As a follow up on the problems with GU10 Megaman bulbs I have found in the
packaging is a leaflet, this changes the claim yet again. In one part you
are again wrongly told a life of 15.000 but hunt about with a magnifying
glass and you find “up to15,000 hrs”. So in this they are not even saying
your average life may be 15,000 but that this is the maximum you can expect.
This latter is in my experience the reality.



I was very keen to adopt low energy bulbs, but am now very concerned that
they are to be hoisted on everyone when they are not any thing like what is
claimed for them. The “low” cost is on the bases of using cheep Chinese
labour with low levels of heath and safety and wages. The energy costs are
being reduced at the expense of China building coal fuelled generators so
the pollution is merely being exported else where. And the actual savings
don’t really exist any way as the live claimed is at best doubtful and
possibly dishonest.



From my experience and the comments of those posting before I am now against
low energy bulbs until they are able to produce a constant blight out put
over there life time, have a life claimed that is actually honest, that the
“green benefits” are not just a the expense of Chinese workers and
pollution.



As for the bulbs I have those I have receipts for I am now keeping a log and
as soon as they fail within there clamed life they will go back to the
retailer they came from for a refund or replacement. On current experience
that means every single one of nearly 30 we have in the house will at some
point be sent back. One they are finished with, its back to “normal” bulbs
for as long as we are able to get them, or the fraudulent low energy bulb is
performing as claimed.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071111-1, 11/11/2007
Tested on: 12/11/2007 11:00:04
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On 12 Nov, 10:59, "John" john(no wrote:
As a follow up on the problems with GU10 Megaman bulbs I have found in the
packaging is a leaflet, this changes the claim yet again. In one part you
are again wrongly told a life of 15.000 but hunt about with a magnifying
glass and you find "up to15,000 hrs". So in this they are not even saying
your average life may be 15,000 but that this is the maximum you can expect.
This latter is in my experience the reality.

I was very keen to adopt low energy bulbs, but am now very concerned that
they are to be hoisted on everyone when they are not any thing like what is
claimed for them. The "low" cost is on the bases of using cheep Chinese
labour with low levels of heath and safety and wages. The energy costs are
being reduced at the expense of China building coal fuelled generators so
the pollution is merely being exported else where. And the actual savings
don't really exist any way as the live claimed is at best doubtful and
possibly dishonest.

From my experience and the comments of those posting before I am now against
low energy bulbs until they are able to produce a constant blight out put
over there life time, have a life claimed that is actually honest, that the
"green benefits" are not just a the expense of Chinese workers and
pollution.

As for the bulbs I have those I have receipts for I am now keeping a log and
as soon as they fail within there clamed life they will go back to the
retailer they came from for a refund or replacement. On current experience
that means every single one of nearly 30 we have in the house will at some
point be sent back. One they are finished with, its back to "normal" bulbs
for as long as we are able to get them, or the fraudulent low energy bulb is
performing as claimed.

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071111-1, 11/11/2007
Tested on: 12/11/2007 11:00:04
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com

The whole business of light bulb life is a con anyway as it is the
manner that we use them that shortens their life - we switch them on
and off umpteen times during even 100 hours of usage. How often does
a bulb fail while actually on - extremely rarely, it is always at
switch on.

I find that the GU10 are particularly bad for this and at the cost of
replacement they are a serious expense. Both fittings I have have
been replaced by inexpensive Ikea units using 12V bulbs with the hope
that the degree of soft start built into the transformer will get over
this to a certain extent.

Rob

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:59:17 -0000, "John" john(no
wrote:

As a follow up on the problems with GU10 Megaman bulbs I have found in the
packaging is a leaflet, this changes the claim yet again. In one part you
are again wrongly told a life of 15.000 but hunt about with a magnifying
glass and you find “up to15,000 hrs”. So in this they are not even saying
your average life may be 15,000 but that this is the maximum you can expect.
This latter is in my experience the reality.

You need a bigger magnifying glass.

