I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:47:01 GMT, Lobster
wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

I noticed the Brussels Idiots had pulled this out of the hat some time
ago and wondered how long it would take to work through.

I think it's specifically aimed at tungsten filament lamps. They are
only supposed to be 5% efficient for light, so it is probably a valid
decision.

These are now ***BAD***, everything else is ***GOOD***

Just time to stock up on 150watt bulbs for decorating and the odd
standard lamp.

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'll be acquiring a _large_ stock of standard lamps and halogens well
prior to this badly thought out idea coming into force.

In article , Lobster
writes
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David
And how much energy will be wasted in replacing light fittings which
cannot take CFLs (manufacture, installation and disposal)? Will we
suddenly find that some of us want to have more light fittings than
before due to the reduced light output (how much energy will that cost)?
CFLs are great for work place lighting (with enough of them), utility
areas, halls, stairs, etc. but they are not good for task lighting, mood
lighting (except they are pre-dimmed) and feature lighting (e.g. over
the pictures in our front room).

Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!
--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

On 27 Sep, 22:29, John wrote:
In article , Lobster
writesI note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
////snip/////


Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!

you are too late. mate.

latest Screwfix catalog (no 88 page 271) contains statement that
Screwfix has stopped selling GLS lamps for your own good


enjoy the dim mercury laden world of our future

In article .com, jim
wrote:

On 27 Sep, 22:29, John wrote:
In article , Lobster
writesI note that it's been announced
today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
////snip/////


Me thinks a bulk order to Screwfix will be in order!

you are too late. mate.

latest Screwfix catalog (no 88 page 271) contains statement that
Screwfix has stopped selling GLS lamps for your own good


enjoy the dim mercury laden world of our future

But you can still get them at

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/tcl/sear...s&Submit=Searc
h

On 2007-09-27 21:47:01 +0100, Lobster said:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs
anyway) except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low
voltage halogen downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Better to fix the source of thew problem, not the outcome.

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


NT

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

DG

On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Sid

wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Hmm, I stand accused of sitting on the fence here. I have had CFLs in my
homes (one house at a time,not several) since the early 80's and have
genuinely been satisfied with the reduction of my footprint on the
planet, (and financial savings which have been real). I have just one
filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the best place for
it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I can't recall when it
was purchased - it will be decades ago.

On 28 Sep, 00:48, "clot" wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:14, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Well, it's less than optimal, that's for sure. If CFLs were actually
better than incandescent lamps, consumers would already have
switched. The fact that they haven't indicates that despite the
propaganda, the shortcomings of CFLs are well known.

I make extensive use of CFLs in my own home, and have yet to find a
truly adequate replacement for incandescents. The CRIs are too low,
the switch-on time for spot-lamp replacements is too long, dimmable
versions are expensive and don't dim to the orange cast of colour that
I prefer in the late evening (I don't want daylight equivalent at
11pm).

It's gesture politics of the worst kind.

Hmm, I stand accused of sitting on the fence here. I have had CFLs in my
homes (one house at a time,not several) since the early 80's and have
genuinely been satisfied with the reduction of my footprint on the
planet, (and financial savings which have been real). I have just one
filament bulb in the house (which is there purely as the best place for
it to reside until it expires). Interestingly, I can't recall when it
was purchased - it will be decades ago

You mean you have carried this bulb from house to house since the
80's??

Did you install it in a battery powered torch and have a sprinter
carry it between houses?

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm
Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Gordon had better call an election quickly before the prat tars the
whole party with the same brush.

First part P.
Then HIPS.
Now ban the Bulb.

DG

I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Kroma

PS It would appear that golfball shaped lights may survive from what I've
read as there is currently no low energy equivalent so my lounge may
survive!

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:36:54 +0100, "Kroma"
wrote:

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Yes indeed, and in many cases you can't do it yourself according to
Part P so it is not surprising that the lighting industry and
electricians associations are enthusiastically supporting this crass
bit of stealth taxation.

