Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?
http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine and
have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good strong
light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy efficient
GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???

Cheers

Tim

On Oct 17, 12:40*pm, wrote:
Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?http://www..screwfix.com/prods/71222...ing-Lamps/Bayo...

why not ask em

Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

just another mistake


NT

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:08:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 17, 12:40*pm, wrote:
Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo...

why not ask em

Well it would mean going to a branch as I can't see the order line
knowing .That's why I asked in here to see if anyone had used them.

Tim S wrote:

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine and
have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good strong
light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy efficient
GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???


The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

The latter is a bog standard halogen lamp which does not include the
energy saving technology.

The energy saving halogen lamps are extensively used by the National
Trust because they retain the original appearance of incandescent
bulbs while saving that all-important 30%. They also have the
advantage of low UV emissions reducing the rate of ageing of things
like upholstery fabric and wallpaper.

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

Tim S wrote:

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine and
have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good strong
light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy efficient
GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???


The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

The latter is a bog standard halogen lamp which does not include the
energy saving technology.

The energy saving halogen lamps are extensively used by the National
Trust because they retain the original appearance of incandescent
bulbs while saving that all-important 30%. They also have the
advantage of low UV emissions reducing the rate of ageing of things
like upholstery fabric and wallpaper.

That is interesting - thanks Bruce.

I'm bored with CFLs that die in 18 months so I might try these.

Cheers

Tim

wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:08:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 17, 12:40 pm, wrote:
Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl"
ones?http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo...

why not ask em

Well it would mean going to a branch as I can't see the order line
knowing .That's why I asked in here to see if anyone had used them.

SF have answered some questions for me very well over the phone & via
e-mail. They do seem to have a technical dept.


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

In article ,
Bruce writes:
Tim S wrote:

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine and
have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good strong
light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy efficient
GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???


The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

It's not. Both of these are bog standard halogens.

You are referring the the Philips Master Classic lamps, which use
a low voltage halogen capsule and a small switched-mode PSU in the
lamp base to generate the low voltage for it.

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

http://www.lightingservices.org/feat...p?FID=80&PID=6

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

Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:

In article ,
Bruce writes:
Tim S wrote:

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...-Saving-BC-28W
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine
and have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good
strong light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy
efficient GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???


The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

It's not. Both of these are bog standard halogens.

You are referring the the Philips Master Classic lamps, which use
a low voltage halogen capsule and a small switched-mode PSU in the
lamp base to generate the low voltage for it.

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

http://www.lightingservices.org/feat...p?FID=80&PID=6


I got confused trying to research this. When I googled "HaloLux" I ended up
at Osram's site where they were extolling the benefits of halogen lamps
with a special coating on the glass that reduced energy consumption. They
were claiming 28% savings. But none of the "HaloLux" lamps I could find
were in GLS format. They did have some GLS energy savers, but it wasn't
clear if they were the same technology or not...

Before anyone asks, I did do a quick lumen/watt calculation from Osram's
datasheet and they are no where near good enough to satisfy Part L low
energy lamp requirements

Cheers

Tim

On Oct 17, 1:23*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:08:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:40*pm, wrote:

Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo...

why not ask em

Well it would mean going to a branch as I can't see the order line
knowing .That's why I asked in here to see if anyone had used them.

You dont know whether they'll know or not. Help yourself, youre a big
boy now.


NT

On Oct 18, 2:03*pm, Tim S wrote:
Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:



In article ,
Bruce writes:
Tim S wrote:

coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo....
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine
and have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good
strong light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy
efficient GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???

The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

It's not. Both of these are bog standard halogens.

You are referring the the Philips Master Classic lamps, which use
a low voltage halogen capsule and a small switched-mode PSU in the
lamp base to generate the low voltage for it.

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

http://www.lightingservices.org/feat...p?FID=80&PID=6

I got confused trying to research this. When I googled "HaloLux" I ended up
at Osram's site where they were extolling the benefits of halogen lamps
with a special coating on the glass that reduced energy consumption. They
were claiming 28% savings. But none of the "HaloLux" lamps I could find
were in GLS format. They did have some GLS energy savers, but it wasn't
clear if they were the same technology or not...

Before anyone asks, I did do a quick lumen/watt calculation from Osram's
datasheet and they are no where near good enough to satisfy Part L low
energy lamp requirements

Cheers

Tim

theyre just halogen lamps, which are not low energy in any substantial
sense.


NT

On Oct 18, 2:03*pm, Tim S wrote:
Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:
In article ,
Bruce writes:
Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared:

Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?

http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo....
Why do they call them "bayonet clip" ...what's wrong with just
BC..bayonet CAP.

Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:

http://www.thelightbulb.co.uk/product/detail.php?id=237

Which is just a different shape bulb and higher power. These work fine
and have been around for years - I use the 100W ones when I want a good
strong light.

Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy
efficient GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???

The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

It's not. Both of these are bog standard halogens.

You are referring the the Philips Master Classic lamps, which use
a low voltage halogen capsule and a small switched-mode PSU in the
lamp base to generate the low voltage for it.

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

http://www.lightingservices.org/feat...p?FID=80&PID=6

I got confused trying to research this. When I googled "HaloLux" I ended up
at Osram's site where they were extolling the benefits of halogen lamps
with a special coating on the glass that reduced energy consumption. They
were claiming 28% savings. But none of the "HaloLux" lamps I could find
were in GLS format. They did have some GLS energy savers, but it wasn't
clear if they were the same technology or not...

