In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:

Found some excellent energy saving bulbs up our local elcheapo store the
other day. Almost as good as the old ones - bright, decent light, dimmable.

http://twitter.com/#!/dmchapman/stat...623808/photo/1

What an annoying link. It wants me to sign in to/ up for Twitter before
it will show me the picture.


errrr... really? Shouldn't do...

Try http://p.twimg.com/AcED69tCAAAvpPw.jpg

Darren

In article ,
says...

D.M.Chapman wrote:

Found some excellent energy saving bulbs up our local elcheapo store
the
other day. Almost as good as the old ones - bright, decent light, dimmable.

http://twitter.com/#!/dmchapman/stat...623808/photo/1

What an annoying link. It wants me to sign in to/ up for Twitter before
it will show me the picture.

Agreed! Perhaps Darren Chapman would like to explain his motive for
doing so?

--

Terry

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:15:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But that would mean putting the added heft at the wrong end of th
torch?

You wouldn't hit them with the front of the torch.

Aye, the technique is to hold the torch at the head end with the back
end resting on your shoulder. You blind the scroate first then a
flick of the wrist brains him with the back end of the torch.

You want it to continue working so you can find them to hit them again.

If you made decent contact you only need to hit 'em once with a 4 or
greater D cell maglight. Stoved in skull or broken shoulder/collar
bone...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:15:33 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

But that would mean putting the added heft at the wrong end of th
torch?

You wouldn't hit them with the front of the torch.

Aye, the technique is to hold the torch at the head end with the back
end resting on your shoulder. You blind the scroate first then a
flick of the wrist brains him with the back end of the torch.

And I thought you held it next to your eyes to avoid deep shadows. ;-)


You want it to continue working so you can find them to hit them again.

If you made decent contact you only need to hit 'em once with a 4 or
greater D cell maglight. Stoved in skull or broken shoulder/collar
bone...

There is an arms race too.. they now do six D cell maglites for that extra
reach.

On 18/10/2011 21:03, John Williamson wrote:
D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article
,
Man at B&Q wrote:
You may already be too late, or you could be lucky and get some very
cheap in the 99p Shop or the clearance sections of other shops.

Or Asda, or Morrisons, or Tesco, or... They are still widely
available, just not in 100W versions.


Found some excellent energy saving bulbs up our local elcheapo store the
other day. Almost as good as the old ones - bright, decent light,
dimmable.

http://twitter.com/#!/dmchapman/stat...623808/photo/1

What an annoying link. It wants me to sign in to/ up for Twitter before
it will show me the picture.

Click the "Display Media" button/link and it will show you anyway



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2011 18:30, djc wrote:
On 18/10/11 14:51, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:26 pm, "Tim wrote:

You would need to wrap them (the sides, not the ends) in insulation so that
they couldn't touch the case if it was metal or unlined with an insulator.
Otherwise they would short the batteries to earth.

Which as long as you put them at the negative end of the bottom
battery is fine. Most traditional metal torches that I've seen ground
the negative end of the bottom-most battery to the case - why provide
an extra wire when the case can do the job?


But that would mean putting the added heft at the wrong end of th torch?

Well you would not want to clomp someone with the torch end, you might
damage the bulb or reflector. Not to mention have some one bleed all
over your nice white light! ;-)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 18/10/2011 14:49, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:28 pm, John wrote:

White LEDs on their own are quite blue, however many of those designed
for interior lighting are actually combination LED/Fluorescent and give
a warmer (if CFL like) light.

Yep, the ones I have are like that and produce a light not completely
dissimilar to a halogen GU10, though with a very slight[1] flicker and
blue tinge.

[1] I am extremely sensitive to flicker - the days of 50 and 60Hz CRT
monitors were horrible and interlace was unusable - but I can *only
just* notice it on these.

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:39:07 GMT
lid (Windmill) wrote:

Davey writes:

Our house has lots of previously-installed upward-pointing lights. I
hate them. But that seems to be the trend, illuminate your ceiling.
Strange.

Simulate the outdoors?


Only if there was a 10 foot cloud ceiling.
--
Davey.

