On 30 Dec, 10:54, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message

...

In article ,
writes:
On 29 Dec 2008 12:58:56 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
writes:

Your friend needs to be planning their way to remove filament lamps
from their home. *In particular, anything other than clear glass ones
will probably vanish from the market within a year.

Oh she should should she .Try telling her that :-)
WTF should folk be forced in to doing something that they don't want
to .

Because they'll otherwise continue wasting resources.

I suspect people will always manage to do that. When I was at school I
remember a chart in a geography book showing the expected drop in energy
usage as appliances got more efficient.

The ideal solution would be one where you also pay for all the
energy consumed when you buy the lamp, in which case the energy
efficient ones would be clearly cheaper at point of purchase.
Most people buy on price, but I'm sorry to say, most people are
too thick realise the energy efficient lamps are cheaper even
though they may appear more expensive on the shelf. That's
obviously difficult to implement. Only thing I can think of is
that you charge VAT on the expected energy consumption at the
point of purchase, at a rate something like 100% on lamps 40 lm/W.
That would make a 100W bulb about £10 shelf price, which sounds
a lot, but is actually about the same it really costs today. That
would make most people switch, but for those who have to have
one, then you're only doubling the price.

And if you budget for the fact an energy efficient lamp takes 4 times more
energy to produce than an incandescent lamp (I have no figures for disposal
costs) the gap between the two gets smaller.

I would expect the cost of production to be reflected in the cost to
the purchaser. The most recent CFLs I bought cost me 68 pence each.
Now, they may have been subsidised, but the end result is that they
are not that expensive these days. I even got some 'free' from my
electricity supplier. Those are useless to me - I would have preferred
an equivalent reduction in my electricity bill, as I will have paid
for their administration, source of the (useless) CFLs, postage and
packing in my electricity bill.

As for disposal, most people will simply chuck them in the household
waste to go to landfill or incineration. Whether they should is a
different matter, but without an adequate infrastructure for their
proper disposal, that is what will happen.

Perhaps what should have been put in place is a deposit scheme on
CFLs, such that returning unbroken ones got you (say) a pound back,
and a returning one with a smashed tube got you 50p - anyone supplying
CFLs having to participate in the deposit scheme.

Sid

"Rod" wrote in message
...

And the other problem that has beset a huge proportion of the real ones I
have seen (again, maybe all cheapos), is the tendency for them to actually
be poorly adjusted. (Even if it would be possible to adjust them
accurately, in reality they are not.) Hence losing bits or seeing teletext
info across the top of the screen, etc. IMHO, getting away from those
issues was a significant part of the betterness of LCDs. (However, I do
accept that many/most LCDs actually have fairly poor colour accuracy.)

Everyone's colour perception is different anyway so absolute accuracy
doesn't matter much to most people.
You only have to look at the way people set their TVs to know they don't
care about accuracy at all.

wrote in message
...

I would expect the cost of production to be reflected in the cost to
the purchaser. The most recent CFLs I bought cost me 68 pence each.

Rip off.. they were/are five for a pound in Homebase.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You must have had a pretty awful CRT monitor on your computer if an LCD
was an improvement.


You need a better LCD. Colour rendition might be suspect, response time
slow, but they are so much sharper, and that is what really matters for
text.

Andy

On 29 Dec 2008 15:33:19 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-12-29, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
writes:
A friend of mine has been trying to get Philips Softone lightbulbs and
can only get the low energy ones which,as low energy ones go, pretty
much look the same as ordinary lamps except for the price .I saw a
place selling them at £63 for a box of 10 bulbs FFS.
I'm guessing that Philips no longer sell them and Ebay only has the LE
ones as well.
This place appears to still have them tho' at £14 for 5 x 2 incl
delivery of £5.99
http://www.gil-lec.co.uk/products/La...ite/3853358680

I'm also guessing that this problem is only going to get worse .

Your friend needs to be planning their way to remove filament lamps
from their home.

Or stocking up on a reasonable supply.

Which is what is going to happen now that a source gil-tec.co.uk...has
been found .

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



wrote in message
...

I would expect the cost of production to be reflected in the cost to
the purchaser. The most recent CFLs I bought cost me 68 pence each.

Rip off.. they were/are five for a pound in Homebase.

But are they any good?

I bounght some 15W ones for less than a pound at Tesco's and the are totally
rubbish - quite yellow and dim - not much better IMO than a 15W pygmy bulb,
so in other words a total waste of shelf space.

