is inconvenient to access the lantern to change a
tungsten bulb.

On 2007-01-18 16:12:47 +0000, said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 09:02:41 +0000, Peter Scott said:

Like most people, I guess,I'm working on changing as many of my lamps
to low energy.

it's really not worth bothering.

No bother is involved, CFL relamping uses less total bother than
filament. When you factor in the number of hours you ahve to work to
pay the run costs, CFLs are way less bother.


NT

Both are negligible.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.
The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.


Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense; and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue
via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

I'd agree on the rat. The sensible way to make them more popular is to
solve the problems, and this is simple to do. Why no cfl mfr has done
it I dont know, maybe theyre too busy hiring monkeys for peanuts trying
to compete on cost, so have no-one to sit back and ask how they can
change the market and satisfy the customer better.


p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

I've not dealt with them.:
http://www.eurobatteries.com/sitepag...entcompact.asp
but CFLs upto 105w.


NT

The amount of energy saved I don't think is worth the effort just in
the context of lamp use, especially when mechanics and light
suitability are also taken into account, and in comparison with other
energy saving measures, it's really not worth bothering.

IMHO the energy saved is over stated, in the UK for at least 6 months
of the year the energy "wasted" goes towards heating the house , okay
its expensive but not totaly wasted.

I have to yet to find any figures for total life energy comparisons
between standard tungsten and low-energy bulbs. LE bulbs must take
more energy to manufacture (and dispose of), it may not be significant
but I would like to see the figures.

I've not been a big fan of the LE bulbs in the past but as I am
installing new lights at present in a largish house I was pleasantly
surprised at the number and quality of design of LE light fittings now
available . Worthwhile for hall and landing lights at least.
Robert

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:11:45 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.

Strange, spose that's the same effect I get when I catch a bit of
Contamination St, Deadenders, Big ****ter etc .. ;-)

The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.

Understood. *We* have done nearly all the things we could do re energy
saving (for our own cost saving if nothing else) so the laps are just
part of the package for us. I do know I have a few 'spare' CFL's but
the stock doesn't seem to have gone down for ages ..

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Possibly but I believe even you wouldn't *choose* to squander it?

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense;

Erm, well I like the fact that CFL's run cooler so less chance getting
burnt touching one or it melting something? Also CFL's don't seem to
fail as suddenly as filament so that could be another safety
consideration?

and when one learns that
there is government sponsored coercion in terms of forcing the issue
via building regulation, it is very clear that there is a rat.

I don't know about any conspiracy theories but I wouldn't be surprised
.... ;-(

If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Well I think that's where we are atm so it might make more sense to do
it now rather than later? *If* we all switched to CFL's now don't they
suggest they could close down an existing power station (or not build
a new one)? Would I be right to guess even you might see that as a
good thing Andy (especially if it was in your back yard)?

Aren't they doing similar with traffic lights .. converting them to
LED? Less visits by engineers to change lamps (so a lower carbon
long-term cost), less energy used (cheaper for the local council /
your taxes etc)? Not that we will ever see a reduction of course
;-(

Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such
as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.

Agreed, but in the meantime ..

Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain"
argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is
very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement
for sin.

I'm not really motivated by any external influences .. I chose to buy
/ fit / use CFL's when a basic one was £15 and because I mark them
with installation date know how much money they have saved me over
filament in their lives. Money I can spend on more interesting things
like beer or toys ;-)

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best.

Fair enough ..

As soon as the element of
government compulsion comes into the mix with these weak
justifications, I close the shutters.

Well, I agree that might be taking things a bit too far .. less they
really have done their sums and have proven it does all add up?


p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards.

Similarly those folk who have 4-6 filament lamps lighting up their
front garden / car park. Another ideal role for CFL (If they really
must light pollute in the first place that is)?

I don't care about the light quality
for that but it is inconvenient to access the lantern to change a
tungsten bulb.

Understood and thanks for your replies.

All the best ..

T i m

On 2007-01-18 19:06:49 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:11:45 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-01-18 17:22:09 +0000, T i m said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:12:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I haven't yet found any low energy lamps that I would entertain having
in the house. I find the light quality poor and colour rendition
obtained distinctly artificial looking and strange to the point of
having a bilious effect.

