I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent before
and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?

The centre part where the ends of the tube emanate simply plugs in and out,
don't think I've seen one that is held in with any kind of a fixing.

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?


You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the base
with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the base when
viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well stuck into the
lamps socket and some force may be needed.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)

--
Adam

I change lots of these at work - it's easy, just pull it as people have said, holding the white plastic central bit.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?


You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the
base with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the
base when viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well
stuck into the lamps socket and some force may be needed.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

http://www.screwfix.com/p/asd-2d-2d-...50lm-16w/86579

Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

--
Adam

On 10/07/2015 20:00, ARW wrote:
"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?


You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the
base with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the
base when viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well
stuck into the lamps socket and some force may be needed.

Thanks. I had given it a pull down but it didn't move. So I tried a
horizontal pull with the same effect. I wondered then if I needed to
press the end and pull... etc etc.

I'll give it a firm pull down and brace against the rest of the fitting.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)

One of Donny's famous exports then?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 10/07/2015 20:05, ARW wrote:

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

http://www.screwfix.com/p/asd-2d-2d-...50lm-16w/86579


Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

I found the Screwfix image and a whole lot of others but none showed the
'other' side. Looks like I'll have to remove it to know what to order.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 10/07/2015 20:16, F wrote:
On 10/07/2015 20:05, ARW wrote:

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

http://www.screwfix.com/p/asd-2d-2d-...50lm-16w/86579



Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

I found the Screwfix image and a whole lot of others but none showed the
'other' side. Looks like I'll have to remove it to know what to order.

Unless the '2P' in the embossed 'ED16/835/2P' means 2 pin?

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/07/2015 20:16, F wrote:
On 10/07/2015 20:05, ARW wrote:

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

http://www.screwfix.com/p/asd-2d-2d-...50lm-16w/86579



Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

I found the Screwfix image and a whole lot of others but none showed the
'other' side. Looks like I'll have to remove it to know what to order.

Unless the '2P' in the embossed 'ED16/835/2P' means 2 pin?


I was too lazy to expand the picture.

It is also possible that the lamp has slightly melted the lamp fitting
socket as the pins got hot. TBH brute force is needed and if the lampholder
base is already shagged then it's just tough - there is nothing that you can
do about that.


Good luck mate.


I estimate that 5 to 10% of the ones I replace have shagged lamp fitting
bases and need a full replacement.

--
Adam

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading so
much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

tim

tim..... wrote:

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading
so much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

tim




Yes. It's fascinating to read the activity headers which are nothing to
do with a simple picture. I find about two thirds of the pictures put
up, will not display on my browser, which implies that the web page is
incompetently written. Google have recently changed the coding for their
maps facility, which meant I had to use Bing maps. There is no
consideration for the user whatsoever as far as I can see. Fortunately
Amazon still works.

On 10/07/2015 20:00, ARW wrote:
"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?


You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the
base with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the
base when viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well
stuck into the lamps socket and some force may be needed.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)


To drift off-thread a bit, am I the only person who finds the light
output from 2D light fittings like that a bit disappointing?

I bought a 38W 2D fitting hoping it would be bright, but it seemed
dimmer than a 23W Tesco CFL in a bayonet fitting, and much dimmer than a
58W linear tube.

On 11/07/2015 12:49, tim..... wrote:

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading
so much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

Apologies for that. I suppose they do it because they can...

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

On 10/07/2015 20:37, ARW wrote:
"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 10/07/2015 20:16, F wrote:
On 10/07/2015 20:05, ARW wrote:

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

http://www.screwfix.com/p/asd-2d-2d-...50lm-16w/86579




Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

I found the Screwfix image and a whole lot of others but none showed the
'other' side. Looks like I'll have to remove it to know what to order.

Unless the '2P' in the embossed 'ED16/835/2P' means 2 pin?


I was too lazy to expand the picture.

It is also possible that the lamp has slightly melted the lamp fitting
socket as the pins got hot. TBH brute force is needed and if the
lampholder base is already shagged then it's just tough - there is
nothing that you can do about that.


Good luck mate.