The 20W 5 quid jobbies I bought online are many many times brighter and
actually white. Although I did have to get two replaced as they were
flickering... It's about time CFLs were marked with some universal light
output standard because the wattage means bugger all IME, apart from how
warm they will get.

Cheers

Tim

Tim S wrote:

The 20W 5 quid jobbies I bought online are many many times brighter
and actually white. Although I did have to get two replaced as they
were flickering... It's about time CFLs were marked with some
universal light output standard because the wattage means bugger all
IME, apart from how warm they will get.

That would never do. It would mean giving useful information and having to
reveal how much they've lied in the past about CFL equivalence.

I was mucho peed off when Which? did a test of CFLs but didn't look at this
most fundamental aspect of the bulbs they tested.

Tim2

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
You need a better LCD. Colour rendition might be suspect, response time
slow, but they are so much sharper, and that is what really matters for
text.

The sharpness of a CRT depends on the number of dots per inch and the
bandwidth of the electronics. As well as it working correctly, of course.
If an LCD is sharper, you're not comparing like for like spec wise. But as
regards text my old CRT was better than this LCD running anything other
than native resolution. But then this computer uses anti-aliasing for text.

--
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

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

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:49:34 +0000, Tim S wrote:

It's about time CFLs were marked with some universal light output
standard because the wattage means bugger all IME, apart from how
warm they will get.

All the ones I have looked at have the light output stated in lumens in
the small print along with the cap size, voltage and current.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:22:03 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Could you list in what ways your LCD is better? Only thing I prefer is
the size and weight...

An ordindary office type LCD here, HP L1706. Much better than the iiyama
CRT it replaced. Same nominal screen size 17" the LCD does run at it's
native 1280 x 1024 where as the CRT was 1024 x 768 but it is still much
sharper. Always run an LCD at it's native resolution to get the best from
it.

The CRT had loads of tweaks for barrel, pincushion, trapeziod etc
distortion and convergence but I could never get it right in all four
corners at the same time. The LCD has no distortion, convergence or purity
errors anywhere.

The LCD is stable, the CRT would take a good half hour to stop drifting if
trying to do anything photographic. The colour matching between a
displayed photograph and one printed via Photobox is excellent on the LCD.
The CRT was close but couldn't reproduce a full gray scale without
crushing the blacks or clipping the whites.

Same computer, same video card, same driver suite. Just changed the
monitor.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,

Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3 CRT
as good as any LCD.

Are you seriously telling me that on a CRT you can get linearity,
collimation and pincushion adjusted at all points on the screen to less
than 0.1% error?

I have never seen one that good. All LCDs are.

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
You need a better LCD. Colour rendition might be suspect, response time
slow, but they are so much sharper, and that is what really matters for
text.

The sharpness of a CRT depends on the number of dots per inch and the
bandwidth of the electronics. As well as it working correctly, of course.
If an LCD is sharper, you're not comparing like for like spec wise. But as
regards text my old CRT was better than this LCD running anything other
than native resolution. But then this computer uses anti-aliasing for text.

well running at native is what you MUST do with an LCD. Anything else is
horrid. Then adjust the display size of what you are displaying for comfort.

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,

Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3
CRT as good as any LCD.

Are you seriously telling me that on a CRT you can get linearity,
collimation and pincushion adjusted at all points on the screen to less
than 0.1% error?

I have never seen one that good. All LCDs are.

I'm sure the paper specs will be better - they always are. Not the same as
perceived, though. And the lack of a true black is something an LCD can
never cure. Plus the different gamma in the backgrounds.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

I use a very nice, but now quite old HP 20" LCD monitor, which cost
me a fortune 5 years ago. Mindful of its probably limited life (I'm
already on a replacement under warantee, which is now expired), I do
occasionally look at what's on the market now. One disappointment is
they've all gone widescreen. For a computer monitor, I much prefer
the height advantage of 4:3, as I have at the moment.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
You need a better LCD. Colour rendition might be suspect, response time
slow, but they are so much sharper, and that is what really matters for
text.

The sharpness of a CRT depends on the number of dots per inch and the
bandwidth of the electronics. As well as it working correctly, of course.
If an LCD is sharper, you're not comparing like for like spec wise. But as
regards text my old CRT was better than this LCD running anything other
than native resolution.

So why would you do anything but run the LCD at its native resolution?

But then this computer uses anti-aliasing for text.

Whatever, my Dell LCD is sharper than any CRT monitor I have ever used
including a number of relatively esoteric monochrome ones.

