Andrew Gabriel wrote:

They have the same current profile as all appliances which feed
mains into a bridge rectifier and storage capacitor.

He may have been referring to the waveform of the HF tube current,
rather than the mains current. The former tends to be fairly sinusoidal
though, since it's fed via a ballast inductor, but (IME) still has
enough harmonic content to be capable of interfering with LF and MF
radio. Long linear fluorescents operating at 'HF' can be worse though,
for obvious reasons. As to interference to ADSL, that seems a bit
unlikely, or doesn't say much for the state of your phone wiring if it
occurs.

--
Andy

On 27 Feb 2007 12:05:57 -0800, wrote:


I do wish a BS were written for CFLs so we'd start to see many more
realistic output power claims, and lamps marked with their tip to toe
dimension. The lamps themselves are fine imho, but the industry
surrounding them could do with improving its act a bit.


NT


There's plenty of BS written. That's the problem


--

..andy

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There's plenty of BS written.

Indeed, especially by some posters to this group.

That's the problem

It is only a problem to those who are taken in by it.


--
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

In message , Andy Wade
writes
He may have been referring to the waveform of the HF tube current,
rather than the mains current. The former tends to be fairly
sinusoidal though, since it's fed via a ballast inductor, but (IME)
still has enough harmonic content to be capable of interfering with LF
and MF radio.
Some interesting oscillograms on alt.binaries.schematics.electronic late
last week.
Long linear fluorescents operating at 'HF' can be worse though, for
obvious reasons. As to interference to ADSL, that seems a bit
unlikely, or doesn't say much for the state of your phone wiring if it
occurs.

It was a *very* cheap CFL, the 'phone wiring was a new install by BT and
it looks fine (not mine BTW), certainly no worse than any other I've
seen and the line stats from the router are nice and stable (until you
turn the CFL on, the SNR plummets). I think the power for the lighting
runs behind the wall, close to the BT socket and wiring though. Changing
it out for a standard bulb cured the problem. I may try a better CFL at
some point to see the problem re-appears. Point still stands though,
CFLs can and do cause interference.
--
Clint Sharp

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer
life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition, dimmable and you can manage
the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology.

You're joking, I presume? Or been reading the adverts?
Nope, hence the comment 'Roll on LED technology.' It's not really
domestic tech yet, however my comments are still valid, warm up time is
none existent, it is easily dimmable, colour is adjustable if you use
RGB LEDs and life span is much longer than any other lighting tech I can
think of. You don't have to worry about draughts with LEDs either, CFLs
dim if the glass envelope is cooled so you have to shield them if they
are used in draughty environments and most CFLs can't be used in
enclosed fixtures, I don't know why.

I found;
http://www.lumileds.com/solutions/solution.cfm?id=4
to have some interesting reading. I particularly liked the Amish buggy
lamp...

The first applications of new lighting technology tends to be film and TV
where costs don't matter much, but small size, efficiency etc might well
do for specialist situations. And LED are still virtually nowhere as key
lights due to poor colour temperature and spectrum.
I suspect TV and film lighting is a much more exacting application than
illuminating my living room.
I may not have understood the meaning of 'key' light but lumileds seem
to be pushing their products for film and studio use..
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/AS12.PDF

Not sure if these could be used for 'key lighting' though?
Whereas fluorescent
(dimmable) have been used for some time.
Dimmable fluorescents have been around for a long time (70s IIRC, maybe
longer?), dimmable CFLs are available too but they're not too easy to
find or cheap and AFAIK, cannot be used with conventional dimmers.
They are used as FX background
lighting, though.

LEDs or fluorescents?
--
Clint Sharp

In article , Clint Sharp
writes
In message , Andy Wade
writes
He may have been referring to the waveform of the HF tube current,
rather than the mains current. The former tends to be fairly
sinusoidal though, since it's fed via a ballast inductor, but (IME)
still has enough harmonic content to be capable of interfering with LF
and MF radio.
Some interesting oscillograms on alt.binaries.schematics.electronic late
last week.
Long linear fluorescents operating at 'HF' can be worse though, for
obvious reasons. As to interference to ADSL, that seems a bit
unlikely, or doesn't say much for the state of your phone wiring if it
occurs.

