New Woodburner Regulations
Andrew wrote:
new woodburner regulations Speaking of new regulations (and not really needing another thread) I hadn't realised that we are in a transition phase for cable regulations, which will end in July from when all power/data/fibre cables need to be "CPR compliant" and tested/marked in addition to their existing BASEC etc compliance. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 10:24, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-21, wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:07:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/04/17 19:09, The Other Mike wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU? Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well with black and white tv's. Anyone remember SECAM? Somewhere amongst my sequence of memories. System Essentially Contrary to the American Method. Which was called Never Twice the Same Colour ;-) |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman wrote:
I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? |
New Woodburner Regulations
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Perhaps we had to go through the awful ****ing CFL phase to drive the market for LED development? ;-) Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 11:04, Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote: OOI do you have a reference for the "more suction" bit? Just wondering how they define more suction... Measured in 'Air Watts' presumably? ISTR dyson making reference to the relevant IEC standard when the first limit on vacuums was introduced. Remember, it gets cut further in September ... The power limit only apply to certain types of vac too. Like domestic ones and not industrial/commercial. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote: In article , The Other Mike wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU? Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well with black and white tv's. PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC. There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the descendants of Telefunken are still going strong. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 11:23, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27. Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-) -- Cheers, Rob |
New Woodburner Regulations
RJH wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27. Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be 2749.8 TWh Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-) Absolutely! |
New Woodburner Regulations
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
... Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be 2749.8 TWh But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the motor power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all you are doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do the same amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits that a stronger suction would have picked up first time. It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be left on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly no saving of time (quite the reverse). Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Other Mike wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU? Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well with black and white tv's. PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the descendants of Telefunken are still going strong. Whilst basically I agree with you, you must bear in mind that UK insurance companies own vast holdings of world wide shares. In that respect, private companies are much better at investing than most public ones. The normal sign of doom is purchase of a company by a hedge fund. The result is normally a shell with no assets. cf BHS, Little Chef and now Debenhams. |
New Woodburner Regulations
charles wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , The Other Mike wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU? Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well with black and white tv's. PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC. There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the descendants of Telefunken are still going strong. NTSC is fundamentally a flawed system. I worked with NTSC sets and the necessity for a Hue control was a pain and it cannot handle reflections causing multipath signals. In hotel distribution systems, the picture was frequently unwatchable. Very few european volume electronics companies exist these days because their production costs are too high and they cannot compete in the world market place. . |
New Woodburner Regulations
John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2017 12:40, dennis@home wrote: He also ignores that the regulations on vacs limit the power and require there to be more suction so making vacs perform better. OOI do you have a reference for the "more suction" bit? Just wondering how they define more suction... I can see you could trade off static suction against airflow for a given amount of power - but that may not make it perform better. It;s interesting that Machine Mart publiush suction figures for cleaners IIRC. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? |
New Woodburner Regulations
Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-21, Tim+ wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Perhaps we had to go through the awful ****ing CFL phase to drive the market for LED development? ;-) I find it slightly ironic that I'm now using LEDs to replace CFLs rather than the few remaining incandescents I have ... Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? Just as much as saving a few watts per light bulb. Or any other such savings. I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? You really think anyone would have bothered investing the hugh sums needed to develop LEDs etc without being pushed? -- *Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Huge wrote: On 2017-04-21, Andy Burns wrote: Andrew wrote: new woodburner regulations Speaking of new regulations (and not really needing another thread) I hadn't realised that we are in a transition phase for cable regulations, which will end in July from when all power/data/fibre cables need to be "CPR compliant" and tested/marked in addition to their existing BASEC etc compliance. The executor of my estate will likely be dealing with the red/black cable I have "in stock" ... Got a tip for you, Huge. Blue equals black and brown red. You can now use new cable safely. Print this out and keep it for future reference. -- *There's two theories to arguing with a woman. Neither one works * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article , Capitol
wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? presumably because creating energy has costs to the environment -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
New Woodburner Regulations
Capitol wrote:
Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Some of mine are close to that, they have been relegated to the loft though ... |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
charles wrote: PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC. That is not the story we were told at BBC ETD. NTSC was simply not consistent enough for domestic use in practice. -- *If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: RJH wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? Most households have a vacuum - so you have to multiply your 'few hundred watts' by at least twenty million for the UK to begin to understand potential savings. And then multiply that figure by 27. Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be 2749.8 TWh So even less point having a light bulb that saves 40 watts? And you seem to be making the common mistake that people are being forced to rush out and buy a more efficient vacuum, which they're not. So why are you so against them having a more efficient one available when they do need a replacement? Mind, the 'few minutes' does suggest interesting priorities :-) Absolutely! -- *Be more or less specific * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk... Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? I'd always judged LED lamps by the GU10 spotlights that we bought to replace the tungsten ones in our bathroom and in the kitchen light fitting. They tend to produce dimmer lighting and in a more restricted angle - definitely not as good as 60W tungsten bulbs. Then we bought a few Philips Hue lights. Leaving aside the fact that they can be adjusted to various colours (we'd probably buy fixed-colour ones when it came to replace the daylight CFLs that we have through the house) they are very bright - most impressive. I'm not sure what the equivalent tungsten wattage is, but I'd estimate somewhere between the equivalent of 60W and 100W, while using 7W of power. It's a shame that a lot of the smaller bulbs (eg candle) are only available in screw fittings, which means using a bayonet to screw adaptor (increasing the length) in an existing light fitting, or else finding a matching screw fitting that can replace the bayonet ones in a light cluster fitting. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/17 12:31, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , The Other Mike wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:16:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: Old kit becomes obsolescent naturally. Anyone still using a 405 line VHF TV? No? Was that because of the EU? Indirectly it was, the Krauts invented PAL, we managed perfectly well with black and white tv's. PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. There's an obvious reason why a German maker spent large sums developing PAL as a European standard (incidentally first used in the UK, before Germany) and that was they actually invested in industry, unlike the UK which preferred to pay out as much as possible to shareholders. Hence there being no UK owned electronics company these days, while the descendants of Telefunken are still going strong. Whilst basically I agree with you, you must bear in mind that UK insurance companies own vast holdings of world wide shares. In that respect, private companies are much better at investing than most public ones. The normal sign of doom is purchase of a company by a hedge fund. The result is normally a shell with no assets. cf BHS, Little Chef and now Debenhams. Ogh god, its 'Red Dave' whinging on about capitalists. Howes the German jet engine business doing Dave? When did you last buy a German camera? What computers are designed in Germany Dave? What chips are still designed in Germany Dave? I don't want to live in a ****ry that makes only cars and windmills and washing machines, frankly. -- The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 12:23, NY wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message ... Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be 2749.8 TWh But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the motor power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all you are doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do the same amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits that a stronger suction would have picked up first time. Possibly - bit like an electric shower. But/and a fair bit of time - when doing stairs for example - it isn't doing anything except making a noise (unless you switch off between steps). It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be left on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly no saving of time (quite the reverse). No, kettles are pretty much 100% efficient. A hoover is nothing like that - witness the noise for a start. 3kW kettles are a wonderful thing. Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water. Agreed. I don't use hot water much - household cleaning and very grubby mitts. Most of the time cold does me fine. -- Cheers, Rob |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/17 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? because energy comes at a price. That's how the market used to work. If e.g. LED lightbulbs cost less over the bulb lifetime than filament, you would buy LED. But because the Lefty****s didn't get the ideological result they wanted out of the free market, they turned it into a subsidy market, where legislation and taxation dictated what you bought instead. -- The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Karl Marx |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? More to the point - why consume it in the first place? -- Cheers, Rob |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