--
Chris Green

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,

Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3 CRT
as good as any LCD.

That's umm complete ********. The best that I've seen in studio CRTs is
distorted in one plane. All others show pincushion distortion. The best
CRT display that I used was the Radius Blue which was designed for
proofing colour print. It had a dark hood to reduce the colour
interference from reflected light (off clothing etc) and it was TBH
still crap as far as distortion goes and the colour range was no better
than the current LCD monitors sold by Apple.

so he's not much of a designer if he failed to notice that.

Obviously his priorities are different to yours. Or are you also a skilled
graphic designer as well as an expert on olive oil?

Appeal to an unidentified "graphic designer" is obviously so convincing.
As I said, if he hasn't noticed the distortion of his CRT and as I
didn't say, if he hasn't noticed that the phosphors on his CRT have aged
over the last 8 years then he's not the all-conquering colour expert
*you* claim him to be. And FWIW I worked in broadcast TV in the 1990s so
I've had experience of calibrating and using Trinitron studio monitors.

Secondly professional LCDs have a wider gamut than CRTs and oLEDs a
wider gamut again.

Gamut? Not a term I've ever heard used about monitors - despite being
around those who use pro ones all my working life. Do you mean gamma?

No I mena gamut.

Not that that makes sense in this contest anyway. If you mean contrast
ratio this isn't a problem for pro use where you'd be in controlled
lighting conditions for viewing - unlike domestically.

Gamut makes perfect sense in this context, look it up.

An LCD takes significantly less time for the colour gamut to
stabilise than a CRT and the display is flicker-free.

Most pros are used to letting any equipment stabilise before use. Not that
it takes long with any reasonable CRT - a matter of seconds.

Cough ollocks.

The current Apple Cinema displays have been Pantone (and GretagMacbeth)
certified as more accurate than any preceding CRT,

Since I know, in advance, that you'll bluster about this issue:

http://www.colormanagement.nl/report...dcolor05_intro

Ah - that's where 'gamut' came from.

No, gamut is a term widely used in any work involving colour
reproduction.

It's an advert, pet. Nice to see you've joined dribble in believing every
word you read in this sort of thing. Thought you'd know better.

Maybe if you stood up, your voice wouldn't be so muffled?

When they produce a non CRT that gets universal acceptance for TV racks
use, I'll be convinced. LCDs never will due to the problems in the dark
tones. oLEDs may one day - but even then I wouldn't hold my breath.

Luddites hold onto technologies long past their sell by dates.

Andy Champ wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,

Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3 CRT
as good as any LCD.

Are you seriously telling me that on a CRT you can get linearity,
collimation and pincushion adjusted at all points on the screen to less
than 0.1% error?

I have never seen one that good. All LCDs are.

And no LCD suffers from colour fringing and gaussing in the way that
CRTs do. I've yet to see *any* CRT that can reproduce a single colour
accurately across the entire field of view. Most CRT manufacturers lied
about both distortion and colour reproduction by confining their
measurements to a small central region of the screen.

Huge wrote:

On 2008-12-29, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

The ideal solution would be one where you also pay for all the
energy consumed when you buy the lamp, in which case the energy
efficient ones would be clearly cheaper at point of purchase.

How do you take into account such matters as having to replace light
fittings because CFLs won't fit in them and the fact that the output and
lifetime figures are lies?

Or indeed cope with the fact that replacing every lighbulb in Britain
will achieve bugger all? It's yet another green figleaf for people who
are mathematically challenged.

I got faced with one of the stupid buggers today at the Co-Op. I bought
my goods and asked for a carrier bag. "We don't do those anymore, the
Co-Op has decided that it will not take part in the destruction of the
environment." So I asked how I was supposed to take the goods home. "We
can sell you our Eco-bag for £2.50." I examined the bag label, it was
made in China and had been flown half-way around the globe. I asked in
what way this was environmentally friendly. Stupid bugger scratched his
head and said he hadn't thought about that.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +0000 Steve Firth wrote :
I got faced with one of the stupid buggers today at the Co-Op. I bought
my goods and asked for a carrier bag. "We don't do those anymore, the
Co-Op has decided that it will not take part in the destruction of the
environment." So I asked how I was supposed to take the goods home.
"We can sell you our Eco-bag for £2.50."

Loads of shops here in Melbourne sell them for about $1 (50p). South
Australia is outlawing single use plastic carriers from May and already
has returnable deposits on cans and drink bottles to keep them out of
landfill.

