I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.


HN

On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

the ban didnt happen

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".

thats a self contradiction

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper


NT

On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

Chris

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:46:06 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

the ban didnt happen

So all the shelf clearing was for nothing?

How sad!

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".

thats a self contradiction

Not really. Look for the punctuation.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

??

I think they are made from tungsten these days.


They are cheaper though, I am in total agreement.

HN





NT

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:44 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

But carbon filament lamps are incandescent.

I assume the total cost of ownership refers to Tungsten incidentally.

HN


Chris

In article ,
H. Neary writes:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.
The best real 100W equivalents I've found are the Feit 23W ones
sold by Costco, but they've run out of stock until April. They
have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

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

On 03/03/2012 22:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In ,
H. writes:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

Being sold at a large mark up though.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

I found it hard to locate the more powerful ones, until recently I saw
30W CFLs in Asda, stated to be equivalent to 120 W "equivalent". I got
one to try it out, and it does seem quite bright in comparison to a 100
W tungsten bulb, and it seems to come up fairly bright right away. I
may get more of them. Sorry I can't recall how much it cost.


--
Clive Page

NT wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:41 pm, H. Neary wrote:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".

thats a self contradiction
No it isn't, because he put 'equivalents' in quotes, meaning that it is
a claim rather than a fact.

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper
If
-- you don't mind the peculiar colour of the light
-- the lamp continues to give the rated light output right to the end
-- the lamp lasts as long as is claimed.

Bill

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 22:12:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
H. Neary writes:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.
The best real 100W equivalents I've found are the Feit 23W ones
sold by Costco, but they've run out of stock until April. They
have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

Andrew, what are the "rules" about longevity claims for light bulbs?

It appears to me that if it's quoted in hours, it means continuous use
but if it's quoted in years it's some unspecified daily use.
I have even seen both figures on the same lamp without any explanation
why mathematically they didn't correlate.


--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article ,
Graham. writes:

Andrew, what are the "rules" about longevity claims for light bulbs?

It appears to me that if it's quoted in hours, it means continuous use

For fluorescent lamps, it is 3 hours "on" per switching.
I presume CFLs are the same, but I don't know that for sure.

Standard filament lamps - it makes almost no difference to life
how frequently they're switched.

but if it's quoted in years it's some unspecified daily use.

It usually says something about how many hours per day they
assume, but I don't think there's any standardisation for this
form of measurement.

I have even seen both figures on the same lamp without any explanation
why mathematically they didn't correlate.

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

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:56:01 +0000, Bill Wright wrote:
The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper
If
-- you don't mind the peculiar colour of the light -- the lamp continues
to give the rated light output right to the end -- the lamp lasts as
long as is claimed.

Yes, murky waters where I am too because we usually have the heating on
for 6 months of the year, and part of the house heat is electric
baseboard - so any heat that incandescents put out is still doing useful
work during that time.

cheers

Jules

wrote:


Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
wrote:


Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.

The LEDs are even worse.......

--
Adam

Even the best cfls are crap for those with poor sight though. I suspect its
the choice of frequencies in the phosphor or the flicker effect.

LEDs seem better.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"NT" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 8:41 pm, H. Neary wrote:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

the ban didnt happen

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".

thats a self contradiction

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper


NT

In message , Graham.
wrote

It appears to me that if it's quoted in hours, it means continuous use
but if it's quoted in years it's some unspecified daily use.
I have even seen both figures on the same lamp without any explanation
why mathematically they didn't correlate.


I've had two blow recently. Both went on switch on. I'm sure that the
electronics in some of these bulbs is not fit for purpose and the
claimed life is the continuous life, if you never switch them off.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Mar 3, 9:00*pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

Chris


I still have some of the"jamjar" CFLs made by Philps. They must be
around 12 years old.

On Mar 3, 9:57*pm, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:44 -0800 (PST),





wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

But carbon filament lamps are incandescent.

I assume the total cost of ownership refers to Tungsten incidentally.

HN



Carbon filiment??????? I thought THEY went out 90-100 years ago?

On Mar 3, 10:12*pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * H. Neary writes:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.
The best real 100W equivalents I've found are the Feit 23W ones
sold by Costco, but they've run out of stock until April. They
have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

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

There has always been 2D fittings.

On Mar 3, 11:38*pm, Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 22:12:43 +0000 (UTC),





(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
In article ,
* *H. Neary writes:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.
The best real 100W equivalents I've found are the Feit 23W ones
sold by Costco, but they've run out of stock until April. They
have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

Andrew, what are the "rules" about longevity claims for light bulbs?

