I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h
"soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than
normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but
misleading.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we
have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and
government ministers.

gmw wrote:
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h
"soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than
normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but
misleading.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we
have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and
government ministers.

I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere near 5
times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I wrote to them
pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by their actual
output, not their claimed one.

My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in getting
someone to listen.

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
gmw wrote:
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h
"soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than
normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but
misleading.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we
have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and
government ministers.

I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere near 5
times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I wrote to them
pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by their actual
output, not their claimed one.

My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in getting
someone to listen.

Tim


Totally agree that light for light CFL bulbs not only are overstated but
won't make a blindest bit of difference to the planet.

They do however last long enough to be cost effective. Replacement bulbs
add up to a lot of money..

gmw wrote:

Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

I would tend to agree... however if you are going to argue this, you
ought to be ready for questions about how your light meter responds to
the narrower spectra of CFLs Vs incandescents.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
gmw wrote:
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h
"soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than
normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but
misleading.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we
have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and
government ministers.

I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere
near 5 times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I
wrote to them pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by
their actual output, not their claimed one.

My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in
getting someone to listen.

Tim

Totally agree that light for light CFL bulbs not only are overstated but
won't make a blindest bit of difference to the planet.

They do however last long enough to be cost effective. Replacement bulbs
add up to a lot of money..


Especially when your electricity supplier has provided them free of
charge! :-))

On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw"
wrote this:-

I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the
output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication.

What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some
designs take a while to achieve full brightness.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have
typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL,
measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the
age of which you don't state. Fascinating.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs

Where were these installed?

we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

For what reason(s)?

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate.
Why should accurate claims be ruled out?

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb.
The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and
is being reduced.

At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively
large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This
was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they
took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the
starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The
engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since
then.


--
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 article .com,
gmw wrote:
These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Advertising hype is nothing new.

But if you look at it another way, it's going to cost you *at least* three
times as much in electricity to get the same light output from a
conventional bulb as from a CFL.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw"
wrote this:-

I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the
output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication.

What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some
designs take a while to achieve full brightness.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have
typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL,
measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the
age of which you don't state. Fascinating.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs

Where were these installed?

we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

For what reason(s)?

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate.
Why should accurate claims be ruled out?

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb.
The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and
is being reduced.

At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively
large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This
was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they
took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the
starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The
engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since
then.


--
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

I have tried a variety of CFLs and I now call them "3D" lamps - Dull, Dismal
and Dreary.

Experiments done under laboratory conditions with excellent test gear can
produce all sorts of reliable and replicable results but the human eyes vary
enormously. I'm quite prepared to concede that it's my eyes at fault rather
than the CFLs themselves but, for me anyway, I'll not give these wretched
things house-room.

John.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:20:19 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

But if you look at it another way, it's going to cost you *at least* three
times as much in electricity to get the same light output from a
conventional bulb as from a CFL.

Not to mention the cost of buying all the GLS bulbs that will be
needed to replace the one CFL bulb over its lifetime and install
them. The latter cost may be zero in a domestic setting.


--
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
Thanks for your input.

On Feb 26, 1:08 pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw"
wrote this:-

I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the
output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication.

The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in
incident light mode. As you say, it gives some indication.
To check that my results were not too wildly out, I also made an
extinction photometer that I placed between pairs of bulbs, which
gives similar results.

What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some
designs take a while to achieve full brightness.

The CFL is a Philips B22 BC 15000h 1200 lumen 140mA 230-240V order
code 544742xx
Our mains voltage is 230V nominal, during the test I measured 228V on
a basic DMM early evening. The afternoon voltage is 232V.
The voltage variations obviously affect the light outputs of both
types of lamp.

I took readings with the Sixtar set to 100ASA (so that EV = LV) at 5
minute intervals at the same distance of ~1.5m.
At switch on from room temp the LV was ~3.0.
After 5 minutes the LV was ~3.5
After 30 minutes the LV was ~3.7
A new 240V 60W 2000h pearl bulb (555 lumen) gave an EV of 3.9 and was
subjectively as bright as the CFL
A new 240V 100W 2000h pearl bulb (gave an EV of 4.9 and was
subjectively much brighter than the CFL
A new 240V 100W 1000h pearl bulb gave an EV of 5.0


The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumens, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have
typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL,
measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the
age of which you don't state. Fascinating.

