It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good
with the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be
anything like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able
to see. In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to
get the same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a light on for
most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows) but for
times when you want good light for a few hours or something and you
still want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a try.

"Gary" wrote in message
...
It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like
them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good with
the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be anything
like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able to see.

If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.
Fitting some fashion item and then trying to find a bulb to make it work is
not the way to go.
There is a reason why fluorescent tubes are used in place where people need
to see. ;-)

In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to get the
same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a light on for
most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows) but for
times when you want good light for a few hours or something and you still
want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a try.

I recommend 250w metal halide lamps myself, far easier to see with than
halogen.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Gary" wrote in message
...
It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like
them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good with
the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be
anything like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able to
see.

If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.
Fitting some fashion item and then trying to find a bulb to make it work
is not the way to go.
There is a reason why fluorescent tubes are used in place where people
need to see. ;-)

In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to get the
same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a light on for
most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows) but for
times when you want good light for a few hours or something and you still
want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a try.

I recommend 250w metal halide lamps myself, far easier to see with than
halogen.

How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real world. I
only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I should use them
throughout the house.

Slider wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Gary" wrote in message
...
It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which
everyone agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I
like them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling
roses, and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the
other. The difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light
bulb is so much brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on.
Plus they look good with the clear envelope and the little halogen
capsule inside. I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy
savers will be
anything like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be
able to see.

If you want a lamp to see by then buy a better lamp.
Fitting some fashion item and then trying to find a bulb to make it
work is not the way to go.
There is a reason why fluorescent tubes are used in place where
people need to see. ;-)

In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to
get the same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten
filament. I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a
light on
for most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows)
but for times when you want good light for a few hours or something
and you still want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a
try.

I recommend 250w metal halide lamps myself, far easier to see with
than halogen.

How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real
world. I only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I
should use them throughout the house.

It depends on what wattage bulb you fit, and what was there before.

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

So, lets assume this 60w bulb was used every day for an average of 4 hours.
In a year, the 60w bulb will use 87.6 units of electricity and the 11w bulb
would use 16.06 units

So you are saving 71.84 units of power per year, for this lamp.

If you were paying 12p per unit, this is a cost saving of £8.62 for this one
lamp.

You also have to take in to consideration the cost of the bulb too, but as
energy savings bulbs generally last a lot longer than filament bulbs, you
should still be saving money.

I did this analysis for some 50 lamps we have in our office a while ago...



Assuming electricity is about 11p per KW/h

Non energy saving lamps of this type consume 50w and last 2,500 hours at a
cost of £3.15
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica.../LAH6350ES.pdf
These consume 11w, and last 15,000 hours
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica...Data_Sheet.pdf

So already they are cheaper, as 6 50w ones will cost £18.90



Most of them seem to be an all day
Let's assume they are on 250 days a year to make it easy

If they are on for 8 hours a day, the normal ones will use 100 units of
power, or £11 per year

Energy saving ones will consume 22 units, or £2.42

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years, so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.
(Even if this estimate is off, it makes no difference, they will just be in
service for more or less time)

We have 34 of these lamps in the office, so that's a saving of £2187.9 over
the life of the lamps.

Take off the difference in cost between the "cheap" lamps (£3.15 x 34 x 6 =
£642.6 ( x6 because they only last 2500 hours!) and the cost of 34
"expensive" lamps (£268.6),

.....and the saving is £2561.9 over the life of the lamps


Toby...

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000 someone who may be "Toby"
wrote this:-

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years, so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.

And that assumes electricity prices remain constant.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000 someone who may be "Toby"
wrote this:-

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so
they should last about 7.5 years, so a saving of £64.35 in power,
per lamp.

And that assumes electricity prices remain constant.

Yes, it was a rough calculation, based on current energy prices.

Anyway, the cost of the energy savings lamp was cheaper than the cost of the
"normal" ones over the life of the energy savings one, so irrespective of
electricity costs, it was cheaper!

Toby...

I read somewhere recently that you should not consider replacing tungsten
filament light bulbs until they have burnt out. The point being that it is
wasteful to throw away a functioning light bulb.


"Toby" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000 someone who may be "Toby"
wrote this:-

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so
they should last about 7.5 years, so a saving of £64.35 in power,
per lamp.

And that assumes electricity prices remain constant.

Yes, it was a rough calculation, based on current energy prices.

Anyway, the cost of the energy savings lamp was cheaper than the cost of
the "normal" ones over the life of the energy savings one, so irrespective
of electricity costs, it was cheaper!

Toby...

Stewart wrote:
"Toby" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000 someone who may be "Toby"
wrote this:-

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year,
so they should last about 7.5 years, so a saving of £64.35 in
power, per lamp.

And that assumes electricity prices remain constant.

Yes, it was a rough calculation, based on current energy prices.

Anyway, the cost of the energy savings lamp was cheaper than the
cost of the "normal" ones over the life of the energy savings one,
so irrespective of electricity costs, it was cheaper!

Toby...

I read somewhere recently that you should not consider replacing
tungsten filament light bulbs until they have burnt out. The point
being that it is wasteful to throw away a functioning light bulb.

Just because you replace them, it doesn't mean you have to throw them away,
just remove them carefully and keep them for places where they are more
useful than an CFL, like an under-stairs cupboard.

Toby...

"Gary" wrote in message
...
It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like
them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good with
the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be anything
like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able to see. In
my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to get the same
(or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a light on for
most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows) but for
times when you want good light for a few hours or something and you still
want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a try.

But the CFL was considerably less that 43 watts.

Halogen isn't really an 'energy saving lamp' it is merely a slightly lower
wattage - but the smaller filament and the whiter light makes it appear
equal to a 60 watt conventional bulb. I've been using the Halogena bulbs for
years as I like the shape and the colour

Gary wrote:

It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good
with the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be
anything like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able
to see. In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to
get the same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

I wouldn't use them in situations where I have to leave a light on for
most of the day, like at the top of our staircase (no windows) but for
times when you want good light for a few hours or something and you
still want to save some energy, I suggest you give them a try.


So lets get this clear...

You run 2 bulbs side by side, picking the wattages such the halogenis
much brighter than the other, and thus conclude that halogens are
better than CFLs because the halogen you picked was brighter. What
daft nonsense.


NT

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.

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

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.

Tony

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:42:06 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000 someone who may be "Toby"
wrote this:-

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years,

so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.

And that assumes electricity prices remain constant.

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.

Derek

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000, "Toby"
wrote:


How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real
world. I only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I
should use them throughout the house.

It depends on what wattage bulb you fit, and what was there before.

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

So, lets assume this 60w bulb was used every day for an average of 4 hours.
In a year, the 60w bulb will use 87.6 units of electricity and the 11w bulb
would use 16.06 units

So you are saving 71.84 units of power per year, for this lamp.

If you were paying 12p per unit, this is a cost saving of £8.62 for this one
lamp.

You also have to take in to consideration the cost of the bulb too, but as
energy savings bulbs generally last a lot longer than filament bulbs, you
should still be saving money.

I did this analysis for some 50 lamps we have in our office a while ago...



Assuming electricity is about 11p per KW/h

Non energy saving lamps of this type consume 50w and last 2,500 hours at a
cost of £3.15
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica.../LAH6350ES.pdf
These consume 11w, and last 15,000 hours
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica...Data_Sheet.pdf

So already they are cheaper, as 6 50w ones will cost £18.90



Most of them seem to be an all day
Let's assume they are on 250 days a year to make it easy

If they are on for 8 hours a day, the normal ones will use 100 units of
power, or £11 per year

Energy saving ones will consume 22 units, or £2.42

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years,

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.

so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.
(Even if this estimate is off, it makes no difference, they will just be in
service for more or less time)

We have 34 of these lamps in the office, so that's a saving of £2187.9 over
the life of the lamps.

Take off the difference in cost between the "cheap" lamps (£3.15 x 34 x 6 =
£642.6 ( x6 because they only last 2500 hours!) and the cost of 34
"expensive" lamps (£268.6),

....and the saving is £2561.9 over the life of the lamps

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.

The GLS lamp reached 330 Lux at 5 sec. and maxed out at 350 Lux within
10 seconds.

The (brand new) 13 watt CFL reached 140 lux at 5 sec. and reached 240
Lux at 2 mins more/less maxed out.

A (1 year old) 13 watt CFL reached 80 Lux at 5 sec. and reached 124
Lux at 2 minutes more/less maxed out.

So after 1 year of use my feit electric 13 watt CFL gave out less than
25% of the light of a 60 watt GLS filament lamp within a reasonable
few seconds of waiting, and never got above 35%.

Comparing the brand new and 1 year old CFL's, it appears the light
output is down 48% in 12 months.

SWMBO has just reminded me that *all* 3 CFL outside lamps have failed
:-( , thats in less than about 14 months (on time controlled by
photocells). Oh - and another one in the kitchen.

They also give off a lot of UV which makes white fabric lampshades
turn brown.

Apart from this they're not too bad.

Derek

On Nov 7, 6:52*pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000, "Toby"
wrote:



How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real
world. *I only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I
should use them throughout the house.

It depends on what wattage bulb you fit, and what was there before.

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

So, lets assume this 60w bulb was used every day for an average of 4 hours.
In a year, the 60w bulb will use 87.6 units of electricity and the 11w bulb
would use 16.06 units

So you are saving 71.84 units of power per year, for this lamp.

If you were paying 12p per unit, this is a cost saving of £8.62 for this one
lamp.

You also have to take in to consideration the cost of the bulb too, but as
energy savings bulbs generally last a lot longer than filament bulbs, you
should still be saving money.

I did this analysis for some 50 lamps we have in our office a while ago....

Assuming electricity is about 11p per KW/h

Non energy saving lamps of this type consume 50w and last 2,500 hours at a
cost of £3.15
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica.../LAH6350ES.pdf
These consume 11w, and last 15,000 hours
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica...Data_Sheet.pdf

So already they are cheaper, as 6 50w ones will cost £18.90

Most of them seem to be an all day
Let's assume they are on *250 days a year to make it easy

If they are on for 8 hours a day, the normal ones will use 100 units of
power, or £11 per year

Energy saving ones will consume 22 units, or £2.42

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years,

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.

so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.
(Even if this estimate is off, it makes no difference, they will just be in
service for more or less time)

We have 34 of these lamps in the office, so that's a saving of £2187.9 over
the life of the lamps.

Take off the difference in cost between the "cheap" lamps (£3.15 x 34 x 6 =
£642.6 ( x6 because they only last 2500 hours!) and the cost of 34
"expensive" lamps (£268.6),

....and the saving is £2561.9 over the life of the lamps

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.

The GLS lamp reached 330 Lux at 5 sec. and maxed out at 350 Lux within
10 seconds.

The (brand new) 13 watt CFL reached 140 lux at 5 sec. and reached 240
Lux at 2 mins more/less maxed out.

A (1 year old) 13 watt CFL reached 80 Lux at 5 sec. and reached 124
Lux at 2 minutes more/less maxed out.

So after 1 year of use my feit electric 13 watt CFL gave out less than
25% of the light of a 60 watt GLS filament lamp within a reasonable
few seconds of waiting, and never got above 35%.

Comparing the brand new and 1 year old CFL's, it appears the light
output is down 48% in 12 months.

SWMBO has just reminded me that *all* 3 CFL outside lamps have failed
:-( * , thats in less than about 14 months (on time controlled by
photocells). Oh - *and another one in the kitchen.

They also give off a lot of UV which makes white fabric lampshades
turn brown.

Apart from this they're not too bad.

Derek

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.


NT

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.


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

On 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...

--
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 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.

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.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:52 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000, "Toby"
wrote:

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

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.

I have seen 9W lamps claiming to be 60W equals, let alone 13W.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Slider wrote:

How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real world. I
only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I should use them
throughout the house.

In the kitchen and lounge we have the obligitory all-over 50W
downlighters which do indeed give cracking light when you need to see,
however 99% of the time the lighting is provided by 3 x table lamps each
with a CFL energy saving type bulb so the whole of the upstairs dining
room, kitchen and lounge(living area) is illuminated by about 30W in
total providing very soft and relaxing yet usefull lighting.

Downstairs in all bedrooms and hall/stairs etc is illuminated by CFL bulbs.

We must save at least enough energy to run the Pond pump and filter 24/7

:¬)

Pete

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:52 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000, "Toby"
wrote:

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

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.

I have seen 9W lamps claiming to be 60W equals, let alone 13W.

Cheers,

John.


The rule of thumb with the light output claim seems to be Wattage times 5
and add 5 for good measure. The actual relation that should be consider as
equaling the luminescence, is the colour of light given off by the source.
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. Now they are calling them Warm
White Etc. just to get passed the fact that the warmth of light is not
equivalent.

