Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each. That's cheaper
than normal bulbs for god's sake. They're stated to have similar light
output to a 75W soft white normal bulb. I bought five and I've just fitted
one in a desk lamp and one in a 2 bulb chandelier next to a 100w
incandescent to compare them. They light up instantly unlike those very
early energy saving bulbs which took forever to warm up although it takes
another 30 seconds for them to reach full output. I'd say they fire up at
about 1/2 output which is plenty to see what you're doing if you just want
to flick a light on in a dark room to check something for a second. I've
still got a couple of 10 year old energy savers in the hall and landing
which flicker for a second or two and then light up so slowly I have to
stand still for a minute before starting down the stairs. Those are now
getting chucked cos clearly they're never going to do the decent thing and
die of their own accord. I think these things actually last forever. They
cost about a fiver each too and that was when a fiver was actually worth a
fiver.

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver is
brighter. They're rated at 10,000 hours life so if they get anywhere near
that they're about the biggest bargain of the year. The 100W bulb is now
coming back out immediately and going into the stockpile. I just wish I'd
bought 10 of the things instead of 5.

I'd been grumbling about the government banning incandescent bulbs but at
34p a shot for energy savers that last 10 times longer that's me converted.
Better fill your boots before Tesco put the price up. I reckon I've been
spending £10 a year on normal bulbs plus the much bigger electricity cost
they've been wasting. They don't last very long and I usually buy packs of
five and seem to need a new pack every couple of months.

I've just written a spreadsheet to see what these will save. If you have 5
bulbs on for 8 hours a day, swap 60W normal bulbs for these, normal bulbs
cost 60p each and last 1000 hours and electricity is 12p a kWh you'll save
£87 a year. £79 in electricity and £8 in bulb costs. For the whole country
that's nearly 2 billion quid a year. Even more interesting, playing with the
spreadsheet, your break even cost would be the same if the energy savers
cost £60 a bulb. Anything less than that and you're winning. It rather puts
into perspective the £5 a bulb these things have cost in the past and which
has no doubt put many people off using them. At 34p each it's a no brainer.
--
Dave Baker

On 11 Feb, 19:17, "Dave Baker" wrote:
Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each.

Mind you, I bought some of their 7W SES candle bulbs recently and
they're dreadful. Enormously long warm-up times, the worst I've had in
years.

Has anyone tried Screwfix's 5W candle bulbs? I need something less
bright at the end (four in a bedroom chandelier) and with faster
warmup.

On 11 Feb, 19:36, Andy Dingley wrote:
On 11 Feb, 19:17, "Dave Baker" wrote:

Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each.

Mind you, I bought some of their 7W SES candle bulbs recently and
they're dreadful. Enormously long warm-up times, the worst I've had in
years.

Has anyone tried Screwfix's 5W candle bulbs? I need something less
bright at the end (four in a bedroom chandelier) and with faster
warmup.

for info - i got some ISTR 3w candles from toolstation for a picture
light - they are a nice clean white but not fantastically quick to
warm-up....

jim

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each. That's cheaper
than normal bulbs for god's sake.

Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I got 10 bayonet cap and 10 screw cap for £1.60 total - even I'm prepared to
go green at that price!

Al Reynolds

In message , Al Reynolds
writes

Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...
--
Kenny

"Kenny" wrote in message
...
In message , Al Reynolds
writes

Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...
--


I bought some of their 34p bulbs with a two for one offer. So 17p each.

Also bought a carrier bag full of the 5 for 40p.

mark

On Feb 11, 9:55*pm, Kenny wrote:
In message , Al Reynolds
writes



Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...

When I was in there yesterday, their own label and GE ones were 5 for
40p while the Value ones were four times the price at 34p each.

Don't know whether there's any difference in quality but we've been
using several of their own brand ones for a few months now and they're
fine. A second or two to warm up but nothing troublesome.

Kenny wrote:
I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

Andy

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Kenny wrote:
I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

I was being a little more cynical, LOL!

;-)
--
Kenny

"Kenny" wrote in message
...
In message , Al Reynolds
writes

Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...
--



I think it must be some sort of extension to the subsidised loft insulation
scheme that the government have being doing through the power companies.

If say the government spends £10 million subsidising low energy bulbs and
this in turn enables them to defer the construction of a multi billion pound
power station by a year or two then they are quids in.

Just a theory. No intention of setting the bullometers to full scale
deflection!


mark

"mark" wrote in message
et...