--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +0000 Steve Firth wrote :
I got faced with one of the stupid buggers today at the Co-Op. I bought
my goods and asked for a carrier bag. "We don't do those anymore, the
Co-Op has decided that it will not take part in the destruction of the
environment." So I asked how I was supposed to take the goods home.
"We can sell you our Eco-bag for £2.50."

Loads of shops here in Melbourne sell them for about $1 (50p). South
Australia is outlawing single use plastic carriers from May and already
has returnable deposits on cans and drink bottles to keep them out of
landfill.

Wow, that will save the planet.

wrote in message
...
I would expect the cost of production to be reflected in the cost to
the purchaser. The most recent CFLs I bought cost me 68 pence each.
Now, they may have been subsidised, but the end result is that they
are not that expensive these days.

I assume you work.You have paid for the subsidy with your taxes.

I even got some 'free' from my
electricity supplier. Those are useless to me - I would have preferred
an equivalent reduction in my electricity bill, as I will have paid
for their administration, source of the (useless) CFLs, postage and
packing in my electricity bill.

Again, your taxes, not profit deducted from your supplier

As for disposal, most people will simply chuck them in the household
waste to go to landfill or incineration. Whether they should is a
different matter, but without an adequate infrastructure for their
proper disposal, that is what will happen.

All the more reason not to force them on us

Perhaps what should have been put in place is a deposit scheme on
CFLs, such that returning unbroken ones got you (say) a pound back,
and a returning one with a smashed tube got you 50p - anyone supplying
CFLs having to participate in the deposit scheme.

I have to pay 15p for each low energy lamp I purchace at the wholesalers. It
is called the WEEE charge. Soon they may be charging 5p for a carrier bag as
well.

Adam

On 30 Dec, 22:42, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

I would expect the cost of production to be reflected in the cost to
the purchaser. The most recent CFLs I bought cost me 68 pence each.
Now, they may have been subsidised, but the end result is that they
are not that expensive these days.

I assume you work.You have paid for the subsidy with your taxes.

So it's yet another 'stealth' tax.

I even got some 'free' from my
electricity supplier. Those are useless to me - I would have preferred
an equivalent reduction in my electricity bill, as I will have paid
for their administration, source of the (useless) CFLs, postage and
packing in my electricity bill.

Again, your taxes, not profit deducted from your supplier

Well I suppose it may work in the same way as non means-tested
benefits, in that it is ultimately cheaper to give the benefit to all
than have the expense of a means testing infrastructure. Perhas I
should offer the CFLs on Freecycle.

As for disposal, most people will simply chuck them in the household
waste to go to landfill or incineration. Whether they should is a
different matter, but without an adequate infrastructure for their
proper disposal, that is what will happen.

All the more reason not to force them on us

Perhaps what should have been put in place is a deposit scheme on
CFLs, such that returning unbroken ones got you (say) a pound back,
and a returning one with a smashed tube got you 50p - anyone supplying
CFLs having to participate in the deposit scheme.

I have to pay 15p for each low energy lamp I purchace at the wholesalers. It
is called the WEEE charge. Soon they may be charging 5p for a carrier bag as
well.

Well, that sounds like another tax. Deposits get returned as an
incentive to 'do he right thing' - unless the WEEE charge is returned
to you, I don't see it as the same thing at all.

As for carrier bags, I carry a few in my coat at all times, so I
rarely, if ever pay a bag fee. It is a bit like living in the Soviet
Union, 'though - there, everyone would carry a string carrier bag on
the off-chance they would come across something worth buying. Funnily
enough, my mother did the same in the UK the 70s. I don't think there
is anything stopping you buying a pack of bags at wholesale prices and
carrying a few when you go shopping - all that is needed is a bit of
planning.

Cheers,

Sid

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
m...

I have to pay 15p for each low energy lamp I purchace at the wholesalers.
It
is called the WEEE charge. Soon they may be charging 5p for a carrier bag
as
well.

There is electronics in CFLs.
If you buy g23 (IIRC) based tubes there is no electronics and should be no
WEEE charge.
They are also better if you have space for a ballast and the tube.

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:
There is electronics in CFLs.
If you buy g23 (IIRC) based tubes there is no electronics and should be no
WEEE charge.
They are also better if you have space for a ballast and the tube.

I have converted a number of lights to use 4-pin tubes with separate
control gear, such as...
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/diy2/
That one is in my hallway.