It appears to me that if it's quoted in hours, it means continuous use
but if it's quoted in years it's some unspecified daily use.
I have even seen both figures on the same lamp without any explanation
why mathematically they didn't correlate.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bit on the topic here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact...esc ent_lamps

On Mar 4, 3:13*am, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
wrote:
wrote:
Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.

--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

I mark mine with the date when I install it. I will be taking any
back that fail inside the advertised time. No failures yet.
I have no incandescent lamps at all.
I agree the "equivalency" is rubbish.

On Mar 4, 3:16*am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

wrote:

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.

The LEDs are even worse.......

--
Adam

I have one LED lamp. One of the LED diode thingys has failed in it.
(There are about twenty.)

On Mar 4, 3:13*am, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
wrote:
wrote:
Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.

I don't think that's very accurate, for 3 reasons.

1. CFLs do have early failures, and of course this is made up for by
the ones that last longer than rated life. Ie there isnt really a
problem.

2. A cfl need only function for a short time to pay off its additional
purchase cost.
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...ng_Calculation

3. I dont see any reason to resent the fact that some fail early, some
last longer than rated. Its how all types of bulb work.


NT

On Mar 3, 9:00*pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

Chris

If you're genuinely experiencing a substandard product, buy another
brand! That's stating the obvious really.


NT

harry wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:57 pm, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:00:44 -0800 (PST),





wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46 pm, NT wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:41 pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they
don't get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power
ones you need to replace a 100W incandescent.

But carbon filament lamps are incandescent.

I assume the total cost of ownership refers to Tungsten
incidentally.

HN



Carbon filiment??????? I thought THEY went out 90-100 years ago?

Do you remember it well?:-)

--
Adam

For fluorescent lamps, it is 3 hours "on" per switching.
I presume CFLs are the same, but I don't know that for sure.

I think that for CFLs it effectively assumes for the survival factor 2
hours if the start-up time is less than 0.3 seconds. That's due to
improve to 1 hour. This and a lot else about required perfomance is
specified for CFLs in Annex II, Table 4 to Commission Regulation (EC) No
244/2009. And yes I am very sad that I could be bothered to look up the
source.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 22:12:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
H. Neary writes:
I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

I don't know if it's been fixed, but the UK Act which brought this
EU directive into UK law was rushed, hence faulty, and unenforcible.

Secondly, lots of companies stockpiled 100W (and most other)
filament lamps in the UK, thinking there would be a large demand,
but actually there isn't, so there's years worth stockpiled.
The law (even if it had worked) only outlawed manufacture and
import, not selling what's already here.

The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.
The best real 100W equivalents I've found are the Feit 23W ones
sold by Costco, but they've run out of stock until April. They
have 60W equivalents too. The trouble is that many retail stores
don't sell anything more than 18W CFLs, so they don't have anything
which is genuinely equivalent to 100W lamps.

The Status 30W in Morrisons seem to be OK; also the PF is nearly 1. There is
a bit of warm-up time - that doesn't bother me as the one that I use most is
on in the early morning when the 'daylight' is poor, so a good bright light
after 30 sec. or so is acceptable.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

wrote:


Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

And if a CFL fails early in its life my experience is that one really
resents having to pay so much to replace it.


I have had consistently good results from Prolite spirals over the last 3
years. I have had a couple of bulbs burning 24h/day and the lifetime seems
to be around 2 years - so somewhere bweteen 15,000 - 20,000 hours.

The 25W and 30W BC ones are extremely good - fast start up and good light -
far better than an incandesent for working by.

But they are not cheap - which pretty much sums it up. I got fed up with
supermarket crap dying or being useless I did a trial of several types.

Megaman aren't a bad make either.

--
Tim Watts

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...


Megaman aren't a bad make either.


I've had two out door Megaman spot lights actually fill up with water -
strangely they stopped working soon after that, but pretty lousy for an
external bulb!

AWEM

In message , Tim Watts
wrote

I have had consistently good results from Prolite spirals over the last 3
years.

My experience with that brand
http://www.admac.myzen.co.uk/bulb/
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Andrew Gabriel :
The issue of "equivalents" seems to be being corrected - I notice
that 18W CFL's are no longer incorrectly quoted as 100W equivalent.

I look forward to a sensible world, where the brightness was specified
as the light *output*, shortly after switching on (say 3 seconds), when
half its rated life has elapsed.

Never going to happen, is it? Slimy *******s.

--
Mike Barnes

In article ,
harry writes:
Carbon filiment??????? I thought THEY went out 90-100 years ago?

They came back as horribly inefficient decorative lamps a few years
ago (were available in B&Q, and may still be).

