Mike wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:03:45 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.

Which is why I've stockpiled boxes full of incandescent lamps ahead of
the upcoming 'ban' These energy saving ones need another decade of
development before they reach my acceptance threshold. LED's will
take at least another two decades but neither will come close to the
high quality light from Joseph Swan's invention of 1878.


Oh, there are some very interesting direct excitation phosphors around.
For OLED type stuff.

But in a decade it will be irrelevant, as nuclear power will mean the
incandescent lightbulb becomes overall the cheapest and lowest carbon
form of domestic heating ;-)

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:03:45 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.

Which is why I've stockpiled boxes full of incandescent lamps ahead of
the upcoming 'ban' These energy saving ones need another decade of
development before they reach my acceptance threshold. LED's will
take at least another two decades but neither will come close to the
high quality light from Joseph Swan's invention of 1878.


Me too :-) Every shopping trip I come back with another couple of 100W
incandescent lamps. I just don't like the quality of light produced by
the energy saving lamps and also the fact they are not as bright as
claimed by the manufacturers on the box. 100w = 20w = ********.
--
David in Normandy.
To e-mail you must include the password FROG on the
subject line, or it will be automatically deleted
by a filter and not reach my inbox.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:29:26 +0000 someone who may be Bruce
wrote this:-

I was an enthusiastic 'early adopter' of CFL bulbs. A few years on,

Then you were not an early adopter. I have one which I bought in the
early 1980s and which was still working yesterday evening. It does
behave the way the antis claim all such lamps behave, it is slow to
start. However, I have been using more recent lamps in places like
the toilet for over a decade and for say the past five years on the
stairs. They start quickly enough for these applications.

Over the years some have failed. One failed more quickly than I
expected, but no others have done (other than a couple I broke
through my own stupidity).

Because of this it is easy for me to spot the bogus claims of the
antis and warn those who may be influenced by the loud claims of the
antis that there are many of us who are more than satisfied with
compact fluorescent lamps.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article
,
tonyjeffs wrote:
I recently installed a 35w energy saver bulb in my office. It is
claimed to be the equivalent of a 200w incandescent lamp, but in
practice it is nowhere near as bright, and the harsh colour is
unpleasant.
Low energy bulbs cost more to make, and more to dispose of - if
disposed of properly. They pollute with with mercury.

You can achieve a big saving by choosing an appropriate lampshade. A
white shade that is open at the bottom, and does not completely
enclose the bulb at the sides, like an inverted v shape for example,
will in my experience be twice as bright as a coloured semi-enclosing
shade. I have happily replaced the 35 watt energy saver with a 60
watt conventional.

In future, I'll be sticking with old fashioned light bulbs and open
shades.

Plain ol' fluorescent lighting is far more suitable for an office - larger
light source so more even. There is a big variety of specialist tubes
available for those who don't like the light colour of standard ones. And
using fittings with electronic ballasts gets round the flicker thing that
annoys some.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

On Nov 7, 9:35*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:14:25 GMT, "BigWallop"

wrote:

The actual relation that should be consider as
equaling the luminescence, is the colour of light given off by the source.

confusion of 2 different things


They may be energy saving in the fact they use less electrical power to make
light, but do they give the same colour of light that filament lamps do.
That's what should really be considered.

It's quite a complicated business, however, fluorescent lamp spectra
are very spiky and the results you perceive depend on whether the
colours you are working with fall into a spike or a trough in the
spectrum. Some Fl. lamps are better than others. The better phosphors
are newer and more expensive. What will you get if you buy CFLs at 2
for 99p, or for free even? What do you think ? * *;-) *

normally triphosphor, which perform well. Dyas does 3x Osrams for £1,
and those are very good quality lamps.


Now they are calling them Warm
White Etc. just to get passed the fact that the warmth of light is not
equivalent.

CCT is equivalent for a lot of CFLs, but not all. Consumer choice plus
ignorant consumers is an issue thats always dogged fluorescent
technology.


When challenged to justify their claims for equivalent GLS light
output the CFL manufacturers said their lamps were equivalent to
"Pearl" GLS lamps. This was a lie.

Challenged further they had to admit the actual comparison was made
against "Pearl" GLS lamps in "Fashion Decor" type colours - "Harvest",
"Apple Green", "Mal de Mere Blue", "Titty Pink" or somesuch.

For some reason they wouldn't say exactly which ...

That tells us there's marketing nonsense about. That's true of any
product, and tells us nothing about cfls.


NT

On Nov 7, 10:26*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:17:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:08*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:12:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Strange that you didnt pick bulbs with equivalent outputs to begin
with. And since cfls fade more, start with a cfl with a bit higher
output.

FSVO "a bit". *IE a lot more than double.

even your figures dont support that

Oh but they do.

no

When a product is promoted as having a life of 6yrs, 8 yrs, or even
15. It should be capable of meeting the spec by which it was sold over
that length of time.

It does. The lumen spec is given as when new. Same is true with
filament lamps, whch also fall in output over time, but less


I was being generous to a fault in picking the 12 month light output.

I went by what it said on the (CFL) box.

from what you told us it appears you didn't. The stated equivalents
are not comparisons to GLS filmament lamps, but another lamp type.

??

You already confirmed they werent compared to GLSes, but to tinted
filament lamps.


The stated equivalents are marketing bs which unfortunately holds the CFL
market back a fair bit.

I just expect products to perform as the sales people say they will.

Then youve got a thing or 2 to learn about life.


If you had selected equivalent output lamps your story would obviously
be different

Indeed, the price and the size of the lamps would be different and the
whole CFl proposition less justifyable.

yawn


15w CFLs come from any CFL supplier.

But not generally in supermarkets

wonder what supermarkets you've been shopping in


And the TCO is less than for filament lamps.

If they sold them, I suppose it might be. But the CFl's still don't
meet what is claimed for them.

You misunderstood the claims. And still do.


And the figures given in this thread dont take account of the
heating effect of filament lamps. For a proper comparison see
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index....#Sample_Saving....

and more energy and more mercury would
have been used in their construction.

Derek

this is small compared to electrical energy saving. And less toxic
thorium.

It would have been helpful if the government had let us scrutinise
that argument, in fact all the arguments. But EU you see !

Derek

The governement hasnt suppressed any information on CFLs. We are
scrutinising the argument right now.


NT

On Nov 8, 2:02*am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:



Bruce wrote:
Derek Geldard wrote:

7.5 years my arse. They are as dim as a Toc H lantern after a couple
of hundred hours service.

The ones I measured were down 48% after 12 months.

That's my experience too. *I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.

I was an enthusiastic 'early adopter' of CFL bulbs. *A few years on, I
have come to the conclusion that they are a waste of money; I doubt
they save much energy, given the energy cost of making them and
disposing of them properly, and their short working life.

I also was an early adopter back in about 1979/80. In view of the
comparative cost at the time, ( about £12 compared to 15p for filament), I
made a point of marking the date.I was also concerned about their weight in
those days, pondering as to whether the electric wires from ceiling roses
would sustain the load. I found that the early ones were very slow to start
and did fade significantly over time. Having said that, most lasted 5 to7
years.

They had inductive ballasts (hence the weight) *which were
intinsically more reliable but less efficient and more expensive.
AFAICR they did also have a glow switch starter, which in general
don't last 7 years, but it does depend on how many "starts" you do.

snip

Derek

present cfls also use inductive ballasts. I guess its easy to
criticise what you dont understand


NT

On Nov 8, 1:49*am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:06:26 -0000, "John"
wrote:



What is your job?

For the last 21 years I have been developing, selling, and servicing
specialist precision X-ray illuminators which use specially made
daylight fluorescent tubes of a non-standard shape.

Whenever I see any kind of new fluorescent tubes, or any new lighting
systems coming onto the market I buy samples and test them.

All (thermionic) fluorescent tubes IME exhibit warm-up for the first
few mins, are stable for a couple of hours then a fatigue effect sets
in and light output tails off. They exhibit a short term memory effect
and remember if they have been recently used. From day 1 maximum light
output begins to fall measurably as they permanently wear out. These
are all serious concerns in the application I am involved with.

For this reason even such mundane things as illuminated signs
(Eg.petrol stations) now have ballasts which can be computer
controlled, in order to achieve an even illumination between/across
different sections if, for instance, a section has to be replaced.

http://snipurl.com/57xf7*[www_sylvania_com]

So I find it mildly amusing when I see people like Hansen claim his 20
year old Philips "Jamjar" bulb strikes immediately, is up to full
brightness within seconds, is just as bright as ever it was, and for
that matter the CFl manufacturers claim "on the box" of lifetimes of
6, 8, or even 15 years is realistic. CFl's BTW deteriorate faster than
linear tubes because the plasma scours the phosphor away on the bends.

It would also be quite a challenge to design an electronic ballast
that can be made in China, shipped to Europe, and sold retail for 49p
(including it's lamp) and reliably last 6, 8, or 15 years. In any
event it is not my experience, which is closer to 1 year or less.