I estimate that 5 to 10% of the ones I replace have shagged lamp fitting
bases and need a full replacement.

Brute force not needed, just a little more than I used when I was
exploring. It came away OK, it's 2 pin, and the base is fine.

Thanks, everyone, for the suggestions.

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - 2015, the last year to see a Vulcan fly

F a écrit :
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?

Right in the middle, where the plastic lamp centre is, there is a tiny
socket on the fitting and a plug 2 or 4 pin on the lamp. Sometimes
there is some extra support in the form of half a terry clip. Just grip
the plastic part and pull it straight out from the fitting.

In article ,
FullyDetached writes:
On 10/07/2015 20:00, ARW wrote:
"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent
before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?


You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the
base with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the
base when viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well
stuck into the lamps socket and some force may be needed.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)


To drift off-thread a bit, am I the only person who finds the light
output from 2D light fittings like that a bit disappointing?

I bought a 38W 2D fitting hoping it would be bright, but it seemed
dimmer than a 23W Tesco CFL in a bayonet fitting, and much dimmer than a
58W linear tube.

There are several factors.
The efficiency of the tube (and ballast if separate).
The efficientcy of the luminare.
The distribution of light emitted.

A 58W linear tube is about as efficient as you can get - it casts no
shadow loss on the light output, although bear in mind this doesn't
include the ballast power consumption. Light output is highest on the
plane perpendicular to the tube centre, dropping to zero along the axis
of the tube. Distribution can be controlled by the luminare, although
generally the more control, the less efficient the luminare is.

For a 2D lamp, to meet the original electrical characteristics, they
could only be rated B for efficiency, although that has changed recently,
and there are lower power retrofits too (check what the actual power
rating is marked on the lamp). Efficiency is also lower because it casts
a self-shadow on the output - all non-linear tubes do, but because the
folded tubes are widely spaced, it's less of an effect than most
compact fluorescent retrofits. The highest light output is to front and
rear along a line perpendicular to the plane of the tube, and the lowest
is along the plane of the tube where most of the tube is in shadow with
only 1/4 of the length of the tube visible. The luminare can be a very
large factor here too, as it can easily lose most of the rear-emitted
light output, which is almost half the light from the lamp, and almost
all have a diffuser cover, which if not well designed can easily lose
half of what's emitted from the front. In summary, the tube itself is
actually pretty good, and when it was used as originally designed by
Thorn Lighting (it was their competitor to the Philips SL18), it was
significantly better. It's not generally used as optimally today although
its has stood the test of time well.

A retrofit CFL is generally the least efficient because of the shadow
loss - in all directions, a significant length of the tube is shadowed
by another part of the tube. Closely spaced (compact) designs are worse
than widely spaced ones. Light distribution depends on tube shape - spiral
and many folded tube ones are mostly directed to the sides. This is the
opposite of the 2D. Having said this, the tube design can be changed to
become more efficient as we discover how to do that, because the electrical
characteristics of the tube are hidden by the integral control gear.
Again, luminare has a major impact on further light loss - often 3/4 of
the light is lost here.

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

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 11/07/2015 12:49, tim..... wrote:

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
.. .
I've never come across one of these
http://s1126.photobucket.com/user/di...%20fluorescent

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading
so much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

Apologies for that.

Oh it's not your fault

many "newspapers" sites do it as well, but I can get around that by putting
them on the "naughty shelf"

but you can't do that with (most) picture sharing sites, as if you do they
don't show you the picture.

(if any one newspaper site refuses to show me its content if I won't let it
run its script there are 100 alternatives)

tim

tim..... wrote:

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading
so much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

"F" news@nowhere wrote:

Apologies for that.

Oh it's not your fault

many "newspapers" sites do it as well, but I can get around that by putting
them on the "naughty shelf"

I find that using ABP to ditch the analytics, social media and tracking
stuff, there's nothing objectionable about the remaining content from
PhotoBucket itself, even without ABP I've seen pages that are much worse
(as you say, newspapers in particular are very heavily bogged down
without using blocking).

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
tim..... wrote:

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on
downloading
so much background ****e that my poor little PC can't cope?