The combination of the Philips matchbox ballasts (Blue - instant-start)
and the GE 2D tubes which give good illumination from cold can be quite
desirable in places where instant start and good initial light levels
are desirable. I've use them in a bathroom too, and frequent switching
doesn't seem to have given short tube life.

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
m...

I have to pay 15p for each low energy lamp I purchace at the
wholesalers.
It
is called the WEEE charge. Soon they may be charging 5p for a carrier
bag
as
well.

There is electronics in CFLs.
If you buy g23 (IIRC) based tubes there is no electronics and should be no
WEEE charge.
They are also better if you have space for a ballast and the tube.


Very interesting.

I am buying one of those on Monday. It let you know I am charged the WEEE.

Adam

The message
from (Steve Firth) contains these words:


I got faced with one of the stupid buggers today at the Co-Op. I bought
my goods and asked for a carrier bag. "We don't do those anymore, the
Co-Op has decided that it will not take part in the destruction of the
environment." So I asked how I was supposed to take the goods home. "We
can sell you our Eco-bag for £2.50." I examined the bag label, it was
made in China and had been flown half-way around the globe. I asked in
what way this was environmentally friendly. Stupid bugger scratched his
head and said he hadn't thought about that.

On this matter I agree with you. But your mistake was to pay for the
goods without securing the carrier bag.

Next time, stack up your trolley. Taken it to the checkout. Unload it
on to the belt. Let the idiot ring it all through the till. Ask for
carrier bags. THEN refuse to pay and walk away.

Repeat at another aisle.

Repeat at another Co-op.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,
Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3
CRT as good as any LCD.

Are you seriously telling me that on a CRT you can get linearity,
collimation and pincushion adjusted at all points on the screen to less
than 0.1% error?

I have never seen one that good. All LCDs are.

I'm sure the paper specs will be better - they always are. Not the same as
perceived, though. And the lack of a true black is something an LCD can
never cure. Plus the different gamma in the backgrounds.

You aren't answering my point. You said that "It's not impossible to
make the geometry of a 4:3 CRT as good as any LCD". It is that
statement that I dispute.

The colour of LCD vs CRT is a matter of taste and dispute; I do not
intend to discuss it.

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

the lack of a true black is something an LCD can
never cure.

It's also something a CRT can never cure.

Andy Champ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

He's a Luddite. Firstly the CRT image is distorted compared to an LCD,
Only on cheap ones. It's not impossible to make the geometry of a 4:3
CRT as good as any LCD.
Are you seriously telling me that on a CRT you can get linearity,
collimation and pincushion adjusted at all points on the screen to
less than 0.1% error?

I have never seen one that good. All LCDs are.

I'm sure the paper specs will be better - they always are. Not the
same as
perceived, though. And the lack of a true black is something an LCD can
never cure. Plus the different gamma in the backgrounds.

You aren't answering my point. You said that "It's not impossible to
make the geometry of a 4:3 CRT as good as any LCD". It is that
statement that I dispute.

The colour of LCD vs CRT is a matter of taste and dispute; I do not
intend to discuss it.


Fairynuff.

I do find, however, that the possibilities of mis adjusting color
balance on modern screens AND video software vastly exceeds what you
could do with old CRT sets.

I spent a merry half hour waiting while my wife finished shoe shopping
or something, adjusting the LCD TV sets on display so that the cheap
ones had the nice subtle graded color balance that the expensive plasma
ones had.

For example.

Andy

It's like this fascination with buying LCD tellies which are ****e.

What's wrong with LCD tvs ? I was comparing a Samsung 46" LCD tv vs a
comparable Panasonic Plasma screen in a shop and for me the Samsung
blew it away. The Panasonic won a Consumer Association shootout too.


David

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:17:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It's like this fascination with buying LCD tellies which are ****e.

What's wrong with LCD tvs ? I was comparing a Samsung 46" LCD tv vs a
comparable Panasonic Plasma screen in a shop and for me the Samsung
blew it away. The Panasonic won a Consumer Association shootout too.


Which **** is best is not the issue.

Derek

You must have had a pretty awful CRT monitor on your computer if an LCD
was an improvement.

That's utter nonsense. I've worked as a software engineer since 1982
and have had several dozens of CRT monitors from as many different
manufaturers.. *All* the LCD monitors I've had would have beaten
*any* of the CRT monitors I've ever had. If you are going to tell me
that the top end CRTscan outperform middle ranking LCDs than maybe
they can but so what ? How many people are given top end CRT displays
with their £500 desktop machine ?