"Kenny" wrote in message
...
In message , Al Reynolds
writes

Was I the only one who saw them when they were £1 each or 5 for 40p?

I think when I saw them at 34p each, 5 for 40p, makes me wonder what
benefit Tesco are getting in return...
--



I think it must be some sort of extension to the subsidised loft
insulation scheme that the government have being doing through the power
companies.

If say the government spends £10 million subsidising low energy bulbs and
this in turn enables them to defer the construction of a multi billion
pound power station by a year or two then they are quids in.

Just a theory. No intention of setting the bullometers to full scale
deflection!

It could be. . . Don't tesco supply gas and electricity?; in which case they
may be doing their regulatory duty to promote energy saving measures across
their shop shelves rather than by sending free CLF bulbs on request to
customers.

Dave Baker wrote:

that they're about the biggest bargain of the year. The 100W bulb is now
coming back out immediately and going into the stockpile. I just wish I'd
bought 10 of the things instead of 5.

Let us know what they are like after a few weeks of use.

I'd been grumbling about the government banning incandescent bulbs but at
34p a shot for energy savers that last 10 times longer that's me converted.

If only it was that easy! ;-)

cost £60 a bulb. Anything less than that and you're winning. It rather puts
into perspective the £5 a bulb these things have cost in the past and which
has no doubt put many people off using them. At 34p each it's a no brainer.

Indeed, if cost were your objection...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Dave Baker wrote:

that they're about the biggest bargain of the year. The 100W bulb is now
coming back out immediately and going into the stockpile. I just wish I'd
bought 10 of the things instead of 5.

Let us know what they are like after a few weeks of use.

I'd been grumbling about the government banning incandescent bulbs but at
34p a shot for energy savers that last 10 times longer that's me
converted.

If only it was that easy! ;-)

cost £60 a bulb. Anything less than that and you're winning. It rather
puts into perspective the £5 a bulb these things have cost in the past
and which has no doubt put many people off using them. At 34p each it's a
no brainer.

Indeed, if cost were your objection...


--
Cheers,

John.

I wonder if the till receipt give the OP a seperate WEEE charge?

Adam

"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.


And not even that if you want to read under them and are more than 40 years
old ...

Two visits ago, the hotel where I normally stay when I'm in Vegas, changed
all of their room reading lights to CFLs. Now, it's impossible to read in
the rooms at night.

I tried one in my bench light which normally uses a 60 watt incandescent. I
struggled with it for two days, and then put the incandescent back in.

My wife has a cafe in a pretty old building. Doing her bit for the
environment, she replaced the incandescent bulbs in the toilets with CFLs.
This has resulted in the walls running with water and going mouldy, because
the air in the rooms is no longer gently heated by the bulbs. The originals
have gone back in ...

I think that once the government have managed to completely stop manufacture
of incandescents, many people will begin to realise just what they have let
go without so much as a whimper of objection. There are places where CFLs
are just not appropriate. Plus the cheapos are nothing like as long-lived as
they would have you believe, and are prone to generating huge amounts of RF
pollution - that's interference to legitimate radio transmissions - when
they go faulty.

To go back to the age thing, I'm not sure just what happens to the
sensitivity of the human eye as it ages. I don't know whether the overall
spectral sensitivity decreases, or whether the 'graph' of spectral
sensitivity shifts. What I do know is that my 86 year old mother tried them
in her house, and thought that she had gone blind. Her otherwise very good
eyesight, which works fine in daylight and tungsten light, suffered very
badly under CFLs. Be warned, you might just come to regret having submitted
to this latest piece of government tinkering with our lives ... (:-\ }

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

To go back to the age thing, I'm not sure just what happens to the
sensitivity of the human eye as it ages. I don't know whether the overall
spectral sensitivity decreases, or whether the 'graph' of spectral
sensitivity shifts. What I do know is that my 86 year old mother tried them

I think it is a bit of both - the sensitivity at the blue end diminishes
leaving the image somewhat more yellow. Perhaps that fact that many CFLs
lack red output and often have a green/yellow colour cast results in a
situation where the overall contrast is reduced.

(might be interesting to see if the so called "daylight" CFLs are any
better - since they have a more pronounced blue output (the verall
colour rendition is still poor - but the contrast with yellowing vision
ought to be better)

in her house, and thought that she had gone blind. Her otherwise very good
eyesight, which works fine in daylight and tungsten light, suffered very
badly under CFLs. Be warned, you might just come to regret having submitted
to this latest piece of government tinkering with our lives ... (:-\ }

So how do we stop the buggers?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote


So how do we stop the buggers?

--
This calls for an independent select committee assessing the increase in the
number of stair-way accidents in the home.
Once the NHS cost of treating all the injuries caused by poor visibility
becomes apparent, the real-world energy saving will be brought into
perspective and incandescents will be welcomed back with open arms!

Phil

TheScullster wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote

So how do we stop the buggers?

This calls for an independent select committee assessing the increase in the
number of stair-way accidents in the home.
Once the NHS cost of treating all the injuries caused by poor visibility
becomes apparent, the real-world energy saving will be brought into
perspective and incandescents will be welcomed back with open arms!

Use one piece of legislation to overcome another.

Not quite in the same category, but it's rather like what happened in
the heavy snow of last week - the LAs were running out of salt to grit
the roads, and yet the only factory producing it was shut down for a
H&S inspection.

Who was calling the shots to say that more lives were at risk from
unsalted roads that were at risk in the salt mine? No-one.

You couldn't make it up. Welcome to Broken Britain.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news
Arfa Daily wrote:

To go back to the age thing, I'm not sure just what happens to the
sensitivity of the human eye as it ages. I don't know whether the overall
spectral sensitivity decreases, or whether the 'graph' of spectral
sensitivity shifts. What I do know is that my 86 year old mother tried
them

I think it is a bit of both - the sensitivity at the blue end diminishes
leaving the image somewhat more yellow. Perhaps that fact that many CFLs
lack red output and often have a green/yellow colour cast results in a
situation where the overall contrast is reduced.

(might be interesting to see if the so called "daylight" CFLs are any
better - since they have a more pronounced blue output (the verall colour
rendition is still poor - but the contrast with yellowing vision ought to
be better)

in her house, and thought that she had gone blind. Her otherwise very
good eyesight, which works fine in daylight and tungsten light, suffered
very badly under CFLs. Be warned, you might just come to regret having
submitted to this latest piece of government tinkering with our lives ...
(:-\ }

So how do we stop the buggers?

--
Cheers,

John.

I'm not sure to be honest John. I suppose that if enough of us wrote to our
MPs about it, that might start waking a few of them from their herded -sheep
stupour over some of this eco-bollox, but I fear that the gravy train that
much of it generates, and that these worthless people and their entourage
are happily riding, is rumbling along at too much of a pace to be stopped
now.

Without jumping on one of my favourite soap-boxes, I think that the
situation can be compared to lead-free solder in electronics. It's
legislation that has been poorly thought out and steamrollered onto the
books without a second thought for any real-world consequences other than
the one which they consider to be the primary.

The use of lead-free solder to manufacture electronic goods has resulted in
a huge increase in reliability issues to a technology (soldering) which was
fully mature and totally predictable. The very low cost of the Chinese and
other far-eastern imported electronics which has flooded the market, often
makes the cost of repair of these items, prohibitive. So, what then ? More
energy wasted dismantling and recycling them ? More electronics to landfill
? More new items being made and shipped to replace them ? Worryingly, I read
a few days ago that the lead-free solder exemption for medical equipment (in
place I understood, because of the potential life-maintenance requirement of
such items) has now been rescinded. Heaven help us all if they do the same
for avionics and military equipment ...

A further thought with CFLs. The energy budget to make them is much higher,
due to the fact that they have ballast electronics, comprising perhaps ten
components, in them. All of these have to be manufactured, as do the
materials which go into *them*. They all have to be shipped to some central
assembly place. All of these factories have to be heated, lit, and the
workers got to and fro, and fed. Once the whole mess is assembled into a
CFL, it then has to be put into stouter packaging than a traditional bulb,
because not being spherical, the glass has a greater readiness to be damaged
by impact. The packaging is heavier, and bulkier, as is the lamp itself, all
of which contribute to the energy budget.

Because of the toxic mercury and phosphor compounds which they contain, they
have to be properly disposed of, which involves a trip to your local tip - I
bet there's not a bus goes past it either ... If they are actually properly
'recycled', then this will have to be done by dismantling them, removing the
toxic chemical components, stripping the electronics, and properly disposing
of the individual electronic components, which is a waste in itself, as
there's not a lot can be done to recycle them into individual constituents,
nor much oportunity to reuse a component which already has cropped leads,
and may be approaching the end of its useful service life.