Derek

Again the mfr claims aren't 15 yrs but rather 15 yrs if you use it
under specified conditions, which naturally are low use conditions.


NT

On 08 Nov 2008 00:25:07 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:
I made some measurements comparing a 60w GLS filament lamp with a
claimed to be 60w equivalent CFL. So I dutifully bought a 60w pearl
GLS lamp from Tesco (16p) and set up an experiment with a luxmeter
(taped so as not to move) on the outside of the lampshade.

I will agree with you that output is not what's claimed
when compared with a filament lamp, but your measurement
method is flawed. To measure the light output, you need
what's referred to as an integrating sphere to sum the
light output in all directions. This is particularly
important when light distribution is not uniform, and
it's a long way from uniform from a CFL. It's not
perfect from a filament lamp, but that's nearer
to being uniform (particaularly pearl ones).

That's all very wll if you're writing a scientific paper, or a marketing
piece - but in practice what's important is the amount of light from
the bulb taht is reflected off whatever you're looking at, that reaches
your eye. So while you're correct in theory - in practice the important
thing is the users' perception of brightness, which seems to be what the
Lux meter is measuring.

Derek Geldard wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:29:26 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:

7.5 years my arse. They are as dim as a Toc H lantern after a couple
of hundred hours service.

The ones I measured were down 48% after 12 months.


That's my experience too. I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.


Ditto.

I was an enthusiastic 'early adopter' of CFL bulbs.

Ditto.

In this dining/computer room (21 feet x 12) I have 8 x11 watt cfls +1
23 watt CFL "mushroom lamp". My wife is in the room next door (23 feet
x 12) has 6 x 9watt cfl's + 3 x 13 watt cfl's on.

The whole lot need to be changed before Christmas. (+ the 3 outside
and the one in the kitchen ! )

A few years on, I
have come to the conclusion that they are a waste of money; I doubt
they save much energy, given the energy cost of making them and
disposing of them properly, and their short working life.

Of course the vast majority won't be disposed of properly. They will
just go into landfill and their mercury content will leach out over
time.


Our local council has a facility at the local tip for disposing of Fl.
lamps. It's just a metal box about 3 x 3 x 8 feet open at one end.
People just come and chuck lamps in which then smash, it's open to the
weather so the contents such as mercury, and phosphors, and
contaminated lamp parts get washed out and scattered around the
environment. It would appear the Council are happy about this.

CFLs are useful for politicians because they give the appearance of
doing something meaningful about climate change.


It's more to do with getting European GLS lamp factories closed and
their workers on the dole so that small cheap cfl's can be imported
for practically nothing from China. The big manufacturers (Philips in
particular) lobbied the EU for it.

The EU said "Jump", Prescot said "How high".


Ah, the wonders of globalisation.

Another reason for exporting industrial production to China is that it
appears to reduce the EU's carbon emissions. In world terms, it
increases them, because China's industries are far more inefficient in
terms of CO2 emitted per unit of manufacture, and there is also the
CO2 aspect of shipping the items back to Europe.

EU governments are very good at appearing to want to do something
about climate change while doing nothing, or making it worse.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:54:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:


It would also be quite a challenge to design an electronic ballast
that can be made in China, shipped to Europe, and sold retail for 49p
(including it's lamp) and reliably last 6, 8, or 15 years. In any
event it is not my experience, which is closer to 1 year or less.

Derek

Again the mfr claims aren't 15 yrs but rather 15 yrs if you use it
under specified conditions, which naturally are low use conditions.


Known in the trade as "The Shoesalesman's Excuse" ...

"You've been using these"

Derek

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 8, 2:02*am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


present cfls also use inductive ballasts.

Gettaway !

I never said they didn't. It would be more correct to say that "high
frequency solid state ballasts also use inductors". The ballast as a
whole would not accurately be best described as "inductive".

I guess its easy to criticise what you dont understand


So I see.

Derek

On 8 Nov, 00:29, Mike wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:03:45 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:
If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.

Which is why I've stockpiled boxes full of incandescent lamps ahead of
the upcoming 'ban' * These energy saving ones need another decade of
development before they reach my acceptance threshold. *LED's will
take at least another two decades but neither will come close to the
high quality light from Joseph Swan's invention of 1878.

--

LEDs are advancing at reasonable pace, there are actual 100 lumen per
Watt parts availiable, CFL barely hits 80 l/W. Getting that in a lamp
that has similar `wall plug ` efficiency might take a bit though. Like
fluro, in commercial sector there are some very nice LED solutions but
they are cost prohibitive for domestic installation.