The pearl bulbs were fairly new. Pearl bulb outputs are less
susceptible to aging than CFLs, and pearls are statistically likely to
be younger than CFLs for most of their lives, if CFLs last as long as
claimed.

I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that
CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which
case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output.


Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs

Where were these installed?

All the bulbs were for general illumination, fitted to ceiling light
fittings, mostly with open lampshades above them.

we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

For what reason(s)?

In living rooms a single "100W" CFL room light was too dim to read
comfortably by etc even after fully warmed up, giving similar light to
a 60W bulb.
A single 100W pearl was adequate.
In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and
alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem. CFLs would
be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving.


These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate.
Why should accurate claims be ruled out?

The claims are no doubt accurate in the technical terms defined in the
small print. Those compare the CFL light output with "soft
colour" (low efficiency) type of bulb that is not used for general
illumination.
I suspect that they are both measured at 240V, but that CFLs may
produce much less light at 230V than do pearl bulbs. Is this so?
I presume that this is why the actual output of the bulbs in service
is way below the "headline" equivalent output, which is why I say the
claim is misleading.


CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb.
The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and
is being reduced.

I would be delighted to fit CFL bulbs that, at 230V, give similar
light levels to 100W 2000h (long-life) pearl lightbulbs at the same
voltage, for most of their lives, and do not suffer infant mortality
or DOA.


At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively
large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This
was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they
took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the
starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The
engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since
then.

Re lack of robustness, I recently purchased 3 CFLs (in much heavier
packaging than pearl bulbs).
One had broken glass, one failed quickly, the third is still going
strong.
Filament bulbs are much more robust.
I have no financial interest except as a consumer.
I want CFLs to work. They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.


--
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

Giles Whittaker, Kirkliston. BAe Systems (Retired)

In article ,
John wrote:

I have tried a variety of CFLs and I now call them "3D" lamps -
Dull, Dismal and Dreary.

Experiments done under laboratory conditions with excellent test
gear can produce all sorts of reliable and replicable results
but the human eyes vary enormously. I'm quite prepared to
concede that it's my eyes at fault rather than the CFLs
themselves but, for me anyway, I'll not give these wretched
things house-room.

I agreed with you about 5 years ago, but have just
retried CCFL. A single 24W globe replacing a 100W
incandescent far outshines it, and 3x 11W bent tubes
easily replace 3x 40W bulbs.

In both cases though they take some 5 minutes, (or
more), to creep up to full brightness, so I can see
a case for retaining incandescents where the lamp
is on for only brief periods.

--
Tony Williams.

I want CFLs to work. They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.

I agree and have commented on this group before. Having seen lots of
cfls at very reduced prices and then discovered they were not as
bright as the previously used 100W pearl I went to TLC and bought a
25W CFL, having failed to find anything at Tesco, Morrisons,
Wilkinsons and B&Q. Even this bulb is barely the same as a 100W and
unfortunately was not the same colour temp as the cheaper CFLs or
Pearl bulbs.

At least they haven't banned Pearls like they have in Australia.

If anyone can provide a link to reasonably priced CFLS of 25 or 30W I
would be grateful.

I agreed with you about 5 years ago, but have just
retried CCFL. A single 24W globe replacing a 100W
incandescent far outshines it, and 3x 11W bent tubes
easily replace 3x 40W bulbs.

Tony, where did you get the 24W globes from? Are they the same colour
temp as normal bulbs.

wrote:

If anyone can provide a link to reasonably priced CFLS of 25 or 30W I
would be grateful.

You can get 26, 32, 45, 55, 60 and 105 wat ones (mostly with ES caps) from
http://www.eurobatteries.com/sitepages/fluorescentcompact.asp.
I've no idea how good they are and the higher power ones are quite pricey.

--
Mike Clarke

On 26 Feb, 15:38, "gmw" wrote:

CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Entirely illogical.

The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Yes, so you need to pick a higher power bulb than the packaging says.
None too challenging.


The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in

which does not have the same chracteristics as the human eye.

Also CFLs do not have the same light distribution as filaments, due to
their different shape.


The CFL is a Philips

no wonder. Try a decent one.


and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

which is not a standard GLS bulb.


we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

why not put a higher power CFL in?


In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and
alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem.

Unlikely


CFLs would
be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving.

only if you choose to negate them by leaving them on all the time...
which would be an odd thing to do.


CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

they already are.


These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

A perfect description of your post.


They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.

advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing
the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions.


NT

On 26 Feb 2007 10:56:25 -0800, wrote:

They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.

advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing
the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions.

I've tried a number of CFLs, so far they have all been rubbish. They start
off poor and become worse fairly rapidly. They may well last for years as
the makers claim but the light output will fall off in a way that does not
occur with incandescent lights.

I have several 9-14W CFLs. I would say that each does exactly what it says
on the tin. A 9W CFL produced about 9W of output, and that's NBG.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".

On 26 Feb 2007 07:38:50 -0800, "gmw" wrote:

The CFL is a Philips B22 BC 15000h 1200 lumen 140mA 230-240V order
code 544742xx

Hi

Does it look like a typical CFL with folded tube?

I've had best results with Philips Softone CFLs which look more like a
normal light bulb.

The 'stick' CFLs might be a bit directional too.

I now use a mix of CFL and a few well placed low wattage halogens.

cheers,
Pete.

On 26 Feb, 15:38, "gmw" wrote:

CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Simply illogical.


The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

Yes, so you need to pick a higher power bulb than the packaging says.
None too challenging.


The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in

which does not have the same chracteristics as the human eye.

Also CFLs do not have the same light distribution as filaments, due to
their different shape.


The CFL is a Philips

no wonder. Try a decent one.


and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.

which is not a standard GLS bulb.


we have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

why not put a higher power CFL in?


In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and
alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem.

Unlikely


CFLs would
be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving.

only if you choose to negate them by leaving them on all the time...
which would be an odd thing to do.


CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

they already are.


These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out.

no comment!


They have never yet worked as advertised for me,
or many others.

advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing
the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions.


NT

In article .com,
"gmw" writes:
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.

The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h
"soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than
normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but
misleading.

This is a well-known problem here, and unfortunately, it makes many
peoples' first experience of a CFL a poor one which they choose
not to repeat. Softone lamps do indeed have a lower light output,
so this is marketing bull**** at its worse, particularly as rather
few people use Softone lamps.

My normal advice, often repeated here, is to use a factor of 4
between a filament lamp and a CFL, and that would be a CFL with
exposed tube (an outer bulb loses some more light). Reflector
CFL's do much worse, because a folded tube is a really bad light
source to try and reflect in any direction without significant
light loss. (The one exception here is the GE Genura R80, which
at 23W produces more light than a 100W flood lamp, but it uses
a significantly different technology from standard CFLs.)
The other problem you can find is that the different size/shape
of the CFL may mean it's light source is not in exactly the
position the luminare expected, if it was designed for a filament
lamp.

Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we
have reverted to pearl in all but one room.

Look for 25W CFLs.

These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not
yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency
gains are greatly exaggerated.

They are, but you fell into the marketing trap which most CFL
first-timers fall into. Try to move on without dismissing the
whole technology.

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

In article , Steve Firth
writes
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".

I have used CFLs for some time - they do last longer than most ordinary
bulbs (in my experience), they do sometimes take time to come up to full
brightness (some makes more so than others), they do dim a bit as they
age (which at least means you know when to buy a new one) and they can't
be dimmed (pain!)

I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals,
etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and
in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know?

--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

In article , John
writes
In article , Steve Firth
writes
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".

I have used CFLs for some time - they do last longer than most ordinary
bulbs (in my experience), they do sometimes take time to come up to full
brightness (some makes more so than others), they do dim a bit as they
age (which at least means you know when to buy a new one) and they can't
be dimmed (pain!)

I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals,
etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and
in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know?

Failed to add - they are generally bigger than a conventional bulb and
hence do not always fit. I have also found that electronic time switches
or PIRs sometimes play up when they are connected.

--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:


Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb.
The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and
is being reduced.

This of course depends on one's definition of suitable.

I suppose that the change from 95% unsuitable to 90% unsuitable could
be described as a reduction.



At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively
large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods.

... and that's still the case

This
was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they
took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the
starting mechanism.

... no change there then.


However, that was in the early 1980s.

Typo here. Early 2007

The
engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since
then.

In 2 weeks?

Come on. Get real. These things are junk and the justification for
them is weak at best.


--

..andy

gmw wrote:

I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that
CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which
case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output.