On the other hand, incandescent bulbs contain no toxic compounds, or even
anything remotely harmful to the environment (excepting of course the tiny
blobs of solder which used to be tin/lead, and are now lead-free, but which
have never been shown to be any tangible threat to the environment anyway)
so do not represent any problem, other than material loss, if they do just
go to landfill.

I'm not averse to us all being a bit greener in the way we live. What I do
hate is the way that we are having all the eco-bollox forced down our
throats on a daily basis, by politicians who are just trying to make a name
for themselves, fed by faceless euro-committees who are merely justifying
their own existence (and huge government consultency fees), and
manufacturers and company directors who are using the green mist which we
are all suffering now, to line their own pockets.

So, with due deference to the OP, whose enthusiasm for the product, I
admire, I would suggest that before we all follow each other like sheep into
accepting this technology, we actually stop for a moment and consider
whether it really does replace incandescent lighting, and contributes to the
environment in quite the way that we are being led (by the nose) to believe
....

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
news

[snip]

So how do we stop the buggers?

I'm not sure to be honest John. I suppose that if enough of us wrote to
our MPs about it, that might start waking a few of them from their herded
-sheep stupour over some of this eco-bollox, but I fear that the gravy
train that much of it generates, and that these worthless people and their
entourage are happily riding, is rumbling along at too much of a pace to
be stopped now.

BTDTWTTS but it doesn't do much good. I wrote to my MP expressing my concern
about the enforced phasing out of incandescent bulbs, pointing out the
deficiencies of CFLs and their total unsuitability for some applications
such as PIR controlled lighting with only intermittent use. For most issues
the only thing the MPs can do is to forward the matter to the appropriate
minister. In due course I received a reply from the Parliamentary Under
Secretary for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Waste, it was largely
bureauwaffle effectively saying "that's what's happening so tough".

--
Mike Clarke

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

I'm not averse to us all being a bit greener in the way we live. What I do
hate is the way that we are having all the eco-bollox forced down our
throats on a daily basis, by politicians who are just trying to make a name
for themselves, fed by faceless euro-committees who are merely justifying
their own existence (and huge government consultency fees), and
manufacturers and company directors who are using the green mist which we
are all suffering now, to line their own pockets.

whistles, stamps feet, applauds wildly

Every word.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

The use of lead-free solder to manufacture electronic goods has resulted
in a huge increase in reliability issues to a technology (soldering) which
was fully mature and totally predictable. The very low cost of the Chinese
and other far-eastern imported electronics which has flooded the market,
often makes the cost of repair of these items, prohibitive. So, what then
?

They use the correct solder and do it properly.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

Well quite. I did buy some Osram Duluxtar 23W CFL's from Screwfix, which
make a passable attempt at moving towards 100W equivalence (probably close
enough, if not quite there) but 15W? Do me a favour!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

Well quite. I did buy some Osram Duluxtar 23W CFL's from Screwfix, which
make a passable attempt at moving towards 100W equivalence (probably close
enough, if not quite there) but 15W? Do me a favour!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Just fitted a couple of smashing 300watt halogen wall lights for a client
complete with dimmer. We can all see now !

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes. At the moment I have two normal 60w bulbs in one
chandelier in the lounge and two of the new 15W in the other. The 15W bulbs
are noticeably brighter. Experimenting with the desk lamp I'd say a 100W
bulb does put out more lumens in total than the 15W but it spreads the light
over a wider area due to the shape of the bulb. The 15W bulb being very slim
doesn't send so much light downwards if the bulb is base down or upwards if
the bulb is in a chandelier. So where you actually want the light it seems
to be about the same brightness. In summary I'd say the claim on the
packaging that they're about the same rating as a normal 75W bulb is spot
on.

To answer someone else I don't have any problem reading by them but the
light is a very bright white, somewhat glaring compared to the incandecent
bulbs. Ideally they need a shade over them to just take the edge off it and
in the current chandelier they just stick 1/4" out at the bottom which isn't
ideal. It's actually quite hard to look at the naked bulbs they're so
bright.
--
Dave Baker

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes. At the moment I have two normal 60w bulbs in one
chandelier in the lounge and two of the new 15W in the other. The 15W
bulbs are noticeably brighter. Experimenting with the desk lamp I'd say a
100W bulb does put out more lumens in total than the 15W but it spreads
the light over a wider area due to the shape of the bulb. The 15W bulb
being very slim doesn't send so much light downwards if the bulb is base
down or upwards if the bulb is in a chandelier. So where you actually want
the light it seems to be about the same brightness. In summary I'd say the
claim on the packaging that they're about the same rating as a normal 75W
bulb is spot on.

To answer someone else I don't have any problem reading by them but the
light is a very bright white, somewhat glaring compared to the incandecent
bulbs. Ideally they need a shade over them to just take the edge off it
and in the current chandelier they just stick 1/4" out at the bottom which
isn't ideal. It's actually quite hard to look at the naked bulbs they're
so bright.
--
Dave Baker


Different light spread pattern. Little light up or down. Totally different
colour. Hard light to look at, and "glaring". Too long for the fitting.

So all in all, basically not very suitable on just about every practical
level, for what you're trying to use them for ... :-\

I tried some in a Tiffany-style table lamp that I have in my lounge. The
bulbs (two of them) sit horizontally inside the shade. The light pattern was
so poor, and the spectral content so lacking, that this otherwise
beautifully multicoloured lamp, looked like someone had chucked a bucket of
mud over it. Back in went the tungstens. I resent politicians trying to make
me shoehorn this technology into my life in a 'near-enough fit' sort of way.
If they really must push these hateful lamps, whilst encouraging the
population in general to become greener (ye gods I hate that word now) then
they should do it by taxing tungstens so that we still have the choice where
we consider it appropriate, rather than introducing an all out ban.

Arfa

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:24:19 -0000, "Dave Baker"
wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
"Dave Baker" wrote:

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is
brighter.


Utter and complete nonsense.

A 15W CFL is the equivalent of no more than a 60W tungsten bulb.

Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes. At the moment I have two normal 60w bulbs in one
chandelier in the lounge and two of the new 15W in the other. The 15W bulbs
are noticeably brighter. Experimenting with the desk lamp I'd say a 100W
bulb does put out more lumens in total than the 15W but it spreads the light
over a wider area due to the shape of the bulb. The 15W bulb being very slim
doesn't send so much light downwards if the bulb is base down or upwards if
the bulb is in a chandelier. So where you actually want the light it seems
to be about the same brightness. In summary I'd say the claim on the
packaging that they're about the same rating as a normal 75W bulb is spot
on.

To answer someone else I don't have any problem reading by them but the
light is a very bright white, somewhat glaring compared to the incandecent
bulbs. Ideally they need a shade over them to just take the edge off it and
in the current chandelier they just stick 1/4" out at the bottom which isn't
ideal. It's actually quite hard to look at the naked bulbs they're so
bright.

We have single 18w CFLs in most of the rooms and hall/stairs. No
problems mostly except in the kitchen which is a bit colder and takes
longer to acheive full brightness. A couple of minutes is all it takes
at most and doesn't apply in warmer weather anyway. Living room we
have a double lighting socket with a big shade around it and two 18w
lamps in it. More than adequate for anything. Like you say they are
too bright to look directly at but the shade filters the harshness.

"Dave Baker" wrote:

Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes.


You need your eyes tested. Do it now, and for goodness' sake don't
drive to the opticians, because with your appalling eyesight you will be
a menace to every other road user.

Bruce wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote:
Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes.


You need your eyes tested. Do it now, and for goodness' sake don't
drive to the opticians, because with your appalling eyesight you will be
a menace to every other road user.

Has in not occurred to you that when looking at a light source with
discontinuous spectra, a persons perception of the brightness may
noticeably different from someone else's?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
Bruce wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote:
Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can
see with my own eyes.


You need your eyes tested. Do it now, and for goodness' sake don't
drive to the opticians, because with your appalling eyesight you will be
a menace to every other road user.

Has in not occurred to you that when looking at a light source with
discontinuous spectra, a persons perception of the brightness may
noticeably different from someone else's?

Mine may very well be different from other people's given that I'm red/green
colour blind.
--
Dave Baker

John Rumm wrote:
Bruce wrote:
"Dave Baker" wrote:
Well thanks for the theory but please don't try to tell me what I can see
with my own eyes.


You need your eyes tested. Do it now, and for goodness' sake don't
drive to the opticians, because with your appalling eyesight you will be
a menace to every other road user.

Has in not occurred to you that when looking at a light source with
discontinuous spectra, a persons perception of the brightness may
noticeably different from someone else's?


The world is full of idiots who will argue that black is white.

On 11 Feb, 19:17, "Dave Baker" wrote:
Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each. That's cheaper
than normal bulbs for god's sake. They're stated to have similar light
output to a 75W soft white normal bulb. I bought five and I've just fitted
one in a desk lamp and one in a 2 bulb chandelier next to a 100w
incandescent to compare them. They light up instantly unlike those very
early energy saving bulbs which took forever to warm up although it takes
another 30 seconds for them to reach full output. I'd say they fire up at
about 1/2 output which is plenty to see what you're doing if you just want
to flick a light on in a dark room to check something for a second. I've
still got a couple of 10 year old energy savers in the hall and landing
which flicker for a second or two and then light up so slowly I have to
stand still for a minute before starting down the stairs. Those are now
getting chucked cos clearly they're never going to do the decent thing and
die of their own accord. I think these things actually last forever. They
cost about a fiver each too and that was when a fiver was actually worth a
fiver.

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver is
brighter. They're rated at 10,000 hours life so if they get anywhere near
that they're about the biggest bargain of the year. The 100W bulb is now
coming back out immediately and going into the stockpile. I just wish I'd
bought 10 of the things instead of 5.

I'd been grumbling about the government banning incandescent bulbs but at
34p a shot for energy savers that last 10 times longer that's me converted.
Better fill your boots before Tesco put the price up. I reckon I've been
spending £10 a year on normal bulbs plus the much bigger electricity cost
they've been wasting. They don't last very long and I usually buy packs of
five and seem to need a new pack every couple of months.

I've just written a spreadsheet to see what these will save. If you have 5
bulbs on for 8 hours a day, swap 60W normal bulbs for these, normal bulbs
cost 60p each and last 1000 hours and electricity is 12p a kWh you'll save
£87 a year. £79 in electricity and £8 in bulb costs. For the whole country
that's nearly 2 billion quid a year. Even more interesting, playing with the
spreadsheet, your break even cost would be the same if the energy savers
cost £60 a bulb. Anything less than that and you're winning. It rather puts
into perspective the £5 a bulb these things have cost in the past and which
has no doubt put many people off using them. At 34p each it's a no brainer.

On 11 Feb, 19:17, "Dave Baker" wrote:
Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each.

That much? My local Tesco - in Lockerbie - has loads of Philips ones
on the shelf next to the Value ones, marked down to 10p each. Still
more than I'd pay for the bloody things, mind you.

Ian

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...
Just got back from doing the shopping at Tesco in Slough and spotted their
own 'value' brand 15w energy saving lightbulbs at 34p each. That's cheaper
than normal bulbs for god's sake. They're stated to have similar light
output to a 75W soft white normal bulb. I bought five and I've just fitted
one in a desk lamp and one in a 2 bulb chandelier next to a 100w
incandescent to compare them. They light up instantly unlike those very
early energy saving bulbs which took forever to warm up although it takes
another 30 seconds for them to reach full output. I'd say they fire up at
about 1/2 output which is plenty to see what you're doing if you just want
to flick a light on in a dark room to check something for a second. I've
still got a couple of 10 year old energy savers in the hall and landing
which flicker for a second or two and then light up so slowly I have to
stand still for a minute before starting down the stairs. Those are now
getting chucked cos clearly they're never going to do the decent thing and
die of their own accord. I think these things actually last forever. They
cost about a fiver each too and that was when a fiver was actually worth a
fiver.

I can't actually see any great difference in brightness between the Tesco
15W bulb and the 100W normal one next to it. If anything the energy saver
is brighter. They're rated at 10,000 hours life so if they get anywhere
near that they're about the biggest bargain of the year. The 100W bulb is
now coming back out immediately and going into the stockpile. I just wish
I'd bought 10 of the things instead of 5.

I'd been grumbling about the government banning incandescent bulbs but at
34p a shot for energy savers that last 10 times longer that's me
converted. Better fill your boots before Tesco put the price up. I reckon
I've been spending £10 a year on normal bulbs plus the much bigger
electricity cost they've been wasting. They don't last very long and I
usually buy packs of five and seem to need a new pack every couple of
months.

I've just written a spreadsheet to see what these will save. If you have 5
bulbs on for 8 hours a day, swap 60W normal bulbs for these, normal bulbs
cost 60p each and last 1000 hours and electricity is 12p a kWh you'll save
£87 a year. £79 in electricity and £8 in bulb costs. For the whole country
that's nearly 2 billion quid a year. Even more interesting, playing with
the spreadsheet, your break even cost would be the same if the energy
savers cost £60 a bulb. Anything less than that and you're winning. It
rather puts into perspective the £5 a bulb these things have cost in the
past and which has no doubt put many people off using them. At 34p each
it's a no brainer.

I find eco bulbs have a horrible glow. Do these give light like normal
bulbs?