Before anyone asks, I did do a quick lumen/watt calculation from Osram's
datasheet and they are no where near good enough to satisfy Part L low
energy lamp requirements

Cheers

Tim

theyre just halogen lamps, which are not low energy in any substantial
sense.

As for CFL life, halogen life is way shorter.


NT

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:05:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Oct 17, 1:23*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:08:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:40*pm, wrote:

Anyone used this type of lamp? * *The image looks like "clear" but
they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?http://www.screwfix.com/prods/71222/...ing-Lamps/Bayo...

why not ask em

Well it would mean going to a branch as I can't see the order line
knowing .That's why I asked in here to see if anyone had used them.

You dont know whether they'll know or not. Help yourself, youre a big
boy now.


NT

I think I've seen enough replies to tell me they are not what I am
looking for clear,frosted or anything else :-)

In article ,
Tim S writes:
I got confused trying to research this. When I googled "HaloLux" I ended up
at Osram's site where they were extolling the benefits of halogen lamps
with a special coating on the glass that reduced energy consumption. They
were claiming 28% savings. But none of the "HaloLux" lamps I could find
were in GLS format. They did have some GLS energy savers, but it wasn't
clear if they were the same technology or not...

I've only seen the IR coating on the 300W and 500W equivalent
linear halogens in this country (225W and 375W respectively).
In the US, you can find them on some other halogens too, but
I think the issue is that anyone bothered about energy saving
isn't going to be using halogens in the first place, so there
isn't much market for energy saving halogens, and the IR coating
bumps up the cost of the lamp quite a bit.

Before anyone asks, I did do a quick lumen/watt calculation from Osram's
datasheet and they are no where near good enough to satisfy Part L low
energy lamp requirements

No filament lamp is (not even the Philips Master Classic).
(Well, a photoflood might be, for the couple of hours it lasts!)

There is work going on to make much more efficient filament
lamps. The basic idea is that the surface of the filament is
marked with a pattern which repeats at wavelength of IR such
as to interfere with the emission of longer IR wavelengths,
giving you a filament which doesn't emit so much IR.

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

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

That doesn't make sense.
If the others are a higher power they take more electricity to run.

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their
cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher
powered halogen with same light output.

That doesn't make sense.
If the others are a higher power they take more electricity to run.

I didn't put that very well -- I mean if you factor in the lamp price,
the electricity savings won't pay for the extra price of the lamp.

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

Tim S wrote:
Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed
by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.

The latter is a bog standard halogen lamp which does not include the
energy saving technology.

The energy saving halogen lamps are extensively used by the National
Trust because they retain the original appearance of incandescent
bulbs while saving that all-important 30%. They also have the
advantage of low UV emissions reducing the rate of ageing of things
like upholstery fabric and wallpaper.

That is interesting - thanks Bruce.


You're welcome.


I'm bored with CFLs that die in 18 months so I might try these.


Me too. Not only do CFLs die quickly, but their performance drops off
dramatically after a few months.

I used to use 20W Philips CFLs which were quite expensive but gave a
soft light and just fitted into some fittings I had installed
throughout the house (five of them). I got fed up with the short
life, deteriorating performance and high cost.

Now I buy 20W GE CFLs from ASDA which give more light when new and
cost a fraction of the price of the Philips CFLs. The light is not
quite as soft but the difference isn't great.

I haven't had them long enough to see if the performance drops off as
quickly, but they are cheap enough to replace them more often if
necessary.

As to their energy saving qualities of CFL bulbs, I think not enough
attention is paid to the energy cost of manufacture. Probably because
the things are made in China.

In article ,
Bruce writes:
As to their energy saving qualities of CFL bulbs, I think not enough
attention is paid to the energy cost of manufacture. Probably because
the things are made in China.

It's part of the manufacturing cost, which is a
small part of the price you paid for them.

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

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Bruce writes:
As to their energy saving qualities of CFL bulbs, I think not enough
attention is paid to the energy cost of manufacture. Probably because
the things are made in China.

It's part of the manufacturing cost, which is a
small part of the price you paid for them.


Why not change the habit of a lifetime and actually read what you are
replying to first? It might help your postings make some sense to
people other than yourself.

I wrote "the energy cost of manufacture". I specifically did not
refer to "the price I paid for them". Money has very little to do
with it because of the low cost of energy in China, thanks to low
wages, low environmental standards and cheap and plentiful coal.

The energy cost of making a CFL bulb (in terms of CO2 emissions) is
apparently very much higher than the energy cost of making an
incandescent bulb. You have to set that energy cost against the
saving in CO2 emissions the bulb will offer against an incandescent
bulb used for the same number of hours per year.

The arguments in favour of using CFL bulbs include longer life than
incandescent bulbs. However, my experience so far (and I have been
using CFLs - and not so compact FLs - for over a decade now) is that
the claims of longer life are not supportable. So in my experience,
the higher energy cost of manufacturing CFLs is certainly not offset
by a longer life before replacement is needed.

I would like to see a properly constructed study of the energy cost of
manufacturing and transporting CFLs, versus the energy saved through
lower power consumption, factoring in a realistic expectation of life
before replacement. all compared to the same for incandescent bulbs. I
would approach the results with a completely open mind, however I feel
sure that the CO2 savings currently claimed for CFL bulbs are likely
to be shown to be highly over-optimistic.

None of this involves the monetary aspect; I am happy to pay more for
environmentally friendly lighting and, indeed, I have been doing
exactly that for the last decade. It just occurs to me that CFLs are
not nearly as environmentally advantageous as claimed.