As LED lighting will probably be the same order of magnitude more
efficient than CFL's as CFL's now are than incandescent some time in
the next year you can look forward to repeating the whole process
again in about 5 years.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Kroma wrote:

I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

Remember that policy decisions like this must always follow the law of
unintended consequences. So if you can't get a 100W bulb, but you can
get a set of 4 50W downlighters, then guess what people will use....

What else will they ban? Car headlamp bulbs, capsule lamps, oven lamps?
How many of those can be imaginatively reused?

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

There is a whole bunch of control gear and home automation stuff that
would stop working.

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

yup that would be another...

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

or order lightbulbs online from countries with less dim legislation.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28 Sep, 08:36, "Kroma" wrote:
I too have some halogen lights in bedrooms and kitchen. They don't appear
to be the type talked about in the news so I'm assuming (hoping) that
they'll live on. If anybody has any news to the contrary, post it on here
and I'll start stocking up!

I also have an outside lantern which turns on dimly when it's dark outside
and achieves full brightness when you walk up to it. It's not suitable for
low energy lighting (

My lounge has a special switch which turns one set of lights on when it gets
dark and stays on for a chosen number of hours (useful when at work in the
winter) which again is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Finally, my dining room has a dimmer switch which, according to the
instructions, is not suitable for low energy lighting.

Have I really got to replace all of these?

Kroma

PS It would appear that golfball shaped lights may survive from what I've
read as there is currently no low energy equivalent so my lounge may
survive!

Golfball CFLs do exist - you can get them at IKEA - they're called
'SPARSAM'

E14: URL:http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/60060604
E27: URL:http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10060611

....so you are not safe.

Sid

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Shear? I think you meant 'Sheer'. The English language may well be
sufficient. . . .

On 2007-10-01 01:47:39 +0100, "OG" said:


"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:49:39 -0700, wrote:

Lobster wrote:

I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.


The English language is not sufficient to express my shear undiluted
loathing and total and absolute lack of respect for the individual
concerned.

Shear? I think you meant 'Sheer'. The English language may well be
sufficient. . . .

Depends. It was a fairly cutting remark.

wrote:

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

--
Mike Clarke

"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a
response.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

Just remind your MP that Lupus suffers can be harmed by fluorescent lighting
so he had better make sure any rules take that into account.

On 2007-10-04 21:14:15 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

Just remind your MP that Lupus suffers can be harmed by fluorescent
lighting so he had better make sure any rules take that into account.

Quite. Ask him to write to the minister for health as well.

In article , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-10-04 21:14:15 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


"Mike Clarke" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Isnt it nice to have our actions dictated by people with a less than
full understanding of the subject.

I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

Just remind your MP that Lupus suffers can be harmed by fluorescent
lighting so he had better make sure any rules take that into account.

Quite. Ask him to write to the minister for health as well.

And ask him for evidence that every local authority has the appropriate
arrangements to allow people to dispose of CFLs without them going to
landfill (and by the way ask him to get a cost for provision of
recycling facilities for CFLs in every borough...)


--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:58:17 +0100, Mike Clarke
wrote:


I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

Don't bother, the govmint has no choice in the matter as it is an EU
Directive forcing this. The fact the Directive was written by
Philips and Osram and allows for the new "efficient" xenon filament
bulbs patented by Philips and Osram and coming on the market soon
which are a staggering 10% better than normal incandescent and 10 -
20 times the cost is immaterial. I'm sure the Urocrats were also not
influenced by the 66% tax they put on CFL's entering the EU and it
didn't have any effect upon their thinking.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

20 million people can complain, it won't turn a hair on a Urocrats
pate. It isn't as if we elect them.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:38:01 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:58:17 +0100, Mike Clarke
wrote:


I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

Don't bother, the govmint has no choice in the matter as it is an EU
Directive forcing this. The fact the Directive was written by
Philips and Osram and allows for the new "efficient" xenon filament
bulbs patented by Philips and Osram and coming on the market soon
which are a staggering 10% better than normal incandescent and 10 -
20 times the cost is immaterial. I'm sure the Urocrats were also not
influenced by the 66% tax they put on CFL's entering the EU and it
didn't have any effect upon their thinking.