NY wrote: "Andy Burns" wrote in message ... Even if all 220 million EU households bought a new vacuum that used 400W less than their old one and used it for 2 hours a month, it would still be 2749.8 TWh But *would* it still be for 2 hours a month. If you simply reduce the motor power, without making that motor power produce more suction, all you are doing is meaning that the device has to be left on longer to do the same amount of work, because you have to keep going over the bits that a stronger suction would have picked up first time. If you followed the discussions when this reduction in maximum vacuum cleaner power was proposed, you'd know that it *was* possible to reduce that power consumption without effecting the amount of 'suck' by better design. Indeed, Dyson wanted a lower limit than the one settled on. It's the same with kettles. It takes a fixed amount of energy to boil a given amount of water, so if you reduce the power, the kettle must be left on longer to boil that water - no saving of energy and certainly no saving of time (quite the reverse). It's not the same with a kettle or many other heating devices. Near enough 100% of the energy used goes into heating the water. Unlike a vacuum cleaner which produces noise, vibration and heat as well as suction. Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water. You can encourage people to do anything, and they can choose to ignore you. Requiring a new device to have a certain level of efficiency removes them being able to ignore that. -- *Corduroy pillows are making headlines. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Capitol wrote: Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Some of mine are close to that, they have been relegated to the loft though ... Just why do so many put these dim energy saving bulbs where they are rarely used? So not only don't save any appreciable energy, but present a safety hazard too? -- *What was the best thing before sliced bread? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
RJH wrote:
On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? More to the point - why consume it in the first place? You have avoided the question with an opinion. |
New Woodburner Regulations
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... Better to encourage people to heat less water - don't boil a full kettle if your teapot only holds half a kettle-full. Or else encourage people to use the remaining hot water as part of the washing-up water. You can encourage people to do anything, and they can choose to ignore you. Requiring a new device to have a certain level of efficiency removes them being able to ignore that. True, but it also encourages people to hang onto a less efficient appliance which may use more energy but also has more of the end result that people buy it for. For example if an older 1000W vac has better suction that a modern 500W (even though the modern one has better "suck per watt" performance) would you get rid of the old one or would you strive to keep it running because it does the job better, even though it costs more to run? Likewise for light bulbs: tungsten ones tend to be smaller than LED or CFL ones of comparable brightness, and tend to have wider field of coverage (for GU10 spots) and reach full brightness much quicker than some CFLs. We have a light fitting in the kitchen which has 5 GU10 sockets. With tungstens, that lit the work surfaces much better than with LED replacements, so we might have to replace the fitting with one that takes seven, eight or nine bulbs to get the same brightness and fewer pools of darkness between one bulb and the next. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? Just as much as saving a few watts per light bulb. Or any other such savings. I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? You really think anyone would have bothered investing the hugh sums needed to develop LEDs etc without being pushed? The huge sums invested in semiconductors are invested to generate profits, if you are successful. In consumer products, 9 out of 10 products are failures, but you don't stop investing. The classic failure is 3D film and television, which consumes vast amounts of investment every 25 years or so. The classic success is RCA with colour television, which consumed vast amounts of investment for years before becoming a success. Tesla is a prime recent example of investment without apparent reward, time will tell if it is successful. |
New Woodburner Regulations
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , Andy Burns wrote: Capitol wrote: Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the government and energy companies started promoting them more. My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is that early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed sooner. When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go into the room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can see your way to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the main light as tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays, with modern CFLs, that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get *sufficiently* bright instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time to reach the final 10% of their brightness, whereas older ones came on at about 30% brightness instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to make up the other 70%. |
New Woodburner Regulations
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Andy Burns wrote: Capitol wrote: Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the government and energy companies started promoting them more. My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is that early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed sooner. When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go into the room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can see your way to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the main light as tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays, with modern CFLs, that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get *sufficiently* bright instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time to reach the final 10% of their brightness, whereas older ones came on at about 30% brightness instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to make up the other 70%. Oldest CFLs I bought around 1980 IIRC.Made by Philips. |