On Oct 18, 9:13*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:

It hardly ever gets used since I bought a £4 LED torch from Lidl.
The Lidl one is much brighter and the three AA cells last for ages.

I use a Tesco 2 D-cell LED Maglite clone. Lasts months on a set of
batteries, cost 17 quid (30-odd for a real one) and super-bright with
a far higher quality of light than most LEDs.

Superb bit of kit. I only wish I had bought two so I had a spare, as
I've not seen them since.

Neil

On Oct 19, 12:38*am, John Rumm wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Neil

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:38Â*am, John Rumm wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Neil

Not nearly as much as bright headlights, especially if badly aimed.
--
Davey.

In article ,
Windmill wrote:
Indeed. The expense is the reason I never bought any.

But I wonder if the early failures (of all types) could be due in part
to surge voltages on the mains.

I doubt it in my case.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John Rumm wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Eh? DC, isn't it?

Pulsed DC at about 100Hz. The mark/ space ratio is varied on tail/ brake
lights.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:02:28 +0100, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:38*am, John Rumm wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Neil

Not nearly as much as bright headlights, especially if badly aimed.

And used in in good daylight.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Oct 19, 11:39*am, John Williamson
wrote:

Pulsed DC at about 100Hz. The mark/ space ratio is varied on tail/ brake
lights.

Ugh, that's *far* too low for use on a moving object.

Definitely think 1kHz+ is required.

Neil

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

http://twitter.com/#!/dmchapman/stat...623808/photo/1

What an annoying link. It wants me to sign in to/ up for Twitter before
it will show me the picture.

Agreed! Perhaps Darren Chapman would like to explain his motive for
doing so?

I have no motive - in fact as far as I know, you don't have to sign up
to anything to see that image.

Couldn't care less if you sign up or not tbh

Darren (Chapman)

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.
Eh? DC, isn't it?
Pulsed DC at about 100Hz. The mark/ space ratio is varied on tail/
brake lights.

Ah, righto. So not just extra LEDs coming on for the brake lite then.

Yup, the same LEDS just driven harder. They're not rated to do it for
long, though.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 19/10/2011 09:31, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

Yup, some of them...

I like the LED cats eyes you get in some places worse though - first
they are pulsed so strobe, and secondly they light up on both sides - so
you see them as a strobing trail in your rear view mirror as well.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 19/10/2011 11:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John Rumm
wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.
Eh? DC, isn't it?
Pulsed DC at about 100Hz. The mark/ space ratio is varied on tail/
brake lights.

Ah, righto. So not just extra LEDs coming on for the brake lite then.

Extra lights used to be the way when LEDs were introduced for brake
lights (in fact quite often alongside incandescent tail lights). Those
were DC and posed no problem. Now there seems to be a trend for only one
set of LEDs doing both, and PWM being used to control the brightness.
These are not so nice!


--
Cheers,

John.

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

John Rumm wrote:
I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.

Make that a foot or two of extra space. 21 watt bulbs get to full
brightness in tens of milliseconds. Your theory would make it about a
quarter of a second. Unless you're talking about Formula one on the
straight, of course.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 19/10/2011 09:31, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

Yup, some of them...

I like the LED cats eyes you get in some places worse though - first
they are pulsed so strobe, and secondly they light up on both sides -
so you see them as a strobing trail in your rear view mirror as well.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.

A car length? I haven't done any sums, but I suspect that the faster
rise time of LED brightness of LEDs only gives you (at most) a few mm
extra stopping distance.

But am I alone in finding the 'bang-bang' on-off of LED rear lights (and
especially the indicators) extremely annoying? I would much prefer that
the on-off action was tailored to mimic incandescent bulbs.
--
Ian

On Oct 19, 3:10*pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:

But am I alone in finding the 'bang-bang' on-off of LED rear lights (and
especially the indicators) extremely annoying? I would much prefer that
the on-off action was tailored to mimic incandescent bulbs.

They are on some London buses - one LED stays on longer than the whole
matrix and (in a stepped manner) fades out.

It's just the flicker that annoys me, though. Up it to 1kHz+ and I
wouldn't care.