I'm sure if you look *really* carefully it will say somewhere that to
achieve the 15,000 hours you have to get Dynamo Hansen to come and
bless your house.

He's the only one who's CFL's arent 33% dimmer than they say to start
with, who's CFL's don't suffer from tube end blackening, don't suffer
from the phosphor getting scoured away where the tube bends, don't
produce a poor light with a nasty discontinuous spectrum, don't
deteriorate over 12 months service (48% in my case), and have an
average life longer than 6 - 18 months.

snip

DG

In article , John
writes

From my experience and the comments of those posting before I am now against
low energy bulbs until they are able to produce a constant blight out put

'blight' is the right word. I hate the quality of light these things
give out and am stocking up on incandescents.

Will I have to watch out for the lightbulb police?

--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
(")_(")

On Nov 12, 10:59 am, "John" john(no
wrote:
As a follow up on the problems with GU10 Megaman bulbs I have found in the
packaging is a leaflet, this changes the claim yet again. In one part you
are again wrongly told a life of 15.000 but hunt about with a magnifying
glass and you find "up to15,000 hrs". So in this they are not even saying
your average life may be 15,000 but that this is the maximum you can expect.
This latter is in my experience the reality.

I was very keen to adopt low energy bulbs, but am now very concerned that
they are to be hoisted on everyone when they are not any thing like what is
claimed for them. The "low" cost is on the bases of using cheep Chinese
labour with low levels of heath and safety and wages. The energy costs are
being reduced at the expense of China building coal fuelled generators so
the pollution is merely being exported else where.

Interestingly the Chinese are in fact building some of the cleanest
coalfired plants in the world. They can then selll the accumulated
carbon credits to companies in the west running belching old plant.

Economics are interetsing 2M GBP soent of adding desulph to coal fired
plant gains carbon credits worth more than 10M GBP on the market.

One of the reasons they are opening a coal fired plant every week is
they are extremeley profitable.


And the actual savings
don't really exist any way as the live claimed is at best doubtful and
possibly dishonest.

From my experience and the comments of those posting before I am now against
low energy bulbs until they are able to produce a constant blight out put
over there life time, have a life claimed that is actually honest, that the
"green benefits" are not just a the expense of Chinese workers and
pollution.

As for the bulbs I have those I have receipts for I am now keeping a log and
as soon as they fail within there clamed life they will go back to the
retailer they came from for a refund or replacement. On current experience
that means every single one of nearly 30 we have in the house will at some
point be sent back. One they are finished with, its back to "normal" bulbs
for as long as we are able to get them, or the fraudulent low energy bulb is
performing as claimed.

Wish could disagree,.

Adam


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071111-1, 11/11/2007
Tested on: 12/11/2007 11:00:04
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:17:42 -0800 (PST), Adam Aglionby
wrote:


Interestingly the Chinese are in fact building some of the cleanest
coalfired plants in the world.

Is that right?

http://tinyurl.com/gney8

--
Frank Erskine

On Nov 16, 7:28 pm, Frank Erskine
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:17:42 -0800 (PST), Adam Aglionby

wrote:
Interestingly the Chinese are in fact building some of the cleanest
coalfired plants in the world.

Is that right?

http://tinyurl.com/gney8

--
Frank Erskine

Americans calling the Chinese polluters, pot meet kettle, depends who
statisitics you believe, this one puts US as largest polluter till
2009:

http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/...credit-traders
another view

http://www.chinacleanenergy.org/home.asp

No ones mentioned Australia with a high dependency on coal fired and
how the UK uses a large amount of Australian coal, thats fuel with a
carbon footprint for sure.Seems unlikely they unload it at Newcastle.

Adam

Adam Aglionby wrote:
No ones mentioned Australia with a high dependency on coal fired

Australians do indeed use a lot of fossil fuel - I heard once, more per
head than any other nation.

However, there are 300 million Americans, 1300 million Chinese, and
about 20 million Australians, so the high per-capita numbers are low
total numbers.

Andy