I wonder what makes someone dislike the above so much whilst others
can use them without any 'issues' Andy (genuine question).

I know it's a genuine question. The genuine answer is that I find the
light artificial and bilious.

Strange, spose that's the same effect I get when I catch a bit of
Contamination St, Deadenders, Big ****ter etc .. ;-)

You sure it isn't the CFL in the lounge?




The minor cost savings, if any, are therefore irrelevant and the energy
savings are not significant in the overall context of things that can
be done.

Understood. *We* have done nearly all the things we could do re energy
saving (for our own cost saving if nothing else) so the laps are just
part of the package for us. I do know I have a few 'spare' CFL's but
the stock doesn't seem to have gone down for ages ..

When the 'fossils' do run out how will you cope with candle light or
yer solar charged LED light Andy ;-)

I don't buy into the argument that says that energy in the form of
electricity needs to be saved.

Possibly but I believe even you wouldn't *choose* to squander it?

I'm not particularly, because it is relatively expensive. However,
when one considers the pattern of usage, it becomes less and less
expensive. For example, lighting is predominantly used during the
shorter days of the winter, when heating is also generally required.
Therefore, in effect, one has added some electric heating to supplement
what is being provided by gas, oil or possibly electricity.

I don't hear much argument, other than on cost grounds, about using fan
heaters, storage heaters or other forms of electric heating. Seldom,
if ever, does one hear an ecological argument about that. Yet, in
using conventional bulbs, that is the equivalent to what is being done
with these.

We therefore have a weak ecological argument, possibly a slightly
stronger cost one and that's about it.




Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer
based on sales volumes really makes no sense;

Erm, well I like the fact that CFL's run cooler so less chance getting
burnt touching one or it melting something? Also CFL's don't seem to
fail as suddenly as filament so that could be another safety
consideration?

Ok... but I think that that is clutching at straws somewhat.




and when one learns that there is government sponsored coercion in
terms of forcing the issue via building regulation, it is very clear
that there is a rat.

I don't know about any conspiracy theories but I wouldn't be surprised
... ;-(

Governments. Opportunity to control. There's a rat.



If one were to say that use of fossil fuel were the *only* way to
produce electricity then that would
make it a discussion point.

Well I think that's where we are atm so it might make more sense to do
it now rather than later? *If* we all switched to CFL's now don't they
suggest they could close down an existing power station (or not build
a new one)? Would I be right to guess even you might see that as a
good thing Andy (especially if it was in your back yard)?

I don't buy that one either for a number of reasons.

It would be desirable to reduce the amount of coal burning electricity
generation. However, when one sets it in a global context, this is
irrelevant. The Chinese are opening a new coal fired station each
week. Rate of fossil fuel depletion is not going to be assisted by
this and CO2 emission and alleged global warming are not localised over
Beijing.



Aren't they doing similar with traffic lights .. converting them to
LED? Less visits by engineers to change lamps (so a lower carbon
long-term cost), less energy used (cheaper for the local council /
your taxes etc)? Not that we will ever see a reduction of course
;-(

I would buy the cheaper maintenance argument as a possible real
motivator. I would take the rest as PC marketing.



Focus should be on alternative sources of supply for electricity such
as nuclear fission and ultimately fusion generation and improving the
technology around those further.

Agreed, but in the meantime ..

In the meantime start building and pay attention to what to do about
the significant contributors - and I don't mean the airline industry.



Instead of this, we are presented with a "no gain without pain"
argument which really holds no water at all; and which in effect, is
very similar to the ancient practice of self flagellation as atonement
for sin.

I'm not really motivated by any external influences .. I chose to buy
/ fit / use CFL's when a basic one was £15 and because I mark them
with installation date know how much money they have saved me over
filament in their lives. Money I can spend on more interesting things
like beer or toys ;-)

That's a reasonable argument if it works for you.




If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine. I don't feel about to follow suit
because I find the aesthetics poor and the technical and ecological
justifications questionable at best.

Fair enough ..

As soon as the element of government compulsion comes into the mix with
these weak justifications, I close the shutters.