Sir Joseph`s developments were certainly a big step forward, never
mind that American guy and the $50K he spent buying a similar idea
from some Canadians, another 80 years on and Elmer Fridrich`s
developments led to what would personally still agree with him as "the
most beautiful light quality of anything on the market" halogen:

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2...ventor_el.html

Adam

In article ,
writes:
CCT is equivalent for a lot of CFLs, but not all. Consumer choice plus
ignorant consumers is an issue thats always dogged fluorescent
technology.

CCT are less efficient because the cold cathode has a high 'fall'
voltage at the electrodes which wastes power (and ironically given
the name, makes the tube ends much hotter). This effect is minimised
by making long tubes so the loss at the cathodes becomes a small
proportion of the tube power, but that doesn't lend itself to making
compact light source suitable for folding into something lightbulb
sized. Where CCT's could win in theory is that they should be easily
dimmed using bog-standard phase control dimmers (subject to dimmer's
minimum load). The only one I've played with explicitly stated "not
suitable for dimming" on it, which is completely barmy -- it dimmed
perfectly, and the circuit had nothing about it which was unsuitable
for dimming.

In terms of colour, there's no reason they need to be different from
standard fluorescents (with thermionic electodes). Run-up time might
be different for a number of reasons. Longer tubes might take longer
for mercury to diffuse along the full tube length (particularly
important after a long time without being used), and the higher
operating temperature means there's a bigger difference between the
cold and operating temperature which means they may be dimmer at
switchon. Tube life should be longer (very much longer if cylindrical
cold cathode electrodes are used) and control gear slightly simpler.

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

In article ,
writes:
It does. The lumen spec is given as when new. Same is true with
filament lamps, whch also fall in output over time, but less

The 'new' lumen spec for a fluorescent tube is generally specified at
100 hours old. For the first 100 hours, the tube needs to 'run in',
and light output isn't representitive of anything useful.

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

In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:
I also was an early adopter back in about 1979/80. In view of the

Likewise!

I picked up one of the early beta Philips SL18's (the first
compact fluorescent with integral control gear) from Mullard
in Torrington Place. They were available for about a week, I
think towards the end of 1980 (I might be able to hunt down
the paperwork). They were free, but you had to fill in a
questionaire and try them in a number of places. Philips
actually took the trouble of writing a personal response
back, answering the issues I raised on the questionaire.
I don't know if they did this for everyone.

Mine started smelling of burning polystyrene, and they wanted
it back to investigate, but they sent me a free real SL18 a
few months later when they started manufacturing them.

It was still working in 1984 when I accidentally left it
behind in a rented house. I still have an SL9 (working but
not in use) and an SL25 (at my parents' in a standard lamp).
However, these are more recent, as it was some considerable
time after the SL18 that other power ratings were launched.

comparative cost at the time, ( about £12 compared to 15p for filament), I
made a point of marking the date.I was also concerned about their weight in
those days, pondering as to whether the electric wires from ceiling roses
would sustain the load. I found that the early ones were very slow to start
and did fade significantly over time. Having said that, most lasted 5 to7
years.

They had inductive ballasts (hence the weight) which were
intinsically more reliable but less efficient and more expensive.

At that time, there was no choice. Electronic control gear
was too big and to expensive. Philips did always intend to
use electronic control gear eventually (that's in their
letter to me), but they didn't want to delay the product
until electronic control gear became viable.

Thorn Lighting launched a competitve product which they had
been working on before Philips; this was the 16W 2D fluorescent
tube. It came with a ballast which plugged into a standard BC
lampholder. With the ballast and 2D tube being separate, when
the tube died, you just replaced that (and it included a glow
starter in the tube base). The Thorn Lighting 2D product was
shorter than the SL18, but with the tube fitted, significantly
fatter. That often meant one could be used where the other
didn't fit. The 2D tube remains available today and has grown
in popularity to many power ratings from 10W to 55W, and 4-pin
versions too for use with electronic and dimming control gear.
GE (who bought Thorn's lamp division) stopped making the BC
adaptors around 10-15 years ago, but the 2D lamp is now used
in purpose-designed fittings. Its large flat shape makes it
particulary good for designing high efficiency lighting
systems, and it seems to suffer slightly less than most
other compact fluorescents from dim starting. I use it
quite a bit in light fittings I've designed and built.

AFAICR they did also have a glow switch starter, which in general
don't last 7 years, but it does depend on how many "starts" you do.

