The hazards associated with cheap chargers - I don't have that much
faith in expensive ones either!

http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/produ...ning/chargers/

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user..._7438735a1.pdf


--

On Feb 1, 11:09*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
The hazards associated with cheap chargers - I don't have that much
faith in expensive ones either!

http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/produ...esting-screeni...

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user...ndustry/produc...

--

Good site!

Compact fluorescents exposed:

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user..._secure_16.pdf

In article ,
Phil writes:
On Feb 1, 11:09*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
The hazards associated with cheap chargers - I don't have that much
faith in expensive ones either!

http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/produ...esting-screeni...

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user...ndustry/produc...

--
Good site!
Compact fluorescents exposed:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user..._secure_16.pdf

I was not impressed with this. I probably don't remember all the
reasons now (this was a year or more ago), but some which spring to mind:

A sample of 1 each of 6 different lamps is far too few to be meaningful.
Their broken cathode test demonstrates a misunderstanding about the
mechanism which causes cathode overheating in a fluorescent tube,
and thus the test is not testing the right thing.
Switched mode PSU's are much more liable to nasty overheating effects
from under-voltage running (which they didn't test) than from over-
voltage running (which they did run).

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

On Feb 1, 2:01*pm, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Phil writes:

On Feb 1, 11:09*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
The hazards associated with cheap chargers - I don't have that much
faith in expensive ones either!

http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/produ...esting-screeni....

http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user...ndustry/produc....

--
Good site!
Compact fluorescents exposed:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user...ndustry/produc...

I was not impressed with this. I probably don't remember all the
reasons now (this was a year or more ago), but some which spring to mind:

A sample of 1 each of 6 different lamps is far too few to be meaningful.
Their broken cathode test demonstrates a misunderstanding about the
mechanism which causes cathode overheating in a fluorescent tube,
and thus the test is not testing the right thing.
Switched mode PSU's are much more liable to nasty overheating effects
from under-voltage running (which they didn't test) than from over-
voltage running (which they did run).

and they didnt find any genuine safety issue.


NT

In article ,
NT writes:
On Feb 1, 2:01*pm, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Phil writes:
Good site!
Compact fluorescents exposed:
http://www.esc.org.uk/fileadmin/user...ndustry/produc...

I was not impressed with this. I probably don't remember all the
reasons now (this was a year or more ago), but some which spring to mind:

A sample of 1 each of 6 different lamps is far too few to be meaningful.
Their broken cathode test demonstrates a misunderstanding about the
mechanism which causes cathode overheating in a fluorescent tube,
and thus the test is not testing the right thing.
Switched mode PSU's are much more liable to nasty overheating effects
from under-voltage running (which they didn't test) than from over-
voltage running (which they did run).

and they didnt find any genuine safety issue.

and I wouldn't really expect them to even if they did the test
properly, but that's not an excuse not to do the tests properly.

I've seen far more safety issues with filament lamps causing
overheating than I have with CFLs (none).

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