"F" news@nowhere wrote:

Apologies for that.

Oh it's not your fault

many "newspapers" sites do it as well, but I can get around that by
putting
them on the "naughty shelf"

I find that using ABP to ditch the analytics, social media and tracking
stuff,

I find that having ABP installed gobbles up so much memory that my PC won't
run anything else

there's nothing objectionable about the remaining content from PhotoBucket
itself,

It's not about it being objectionable.

It's about the background downloading/executing of whatever **** it is
trying to do, makes the browser hang

not even Chrome could manage it

tim

tim..... wrote:

I find that having ABP installed gobbles up so much memory that my PC won't
run anything else

On my previous "home" laptop I had Win7 with 4GB, and between them FF+TB
would gobble almost 3GB and slow it down, so when I bought a new Win8
laptop for home I got 8GB of RAM, since then I rarely see FF+TB eat more
than 1GB, even with 120+ tabs open, oh well.

En el artículo , Andy
Burns escribió:

(as you say, newspapers in particular are very heavily bogged down
without using blocking).

ABP plus Ghostery for the win!

Ghostery blocks the ever-increasing number of trackers on the Torygraph
site, over 30 on some pages.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , tim.....
escribió:

I find that having ABP installed gobbles up so much memory that my PC won't
run anything else

Doesn't seem to be a problem here (Firefox 28.0 on Win8 32-bit), but
there's a fork of ABP that apparently uses a lot less memory. Have a
look for uBlock.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Monday, 13 July 2015 04:38:26 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , tim.....
escribió:

I find that having ABP installed gobbles up so much memory that my PC won't
run anything else

Doesn't seem to be a problem here (Firefox 28.0 on Win8 32-bit), but
there's a fork of ABP that apparently uses a lot less memory. Have a
look for uBlock.

I've been using RequestPolicy, but don't like it. Everthing yuo obviously want it blocks by default, needing approval clicks, and there seems no way to set that option more sensibly. Also when presented with a long list of blocked elements you can't tick which ones you want, each click causes a page reload.

Why some sites seem determined to lose a percentage of traffic from all their crap I don't know. Hopefully evolution will get rid of them.


NT

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Andy
Burns escribió:

(as you say, newspapers in particular are very heavily bogged down
without using blocking).

ABP plus Ghostery for the win!

Ghostery blocks the ever-increasing number of trackers on the Torygraph
site, over 30 on some pages.

I don't care about trackers

it's f***ing flashing adverts I want rid of

tim

En el artículo , tim.....
escribió:

I don't care about trackers

it's f***ing flashing adverts I want rid of

ABP ot uBlock are what you want, then. Make sure you untick the box
"Allow some non-obtrusive advertising" in the ABP options.

I also maintain my own hosts file which redirects most ad-flinger's
domains to /dev/null, aka 127.0.0.1

Never see any adverts.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

I also maintain my own hosts file which redirects most ad-flinger's
domains to /dev/null, aka 127.0.0.1

Never see any adverts.

How long is your file? I've started doing this recently but there are so
many domains I gave up adding them. It was a chore.

PS just seen this:
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

--
Tom Raider

En el artículo , Tom Raider
escribió:

How long is your file?

Errr.

[me@box ~]$ cat hosts | grep 127.0.0.1 | wc -l
17388

I've started doing this recently but there are so
many domains I gave up adding them. It was a chore.

You can download ad-flinger's hosts files from other sources and combine
them to make a larger one. Use a tool such as *nix 'uniq' to remove
duplicates.

I started off with Mike Skallas' hosts file years ago, them added the
one from Spybot Search and Destroy. From there it was just a little
tweaking.

My own hand-added entries number just 5; I've not needed to add or
remove any entries for a long time.

PS just seen this:
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

Also have a google for:

EasyList
Peter Lowe's Ad server list
EasyPrivacy
Malware Domains
Fanboy's enhanced tracking list
Dan Pollock's hosts file
hpHost's ad and tracking servers
MVPS Hosts
Spam404

add all or none of these as you see fit.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , Tom Raider
escribió:

PS just seen this:
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

No good to me, it blocks goatse.cx

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")