Well, I agree that might be taking things a bit too far .. less they
really have done their sums and have proven it does all add up?

I haven't seen an honest and convincing case that takes all or at least
the most significant factors into account.




p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

One exterior application is the only one that I have found as an
appropriate use for a CFL.

I have a lantern outside which illuminates an area where the dustbins
are stores. This is switched on only
when I need to go out after dark to put rubbish in the bins and is
switched off again afterwards.

Similarly those folk who have 4-6 filament lamps lighting up their
front garden / car park. Another ideal role for CFL (If they really
must light pollute in the first place that is)?

Yes. I don't think that either is necessary. There is way too much
light pollution as it is.

When one has looked at the night sky in the very north of Sweden or in
the middle of nowhere in southern Africa, northern and central Europe
are very disappointing in comparison.


I don't care about the light quality for that but it is inconvenient to
access the lantern to change a tungsten bulb.

Understood and thanks for your replies.

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:32:12 +0000 wrote :
IMHO the energy saved is over stated, in the UK for at least 6
months of the year the energy "wasted" goes towards heating
the house, okay its expensive but not totaly wasted.

True, but more of concern now (as far as Building Regs etc is
concerned) is that in most cases you are displacing a lower CO2
fuel (gas) with a higher CO2 one (electricity).

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:49:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Absolutely agree. This is just a sop for people to think that they
are doing something,

Nice try, but your arguments remain as unconvincing as ever.

done as a diversion from the real issues that
actually do make a difference but which are considered to be too hard.

If energy saving light bulbs were the only thing people are being
encouraged to do you would have a point. However, they are not the
only thing people are being encouraged to do.


--
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 Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:51:29 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You salve your conscience if you are gullible enough to be taken in by
the hype surrounding all of this.

Yawn.



--
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 2007-01-18 20:25:56 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:49:27 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Absolutely agree. This is just a sop for people to think that they
are doing something,

Nice try, but your arguments remain as unconvincing as ever.

I'm not setting out to convince anyone.



done as a diversion from the real issues that actually do make a
difference but which are considered to be too hard.

If energy saving light bulbs were the only thing people are being
encouraged to do you would have a point. However, they are not the
only thing people are being encouraged to do.

... and your point is?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:22:09 GMT someone who may be T i m
wrote this:-

p.s. I saw CFL based floodlight the other day .. I'm keeping my eye
out for one locally as the 300W flood lamp that covered the back
garden failed about 2 years ago ...

They have been around for 5-10 years. They generally take three PL
type bulbs. Probably not as much light from one as a 300W linear
halogen light, but plenty of light for most tasks.

Whether one should leave such lights on for a long period is another
matter...


--
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 2007-01-18 20:24:15 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:32:12 +0000 wrote :
IMHO the energy saved is over stated, in the UK for at least 6
months of the year the energy "wasted" goes towards heating
the house, okay its expensive but not totaly wasted.

True, but more of concern now (as far as Building Regs etc is
concerned) is that in most cases you are displacing a lower CO2 fuel
(gas) with a higher CO2 one (electricity).


OK, understandable point although this doesn't have to be the case.

Even so, one wonders why there is not similar regulatory discouragement
in terms of provision for electric space heating and cooking in new
houses if there are alternatives available at a site.

Either one of those would make a far bigger difference.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:11:45 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

Replacing perfectly good technology in the form of tungsten lighting
which most people do seem to prefer based on sales volumes

Er, "sales volumes" is a false measure unless corrected to take into
account the much longer life of CFLs over tungsten. I was buying and
getting through 16 or so 40W tugnsten candle bulbs for the lounge lights
a year until I replaced them with 6 CFLs. I have yet to replace those
CFLs and they have been in for at least two years alomost certainly
longer...

If people want to buy these things and use them and if it makes them
feel good, then that's fine.

I quite like the extra cash in my pocket. Tungsten 6 x 40 x 18 =
4.32units/day. 6 * 9 * 18 = 0.972 units/day. Saving 3.348 units at
7.191p/unit, 24p/day, 92 quid/year (once you've added the VAT) or a weeks
groceries.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail