I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion to
the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was going
to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced every bulb
in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

"R D S" wrote in message
...
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal bulbs in a couple of
wall lights numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

Nothing wrong with your electric, in fact this is *more* likely with MCBs
not less.
Some GLS bulbs have a built in 1A fuse that will blow before a
5A wired fuse, but they will still often trip a 6A MCB. You can't always
tell when buying a bulb of they have a built in fuse.
I shouldn't think your RCD is tripping.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

R D S wrote:
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of
fashion to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents
(which I was going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I
have replaced every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal
bulbs in a couple of wall lights numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can
I put this down to coincidence.

We get through bulbs (sorry, lamps) at a rate of knots. I've always put it
down to over voltage. We have a sub station thingy at the end of the cul de
sac & our voltage is always 250v +.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
R D S wrote:
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of
fashion to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents
(which I was going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I
have replaced every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal
bulbs in a couple of wall lights numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can
I put this down to coincidence.

We get through bulbs (sorry, lamps) at a rate of knots. I've always put
it down to over voltage. We have a sub station thingy at the end of the
cul de sac & our voltage is always 250v +.


I am sure you are right. Ours is always about 245v and I imagine
it comes from this old transformer across the road
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/infoweb/substation.jpg
has seen better days
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/infoweb/subtop.jpg

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"R D S" wrote in message
...
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting,

You will probably be changing them again in 4 months if they are GU10s

and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Are the lamps at a funny angle, ie not vertical? Lamps tend not to like
this

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

How old and worn are the lightswitches? My parents had a lamp that blew
frequently until I changed the 30 year old light switch. I assumed the
lightswitch was "bouncing" when the light was turned on.

Adam

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

"R D S" wrote in message
...
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting,

You will probably be changing them again in 4 months if they are GU10s

and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Are the lamps at a funny angle, ie not vertical? Lamps tend not to like
this

They are horizontal.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I
put this down to coincidence.

How old and worn are the lightswitches? My parents had a lamp that blew
frequently until I changed the 30 year old light switch. I assumed the
lightswitch was "bouncing" when the light was turned on.

Intersting, they appear to have been installed in anticipation of
electricity, it's worth a few quid to change them I suppose if it might
help.

In message , R D S
writes
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion to
the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was going
to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced every bulb
in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

Disconnect it from the streetlight outside

--
geoff

ARWadworth wrote:

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I
put this down to coincidence.

How old and worn are the lightswitches? My parents had a lamp that blew
frequently until I changed the 30 year old light switch. I assumed the
lightswitch was "bouncing" when the light was turned on.

At risk of summoning the one who should remain nameless, yup, I have
observed the same. There was a time I was being called to change a bulb
at an elderly neighbour every couple of weeks. Voltage was normal (spot
on 240 in fact), and there was no other obvious problem like vibration
etc. In the end I changed the switch, and all was well after that.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

After serious thinking R D S wrote :
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it normal
to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion to
the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was going
to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced every bulb in
a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

There could be several reasons...

Check the voltage of your supply. Voltage higher than 240v will reduce
lamp life proportionally.

Are the lamps genuine 240v ones, I once bought some designed for 230v
in the UK - they lasted no time at all.

Could there be surges in voltage? The lights themselves might show this
up by becoming brighter than normal.

Poor wiring connections/lamp-holders/switches can cause the lamps to
flicker. Flickering means the filaments will heat up and cool down
rapidly, which in turn can severely reduce their life.

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

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
k...

Check the voltage of your supply. Voltage higher than 240v will reduce
lamp life proportionally.

Are the lamps genuine 240v ones, I once bought some designed for 230v in
the UK - they lasted no time at all.

uk used to be 240 volts years ago, europe was 220 volts, but a few years ago
europe was upped to 230 and the uk dropped to 230 volts,

We never had any problems when 15 years ago we moved back to england from
germany, and brought a load of fancy lights with us, which of course used
screw in bulbs as that's the standard in europe, anticipating trouble
getting a decent range of screw in bulbs in england, we brought back about
100 bulbs from germany,

they were 220 volt bulbs of course, but they didnt seem to last any less
running on 240 volts than they did in germany, back then they seemed to last
a good few years,

nowadays bulbs seem to last months, no doubt because they are made in china
now, so made to the absolute cheapest standards they can get away with,
prolly use cotton for the fillaments

But i wouldent be surprised if tugsten bulbs were being made to last a very
short time deliberately, the government meddlers want us all to use cfls
after all,
make us fed up of chaning tugsten bulbs ever few months and we'll welcome a
cfl that lasts 10 times longer (good for the manufacturers as they can make
the cfl's cheaper as they now last 10 times longer than the current tugsten
bulbs which is nowt like they used to last

gazz wrote:

uk used to be 240 volts years ago, europe was 220 volts, but a few years
ago europe was upped to 230 and the uk dropped to 230 volts,

The actual UK voltage is still 240 - it never changed. All that has
changed is the specified voltage and the tolerance allowed. So the spec
may be for 230, but the actual voltage is still in range at 240V.

We never had any problems when 15 years ago we moved back to england
from germany, and brought a load of fancy lights with us, which of
course used screw in bulbs as that's the standard in europe,
anticipating trouble getting a decent range of screw in bulbs in
england, we brought back about 100 bulbs from germany,

they were 220 volt bulbs of course, but they didnt seem to last any less
running on 240 volts than they did in germany, back then they seemed to
last a good few years,

nowadays bulbs seem to last months, no doubt because they are made in
china now, so made to the absolute cheapest standards they can get away
with, prolly use cotton for the fillaments

Some bulbs are deliberately stressed during manufacture so that they
have a more limited life. The intention being to prevent ever decreasing
efficiency (and hence falling light output) as they age.

But i wouldent be surprised if tugsten bulbs were being made to last a
very short time deliberately, the government meddlers want us all to use
cfls after all,
make us fed up of chaning tugsten bulbs ever few months and we'll
welcome a cfl that lasts 10 times longer (good for the manufacturers as
they can make the cfl's cheaper as they now last 10 times longer than
the current tugsten bulbs which is nowt like they used to last

10x is not typical alas...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

"R D S" wrote in message
...
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting,

You will probably be changing them again in 4 months if they are GU10s

My mate fitted a 240V soft start units for the GU10s in his hallway and
landing (11 lights) after having to fork out £3-4 a month for replacement
bulbs in his new house. Had his house 4 years odd now and not a single bulb
blown. Came from TLC, quite expensive but compared to constant bulb
replacement works out quite cheap.

On Sep 23, 4:55*pm, "R D S" wrote:

I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

Occasionally, yes. But normally one would go years between such
events.


In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion to
the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was going
to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced every bulb
in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights
numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

Could be overvoltage for mains filament & halogen bulbs. Should be
240v, not 230. Filament lamp life is proportional to voltage to the
power of 13, so a small overvoltage has a big effect.
Could be bad switches or bad bulb holders, though this usually isnt
the cause
Could be a batch of faulty lamps, but again this isnt usually it
Vibration to the bulbs is often a cause
Could be that someone's touched the halogen capsule before it goes in
Could be small enclosed fittings causing heavy overheating

But the biggest cause by far of this is a combination of design and
under informed user expectation. You've got however many lamps there,
each lasting maybe 1000 hours, so if for example you had 10 lamps
you'd get an average of one failure per 100hrs. Plus lights get left
on a lot more than they used to.

The solution to that is to understand the results of your lighting
setup, pick fluorescent and cfl lamps, and where desirable use less of
them. CFLs & Fls dont normally pop fuses.

For more see the CFL, filament, halogen & fluorescent articles on the
wiki
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....egory:Lighting


NT

gazz explained on 23/09/2008 :
uk used to be 240 volts years ago, europe was 220 volts, but a few years ago
europe was upped to 230 and the uk dropped to 230 volts,

But despite the harmonisation with the EU, it is still 240v as measured
at your sockets. The actual voltage did not change.

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

Ian_m wrote:

My mate fitted a 240V soft start units for the GU10s in his hallway and
landing (11 lights) after having to fork out £3-4 a month for
replacement bulbs in his new house. Had his house 4 years odd now and
not a single bulb blown. Came from TLC, quite expensive but compared to
constant bulb replacement works out quite cheap.

Their touch dimmers are also soft start, and they are not that expensive.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 23 Sep, 19:35, "ARWadworth" wrote:
"R D S" wrote in ...

I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting,

You will probably be changing them again in 4 months if they are GU10s

and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights

numerous times.

Are the lamps at a funny angle, ie not vertical? Lamps tend not to like
this



Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

How old and worn are the lightswitches? My parents had a lamp that blew
frequently until I changed the 30 year old light switch. I assumed the
lightswitch was "bouncing" when the light was turned on.

Adam

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

Thanks
Jonathan

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

I have eight in the kitchen and have had one failure in about a year,
with regular switching on and off. The one failure was shortly after
installation so was probably a bad bulb.
I also have six in the bathroom and have had four or five failures in
about as many years.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

I have eight in the kitchen and have had one failure in about a year,
with regular switching on and off. The one failure was shortly after
installation so was probably a bad bulb.
I also have six in the bathroom and have had four or five failures in
about as many years.

We had 6 in our kitchen but no longer. They did seem to fail a bit often
and they invariably blew the fusewire in the (soon to be replaced) old
fusebox.
My wife prefers good old fashioned fluorescent tubes. With spots a lot
of lighting is required to avoid shadows IMHO.

Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a
collection that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you
get one that lasts.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sep 30, 10:00*am, Jonathan wrote:
On 23 Sep, 19:35, "ARWadworth" wrote:



"R D S" wrote in ...

I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of fashion
to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents (which I was
going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I have replaced
every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting,

You will probably be changing them again in 4 months if they are GU10s

and normal bulbs in a couple of wall lights

numerous times.

Are the lamps at a funny angle, ie not vertical? *Lamps tend not to like
this

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can I put
this down to coincidence.

How old and worn are the lightswitches? My parents had a lamp that blew
frequently until I changed the 30 year old light switch. I assumed the
lightswitch was "bouncing" when the light was turned on.

Adam

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

Thanks
Jonathan

They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).


NT

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a collection
that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you get one that
lasts.

I've wondered about brands as you can get so called value packs.
Anyone know if tehse store value packs are actually a good deal or just
cheaply made bulbs or designed to have a shorter life.

The message

from contains these words:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be VERY sensitive to vibration -- don't use them on the ground
floor of a two-storey house.


They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.

If I have ten bulbs with a mean time before failure of 1500 hours, I
can, assuming the batch is typical, expect about 1,500x10 hours of light
from them which is 15,000 hours of light.

You seem to be implying that if I put in a batch of ten new bulbs, by
the time I reach 1500 hours they'll all have blown

Bulb 1 blows after 150 hours Lifespan 150 hours
Bulb 2 blows after 300 hours Lifespan 300 hours
Bulb 3 blows after 450 hours Lifespan 450 hours
Bulb 4 blows after 600 hours Lifespan 600 hours
Bulb 5 blows after 750 hours Lifespan 750 hours
Bulb 6 blows after 900 hours Lifespan 900 hours
Bulb 7 blows after 1050 hours Lifespan 1050 hours
Bulb 8 blows after 1200 hours Lifespan 1200 hours
Bulb 9 blows after 1350 hours Lifespan 1350 hours
Bulb 10 blows after 1500 hours Lifespan 1500 hours

Total number of hours of illumination
from the whole batch 8250 hours

Giving an average lifespan of 825 hours

For what you have indicated to be true the bulbs would need to have been
replaced at genuinely random intervals so that they wouldn't be starting
their life together AND their failure pattern would have to have a
fairly random distribution. In point of fact though we can all think of
and quote exceptions, many mass-produced lamps from a particular batch
do tend to fail relatively close to each other in terms of burning time
-- if the design life is 1000 hours, a majority will fail in (say) the
800 - 2000 hour range, with relatively few failing before 500 hours and
relatively few lasting more than 2500 hours.

Usage patterns distort the graph considerably.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
news:gbt6ac$ra$1@qmul...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a collection
that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you get one that
lasts.

I've wondered about brands as you can get so called value packs.
Anyone know if tehse store value packs are actually a good deal or just
cheaply made bulbs or designed to have a shorter life.

The pack I bought in aldi last year are lasting well.. they are still in the
packet as none of the six gu10s have failed yet.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a collection
that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you get one that
lasts.

--
Cheers,

John.

They last longer than the low energy equivalents. I fitted 300 low energy
ones last week and had a 1 in 10 failure rate in less than 24 hours. I am up
to 1 in 7 failure rate a week later.

Adam

ARWadworth wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a
collection that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you
get one that lasts.

--
Cheers,

John.

They last longer than the low energy equivalents. I fitted 300 low
energy ones last week and had a 1 in 10 failure rate in less than 24
hours. I am up to 1 in 7 failure rate a week later.

LED or CFL?

and what brand should we avoid? ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Appin wrote:

They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.

I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on. Each could then last 1500
hours, but you would need to change one every 150 after the first 1500.

He has a bit of a "thing" about halogen lighting in case you had not
guessed ;-)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
ARWadworth wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Are GU10s known for failing fast? I am replacing a lot of them in our
newly wired house, despite the promise of 1500 hours life (iknow this
is an average).

They can be... they are easily disturbed it seems (both in use and in
transit) and they really don't like vibration when running. Its not
uncommon to go through a number in short order, but then hit a
collection that lasts quite well. Also try different brands until you
get one that lasts.

--
Cheers,

John.

They last longer than the low energy equivalents. I fitted 300 low energy
ones last week and had a 1 in 10 failure rate in less than 24 hours. I am
up to 1 in 7 failure rate a week later.

LED or CFL?

and what brand should we avoid? ;-)

CFL and all brands

In my case Halolite 11W versions, but I did not supply them I only fitted
them.

A complete waste of space IMHO.

And they are expected to run 24/7.

Adam

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Appin wrote:

They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.

I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on. Each could then last 1500
hours, but you would need to change one every 150 after the first 1500.

You'd need to do some very creative accounting to make the maths work
out -- and we all know now what's happened with all the creative
accounting of an awful lot of bankers :-)


He has a bit of a "thing" about halogen lighting in case you had not
guessed ;-)

I'm not the world's greatest enthusiast for it myself, but I do like my
arithmetic to work out :-)

ARWadworth wrote:

LED or CFL?

and what brand should we avoid? ;-)

CFL and all brands

LOL! Indeed. Although the be fair, I did actually find a CFL that was
"ok" the other day. It was a Megaman Ultra Compact Candle (which is to
say, its the same shape and size as normal non compact candle filament
bulb). It does actually do a passing imitation of a 40W pearl candle
bulb, in both colour rendition and light output.

(spurred on by that success I also tried on of their small lightbulb
shaped CFLs that was supposed to be a 60W equivalent. Needless to say
the spectra is wrong, the warmup is dog slow, and the light output is
the equal of at best 40W).

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:13:43 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

ARWadworth wrote:

LED or CFL?

and what brand should we avoid? ;-)

CFL and all brands

LOL! Indeed. Although the be fair, I did actually find a CFL that was
"ok" the other day. It was a Megaman Ultra Compact Candle (which is to
say, its the same shape and size as normal non compact candle filament
bulb). It does actually do a passing imitation of a 40W pearl candle
bulb, in both colour rendition and light output.

(spurred on by that success I also tried on of their small lightbulb
shaped CFLs that was supposed to be a 60W equivalent. Needless to say
the spectra is wrong, the warmup is dog slow, and the light output is
the equal of at best 40W).

I had a problem with my bedside lamp, which uses three SES candle
bulbs of ca. 25W. It has narrow fluted glass shades, which precluded
most CFLs. The colour wasn't that critical, since the shades are a
sort of brown/green combination, and it's only used for getting into
bed and a few minutes of reading.
At a local indoor 'market' I saw some tiny CFLs of, ISTR, 5 or 7
watts, which were a bit smaller than the original tungstens, and they
seem to be not too bad. The warmup time is about 10 or 20 secs, the
shades run reasonably (fsvo) cool and I haven't had a lamp failure in
maybe a year.
I'm still not a fan of CFLs generally, but I'm reasonably satisfied
with these (which were quite cheap anyway!!!).

--
Frank Erskine

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.

I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.

what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?


NT

The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.

I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.

what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?

Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. I should be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.

On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?

Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.

that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.


NT

The message
from contains these words:

On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's
expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?

Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.

that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.

If you allege previous posts to be "another matter" you should justify
the allegation. You haven't explained how you reached your conclusions.

On Oct 2, 3:20*pm, Appin wrote:
The message
from contains these words:



On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's
expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?
Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.
that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.

If you allege previous posts to be "another matter" you should justify
the allegation. *You haven't explained how you reached your conclusions..

I'm not going to sit here & teach basic stats.


NT

On Oct 2, 7:30*pm, wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:20*pm, Appin wrote:



The message
from contains these words:

On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's
expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?
Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.
that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.

If you allege previous posts to be "another matter" you should justify
the allegation. *You haven't explained how you reached your conclusions.

I'm not going to sit here & teach basic stats.

NT

I see there's alt.math, sci.math, alt.sci.math, net.math and
uk.education.maths if you're genuinely interested.


NT

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
R D S wrote:
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of
fashion to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents
(which I was going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I
have replaced every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal
bulbs in a couple of wall lights numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can
I put this down to coincidence.

We get through bulbs (sorry, lamps) at a rate of knots. I've always put
it down to over voltage. We have a sub station thingy at the end of the
cul de sac & our voltage is always 250v +.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Thought that leccy was never distributed at 250v any more ,,,, due to EU
harmonization of supply voltage.

The message
from contains these words:

On Oct 2, 3:20*pm, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:



On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's
expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure
per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then
wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?
Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours.

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should
be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.
that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.

