See CPC are selling what appears to be the same unit as TLC - but a lot
cheaper. 17.39 against 23.99 both before VAT.

http://planet.farnell.com/email/cpc/...an_0709alp.htm

CPC are still claiming 36 watt equals 300 watts incandescent - TLC have
amended theirs to claim 'only' 150.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...g_2/index.html

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

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

On Jan 14, 8:12*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
See CPC are selling what appears to be the same unit as TLC - but a lot
cheaper. 17.39 against 23.99 both before VAT.

http://planet.farnell.com/email/cpc/...an_0709alp.htm

CPC are still claiming 36 watt equals 300 watts incandescent - TLC have
amended theirs to claim 'only' 150.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...l_Index/Securi...

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

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

Figure a Cfl to be 75% more efficient, so the bulb equals maybe a 145
incandesant, the reflector is the gimmic to double output. It really
is LPW Lumen per watt, that is the number you need to compare off the
bulb data.

On 14 Jan, 20:59, ransley wrote:
On Jan 14, 8:12*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

See CPC are selling what appears to be the same unit as TLC - but a lot
cheaper. 17.39 against 23.99 both before VAT.

http://planet.farnell.com/email/cpc/...an_0709alp.htm

CPC are still claiming 36 watt equals 300 watts incandescent - TLC have
amended theirs to claim 'only' 150.

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Main_Ind...l_Index/Securi...

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

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

Figure a Cfl to be 75% more efficient, so the bulb equals maybe a 145
incandesant, the reflector is the gimmic to double output. It really
is LPW Lumen per watt, that is the number you need to compare off the
bulb data.

75% would be a darn good CFL against a poor halogen, but its at least
50% more efficient.

Unfortunately reflector won`t double output, no reflector is 100%
reflective, aluminium is sub 90%, then lamp obscures some of reflected
output and convoluted nature of lamp obscures some of its own output.

l/W is a good measure of raw light source efficiency but its capable
of being massaged to look more impressive than it actually appears
outside the lab.

It will be quoted as source efficiency , at whatever weird voltage
and current the light up bit actually runs at, fluro, HID and LED all
require some sort of ballast or driver that loses some power in the
conversion. The best will manage 90% efficiency , old magnetic fluro
ballast will be a lot less.
These are typically left out of l/W figures.

LEDs efficeincy drops like a stone as they warm up, LEDs efficiency is
quoted at running temp of 25 degrees , virtually unobtainable in the
real world

Loses in the reflector and or optics, l/W tells you nothing about how
much light is actually delivered where its is needed.

Could do with wall plug efficiency figures, how much light usefully
deployed for actual billable watts consumed, even then lies ,damned
lies and statistics wouldn`t make it any easier.

Adam