They've always been available for laboratory use from lab suppliers,
normally for imaging their filaments through optics (e.g. pin-hole
cameras).

They have an interesting failure mode - if the glass cracks and air
gets in, they normally explode at next switch-on.

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

Alan wrote:

In message , Tim Watts
wrote

I have had consistently good results from Prolite spirals over the last 3
years.

My experience with that brand
http://www.admac.myzen.co.uk/bulb/

How many blew up out of how many did you try?

A sample of one/one can be bad luck. One of mine was DoA but was replaced
for free.



--
Tim Watts

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
I have had consistently good results from Prolite spirals over the last 3
years. I have had a couple of bulbs burning 24h/day and the lifetime seems
to be around 2 years - so somewhere bweteen 15,000 - 20,000 hours.

The 25W and 30W BC ones are extremely good - fast start up and good light -
far better than an incandesent for working by.

But they are not cheap - which pretty much sums it up. I got fed up with
supermarket crap dying or being useless I did a trial of several types.

I recommended the 23W Feit ones from Costco elsewhere in the thread.
They are cheap (and come variously in packs of 4 or 6), but they're
currently out of stock until April. I've fitted loads of them over
the last 4-5 years and so far very few have failed. Many of these are
running in enclosed hot fittings too.

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

"NT" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 9:00 pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46 pm, NT wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:41 pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

Chris

If you're genuinely experiencing a substandard product, buy another
brand! That's stating the obvious really.



ITYM take it back and get it replaced by another brand.
NT

In article ,
harry writes:
On Mar 3, 9:00*pm, wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:46*pm, NT wrote:

On Mar 3, 8:41*pm, H. Neary wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.

HN

The TCO of CFLs works out cheaper

Only if they live up to their promised lifetime which IME they don't
get anywhere near, especially the very expensive high power ones you
need to replace a 100W incandescent.

Chris
I still have some of the"jamjar" CFLs made by Philps. They must be
around 12 years old.

I had one of the SL18 pre-release samples they distributed in 1980,
and required a feedback form (which I submitted). Unfortunately, I
left it in digs when I moved out in 1984. I tried to retrieve it a
year later, but the occupier told me it had died and been chucked out.

I still have an SL25 and SL9 in the cupboard, but the ratings other
than SL18 (18W) appeared significantly later than the original SL18.

Thorn Lighting released the 2D lamp and BC ballast at the same time,
the advantage being that you didn't have to throw out the ballast
when the tube died. The SL18 became popular in the home, whereas the
2D became more popular in commercial installations, as companies
started designing luminares specifically for it (the original retrofit
BC ballast version never got very popular). Commercial use of compact
fluorescent was way ahead of domestic use in the early days,
so Thorn's 2D was initially more successful than Philips SL18.

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

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" writes:
Even the best cfls are crap for those with poor sight though. I suspect its
the choice of frequencies in the phosphor or the flicker effect.

I suspect it was the dishonesty of the filament equivalence labels
meaning they were always dimmer than expected, combined with retail
outlets like supermarkets not stocking any genuine 100W (or above)
equivalents.

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

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:41:10 -0000, wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their "equivalents".
Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the subsidies have
rendered the so called more efficient lamps so expensive.


HN

Get an LED lamp and stop using the CFL ****. Instant on, 50,000 hour life, bright, any tone of white you want, virtually no heat produced, virtually no electricity used.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Excuse me, are you reading that paper you're sitting on?

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:41:10 -0000, wrote:

I see a few places are stocking 100W incandescent bulbs again.

I thought they had been banned under EU regs.

Personally I welcome them. They are brighter than their
"equivalents". Instant on, and a hell of a lot cheaper now the
subsidies have rendered the so called more efficient lamps so
expensive. HN

Get an LED lamp and stop using the CFL ****. Instant on, 50,000 hour
life, bright, any tone of white you want, virtually no heat produced,
virtually no electricity used.

In your dreams.

--
Adam

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I suspect it was the dishonesty of the filament equivalence labels
meaning they were always dimmer than expected, ...

Agreed up to about a year ago the "equivalence" was optomistic to say
the least. More recently the packaging does seem to reflect more
accurate values and the lumen output is more promimently displayed as
well.

... combined with retail outlets like supermarkets not stocking any
genuine 100W (or above) equivalents.

I've never lived anywhere that had 100W tungsten bulbs, far to fing
bright! 60W perl was the norm. Clear ones are just to harsh. Mind you
main living areas would have a fitting with several bulbs in not just
a single pendant. Are those that seem to require the light output of
100W bulbs just have the one bulb per room?

--
Cheers
Dave.