My small voice in the wilderness isn't likely to have any effect but if
enough people do likewise it might do some good, as least it's not likely
to make the situation any worse.

20 million people can complain, it won't turn a hair on a Urocrats
pate. It isn't as if we elect them.

Thank You Peter.

I've saved your posting into my "Tubes" folder.

That will scare them.

DG

On 2007-10-04 22:38:01 +0100, Peter Parry said:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:58:17 +0100, Mike Clarke
wrote:


I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a response.

Don't bother, the govmint has no choice in the matter as it is an EU
Directive forcing this.

Referendum?

20 million people can complain, it won't turn a hair on a Urocrats
pate. It isn't as if we elect them.

Is a Urocrat a civil servant who ****es all over you?

In article Mike Clarke wrote:

I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a
response.

Well I eventually got a reply from the Minister. Naturally my email won't
have any effect on the government's actions but the reply did provide a few
interesting bits of information in the following quotes:

"On 27 September the Secretary of State announced a voluntary initiative led
by the major retailers and energy suppliers that will see inefficient
incandescent light bulbs phased out"

.... so commercial bodies persuaded the government to support their money
earning scheme, which is voluntary so the government don't get the blame
for imposing it.

"The initiative has the strong backing of the major light bulb
manufacturers"

.... well, there's no surprise there.

"Since they were first introduced in the 1980's CFLs have been developed to
match the quality and use of existing inefficient bulbs"

.... so they've swallowed the claims of the manufactures, like 11W CFL (600
lumen when new) = 60W GLS tungsten (700 lumen).

There was one piece of information which at least confirms that halogens
won't be affected (yet)...

"Retailers will not stop selling bulbs where no efficient alternative
currently exists and householders should not need to change their existing
light fittings ... I would like to reassure your constituent that we shall
not be phasing out bulbs where no efficient alternative exists"

.... so it looks like things like G4 and G9 halogen capsules should still be
around for a while then. But I wouldn't be too sure about the future of
GU10's though.

I'd raised the issue of mercury content and disposal, quoting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html as an example of the
extreme measures people might be faced with. The reply contained a couple
of interesting points:

"... there has been a substantial decline in the mercury content of CFLs
over the last 30 years from around 100mg per bulb in the 1970's to around
4mg per bulb today... Industry is working to further reduce mercury
levels ... there are already new products on the market with a content of
less than 2 mg per bulb. Secondly, over the lifetime of both types of bulb
CFLs actually produce less mercury. This is due to the fact that mercury is
emitted from power stations during electricity generation and CFLs are more
energy efficient"

.... and, on the subject of disposal of breakages ...

"... care should be taken ... and the debris swept up and placed in a
plastic bag. The area should then be wiped with a damp cloth which should
then be placed in the plastic bag and sealed. The bag can be discarded with
the normal refuse."

.... so even if it is (or will be) illegal to chuck a CFL in the bin you can
do so if you break it first.

--
Mike Clarke

On 11 Nov, 18:05, Mike Clarke wrote:
In article Mike Clarke wrote:
I emailed my MP pointing out the limitations of CFLs and highlighting the
problems which will arise in situations where it's not practicable to use
them as direct replacements for filament bulbs. He appears to be
sympathetic to the problem and has asked the Energy Minister to a
response.