In reality incandescents tend to be affected far more by supply voltage
fluctuations that CFLs


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".



Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.


--

..andy

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
|!wrote:
|!
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
|!
|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.
|!
|! Incorrect.
|!
|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".
|!
|!
|!
|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers,
I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted
are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Compare and contrast
Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
European Convention on Human Rights http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Then sign this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sharia

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
|!wrote:
|!
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
|!
|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.
|!
|! Incorrect.
|!
|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".
|!
|!
|!
|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers,
I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted
are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*


It really depends on what you want

If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
you don't care about light quality then fine.

However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something
that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look
into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall
a long way short of acceptability


--

..andy

On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, John Rumm wrote:
gmw wrote:
I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that
CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which
case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output.

In reality incandescents tend to be affected far more by supply voltage
fluctuations that CFLs

Thanks John.

That makes sense to me.
I was looking for possible excuses for the disparity between the
maker's claims and my measurements, but it would make the disparity
between the claimed and actual performance comparison between filament
bulbs & CFLs @ 240V even worse.

I have just logged a complaint with the Advertising Standards
Authority.

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest with my first ever posting.

I will try higher powered CFLs, if I can find them. The best I could
find the last time I looked at B&Q etc is 20W / "100W".
I agree that they would save my electricity bills. However I suspect
that they would also increase the much worse pollution in by China
more than is saved in the UK.
At least we in the UK have the benefit of nuclear power (for the
moment...) (whose pollution is containable by good engineering) and of
wind power (occasionally, when the wind blows strongly enough at the
right time, which is not as often as the hype would have us believe).

Still, who am I to spoil the party. There is a lot of money to be
made, rearranging the deckchairs on the green bandwagon. Some of it
MIGHT do more good than harm.
(ducks for cover)
Regards.

(The one exception here is the GE Genura R80, which
at 23W produces more light than a 100W flood lamp, but it uses
a significantly different technology from standard CFLs.)
Andrew Gabriel

Of the several we have, one in particular is squintingly bright to look at
which is a Mazda 6L electronic - it has 3 folded tubes or "6 legs" (6L?)
and gets brighter after a few minutes. I have looked around casually for
more but
have not seen them again...

Nick

In article .com,
wrote:

Tony, where did you get the 24W globes from? Are they the same
colour temp as normal bulbs.

Homebase. Can't remember the price, not cheap.
It was a great disappointment at first switchon
but I came back to it about an hour later and it
was brighter (and maybe very slightly whiter)
than the 100W bulb it replaced.

The 3x 11W folded types are inside frosted glass
shades and they are less successful. I don't
know why.... perhaps colour temperature, maybe
CFL's need matching shades.

--
Tony Williams.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:46:38 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
|!
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
|!
|!|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
|!|!wrote:
|!|!
|!|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
|!|!
|!|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.
|!|!
|!|! Incorrect.
|!|!
|!|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
|!|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".
|!|!
|!|!
|!|!
|!|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
|!|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.
|!
|!IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers,
|!I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted
|!are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*
|!
|!
|!It really depends on what you want

I want light, of a "colour" I like at the minimum cost over the life of
the fitting.
|!
|!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
|!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
|!you don't care about light quality then fine.

There are several "colours" of lights available.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Compare and contrast
Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
European Convention on Human Rights http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Then sign this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sharia

In message .com, gmw
writes
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs.

The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has
had about 1 year of evening use.
Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb
rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb.
Interesting but you need to take into account the spectral response of
the human eye. As a general measurement it's valid though.
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a
66% over claim in this case.
If you check the light output spectrum you'll see they emit significant
amounts of UV light (skin cancer and cataracts anyone?) compared to
incandescents which emit virtually none.

If you look at the current waveform of a CFL you will also find that
they are some of the dirtiest appliances on the market in terms of
electrical interference, some can actually stop ADSL from working IME
and you can forget listening to MW/LW and SW radio.

You can buy PFC types which are 'nicer' but they are generally not
available or cheap.

Efficient they may be but environmentally friendly they aint, the
chemicals used to manufacture then are toxic, they contain toxic
chemicals (mercury and phosphor plus others metals in the tube, lots of
nasty stuff in the electronics) so they need *proper* disposal not just
dumping in the bin when they fail.