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.

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

The supermarkets do not sell 33 watt CFL lamps that could be used as
an actual equivalent to 60 watt GLS lamps. I daresay they are
available from a specialist supplier but not for the price of a simple
60 watt GLS lamp in Tesco (16p).

If they were available the actual energy saving would be 27 watts
against the touted 47 watts, and more energy and more mercury would
have been used in their construction.

Derek

On Nov 7, 1:55*am, Gary wrote:
It's good that this is a none controversial subject upon which everyone
agrees.

So. I've been trying these halogen capsule based energy savers. I like them.

I put a so-called 60W (claimed) CFL in one of our pair of ceiling roses,
and a halogen capsule 60W (claimed - input power 43W) in the other. The
difference is outstanding. The halogen capsule light bulb is so much
brighter, and.. It comes on when you turn it on. Plus they look good
with the clear envelope and the little halogen capsule inside.

I don't think the lifetime of these halogen energy savers will be
anything like as good as the CFL but it's worth it in order to be able
to see. In my opinion these things are the business. An ingenious way to
get the same (or, better, even perhaps) light quality as tungsten filament.

"Bob Eager" wrote:
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...


Nice try.

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

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

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


The supermarkets do not sell 33 *watt CFL lamps that could be used as
an actual equivalent to 60 watt GLS lamps.

33w is not equivalent to 60w. 15w is closer.

I daresay they are
available from a specialist supplier but not for the price of a simple
60 watt GLS lamp in Tesco (16p).

15w CFLs come from any CFL supplier. And the TCO is less than for
filament lamps.


If they were available

see above

the actual energy saving would be 27 watts
against the touted 47 watts,

no. 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...._Calculatio n


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.


NT

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.

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.

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

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


The rule of thumb with the light output claim seems to be Wattage times 5
and add 5 for good measure.

I'd say times 2.5 and add 5. Then you are buying a lamp which at least
meets it's specs when you buy it, even if it will be below spec a few
months later.

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

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


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 ...

Derek

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".

Derek

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.

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.

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.

??

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.


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.


The supermarkets do not sell 33 *watt CFL lamps that could be used as
an actual equivalent to 60 watt GLS lamps.

33w is not equivalent to 60w. 15w is closer.


At 12 months it is.

Like I said, they say they last 6, 8,15 years, but at 12 months they
are already 48% down on the new lamp figure, which itself is 30% less
than they claim.

I daresay they are
available from a specialist supplier but not for the price of a simple
60 watt GLS lamp in Tesco (16p).

15w CFLs come from any CFL supplier.

But not generally in supermarkets

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.


If they were available

see above

the actual energy saving would be 27 watts
against the touted 47 watts,

no.

Yes! A CFl is for 8 years not just for Christmas. A whole country full
of SWMBO's unlike Hansen will not tolerate sitting in a gloomy house
lit by 6, 8, 15, year old CFls, saving the old played out ones for the
utility room and putting good new ones in the sitting room when there
are visitors coming.

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...._Calculatio n


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

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:14:24 -0800 (PST), ransley
wrote:


If you still think halogen is as efficent as flourescent I feel sorry
for you, but maybe you are a troll.

Unlikely.

It appears he has both believed what he read on the box the CFL came
in and has confused "equivalent to" with "actual electrical" watts.

You go by the ratings and its
called Lumens, or LPW Lumen per watt, CFLs here are 4x as efficent as
halogens, if you cant realise this you are forever lost.

Derek

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:24:57 -0000, "Toby"
wrote:


How much do energy saving light bulbs actually save in the real
world. I only have 1 in the lamp in the living room, thinking I
should use them throughout the house.

It depends on what wattage bulb you fit, and what was there before.

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

So, lets assume this 60w bulb was used every day for an average of 4
hours.
In a year, the 60w bulb will use 87.6 units of electricity and the 11w
bulb
would use 16.06 units

So you are saving 71.84 units of power per year, for this lamp.

If you were paying 12p per unit, this is a cost saving of £8.62 for this
one
lamp.

You also have to take in to consideration the cost of the bulb too, but as
energy savings bulbs generally last a lot longer than filament bulbs, you
should still be saving money.

I did this analysis for some 50 lamps we have in our office a while ago...



Assuming electricity is about 11p per KW/h

Non energy saving lamps of this type consume 50w and last 2,500 hours at a
cost of £3.15
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica.../LAH6350ES.pdf
These consume 11w, and last 15,000 hours
http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Technica...Data_Sheet.pdf

So already they are cheaper, as 6 50w ones will cost £18.90



Most of them seem to be an all day
Let's assume they are on 250 days a year to make it easy

If they are on for 8 hours a day, the normal ones will use 100 units of
power, or £11 per year

Energy saving ones will consume 22 units, or £2.42

On my assumption, we will use them for about 2000 hours per year, so they
should last about 7.5 years,

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.

so a saving of £64.35 in power, per lamp.
(Even if this estimate is off, it makes no difference, they will just be
in
service for more or less time)

We have 34 of these lamps in the office, so that's a saving of £2187.9
over
the life of the lamps.

Take off the difference in cost between the "cheap" lamps (£3.15 x 34 x 6
=
£642.6 ( x6 because they only last 2500 hours!) and the cost of 34
"expensive" lamps (£268.6),

....and the saving is £2561.9 over the life of the lamps

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.

The GLS lamp reached 330 Lux at 5 sec. and maxed out at 350 Lux within
10 seconds.

The (brand new) 13 watt CFL reached 140 lux at 5 sec. and reached 240
Lux at 2 mins more/less maxed out.

A (1 year old) 13 watt CFL reached 80 Lux at 5 sec. and reached 124
Lux at 2 minutes more/less maxed out.

So after 1 year of use my feit electric 13 watt CFL gave out less than
25% of the light of a 60 watt GLS filament lamp within a reasonable
few seconds of waiting, and never got above 35%.

Comparing the brand new and 1 year old CFL's, it appears the light
output is down 48% in 12 months.

SWMBO has just reminded me that *all* 3 CFL outside lamps have failed
:-( , thats in less than about 14 months (on time controlled by
photocells). Oh - and another one in the kitchen.

They also give off a lot of UV which makes white fabric lampshades
turn brown.

Apart from this they're not too bad.

Derek

What is your job?

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.

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

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).

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

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.


--

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:57:25 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

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

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

Ditto.

Ditto

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.

Ditto, as my eyesight fails with old age I find I need much better
lighting than any CFL can provide - strip lights are good but you
can't really use them all over the house can you!

--

Mike coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:57:25 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:

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

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

Ditto.

Ditto

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.

Ditto, as my eyesight fails with old age I find I need much better
lighting than any CFL can provide - strip lights are good but you
can't really use them all over the house can you!

--

I'm rather fed up with CFLs - I've got one in this room and it's not bad,
but most of the ones I got a couple of years back are half dead and the
ones from 3-4 years ago are almost all burnt out.

To keep the BCO happy with my rewire (part L), I'm just going to bung a few
of these (or similar) in the hall, utility room and lab and anywhere else
that doesn't need to look too pretty,

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...cular_Fittings

Old skool but they work (I'll make sure I get ones with a decent electronic
high frequency ballast).

To be fair, today's noncing around with LEDs and CFLs will lead eventually
to a really decent product (CFLs are better than 20 years ago so there is
progress). But I;m still going to stash a load of GLS bulbs away prior to
the ban.

Cheers

Tim

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:54:13 +0000, Derek Geldard
wrote:


Andrew, wasn't it General Zhukov who said that :

"Better is the enemy of good enough" ?


Just to add a bit to that, the lampshade really fulfilled the function
of the integrating sphere to some extent, and it would be valid to say
that the light you are interested in is the useful light emerging
through the centre of the diffusing material of the lampshade, at eye
level when sitting, not the light heading downwards towards the dark
hardwood table or upwards towards the ceiling 6 feet away, if that is
how the lamp is to be used. Presumably CFl's were made to be direct
replacements for GLS bulbs in lamps with lampshades. Or have I got it
wrong?

Derek

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,

I just find 'dynamo' Hansen amusing, when not plain boring.

He has read the Green**** manifesto, and swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Green**** are the biggest obstacle to tackling climate change IMHO.

Time and again they have demonstrated that their ideology is emotionally
based, and has no foundation in facts or actual calculations.

Yet their agenda has been adopted by Europe. Crazy.

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

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

I am sure I have some 11's and a 14W..


which is physcially no bigger than its filament equivalent.

Ah. Do you ment that 11s and 14s are available, but bigger?

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.