Well I eventually got a reply from the Minister. Naturally my email won't
have any effect on the government's actions but the reply did provide a few
interesting bits of information in the following quotes:

"On 27 September the Secretary of State announced a voluntary initiative led
by the major retailers and energy suppliers that will see inefficient
incandescent light bulbs phased out"

I'd raised the issue of mercury content and disposal, quoting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html as an example of the
extreme measures people might be faced with. The reply contained a couple
of interesting points:
snip
Secondly, over the lifetime of both types of bulb
CFLs actually produce less mercury. This is due to the fact that mercury is
emitted from power stations during electricity generation and CFLs are more
energy efficient"

That is a misrepresentation of the truth: it is only definitely true
if the all the power is generated from coal. It certainly is
definitely not true for hydroelectric, tidal, wave-power and wind
power; and almost certainly not true for nuclear, and probably not
true for oil and gas fired power stations. The minister should know
better.

Sid

On 2007-11-11 18:05:12 +0000, Mike Clarke said:

... so it looks like things like G4 and G9 halogen capsules should still be
around for a while then. But I wouldn't be too sure about the future of
GU10's though.



Excellent.

So where do I find fittings using G4 and G9?

In article 4737577f@qaanaaq Andy Hall wrote:

So where do I find fittings using G4 and G9?

There's an abundance of them around in the shops, usually with lots of thin
spindly arms with little 10W or 20W halogen 12V capsules at the end, e.g.
Argos 0021993, 4324304 and 4323659. We've been looking for a central
fitting for the living room (don't want downlighters or reflector spots)
and would normally prefer something simpler with good old fashioned bulbs
but if that means having to end up with CFLs poking out the end of the
fittings then 12V halogens might be the way to go. There seems to be a
distinct shortage of fittings designed to look right with CFLs.

--
Mike Clarke

On 27 Sep, 21:47, Lobster wrote:
I note that it's been announced today that incandescent lightbulbs are
to be phased out over the next couple of years:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

I'm not unduly perturbed (as most of my home is fitted with CFLs anyway)
except that the kitchen and bathroom are fitted with low voltage halogen
downlighters.

Presumably these will go the same way as conventional lightbulbs, won't
they? If so, is there an alternative 'bulb' I'll be able to use, or
will I need to replace the fittings? (and therefore my ceilings :-( )

David

Something has to be done, unless you do not believe in climate change,
or that the tons of particulates and gases we pour into the
environment have no effect on health. Australia has already banned old
style light bulbs.

For me, the change to CFLs is not an inconvenience at all compared to
that of people in pourer countries who are experiencing drought and or
flooding which is destroying there food sources and starving them. Are
people really saying they would rather be able to dim a light than
help stabalise the climate and possibly save some lives?

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

"nafuk" wrote in message
oups.com...

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without it. I
can't even see to open the door. But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time. Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),
halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100, Kroma wrote:

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without
it. I can't even see to open the door.

Why do you need lights on outside unless you are living out there?

Is it really so difficult to switch a light on when you go out and off
when you come in? Thats what I do, sometimes, more often than not there is
enough spill from the interior lights or from the stars/moon. The nearest
street lights are 1.5 miles away and we live in an area with probably the
darkest skies in England, so no sky glow.

Apart from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security
reasons),

False sense of security IMHO. If you are remote there is no point in
lighting the place as there will be no one passing to see the tea leaf.
The light, even low level, creates very dark shadows and reduces your
abilty to see outside the lit area, great for tea leafs to hide in...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:40:45 +0100, wrote:

From my experiance in north Northumberland, you should get some sky glow
(admittedly low level) from the conurbations around Newcastle and
Carlisle.

If you know where to look and the conditions are right you can detect the
tiny sky glow from Carlisle. Curiously not Newcastle. Teeside on the other
hand produces at most an orange glow about 30 degrees wide and 30 high to
the SE.

If it's a clear moonless night the stars are just an amazing sight. The
milky way is just there, a band of light arching across the sky. You don't
need artifical light starlight is enough.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Huge wrote:

On 2007-09-28, Dave Liquorice wrote:


If it's a clear moonless night the stars are just an amazing sight. The
milky way is just there, a band of light arching across the sky.


Troo.