If you allege previous posts to be "another matter" you should justify
the allegation. *You haven't explained how you reached your conclusions..

I'm not going to sit here & teach basic stats.

You don't need to -- I've done them at university level. And I can cope
with spherical trig as well, for what it's worth.

What we're involved with here is not basic statistics, but *applied*
statistics, so if you propound a theory with regard to a failure every
150 hours it's reasonable to ask that you at least explain the other
parameters you're basing this theory on.

One thing sure, if you start your ten lamps burining at the same time
and under the same conditions, then if they're failing every 150 hours,
the average lifespan, as I've already suggested, would appear to be 825
hours, rather than 1500 hours. That, of course, assumes that as they
aren't being replaced as they fail.

You've given no indication of the spread which you've assumed the
failures to show around the design life -- and with lamps this is a
significant consideration to be factored in.

I passed my university-level statistics (for what it's worth) in the
1960s. I live, however in the real world and am looking for a
real-world explanation of what you've written.

The message
from "Rick Hughes" contains these words:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
R D S wrote:
I rent a shop which has a fusebox rather than tripswitches.
I have always had CU with RCD's at home/work so thought i'd ask, is it
normal to have to replace fusewire when a bulb blows?

In addition I seem to be buying bulbs like they have gone out of
fashion to the point where I have changed 2 fitting for flourescents
(which I was going to do anyway for economy), in 4 months I reckon I
have replaced every bulb in a 4 spot halogen fitting, and normal
bulbs in a couple of wall lights numerous times.

Could there be some problem electrically causing bulb blowing or can
I put this down to coincidence.

We get through bulbs (sorry, lamps) at a rate of knots. I've always put
it down to over voltage. We have a sub station thingy at the end of the
cul de sac & our voltage is always 250v +.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Thought that leccy was never distributed at 250v any more ,,,, due to EU
harmonization of supply voltage.

It's often distributed at 250v plus. It's not always within even the
specified limits and if you're near the substation you may well be over
250v. Time to get the electricity supply company to bring along a
recording voltmeter.

On Oct 2, 8:52*pm, Appin wrote:
The message
from contains these words:



On Oct 2, 3:20*pm, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Oct 2, 12:39*am, Appin wrote:
The message

from contains these words:

On Sep 30, 8:54*pm, John Rumm wrote:
Appin wrote:
They can do, but more often the problem is in people's
expectations.
If you have 10x 1500hr bulbs, you should get one failure
per 150hrs
average (=10 per 1500hrs).

I'm not sure I can figure out your arithmetic.
I think NT was assuming you are going to install one, then
wait 150
hours, and then install the next and so on.
what an odd thing to say. Is 10 1500hr lamps giving on average 10
failures per 1500hrs confusing?
Yes, it's confusing.

If the lamps are purportedly rated at 1500 hours, then I should in
theory expect the average life of the set of ten to be 1500 hours..

If I use them in the fashion anticipated in the testing for rating
purposes and have all of them buring starting at the same time, then I
would not expect ten failutres at the 1500 hour mark. *I should
be able
to expect= five failures before the 1500 hour point and the remainder
after the 1500 hour point.
that much is right, though previous posts were another matter.

If you allege previous posts to be "another matter" you should justify
the allegation. *You haven't explained how you reached your conclusions..
I'm not going to sit here & teach basic stats.

You don't need to -- I've done them at university level. *And I can cope
with spherical trig as well, for what it's worth.

What we're involved with here is not basic statistics, but *applied*
statistics, so if you propound a theory with regard to a failure every
150 hours it's reasonable to ask that you at least explain the other
parameters you're basing this theory on.

One thing sure, if you start your ten lamps burining at the same time
and under the same conditions, then if they're failing every 150 hours,
the average lifespan, as I've already suggested, would appear to be 825
hours, rather than 1500 hours. That, of course, assumes that as they
aren't being replaced as they fail.

You've given no indication of the spread which you've assumed the
failures to show around the design life -- and with lamps this is a
significant consideration to be factored in. *

I passed my university-level statistics (for what it's worth) in the
1960s. * *I live, however in the real world and am looking for a
real-world explanation of what you've written.

ok, fairy nuff. I'm trying to sort out where the misunderstanding lies
though...

If we operate one lamp at a time (and replace it many times when it
dies to give us a fair sample size) we get one failure per 1500hrs on
average. If instead we light 10 rather than just 1 at once. we're
going to see 10 failures per 1500hrs average, which is one per 150hrs
of operation on average. Its so simple that I'm struggling to see
where you think that's incorrect.


NT