Neil

On 19/10/2011 09:31, Neil Williams wrote:

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

Yes.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.


Agree completely.

I was following a really silly one the other night - the tail lights
flickered for maximum annoyance, yet the indicators were real bulbs for
that slow ramp up.

Andy

On 19/10/2011 10:39, John Williamson wrote:
Pulsed DC at about 100Hz. The mark/ space ratio is varied on tail/ brake
lights.

I doubt it's as high as 100Hz. I'd go for 50.

Usually the brakes are full on.

Andy

On 19/10/2011 14:03, John Williamson wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.

Make that a foot or two of extra space. 21 watt bulbs get to full
brightness in tens of milliseconds. Your theory would make it about a
quarter of a second. Unless you're talking about Formula one on the
straight, of course.



My high-level light is LEDs, the others are bulbs.

It's a lots of 10s of milliseconds. I'd have gone for a quarter of a
second. Anyone got a high-speed camera?

Andy

On 19/10/2011 14:03, John Williamson wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.

Make that a foot or two of extra space. 21 watt bulbs get to full
brightness in tens of milliseconds. Your theory would make it about a

Its typically at least 100ms to get to useful brightness... you only
need to watch the lights on cars with traditional incandescent brake
lights, and a high level LED light - 100ms of difference is easily
observable. Thick filament 12 lamps are quite "slow". Even at only 15m/s
that's 1.5m


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 19/10/2011 14:10, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 19/10/2011 09:31, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

Yup, some of them...

I like the LED cats eyes you get in some places worse though - first
they are pulsed so strobe, and secondly they light up on both sides -
so you see them as a strobing trail in your rear view mirror as well.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

I would not ban LEDs as such (especially as the faster rise time on
brake lights actually amounts to a car length or more extra stopping
distance at speed), but I agree that a higher PWM frequency for
brightness modulation would be a good thing.

A car length? I haven't done any sums, but I suspect that the faster
rise time of LED brightness of LEDs only gives you (at most) a few mm
extra stopping distance.

Do the sums then ;-)

Even a 10ms difference would be more than a third of a metre at motorway
speeds.

But am I alone in finding the 'bang-bang' on-off of LED rear lights (and
especially the indicators) extremely annoying? I would much prefer that
the on-off action was tailored to mimic incandescent bulbs.

I agree, its quite distracting. However for an indicator they could
probably argue this is a good thing. I would also caution to be careful
what you wish for, since shaping the output would almost certainly be
done by PWM again, and we are back to strobing effects.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message
,
Neil Williams writes
On Oct 19, 12:38*am, John Rumm wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Neil

I find it a bit difficult to pick up indicators mounted in the centre of
a ring of bright red brake light.
--
hugh

On 19/10/2011 09:31, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:38 am, John wrote:

Yup I have same problem with flicker. Anything less than 85 Hz non
interlace and I can perceive it on a CRT.

Do you find car LED tail lights distracting? I do - to me they appear
to move slightly separately from the car itself. Not enough that it
causes a danger, but very irritating.

I think they should be banned, requiring the use of a resistance
rather than a pulse for a constant light, or required to use a far
higher pulse frequency (several kilohertz at the very least). I hate
to think what they do to epileptics, some of whom are *really*
sensitive to such things.

Neil

And the red man on pedestrian crossings - extremely distracting as the
pulsing catches the corner of your eye just as you are turning at a
junction.

SteveW

In article op.v3h7f6apn5ksl5@richard,
"Richard Russell" writes:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:44:50 +0100, Andrew Gabriel
wrote:

If the fittings are well ventilated, you might consider a GE Genura,
although it's an R80 replacement so might not fit well in some cases.

I have six GE Genuras in a ceiling track fitting (it's a big room!).
Their brightness is impressive, but like all CFLs (IME) they fail suddenly
long before their advertised lifetime, and they're jolly expensive to
replace. Temperature may be an issue, because they're in bog standard
unventilated fittings, but being intended as an R80 replacement surely
that's exactly what they should be designed for?