You don't
need artifical light starlight is enough.


Until you drop your keys into the flower bed, that is.


That's why I always carry a small torch.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100
"Kroma" wrote:


"nafuk" wrote in message
oups.com...

As for having outside lights on at night, why?. Answer, because they
are cheap and available. Turn them off and check out the stars.

No, because it is pitch black outside and I can't see to walk without it. I
can't even see to open the door. But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time. Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),
halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.



I too, have an outside light to illuminate the path to the front door.
It's a 1 watt LED run from a sun-charged battery.

R.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100 someone who may be "Kroma"
wrote this:-

But I do try to help the environment... I
have it dimmed to around 10% so it uses only 10W most of the time.

You appear to be assuming a linear relationship between light output
and input power. This is far from the case with GLS lamps.

Apart
from my bulbs on timed switches (which are there for security reasons),

Time switches generally work fine with low energy lamps. The
exceptions generally involve some electronic time switches which can
suffer a variety of failures (including a track on the PCB burning
out due to being too thin, believe it or not).

halogens (which were in place when I bought the property) and dimmers I do
have several low energy bulbs.

Variable light levels can be achieved with a variety of fittings
which are switched on as necessary. There are also now dimmable
energy saving lamps, though the best known model only has four
steps.

It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.



--
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 28 Sep, 16:44, David Hansen
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:04:54 +0100 someone who may be "Kroma"
wrote this:-

Variable light levels can be achieved with a variety of fittings
which are switched on as necessary. There are also now dimmable
energy saving lamps, though the best known model only has four
steps.


Apparently a variable dimmable CFL exists:

The "new 20W T3 spiral Dimmable EnergySaver+ can be dimmed using a
standard dimmer switch from 2% to 100% brightness ... during its 16000
hour lifetime"

From URL:http://www.varilight.co.uk/Pages/page%20digiflux.htm

I can't comment on how good it is, as I don't have one.

Sid

It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.

We had dimmable fluorescents in the lecture theatres at university, back in the
early 80s. It's not like it is a new technology, but you are right about it
being more difficult to handle over just two wires, when the control gear is in
the lamp fitting. I think the ultimate solution would be sending signal and
power separately to the bulbs, i.e. full power piggy-backed with a signal to
tell the bulb what brightness to set itself to. It would work kind of like those
X11 home automation systems, with the receivers built into the bulbs.

-- JJ

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:23:08 GMT, Jason
wrote:


It is possible to make dimmable fluorescent lamps by separating the
control gear from the tubes. One can see this with larger fittings,
but this has been difficult to reproduce with a small lamp that has
the control gear and tube integrated in one unit.

We had dimmable fluorescents in the lecture theatres at university, back in the
early 80s. It's not like it is a new technology,

In the '80s (potentially installed in the '70s) it would have been
done using a large saturable reactor, or maybe a large variac. I've
never seen one but potentially the size and weight of a volkswagon
beetle.

but you are right about it being more difficult to handle over just two wires,

That can be done easily enough using semiconductor ballasts by varying
the AC power input. Our equipment can be dimmed down to about 15% that
way. Eventually there is not enough energy going into the tubes to
keep the filaments up to temperature, and the tube may not start very
well if it's switched on at a low power setting. Lower outputs can be
achieved by feeding the ballasts with a seperate feed of full mains
power and driving the filaments from this via a filament transformer.

when the control gear is in
the lamp fitting. I think the ultimate solution would be sending signal and
power separately to the bulbs, i.e. full power piggy-backed with a signal to
tell the bulb what brightness to set itself to.

Eg Osram/Sylvania quicktronic :

http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/LightingForHome/Products/BulbType/Fluorescent/Quicktronic/

It's a simple 0-10v analogue control system which makes it possible to
achieve automatic balancing of light output in display signs as tubes
age.

It would work kind of like those
X11 home automation systems, with the receivers built into the bulbs.

I've not seen any addressable ones - yet.

DG