SL18 (and original 2D) did indeed have a standard glowstarter
in them. A glow starter will outlast very many tubes (and of
course, the compact fluorescent only gets one tube!). What
kills glow starters is leaving them trying to start a dead
tube for days on end, as happens in commercial installations,
so it's common in commercial installations to replace the
starter when relamping (as the starter cost is nothing
compared with relamping costs).

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

On Nov 8, 12:15*am, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * John Rumm writes:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 UTC, "Toby" wrote:

If you replace a 60w bulb with an 11w bulb, you are saving 49w

Unfortunately, the light output is not equivalent, however.

It will be equivalent to 40-45W filament lamp, unless it's a
reflector lamp in which case that drops considerably.

For plain lamps, use a 1:4 power ratio, and ignore the
equivalence on the box. For reflector lamps, that will drop
to 1:3 for physically large ones, and 1:2 for small ones.

Indeed - or at least its claimed equivalent is to a bulb type that no
one actually seems to use (i.e. "soft tone").

I did find one CFL that was almost ok a few weeks back though. Its a
Megaman ultra compact candle. About the same physical size as a candle
bulb and claimed to match a 40W lamp for brightness. To be fair it is
actually quite close in brightness and colour temperature. Note tried it
in the absence of tungsten light yet, so I can't comment on how bad its
spectra discontinuities are. The down sides being the purchase price as
quite high (£7 approx), and while not particularly objectionable to look
at, it was not as attractive as a clear filament lamp when used in open
fittings.

10W CFL is about the highest power you can get at the moment
which is physcially no bigger than its filament equivalent.
This is slowly improving over time as CFLs can be made smaller,
but the smaller ones are less efficient, so don't chose the
physically smaller ones unless small size is important.

Tesco 12w microspiral


NT

On Nov 8, 2:26*pm, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:

CCT is equivalent for a lot of CFLs, but not all. Consumer choice plus
ignorant consumers is an issue thats always dogged fluorescent
technology.

CCT are less efficient because the cold cathode has a high 'fall'
voltage at the electrodes which wastes power (and ironically given
the name, makes the tube ends much hotter). This effect is minimised
by making long tubes so the loss at the cathodes becomes a small
proportion of the tube power, but that doesn't lend itself to making
compact light source suitable for folding into something lightbulb
sized. Where CCT's could win in theory is that they should be easily
dimmed using bog-standard phase control dimmers (subject to dimmer's
minimum load). The only one I've played with explicitly stated "not
suitable for dimming" on it, which is completely barmy -- it dimmed
perfectly, and the circuit had nothing about it which was unsuitable
for dimming.

CCT means colour temperature


NT

On Nov 8, 12:36*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:02*am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:

present cfls also use inductive ballasts.

Gettaway !

I never said they didn't. It would be more correct to say that "high
frequency solid state ballasts also use inductors".

they use transformers.

In article ,
writes:
On Nov 8, 2:26*pm, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:

CCT is equivalent for a lot of CFLs, but not all. Consumer choice plus
ignorant consumers is an issue thats always dogged fluorescent
technology.

CCT are less efficient because the cold cathode has a high 'fall'
voltage at the electrodes which wastes power (and ironically given
the name, makes the tube ends much hotter). This effect is minimised
by making long tubes so the loss at the cathodes becomes a small
proportion of the tube power, but that doesn't lend itself to making
compact light source suitable for folding into something lightbulb
sized. Where CCT's could win in theory is that they should be easily
dimmed using bog-standard phase control dimmers (subject to dimmer's
minimum load). The only one I've played with explicitly stated "not
suitable for dimming" on it, which is completely barmy -- it dimmed
perfectly, and the circuit had nothing about it which was unsuitable
for dimming.
CCT means colour temperature

Normally used to refer to Cold Cathode Tubes in the context of
fluorescent lighting (which is what my posting relates to).

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

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 18:19:12 UTC, wrote:

On Nov 8, 12:36Â*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:02Â*am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:

present cfls also use inductive ballasts.

Gettaway !

I never said they didn't. It would be more correct to say that "high
frequency solid state ballasts also use inductors".

they use transformers.

i.e. inductors...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard writes:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:
I also was an early adopter back in about 1979/80. In view of the

Likewise!

I picked up one of the early beta Philips SL18's (the first
compact fluorescent with integral control gear) from Mullard
in Torrington Place. They were available for about a week, I
think towards the end of 1980 (I might be able to hunt down
the paperwork). They were free, but you had to fill in a
questionaire and try them in a number of places. Philips
actually took the trouble of writing a personal response
back, answering the issues I raised on the questionaire.
I don't know if they did this for everyone.

Mine started smelling of burning polystyrene, and they wanted
it back to investigate, but they sent me a free real SL18 a
few months later when they started manufacturing them.


You're lucky. I had to pay for all mine, and they were *expensive".

They were so big that you had to be careful when choosing fittings to
go for one that would take the things. It took several attempts to
find a bulkhead fitting that would take them - I took the bulb with me
and tried it in each one.

On 8 Nov, 18:15, wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:26*pm, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:



In article ,
* * * * writes:

CCT is equivalent for a lot of CFLs, but not all. Consumer choice plus
ignorant consumers is an issue thats always dogged fluorescent
technology.

CCT are less efficient because the cold cathode has a high 'fall'
voltage at the electrodes which wastes power (and ironically given
the name, makes the tube ends much hotter). This effect is minimised
by making long tubes so the loss at the cathodes becomes a small
proportion of the tube power, but that doesn't lend itself to making
compact light source suitable for folding into something lightbulb
sized. Where CCT's could win in theory is that they should be easily
dimmed using bog-standard phase control dimmers (subject to dimmer's
minimum load). The only one I've played with explicitly stated "not
suitable for dimming" on it, which is completely barmy -- it dimmed
perfectly, and the circuit had nothing about it which was unsuitable
for dimming.

CCT means colour temperature

NT

Correlated Colour Temperature to be pedantic, because fluro is a
discontinuous spectrum, always called Cold Cathode CCFL but against
Compact Fluorescent Lamp, CFL , can just add to confusion. Cold
cathode is not super efficient though. Very long lived though most LCD
backlights are cold cathode.

Adam

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:15:17 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:41:53 +0000 someone who may be Derek Geldard
wrote this:-

But doesn't include the cost of paying for white sticks &/or
nightscopes for the family and all the visitors, or alternatively the
misery and inconvenience of living in perpetual gloom.

Yawn. Change the record.

Excellent, abuse. The last resort...

I thought that was John O'Groates


--
geoff

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That's my experience too. I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.

You must be buying different ones to me. My CFL are three - four years
old and still start quickly and don't appear to be dim. They are also a
nicer colour being daylight rather than yellow. I am amazed that people
say they prefer the bluer light from halogens and then say daylight CFL
are too white.

Halogen lamps tend towards the red end of the spectrum - not blue.

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That's my experience too. I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.

You must be buying different ones to me. My CFL are three - four years
old and still start quickly and don't appear to be dim. They are also a
nicer colour being daylight rather than yellow. I am amazed that people
say they prefer the bluer light from halogens and then say daylight CFL
are too white.

Halogen lamps tend towards the red end of the spectrum - not blue.

They are closer to the blue end than normal tungsten.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Halogen lamps tend towards the red end of the spectrum - not blue.

They are closer to the blue end than normal tungsten.

They are less red.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

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

wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 02:51:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:02 am, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:27:14 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:
present cfls also use inductive ballasts.
Gettaway !

I never said they didn't. It would be more correct to say that "high
frequency solid state ballasts also use inductors".

they use transformers.
Transformer is an inductor :-)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That's my experience too. I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.

You must be buying different ones to me. My CFL are three - four years
old and still start quickly and don't appear to be dim. They are also a
nicer colour being daylight rather than yellow. I am amazed that people
say they prefer the bluer light from halogens and then say daylight CFL
are too white.

Halogen lamps tend towards the red end of the spectrum - not blue.

But they are bluer than stock incandescent.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That's my experience too. I replace mine every year, before they get
too dim to be of any use.

You must be buying different ones to me. My CFL are three - four years
old and still start quickly and don't appear to be dim. They are also a
nicer colour being daylight rather than yellow. I am amazed that people
say they prefer the bluer light from halogens and then say daylight CFL
are too white.

Halogen lamps tend towards the red end of the spectrum - not blue.

But they are bluer than stock incandescent.

Halogens can be made to run very slightly hotter than GLS filament
lamps, or made to last longer, or somewhere on a sliding scale between.
Most halogens sold for domestic use run at exactly same temperature as
GLS filament lamps. People won't pay the premium for lamps which don't
last any longer, so manufacturers have to make them long life instead.
The other benefit is they mix well with GLS without showing a different
colour temperature.

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

On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:14:21 UTC, Owain
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
they use transformers.
Transformer is an inductor :-)

Wouldn't it be two inductors in a magnetic circuit?

Not necessarily. What about an autotransformer?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:14:21 UTC, Owain
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
they use transformers.
Transformer is an inductor :-)
Wouldn't it be two inductors in a magnetic circuit?

Not necessarily. What about an autotransformer?

Thats simply two connected in series ;-)

Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

A glow starter will outlast very many tubes

Hmmm. In the 18 years I've lived in this house, I've replaced more glow starters
then I can remember (in the garage and shed), but I've never bought a tube.

That was my experience being nominally in charge of office electrics
too. About 10 starters per tube replacement rate. E=arly 90s technology.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

A glow starter will outlast very many tubes

Hmmm. In the 18 years I've lived in this house, I've replaced more glow starters
then I can remember (in the garage and shed), but I've never bought a tube.

That was my experience being nominally in charge of office electrics
too. About 10 starters per tube replacement rate. E=arly 90s technology.

Well, these aren't my experiance at all.
Some domestic fittings don't even allow you to change the
starter without finding a screwdriver to open up the case,
as in domestic situations where dead tubes aren't left trying
to start repeatedly for weeks on end, a glow starter will
usually outlast the replacement of the light fitting when
a room has a major refurb.

What symptoms of starter failure were you observing?

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

Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-10, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

A glow starter will outlast very many tubes
Hmmm. In the 18 years I've lived in this house, I've replaced more glow starters
then I can remember (in the garage and shed), but I've never bought a tube.

That was my experience being nominally in charge of office electrics
too. About 10 starters per tube replacement rate. E=arly 90s technology.
Well, these aren't my experiance at all.
Some domestic fittings don't even allow you to change the
starter without finding a screwdriver to open up the case,
as in domestic situations where dead tubes aren't left trying
to start repeatedly for weeks on end, a glow starter will
usually outlast the replacement of the light fitting when
a room has a major refurb.

What symptoms of starter failure were you observing?

The tubes wouldn't start. Fitted a new starter and they would.

I wonder if this is another voltage or start temperature related issue?
I think I have only ever had top replace a starter once, but tubes
several times.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-10, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

A glow starter will outlast very many tubes
Hmmm. In the 18 years I've lived in this house, I've replaced more glow starters
then I can remember (in the garage and shed), but I've never bought a tube.

That was my experience being nominally in charge of office electrics
too. About 10 starters per tube replacement rate. E=arly 90s technology.
Well, these aren't my experiance at all.
Some domestic fittings don't even allow you to change the
starter without finding a screwdriver to open up the case,
as in domestic situations where dead tubes aren't left trying
to start repeatedly for weeks on end, a glow starter will
usually outlast the replacement of the light fitting when
a room has a major refurb.

What symptoms of starter failure were you observing?

The tubes wouldn't start. Fitted a new starter and they would.

)


yeah. That is fairly much the way it usually goes.. ;-)

John Rumm wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-10, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-11-08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

A glow starter will outlast very many tubes
Hmmm. In the 18 years I've lived in this house, I've replaced more
glow starters
then I can remember (in the garage and shed), but I've never bought
a tube.

That was my experience being nominally in charge of office electrics
too. About 10 starters per tube replacement rate. E=arly 90s
technology.
Well, these aren't my experiance at all.
Some domestic fittings don't even allow you to change the
starter without finding a screwdriver to open up the case,
as in domestic situations where dead tubes aren't left trying
to start repeatedly for weeks on end, a glow starter will
usually outlast the replacement of the light fitting when
a room has a major refurb.

What symptoms of starter failure were you observing?

The tubes wouldn't start. Fitted a new starter and they would.

I wonder if this is another voltage or start temperature related issue?
I think I have only ever had top replace a starter once, but tubes
several times.

A lot depends on how often they are switched.

Obviously if you leave them permanently on, the starter never goes..

But we used to switch our office lights off at least once a day when
leaving.

In article ,
Huge writes:
On 2008-11-11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A lot depends on how often they are switched.

Obviously if you leave them permanently on, the starter never goes..

But we used to switch our office lights off at least once a day when
leaving.

These are in my (integral) garage where the freezers are, and get switched on
and off anything up to 15 or 20 times a day.

I also have integral garage with freezer!
I fitted instant-start electronic ballasts in the fluorescent lamps,
mainly because I'm often in there for only a few seconds, and I
didn't want most of that to be in the dark whilst the fluorescents
are preheating. They're switched automatically by an occupancy
sensor with a 20 minute timer (actually part of my home automation
rather than a dedicated unit).