Lots of R80 fittings are in ceilings with no backs on them at all.
Even R80 cans normally have ventilation. (Those that don't tend
to end up with real R80 lamps soldered into the lampholder.)

I fitted many Genuras in ceilings (probably 40-50), and got almost
no failures. Actually, I noticed some were going dim, and a quick
calculation showed they'd done up to 30,000 hours. I talked with
one of the GE engineers who developed them (who is still regularly
on Usenet), and got the info that pretty much the only thing to
fail in them is the electronics, and that's purely temperature
dependant. (Generally speaking, you halve the life of any electronic
circuit for each 10C temperature rise.) At 30,000 hours, the phosphor
is wearing out and the mercury will be getting lost, which is why
they start getting dim at that point.

I don't understand why they're so expensive. GE developed them 20
years ago, and have not taken that technology any further (that
seems to have been left to the Chinese, who've done lots more work
on electrodeless fluorescents). The Genuras were £11 each when
they first came out which was probably only 50% more than ordinary
CFLs at the time. They've doubled in price whilst other CFLs are
about 1/10th the price. That doesn't make sense to me.

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

In article 27697410.285.1318946904264.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak12,
sm_jamieson writes:
On Saturday, October 15, 2011 2:05:50 PM UTC+1, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Across the extended family, we have two rooms with dimmers.

1) Central light taking 5 x SES 25W candles.

There's an 18W halogen replacement, and I tried one.
It was very noticably dimmer than the 25W candles, so I went
to the next size up, 28W halogen. That's fine, so they've now
all been replaced with 28W halogens. So far, none of the
halogen replacements have died, and the increase in light
output has been welcomed.

2) Central light with 3 x BC 60W cables plus 2 x 60W wall lights.

In this case, I wanted to reduce power consumption, mindful of
the 300W of lighting, but the fittings/shades were very much
wanted, and so I had to think of some way which retained them.
I decided to convert them all to 12V halogens.

I made up five adaptors to convert BC to GY6.35 (bi-pin), so I
could retrofit 12V capsule lamps, being careful to make them so
filament position was the same as with the 60W candles.
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/lights/adapter.jpg
I bought 35W 12V halogen capsules to replace the 60W mains lamps.

How did you connect up the leads to the old GLS bulb base (assuming that is what it is ?).

Unsoldered the existing wires (the lamp bases were removed from dead
CFLs), and soldered the GY6.35 wires in instead. I am actually relying
on the stiffness of the GY6.35 wires to make it self-supporting. I was
originally going to pack the lamp bases with cement, but it didn't
seem necessary. If it was a commercial product, it would be.
I did have to collect about 8 or 9 dead CFLs in order to get 5 usable
lamp bases. In some cases, I couldn't get all the plastic out of the
lamp base, and in others, the connections were not suitable for
resoldering (either brazed connections, or the contact came off when
touched with a soldering iron).

Would the insurance be OK in a fire if they found those ?

Why not? There's nothing other than metal, ceramic, and glass in the
light fittings, so it's difficult for it to catch fire. I would have
been more concerned if the BC lampholders had been plastic and would
probably have stripped them out completely.

The more vulnerable parts are the high current connections and the
transformers. The high current connections have all been carefully
done with crimps or bootlace ferules (depending if the connection
is permanent or can be disassembled). The two transformers are housed
in a ventilated aluminium case, with the addition of 70C self-resetting
thermal trips on each one (in addition to the thermal protection built
in to the transformers).

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

"Bolted" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 10:26 am, Jim S wrote:
What, exactly, is the situation regarding the phasing out of tungsten
lightbulbs?
All my main room lights are on dimmer switches so do I fill my spare
bedroom with bulbs for the future?

You can buy halogen replacements, which are pretty much identical
albeit more expensive to buy and less expensive to run.

Or you can readily buy dimmable CFLs these days.

If you really like the stone age, it is more authentic to light a fire
in the corner of the room.



Oh yes - the fire IS the best option. Just started using ours this autumn -
make such a difference ! So I suppose by your view we are in the stone age,
but we don't think so - more the log age! Saves burning all that oil.

AWEM