It was a *very* cheap CFL, the 'phone wiring was a new install by BT and
it looks fine (not mine BTW), certainly no worse than any other I've
seen and the line stats from the router are nice and stable (until you
turn the CFL on, the SNR plummets). I think the power for the lighting
runs behind the wall, close to the BT socket and wiring though. Changing
it out for a standard bulb cured the problem. I may try a better CFL at
some point to see the problem re-appears. Point still stands though,
CFLs can and do cause interference.

Anecdotal, but when we went from 2M to 8M, the router kept dropping out
at regular intervals in the evening - during the day it was OK. We use
quite a few CFLs around the house. Re-running the phone cable solved the
problem but the problems always used to occur just as it got dark....
--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2007-03-01, John wrote:

Anecdotal, but when we went from 2M to 8M, the router kept dropping
out at regular intervals in the evening - during the day it was OK. We
use quite a few CFLs around the house. Re-running the phone cable
solved the problem but the problems always used to occur just as it
got dark....

That's not necessarily the fault of a CFL. Broadband is modulated on top
of a carrier which is roughly the same as Medium Wave, and as you know,
when the sun goes down, the level of interference on MW rises. And
several km of telephone line makes a cracking MW aerial.

It does but being balanced should cancel out. Otherwise you'd have
problems even on an analogue system where a faulty phone or connection
provided rectification.

The problems occur within the house wiring, as the BT three wire system
isn't truly balanced anymore. Hence for broadband you're best to site the
router and filter as close as possible to the incoming line.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:56:11 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

There's plenty of BS written.

Indeed, especially by some posters to this group.

For sure.


That's the problem

It is only a problem to those who are taken in by it.


Of course.


The whole scam depends on the gullibility of the naive.


--

..andy

On 1 Mar, 22:45, Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:56:11 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

That's the problem

It is only a problem to those who are taken in by it.

Of course.

The whole scam depends on the gullibility of the naive.

Its a very strange point of view to suggest that money saving
lightbulbs are a scam or that their sales depend on gullibility.
Anyone can get the real data and do the maths.


NT

On 2 Mar 2007 05:51:12 -0800, wrote:

On 1 Mar, 22:45, Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:56:11 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

That's the problem

It is only a problem to those who are taken in by it.

Of course.

The whole scam depends on the gullibility of the naive.

Its a very strange point of view to suggest that money saving
lightbulbs are a scam or that their sales depend on gullibility.
Anyone can get the real data and do the maths.


NT


Not really.


The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime and light output and ignore the contribution of heat
output to the envelope of the house.

If this alters purchasing behaviour it is a scam, pure and simple.

The problem is that the marketing behind almost all of the so called
energy saving technologies presents their benefits in a grossly over
optimistic way, and this one is no exception.

If there were more honesty,it would be a different matter. As it is,
the claims attract the gullible, as I've said


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


Not really.


The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime and light output and ignore the contribution of heat
output to the envelope of the house.

If this alters purchasing behaviour it is a scam, pure and simple.

The problem is that the marketing behind almost all of the so called
energy saving technologies presents their benefits in a grossly over
optimistic way, and this one is no exception.

If there were more honesty,it would be a different matter. As it is,
the claims attract the gullible, as I've said


That would be me then as I have had CF lamps for about six years.
I have had to replace one of them too..
it didn't survive me dropping it when decorating.

The 5 foot tubes are far less reliable IME although the latest one has been
going for three years now.

The two foot tubes in the aquarium do last quite well.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:58 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime

Incorrect. They are generally pessimistic.

and light output

No, they state the lumen output. The comparison to a softone bulb
isn't one I'd make though, I would compare them to pearl bulbs.

and ignore the contribution of heat
output to the envelope of the house.

Still promoting expensive ways of heating the house I see.

Shout as loudly as you like on the matter, but the calculations are
easy 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

In message , "dennis@home"
wrote


The two foot tubes in the aquarium do last quite well.


I find the opposite with aquarium 18inch tubes, irrespective of the
brand. The ends blacken within 3 months and they rarely last more than
six months..

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:54:42 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:58 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime

Incorrect. They are generally pessimistic.

Really?

What are the measurement criteria that you are using for lifetime?

Do they operate at full output for this "lifetime"?





and light output

No, they state the lumen output.

The marketing material and packaging quotes equivalent figures in
watts.

The comparison to a softone bulb
isn't one I'd make though, I would compare them to pearl bulbs.

I wouldn't.


and ignore the contribution of heat
output to the envelope of the house.

Still promoting expensive ways of heating the house I see.

Nope. Just a little honesty in taking all contributing factors
into account.



Shout as loudly as you like on the matter, but the calculations are
easy to do.

Yes they are. The results will be correct as long as all factors are
accounted for properly.

Unfortunately for the manufacturers and promoters, the true picture is
not as attractive as they would like it to be.


--

..andy

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote


The two foot tubes in the aquarium do last quite well.


I find the opposite with aquarium 18inch tubes, irrespective of the brand.
The ends blacken within 3 months and they rarely last more than six
months..

Sounds like a problem with the ballast to me.
I don't use the expensive aquarium tubes just plain old 2ft daylight tubes
which cost me about £1.20 each.

In article ,
Alan writes:
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote


The two foot tubes in the aquarium do last quite well.


I find the opposite with aquarium 18inch tubes, irrespective of the
brand. The ends blacken within 3 months and they rarely last more than
six months..

That could be poor or incorrect control gear.
How often are they switched on, and how long are they on for each time?
Do you know what type of control gear they have?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:54:42 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:58 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime

Incorrect. They are generally pessimistic.

Really?

What are the measurement criteria that you are using for lifetime?

I've had only one failure in any of the CFL's I've bought in the
last 7 years, and that was an early failure of the electronics.
The others have all way outlasted their quoted lives.

Do they operate at full output for this "lifetime"?

Carbon arc lamp is the only lamp invented which does this.
For various applications, this is an important feature,
and people have been trying to repeat it in something more
modern than a carbon arc for decades, without success.
In case you're wondering, lumen depreciation of filament
lamps is worse than than of fluorescent tubes. One problem
with current CFL's is that they carry on working well after
their rated lifetimes, and then their lumen depreciation
becomes noticable.

The marketing material and packaging quotes equivalent figures in
watts.

Yes, that's been covered here countless times. Ignore it and
use a 4:1 ratio for a standard CFL.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 02 Mar 2007 20:40:25 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:54:42 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:58 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic
about lifetime

Incorrect. They are generally pessimistic.

Really?

What are the measurement criteria that you are using for lifetime?

I've had only one failure in any of the CFL's I've bought in the
last 7 years, and that was an early failure of the electronics.
The others have all way outlasted their quoted lives.

I looked ata number of relevant standards applying to CFLs.

It appears that there is not any harmonisation and that in most cases
the quoted life is for 50% failure in a sample of 100.

Not very good......




Do they operate at full output for this "lifetime"?

Carbon arc lamp is the only lamp invented which does this.
For various applications, this is an important feature,
and people have been trying to repeat it in something more
modern than a carbon arc for decades, without success.
In case you're wondering, lumen depreciation of filament
lamps is worse than than of fluorescent tubes. One problem
with current CFL's is that they carry on working well after
their rated lifetimes, and then their lumen depreciation
becomes noticable.


Again there is a variation. Some specifications mention 80% others
85% and others nothing at all.



The marketing material and packaging quotes equivalent figures in
watts.

Yes, that's been covered here countless times. Ignore it and
use a 4:1 ratio for a standard CFL.


Seems optimistic. I tried a 25w CFL in comparison with a 100w bulb
and it seemed dim in comparison even after being allowed to warm up.


--

..andy