New Woodburner Regulations
"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk... NY wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Andy Burns wrote: Capitol wrote: Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the government and energy companies started promoting them more. My impression (and it is only an impression - I didn't keep records) is that early CFLs took much longer to reach working brightness and failed sooner. When you turn on a light from the switch by the door when you go into the room, you want that light to be bright immediately so you can see your way to reach other lights in the room. So I tended to keep the main light as tungsten and use CFLs for the table lamps etc. Nowadays, with modern CFLs, that's no longer a problem. The ones we use now get *sufficiently* bright instantaneously, even if they still a bit of time to reach the final 10% of their brightness, whereas older ones came on at about 30% brightness instantaneously and then took about 5 mins to make up the other 70%. Oldest CFLs I bought around 1980 IIRC.Made by Philips. Gosh. That's before I even went to university, let along before I bought my first house. I don't remember CFLs as replacement for tungsten bulbs being in the shops until probably around the mid 90s when I tried a few and found that they were pretty poor (long time to reach usable brightness). By the time I bought my second house in 2000, CFLs were becoming fairly popular, but sadly I wasn't able to use them because my house had been a show house and had been fitted with lots of decorative fittings which all took small bayonet, small edison screw or else *12V* GU10-type spotlights in the ceiling. I think the only fittings where I could use CFLs were my own table lamps. By the way, how do you convince SWMBO that when you want to read in bed, the best light is a lamp on a bedside table that shines towards the book, illuminating the pages, rather than an overhead lamp in a ceiling fitting near the *foot* of the bed. My wife moans that I'll ruin my eyes with this bright light on the pages and no light in the background, when the alternative is a bright light directly in your field of view (I try to block it out with my book) which lights the rest of the room and is extremely dim on the pages of the book. I feel as if I'm fighting a losing battle... |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article , NY
wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Andy Burns wrote: Capitol wrote: Some of my CFLs are 30years old. The modern CFLs die like flies IME. Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have only been available for about 10-15 years - maybe that's when the government and energy companies started promoting them more. they were certainly around well before I retired - in 1996. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
New Woodburner Regulations
NY wrote:
Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? My impression is that they have only been available for about 10-15 years I bought some before I moved to this house, and brought them with me 27 years ago, I think they were a year or two old by then, and I didn't buy the Philips "jam jar" SL*18 version which preceded them, they were expensive enough back then that I wasn't going to leave them behind. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , charles wrote: PAL was developed at the request of the European Broadcast Union. The previous colour TV system, NTSC, had undergone extensive trials by the BBC etc and been found lacking. Not quite true. The BBC found NTSC quite useable - provided it was treated properly. A test was made by sending am NTSC signal by landline/microwave to Moscow & back - with no significant degradation. The BBC backed NTSC, but when the majority of countries opted for PAL, they used that system. One obvious indication of NTSC as the BBC's choice was the high stability crystals needed for colour reference were built for NTSC. That is not the story we were told at BBC ETD. NTSC was simply not consistent enough for domestic use in practice. See Pawley p519 - last 4 lines: -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
New Woodburner Regulations
charles wrote:
NY wrote: Were CFLs available as long ago as 30 years? they were certainly around well before I retired - in 1996. 1976 flavour http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/D%20FLCi%20Philips%20SL1000.htm 1981 flavour http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Spec%20Sheets/D%20FLCi%20Philips%20SL18.htm |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 13:57, Capitol wrote:
RJH wrote: On 21/04/2017 12:45, Capitol wrote: Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: I'd suggest to read up about the reasons behind such legislation. Rather than making up your own. Are you suggesting that saving a few hundred watts for a few minutes per month is distinguishable from noise in the 2750 TWh EU electricity budget? I'd even agree that lighting is a worthwhile target, but that maybe they pushed it a few years too early, how many subsidised CFLs lurk in the backs of cupboards when decent LEDs were only a few years down the track? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? More to the point - why consume it in the first place? You have avoided the question with an opinion. My opinion is informed by the likes of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful The 'why' is within. -- Cheers, Rob |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Just why do so many put these dim energy saving bulbs where they are rarely used? Because I already had them. So not only don't save any appreciable energy, but present a safety hazard too? Indeed not much energy to be saved by loft lighting, but what hazard? There are five of them up there so not much chance of all failing at once. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter