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...

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 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

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

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.

"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 ,
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]

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

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.


--

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 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

"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 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.

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

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:55:33 +0000, 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.


I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs. No idea if they are but they are certainly
bright enough for me and only 40W compared to the original 150W.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alang
saying something like:

I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs.

I've been trying to find those two-way lamp adapters for just this
reason. Was yours old stock kicking around a kitchen drawer, or did you
find one in a shop?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alang
saying something like:

I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs.

I've been trying to find those two-way lamp adapters for just this
reason. Was yours old stock kicking around a kitchen drawer, or did you
find one in a shop?

BC adaptors were banned from sale in about 1970, but not from use.
They're still around but not exactly common.


NT

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon writes:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alang
saying something like:

I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs.

I've been trying to find those two-way lamp adapters for just this
reason. Was yours old stock kicking around a kitchen drawer, or did you
find one in a shop?

Well, you can always make your own...

http://www.bigclive.com/hamster.htm

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Andrew
Gabriel) saying something like:

I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs.

I've been trying to find those two-way lamp adapters for just this
reason. Was yours old stock kicking around a kitchen drawer, or did you
find one in a shop?

Well, you can always make your own...

http://www.bigclive.com/hamster.htm

WhooHoo! That's actually a bloody good idea, but a bit less Sputniky
like. It would be easy enough to make a simple two or three way using
pendant fittings.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:52:18 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alang
saying something like:

I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs.

I've been trying to find those two-way lamp adapters for just this
reason. Was yours old stock kicking around a kitchen drawer, or did you
find one in a shop?

Had it for about 40 years. I've got a switched one too. an sometimes
get them in car boot sales

I was tempted to make one and pot it up with epoxy and slate powder.
Idea is to get both lamps offset and horizontal so the whole lot fits
in a 12 inch dia shade without touching the side

Alang wrote in message
...


I put a double socket up with two 20W CFLs to give a supposed
equivalent to 2 100W bulbs. No idea if they are but they are certainly
bright enough for me and only 40W compared to the original 150W.

What a good idea
Somewhere I have a box of 50+ of them, all NOS
(Surprise unrelated addition in a bulk auction lot purchase)


-