As for the light output, I tried three CFLs in one fitting without
telling the LTLP, each and every time she commented on how dim the light
was or how it looked 'murky' in the room. The original incandescent was
an Asda 60w pearl BC. I tried an 11w no name CFL, a 17w Phillips CFL and
a 20W GE CFL. They all were slow to 'warm up' to full output and the
light produced was unpleasant and had noticeable colour bias.

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.

I *do* have CFLs in two places where a failed bulb would be difficult to
change or failure could be dangerous but they are not places where I
spend any time so the light quality is not as important but I'm not
going to be buying any more until they are much better.
--
Clint Sharp

In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes
I want light, of a "colour" I like at the minimum cost over the life of
the fitting.
|!
|!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
|!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
|!you don't care about light quality then fine.

There are several "colours" of lights available.

How many do I have to buy to find one I like then? I agree there are
lots out there but none that I've seen have the output spectra printed
on the box, rather they have meaningless terms like 'warm' or 'natural'
on them. If I buy an incandescent I *know* that a pearl is going to
perform in a certain way.
--
Clint Sharp

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:06:41 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote:

|!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
|!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
|!you don't care about light quality then fine.

There are several "colours" of lights available.

Oh indeed rather like the Dulux "shades of white". You can have murky
yellow, dingy grey, muddy green...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
|!wrote:
|!
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
|!
|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.
|!
|! Incorrect.
|!
|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no
doubd
|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the
planet".
|!
|!
|!
|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes
|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers,
I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted
are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*


It really depends on what you want

If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
you don't care about light quality then fine.

However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something
that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look
into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall
a long way short of acceptability

What's your problem with them? The crap spectrum and colour rendering?

In article ,
Clint Sharp writes:
If you check the light output spectrum you'll see they emit significant
amounts of UV light (skin cancer and cataracts anyone?) compared to
incandescents which emit virtually none.

Wrong on both counts.

If you look at the current waveform of a CFL you will also find that
they are some of the dirtiest appliances on the market in terms of

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

electrical interference, some can actually stop ADSL from working IME
and you can forget listening to MW/LW and SW radio.

You can buy PFC types which are 'nicer' but they are generally not
available or cheap.

Efficient they may be but environmentally friendly they aint, the
chemicals used to manufacture then are toxic, they contain toxic
chemicals (mercury and phosphor plus others metals in the tube, lots of
nasty stuff in the electronics) so they need *proper* disposal not just
dumping in the bin when they fail.

They contain _much_ less mercury than is released by burning fossel
fuels to power an incandescent lamp for the same period of time.

As for the light output, I tried three CFLs in one fitting without
telling the LTLP, each and every time she commented on how dim the light
was or how it looked 'murky' in the room. The original incandescent was
an Asda 60w pearl BC. I tried an 11w no name CFL, a 17w Phillips CFL and
a 20W GE CFL. They all were slow to 'warm up' to full output and the
light produced was unpleasant and had noticeable colour bias.

Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer
life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition,

They use exactly the same phosphors.

dimmable and you can manage
the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology.

I *do* have CFLs in two places where a failed bulb would be difficult to
change or failure could be dangerous but they are not places where I
spend any time so the light quality is not as important but I'm not
going to be buying any more until they are much better.

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

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:35:58 -0000, "Doki" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

It really depends on what you want

If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that
by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and
you don't care about light quality then fine.

However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something
that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look
into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall
a long way short of acceptability

What's your problem with them? The crap spectrum and colour rendering?

That might be the scientific explanation and it's difficult to
characterise appearance to the eye totally in these terms. However,
objects illuminated with them simply look wrong and in an unpleasant
and cold way.

Secondly, the bulb itself always looks like a collection of tubes or a
soft icecream even if enclosed in an opaque glass globe.

Thirdly they are mechanically large unless one goes for certain
spotlight replacements.

I don't mind using them for outside lighting in certain applications,
but that's about it, certainly not inside the house.

Apart from the aesthetic deficiencies, the promotion of them on an eco
basis is completely bogus. My natural reaction to confidence tricks
of this nature is to choose any other option.



--

..andy

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?

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. Whereas fluorescent
(dimmable) have been used for some time. They are used as FX background
lighting, though.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

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

On 26 Feb, 20:24, John wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
writes
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".

to state the obvious, anyone can use as much power of CFL lighting as
one wants.


I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals,
etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and
in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know?

The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production
cost & energy consumption.

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

The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production
cost & energy consumption.

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


Totally agree

Nick