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

On 8 Nov, 10:31, wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:35*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:14:25 GMT, "BigWallop"

wrote:
The actual relation that should be consider as
equaling the luminescence, is the colour of light given off by the source.

confusion of 2 different things

They may be energy saving in the fact they use less electrical power to make
light, but do they give the same colour of light that filament lamps do.
That's what should really be considered.

It's quite a complicated business, however, fluorescent lamp spectra
are very spiky and the results you perceive depend on whether the
colours you are working with fall into a spike or a trough in the
spectrum. Some Fl. lamps are better than others. The better phosphors
are newer and more expensive. What will you get if you buy CFLs at 2
for 99p, or for free even? What do you think ? * *;-) *

normally triphosphor, which perform well. Dyas does 3x Osrams for £1,
and those are very good quality lamps.

Now they are calling them Warm
White Etc. just to get passed the fact that the warmth of light is not
equivalent.



... there's marketing nonsense about. That's true of any
product, and tells us nothing about cfls.

I'm still extremely leery of CFLs, even though I use them extensively.
Colour rendition, even under triphosphors, is pretty poor. A CRI of
80-85 doesn't really work for me, especially as the spikiness of the
spectrum makes some colours render appallingly, even when using 'good'
CFLs.

One of the bigger issues for me is the poor dimming performance of
CFLs. Dimmable ones are on the market now, but the dimming range is
less than tungsten lamps (they don't do low light levels well), and
the colour temperature remains the same as they get dimmer, which give
a very odd effect when you are expecting the much 'warmer' spectrum of
a dimmed tungsten. Of course, some people don't like the colour of
tungsten lighting, which shows that tastes do indeed differ.

I'm currently using GE CFLs bought from Tesco's, which were on offer
at 68p each, and I think they are a vast improvement on earlier CFL
implementations. Pretty much instant-on, and the colour temperature
pretty much exactly matches tungsten lamps (which is what I want) -
I'm actually running them in a fitting where one lamp is tungsten
incandescent and one CFL. CRI is 82. Not dimmable though. The actual
lamp is GE 200-240V 2700K Warm White ES E27 11 W, labelled in very
small letters 'ecoimagination' and claiming a 10 year lifetime. GE
product description is FLE11TBX/T3/827/E27 220-240V 1/8T 10Y, product
code 72689 on page 93 of the November 08 GE catalogue.

The packaging is another example of marketing 'though. It claims the
11W is equivalent to 60W, and even gives a comparison of a 60W
incandescent providing 620 Lm, and itself offering 640 Lm. The only
problem with that is that a standard 240 V GLS 60W (Frosted) gives
700 lumen, and it is the so-called 'softlight elegance' that offers
only 620 lumen.

Oh, and I'm no fan of ES lamp connectors either. I far prefer BC. I
didn't choose the lumieres.

Regards,

Sid

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:53:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The packaging is another example of marketing 'though. It claims the
11W is equivalent to 60W, and even gives a comparison of a 60W
incandescent providing 620 Lm, and itself offering 640 Lm. The only
problem with that is that a standard 240 V GLS 60W (Frosted) gives
700 lumen, and it is the so-called 'softlight elegance' that offers
only 620 lumen.

After the initial discussion here about the brightness of these bulbs
I did some real-life tests. The setup was a sheet of A0 white paper
(from a flip-chart) laid flat on a table underneath a ceiling hung
light fitting with a lampshade. I pointed my DSLR at the paper and
noted the exposure timing. All other parameters remaining constant.

With a "normal" 60W pearl bulb the exposure meter reported 1/90 sec.
With an 11W CFL, the meter said 1/60 sec.
With an 8W CFL the meter also read 1/60 sec.

While I'm only looking at _relative_ measurements, and I was concerned
only with light for reading by (hence seeing what was reflected off the
paper), it supported my view that CFLs were dimmer than tungsten bulbs.
The interesting result was that 8W bulbs threw just as much light in
a downwards direction as the 11W bulbs. I reckon this is because the
light is projected downwards off the end of the bulbs, not off the
body. Since 11W bulbs have longer bodies, but the same x-section, the
usable light output is the same. The sideways emitted light is largely
absorbed by the lamp shade (hence it's name!), even though it had a matte
white interior.

Now I'm quite happy to accept the manufacturers' claims that the absolute
light output, measured in laboratory conditions, is similar to tungstens.
However, I have convinced myself that in a normal domestic ceiling-hung
fitting, the shape of the bulb reduces the amount of usable light by far
too much.