If I was asked on the phone by a future employer whether I wanted an
LCD or CRT monitor without having the chance to spec it myself I would
choose the LCD in a heartbeat. Same goes if I was allowed to choose
it on a fixed budget.

Last CRT monitor I bought cost £200 about 10 years ago. It's 15 "
displays 1024x768 at best and 76 Hz (IIRC). My most recent LCD
display cost me £277 last year, it's a 26" diagonal, displays
1920x1200 at 60 Hz and blows away any CRT below £300.

I don't know what planet you're from Dave but you sure ain't from
rould here.

David

To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing
2. the change is caused by CO2 emission
3. this change will be seriously destructive

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

4. The only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy use

No, any way of reducing CO2 will reduce global warming and all
avenues including energy reduction should be pursued,

5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever and so
obviously it is a good thing to do.

Yet the only one that has been established with any serious degree of
solidity is point 1. 2,3 and 5 are just speculation, and 4 is flat out
wrong. The climate argument for CFL mandation is simply not valid.

Codswallop.

David

In article
,
wrote:
You must have had a pretty awful CRT monitor on your computer if an LCD
was an improvement.

That's utter nonsense. I've worked as a software engineer since 1982
and have had several dozens of CRT monitors from as many different
manufaturers.. *All* the LCD monitors I've had would have beaten
*any* of the CRT monitors I've ever had. If you are going to tell me
that the top end CRTscan outperform middle ranking LCDs than maybe
they can but so what ? How many people are given top end CRT displays
with their £500 desktop machine ?

If I was asked on the phone by a future employer whether I wanted an
LCD or CRT monitor without having the chance to spec it myself I would
choose the LCD in a heartbeat. Same goes if I was allowed to choose
it on a fixed budget.

Last CRT monitor I bought cost £200 about 10 years ago. It's 15 "
displays 1024x768 at best and 76 Hz (IIRC). My most recent LCD
display cost me £277 last year, it's a 26" diagonal, displays
1920x1200 at 60 Hz and blows away any CRT below £300.

I don't know what planet you're from Dave but you sure ain't from
rould here.

You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

In article
,
wrote:
The advantage of changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever
and so obviously it is a good thing to do.

To quote yourself:-

'I don't know what planet you're from Dave but you sure ain't from
rould here.'

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

coughed up some electrons that declared:


5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever

With the greatest of respect...

********!

and so obviously it is a good thing to do.

It would be, assuming the replacement is acceptable.

The only decent CFL I have used recently is:

http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bul...5W-BC-827-Bell

And 20% of my order for 10 were flickering wildly. Replaced for free, but if
and significant percentage are DOA then that counts against the savings in
pollution.

I'll see how long they last, but they are the first ones I've used where the
light is actually anywhere near the brightness alluded to on the box. Might
as well watch a neon bulb as use Tesco's x-for-a-pound jobbies (I tried
them, last week).

Cheers

Tim

wrote:
To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing
2. the change is caused by CO2 emission
3. this change will be seriously destructive

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

4. The only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy use

No, any way of reducing CO2 will reduce global warming and all
avenues including energy reduction should be pursued,

5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever and so
obviously it is a good thing to do.


Stop right there.

We have catalogued a plethora of downsides.

And that's the whole point.

Yet the only one that has been established with any serious degree of
solidity is point 1. 2,3 and 5 are just speculation, and 4 is flat out
wrong. The climate argument for CFL mandation is simply not valid.

Codswallop.


Well 1, 2 are correct. 3 is arguable and 4 is arrant nonsense.

5 is pretty much idiocy too.Of course it makes a 'real difference' 0.1%
is real. Its just a totally inconsequential response to a much larger
problem.


David

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

5 is pretty much idiocy too.Of course it makes a 'real difference' 0.1% is
real. Its just a totally inconsequential response to a much larger
problem.


There is no such thing as inconsequential in chaotic systems like the
climate.

You must be one of the colour blind males mentioned elsewhere.

well, you seem to have ignored the fact that just about everyone who
has posted here has agreed with the proposition that LCDs beat CRTs
and that the figures for colour gamut for high end LCDs beat those for
high end CRTs, maybe it's you who has the eyesight problem ?

Davis

'I don't know what planet you're from Dave but you sure ain't from
rould here.'

And what passes for rational argument on Planet Zarg, Dave ?

David