We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

On 27 Oct, 09:42, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room

Switch to multiple sets of small lamps (downlighters?) and switch them
separately, with each lamp either full on or full off.

Some CFLs will work with some dimmers.

Kevin
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:42

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

CFLs are not the problem - Megaman and Varilight both make dimmable CFLs

http://www.varilight.co.uk/
http://www.megamanuk.com/

There are three categories of dimmers IME:

a) Brain dead knob, diac and triac. These are fairly simple and *can* work
OK with the above.

b) Smart dimmers - ones with buttons, IR receivers, radio receivers. These
can be more finnicky as they need to draw a tiny amount of power when "off"
to keep the circuitry ticking. This residual current can cause CFLs (even
dimmable ones) to flash occasionally. The dimmable CFLs try to cope with
this, buy YMMV

c) "LV" dimmers. Designed for small loads and dimmable SELV PSUs. Obviously
the best choice, but you are usually back to a knob dimmer with not smart
features.

The dimmable CFLs are getting better. Otherwise, just buy loads of tungsten
bulbs and stockpile them.

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Oct 27, 9:42*am, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. *I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. *But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...26_Switchbanks

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

--
Frank Erskine

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Thanks for the replies. The Wiki is especially informative, I wish
I'd realised it was there earlier.

Kevin wrote:
Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Thanks for the replies. The Wiki is especially informative, I wish
I'd realised it was there earlier.

I am going to try and miss out the cfl stage for dimming lights. I
believe that LED are the medium term future.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:55:31 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.


That's my plan, on the other hand we will run out at some point and
it's useful to know what the options are.

Well if you get sufficient, by the time they 'run out' there'll
possibly be some sort of _effective_ replacements.

--
Frank Erskine

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:43 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

;-)

T i m

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Simplistic view of supply/demand.

Bill

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them collected
with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100% compliance with
that one. Then again it is easier to make a few manufacturers change their
product than make the teeming millions in the UK dispose of specialised
rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply an easily accessible
infrastructure such as regular collections door to door. Does every used AA
and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for specialised disposal or do the
majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot up should keep the next
generation gainfully employed.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change & extinction
by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested that
much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third
World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to the
burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be
achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would be
major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers
drying up. To me this makes all the fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty
the Lake District of water using a tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the
melting of polar ice caps is due to carbon from burning wood (presumably by
the 3rd world) coating the snow and ice and absorbing more heat from the
sun. A scary talk.

(3) On pricing - ISTR the cost of incandescent bulbs dropping enormously
once CFLs became available. Presumably because if there was no price
difference everyone would buy CFLs because they were cheaper to run. On that
basis I would suggest that banning old style bulbs might be a good idea to
prevent new and more efficient technology being held back by the dumping of
old technology onto the market. Strange how the incandescents dropped from
£3 to 30p so quickly. I don't understand why New Labour didn't follow the
usual route and add a surcharge to the incandescent bulbs to bring the price
back up. They could then raise taxes and claim to be green at the same time.
Then waste the extra money.

Should we start cross posting to uk.political.rant.yet.again ?

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts
wibbled on Wednesday 28 October 2009 22:19


"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them
collected with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100%
compliance with that one. Then again it is easier to make a few
manufacturers change their product than make the teeming millions in the
UK dispose of specialised rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply
an easily accessible infrastructure such as regular collections door to
door. Does every used AA and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for
specialised disposal or do the majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot
up should keep the next generation gainfully employed.

I was at the dump today. Dutifully sorted a load of crap prior to moving. I
found the bin for batteries - but I did not noticed a place for CFLs. Maybe
I'll ask tomorrow. T Wells dump is fairly fully featured, eg they take
asbestos and have skips and bins for pretty much every other category.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change &
extinction by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was
suggested that much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished
nations (Third World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source
of energy to the burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not
something that can be achieved by consumer legislation. It was also
suggested that there would be major climate change within the next 20
years in Africa, with major rivers drying up. To me this makes all the
fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty the Lake District of water using a
tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the melting of polar ice caps is due to
carbon from burning wood (presumably by the 3rd world) coating the snow
and ice and absorbing more heat from the sun. A scary talk.

Scary. Short of nuking them out of existence, what can you do. The poor sods
don't really have the luxury of the debate of "hmm, CFL or tungsten". Life
is running at a whole different level for a lot of them.



--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:30:16 +0000, Tim W wrote:

Scary. Short of nuking them out of existence, what can you do. The poor
sods don't really have the luxury of the debate of "hmm, CFL or
tungsten". Life is running at a whole different level for a lot of them.

Nature will take care of it, like it always does. When the rivers dry
up they will starve to death. Once dead they stop burning trees...
The "west" can send in aid but that will only save a few.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:30:16 +0000 someone who may be Tim W
wrote this:-

Scary. Short of nuking them out of existence, what can you do. The poor sods
don't really have the luxury of the debate of "hmm, CFL or tungsten". Life
is running at a whole different level for a lot of them.

People are trying to set up a false question. Climate change
campaigners are well aware of the issues the poor face with climate
change. They are the ones who are already suffering the effects and
will suffer them most in the future. Take a look at the logos at the
bottom of http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=080_1175824841. For all
their faults, are Christian Aid, Cafod and Oxfam unaware of the
choices the poor face? I suggest they are not.

It is also false to paint all environmental organisations as being
run by rich westerners. To take one example, Friends of the Earth
policies are guided more by "southern" representatives than
"northern" ones. The influence can be seen by browsing
http://www.foei.org/

I heard an interesting set of facts last weekend. The person who
gave it didn't have the source, but I am happy to believe him.

UK population 1% of the world
UK emissions 3% of the world

Both the above are well known.

UK emissions since the start of the industrial revolution 17%

In other words we have a huge historic responsibility which we need
to discharge.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 28 Oct, 22:19, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill. Apparently you have
to take them to a specialist disposal point instead of having them collected
with rubbish and recyclables. Yeah, right. Sure to be 100% compliance with
that one. Then again it is easier to make a few manufacturers change their
product than make the teeming millions in the UK dispose of specialised
rubbish sensibly. Especially if you don't supply an easily accessible
infrastructure such as regular collections door to door. Does every used AA
and AAA battery with harmful chemicals go for specialised disposal or do the
majority go to landfill? Cleaning that lot up should keep the next
generation gainfully employed.

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change & extinction
by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested that
much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third
World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to the
burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be
achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would be
major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers
drying up.

Not actually had the benefit of seeing the lecture , but a brief look
at Dr Richard Leakey FRS previous experience is palentology,
anthropology and museum and government administration.

Difficult to see where he could speak with any authority on climate
change.

Strongly think it unlikely that the population of Africa can keep up
with the `developed` world`s appetite for coal burning power stations
and carbon emmisions.

Mortality is certainly a problem to the African continent, soaring
birth rates are a more northern issue.



To me this makes all the fuss about CFLs akin to trying to empty
the Lake District of water using a tea spoon. Also allegedly much of the
melting of polar ice caps is due to carbon from burning wood (presumably by
the 3rd world) coating the snow and ice and absorbing more heat from the
sun. A scary talk.

Scary if you believed any of this total bunkum, really.

Cheers
Adam



(3) On pricing - ISTR the cost of incandescent bulbs dropping enormously
once CFLs became available. Presumably because if there was no price
difference everyone would buy CFLs because they were cheaper to run. On that
basis I would suggest that banning old style bulbs might be a good idea to
prevent new and more efficient technology being held back by the dumping of
old technology onto the market. Strange how the incandescents dropped from
£3 to 30p so quickly. I don't understand why New Labour didn't follow the
usual route and add a surcharge to the incandescent bulbs to bring the price
back up. They could then raise taxes and claim to be green at the same time.
Then waste the extra money.

Should we start cross posting to uk.political.rant.yet.again ?

Cheers

Dave R

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct, 22:19, "David WE Roberts" wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:27:09 +0000 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

I encourage people to do this too. The sooner those inefficient
lamps are cleared from the shelves the better.

Just thought I'd chuck in 2p on the 'environmental' debate.
snip

(2) This week I watched a recording of a talk - "Climate change &
extinction
by Richard Leakey (recorded from the Royal Society)". It was suggested
that
much of the carbon based pollution came from impoverished nations (Third
World?) with soaring birth rates and no alternative source of energy to
the
burning of wood. Policing their carbon useage is not something that can be
achieved by consumer legislation. It was also suggested that there would
be
major climate change within the next 20 years in Africa, with major rivers
drying up.

Not actually had the benefit of seeing the lecture , but a brief look
at Dr Richard Leakey FRS previous experience is palentology,
anthropology and museum and government administration.

Difficult to see where he could speak with any authority on climate
change.

snip

Did you check further on his 'government administration'?
[Leaving aside the unusual assumption that no government administrators know
anything about climate change!]
He was firstly in charge of the Kenya Wildlife Service and responsible for
all the national parks - he is therefore likely to have been involved first
hand in evidence of climate change including the drying up of major rivers.
He then was responsible for reorganising the Kenyan Civil Service and served
for a time in the Kenyan government.
So again, he is likely to know first hand about the issues within Kenya
including environmental and population issues.
He is also an eminent scientist.
How does this disqualify him from holding a valid opinion on climate change?

Feel free to post your superior qualifications here :-)

He seemed a reasonable bloke and a very good speaker and what he said seemed
to make sense.

I would, however, be interested to see figures on how the total carbon
footprint of Africa compares for example to the total carbon footprint of
the EU.
The per capita useage is likely to be smaller but if the population is to
double over the next 10-20 years and their carbon consumption cannot be
reduced on a per capita basis because they are already at subsistence level
then their carbon footprint is likely to double also.
They are unlikely to benefit from swapping incandescent bulbs for CFLs or
from swapping old boilers for new combis.
Cutting down on their holiday jet miles is also likely to make minimal
difference.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE
Roberts" wrote this:-

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill.

I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of
people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra
electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that
generation is at the UK mix.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:19:32 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE
Roberts" wrote this:-

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill.

I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of
people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra
electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that
generation is at the UK mix.

Probably true.

It's also true that coal fired power stations emit more radioactivity
than nuclear ones.

So, the solution is simple, want it spelled out ?

Derek

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:19:42 -0000 someone who may be "David WE
Roberts" wrote this:-

(1) There has been plenty of action on the supply of CFLs but a remarkable
lack of action on the disposal, even though they allegedly contain harmful
chemicals and should not just be ditched in land fill.

I have not checked the figures myself, but I have heard a number of
people state that more mercury is emitted in generating the extra
electricity needed to power old fashioned lamps, assuming that
generation is at the UK mix.

And does that mercury go into landfill?

Surely it is better to reduce the amount of mercury going into the
environment instead of sayin "Well, we will probably be no worse off".
Otherwise you are spending a lot of money to swap one kind of polution for
another.

In message , Frank Erskine
writes
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:42:42 -0700 (PDT), Kevin had
this to say:

We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Stock up with incandescent bulbs now - while you can still get 'em.

Lightbulbs2U are where I got mine from

--
geoff

On 27 Oct, 09:42, Kevin wrote:
We wanted to be able to vary the brightness of the lights in the
dining room depending whether we were having visitors or trying to
work in there. *I replaced the switch with a dimmer switch and it
meets our needs perfectly. *But, even when I was fitting it I did
wonder if I was wasting my money given that we won't be able to get
incadescent bulbs for much longer, so will I need to remove it again
when we're forced to use CFL bulbs or is there an alternative that
will still work with the dimmer?

Apart from previously mentioned Varilight and Megaman CFLs which don`t
dim to zero very well.

Expanding range of halogen, which is a type of incandescent, GLS
alternatives from Halogena style to the Osram GLS style halogens, 42W
halogen in 60w GLS Pearl style envelope. These are likely to be around
for the forseeable future, at least until something better than
current crop of CFLs and LED arrives.

Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Cheers
Adam

Adam Aglionby wrote:
Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Or bring all the wiring from switches and light fittings back to one
accessible junction box?

Jim
wibbled on Tuesday 27 October 2009 13:45

Adam Aglionby wrote:
Switching does not give the same versatilty as dimming but there is a
lot to commend more than one lighting circuit per room if your
starting with open walls.

Or bring all the wiring from switches and light fittings back to one
accessible junction box?

That's what I'm doing. Well, 4 boxes, one per corner to avoid massive cable
runs. It will give me some possibilities to stick relays in later to do
funky stuff (like turn off the kids' lights after only being left on for 3
weeks and 23 minutes).

--
Tim Watts

This space intentionally left blank...