New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
NY wrote: "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. Does it? Most people buy a new vacuum when the old one fails. Apart from Dyson fans of course who must have the latest colour. 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? How would you know? In any case you can still buy a 1000 watt cleaner. 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. Doesn't seem to stop people on here raving about LEDs. I'll not use any lamp that gives an inferior performance to tungsten here. But then I'd not accept an inferior performance from a new vacuum cleaner either. -- *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 ,
NY wrote: 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). First I really saw were those freebies from IIRC BG. Confirming my view that they were merely a toy. -- *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
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:55:58 +0100, charles wrote:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. More to the point, why should we reduce energy consumption? presumably because creating energy has costs to the environment Energy? Conserved, innit! |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: 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. Dave doesn't understand that innovation comes from the private sector, not from government. We'd still be using 300 baud GPO acoustic couplers otherwise. And you don't understand the difference between consumer toys and something so banal as a light bulb. -- *If all is not lost, where the hell is it? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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? You'd have saved quite a lot compared to tungsten when you go back up into the loft 2 months later and realise you'd forgot to switch them off last time. -- Mike Clarke |
New Woodburner Regulations
Mike Clarke wrote:
You'd have saved quite a lot compared to tungsten when you go back up into the loft 2 months later and realise you'd forgot to switch them off last time. The switch for the loft lights in on the landing and has a neon. |
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. That might be why the EU regulations stipulated that they had to produce more suck for less power and not just use less power. 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). But less load on the generators. 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. Ban kettles and only have hot water dispensers that heat exactly the amount needed. Like the Tefal hot cup. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 13:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What chips are still designed in Germany Dave? Ask Intel what they do at their four germany sites. There are others like http://www.infineon.com/ Do you want to list those in the UK? |
New Woodburner Regulations
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:18:01 +0100, dennis@home
wrote: 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. Ban kettles and only have hot water dispensers that heat exactly the amount needed. Like the Tefal hot cup. The what? Tefal make something called the quick cup. Tried one a few years back and it was useless for tea as it does not supply boiling water. Used it twice and slung it. And you can't carry such a gadget outside with a reasonable quantity of hot water to soften the end of a plastic pipe or similar jobs. G.Harman |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 20:22, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:18:01 +0100, dennis@home wrote: 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. Ban kettles and only have hot water dispensers that heat exactly the amount needed. Like the Tefal hot cup. The what? Tefal make something called the quick cup. Tried one a few years back and it was useless for tea as it does not supply boiling water. Used it twice and slung it. Sorry brevil hot cup. It dispenses boiling water. http://www.breville.co.uk/breakfast/...VKJ142-01.html And you can't carry such a gadget outside with a reasonable quantity of hot water to soften the end of a plastic pipe or similar jobs. I use it to soften the the end of the pipe on my watering system without much trouble. Just put it in a plastic jug. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/17 12:23, NY wrote:
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). Lower wattage kettles use *more* energy to boil the same volume of water, because kettles aren't 100% efficient. They lose heat to the surrounding air, so the faster they heat the water, the shorter the heat loss. For example, assume they lose the equivalent of 10 watts continuously. A 1000w kettle will heat the water in a given time, as it effectively supplies 990w. A 500w kettle will take more than twice as long as it supplies 590w, which is slightly less than half of 990w. Continue down to a 10w kettle, which never heats the water as it loses all of its heat to the surrounding air. -- Jeff |
New Woodburner Regulations
NY wrote:
"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... Just get used to losing gracefully. You stay happier that way! |
New Woodburner Regulations
dennis@home wrote:
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. That might be why the EU regulations stipulated that they had to produce more suck for less power and not just use less power. 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). But less load on the generators. 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. Ban kettles and only have hot water dispensers that heat exactly the amount needed. Like the Tefal hot cup. Fit a water softener first or it's a very expensive mistake. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Capitol wrote: 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. Dave doesn't understand that innovation comes from the private sector, not from government. We'd still be using 300 baud GPO acoustic couplers otherwise. After 8 months, I still have a telephone line which doesn't work properly. 300 baud seems optimistic! |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/17 21:47, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 21/04/17 12:23, NY wrote: 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). Lower wattage kettles use *more* energy to boil the same volume of water, because kettles aren't 100% efficient. They lose heat to the surrounding air, so the faster they heat the water, the shorter the heat loss. For example, assume they lose the equivalent of 10 watts continuously. A 1000w kettle will heat the water in a given time, as it effectively supplies 990w. A 500w kettle will take more than twice as long as it supplies 590w, which is slightly less than half of 990w. Continue down to a 10w kettle, which never heats the water as it loses all of its heat to the surrounding air. Hence 'A watt kettle never boils' ....I'll get my coat... -- If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph Goebbels |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Mike Clarke wrote: On 21/04/2017 13:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 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? You'd have saved quite a lot compared to tungsten when you go back up into the loft 2 months later and realise you'd forgot to switch them off last time. Easy to forget to switch the lights off in the loft - after you've broken your leg because of the feeble light from a CFL and been carted off to hospital. -- *Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?" Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: 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? Except most homes have a dozen or more light bulbs, some may be on for hundreds of hours a month ... And you seem to be making the common mistake I'm making no such mistake, see where I say "even if"? that's to emphasise that I realise they haven't, but that I'm willing to explore what the maximum saving would be if they did. 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? Because I am familiar with the vacuum I've had for many years, it has variable power, and for some tasks I use it on max, so whenever it needs replacing, I'd like one that is as effective as this one, the efficiency I care about less. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: 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? Because I am familiar with the vacuum I've had for many years, it has variable power, and for some tasks I use it on max, so whenever it needs replacing, I'd like one that is as effective as this one, the efficiency I care about less. And that's the whole idea of such regs. To force makers to produce cleaners which are just as effective, but use less power. -- *I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
that's the whole idea of such regs. To force makers to produce cleaners which are just as effective, but use less power. And how often does "New! Improved!" work out in practice? |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 12:13, 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 That does assume that it cleans as fast as the more powerful unit. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Doesn't seem to stop people on here raving about LEDs. I'll not use any lamp that gives an inferior performance to tungsten here. Neither would I. However since I have found some LEDs that out perform their Tungsten equivalents, I am happy to use them. But then I'd not accept an inferior performance from a new vacuum cleaner either. There is probably a workaround that lets you buy a dust collector with more power anyway. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
New Woodburner Regulations
Jeff Layman Wrote in message:
On 21/04/17 12:23, NY wrote: 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). Lower wattage kettles use *more* energy to boil the same volume of water, because kettles aren't 100% efficient. Oooh you may have woken the "thermodynamic efficiency" fairies up with that one.... :-D -- Jim K ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 22/04/2017 14:42, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/04/2017 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Doesn't seem to stop people on here raving about LEDs. I'll not use any lamp that gives an inferior performance to tungsten here. Neither would I. However since I have found some LEDs that out perform their Tungsten equivalents, I am happy to use them. But then I'd not accept an inferior performance from a new vacuum cleaner either. There is probably a workaround that lets you buy a dust collector with more power anyway. My Bosch GAS25 vac doesn't need 2kW to do its job and its somewhat better than most 2kW cylinder vacs you could buy a year or two ago. I bought a Miele 2kW vac in the clearance sales just before the "ban" and I seldom run that above minimum and that is all of 600W. Anymore than that and it starts lifting the carpets. You really don't need 2kW to power a domestic vac despite what the brexiteers claim. If its a factory you are cleaning you can still buy a 2kW vac, probably not at currys though. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 20/04/2017 16:47, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 20 April 2017 11:17:30 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: Drivel. It becomes obsolete when something significantly better comes along. like erm, Jeremy Corbyn |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 23/04/17 19:12, critcher wrote:
On 20/04/2017 16:47, harry wrote: On Thursday, 20 April 2017 11:17:30 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Tim Streater wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: Drivel. It becomes obsolete when something significantly better comes along. like erm, Jeremy Corbyn ROFLMAO! Nice one. -- There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain |
Bedside lights (was New Woodburner Regulations)
On 21/04/2017 14:28, NY wrote:
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... We've got spots in the bedside lights. Ordinary lampshade, looks fine - but the light shines on the sloping ceiling behind the bed. Result - diffuse light from behind. Andy |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 21/04/2017 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Does it? Most people buy a new vacuum when the old one fails. Apart from Dyson fans of course who must have the latest colour. We bought a new Dyson when the old one fails. The colour was NOT a selling point. It's hideous. But it's light (SWMBO is little) and it works. Andy |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 23/04/17 21:25, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/04/2017 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Does it? Most people buy a new vacuum when the old one fails. Apart from Dyson fans of course who must have the latest colour. We bought a new Dyson when the old one fails. The colour was NOT a selling point. It's hideous. But it's light (SWMBO is little) and it works. That's unusual. All te Die-sons I have come across didnt work. Well that's why I came across them I suppose. I now understand why they are popular. You can see the dust. You can tell when they are full and they do the virtue signalling bit by visibly filling up before your eyes. Of course being bagless the filters clog up with fine dust in weeks. Then they stop working. Andy -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andrew writes: It seems new woodburner regulations may require the complete redesign of many existing stoves if are to be sold post 2020. See: http://www.stoveindustryalliance.com...d-air-quality/ This seems to be as radical for these products as the mandating of condensing boilers was for domestic gas applicances. It will be interesting to see how the additional costs stack against the real advantages. It would seem to favour those manufactures who provide a "trendy" new design each year, and severely impact those who have produced reliable and generally well loved and proven "classic" stoves - such as Clearview. Ironically it does not address any issues associated with open fires - which are less efficient than even a "poor" stove. The other change I think is quite likely is the removal of the exception from smoke control areas for wood-burning stoves in places like London, possibly as soon as October. That will mean no more buring of wood in them, and will be retrospective. This is easily enacted just by reducing or emptying the list of stove models which are exempt from smokeless fuel regs and doesn't need any legislative changes. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 23/04/17 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 23/04/17 21:25, Vir Campestris wrote: On 21/04/2017 16:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Does it? Most people buy a new vacuum when the old one fails. Apart from Dyson fans of course who must have the latest colour. We bought a new Dyson when the old one fails. The colour was NOT a selling point. It's hideous. But it's light (SWMBO is little) and it works. That's unusual. All te Die-sons I have come across didnt work. Well that's why I came across them I suppose. You must be what the Yanks call a dumpster-diver. (dumpster - skip) Why d'ye want to recover broken Dysons? You suffering from Dave-fixation syndrome? Nope. I have friends with them. I now understand why they are popular. You can see the dust. You can tell when they are full and they do the virtue signalling bit by visibly filling up before your eyes. Of course being bagless the filters clog up with fine dust in weeks. The dust ends up in the thingy. That's what it's for. Then they stop working. No, they are popular because they work. On ours, I clean the filters about every six months, but only because SWMBO insists, not because they need it. ROFLMAO! Maybe in your spotless clinical house, but not out here in the country. -- No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Andrew Gabriel posted
The other change I think is quite likely is the removal of the exception from smoke control areas for wood-burning stoves in places like London, possibly as soon as October. That will mean no more buring of wood in them, and will be retrospective. This is easily enacted just by reducing or emptying the list of stove models which are exempt from smokeless fuel regs and doesn't need any legislative changes. Changes to building regulations do not usually affect existing installations. Why do think this one will, and for that matter what is your source for this information? -- Jack |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Handsome Jack writes: Andrew Gabriel posted The other change I think is quite likely is the removal of the exception from smoke control areas for wood-burning stoves in places like London, possibly as soon as October. That will mean no more buring of wood in them, and will be retrospective. This is easily enacted just by reducing or emptying the list of stove models which are exempt from smokeless fuel regs and doesn't need any legislative changes. Changes to building regulations do not usually affect existing installations. Why do think this one will, and for that matter what is your source for this information? It's not changes to building regs - it's changes to an exemption list under the smoke control act. Smoke control regs are retrospective (or they would not work), and modifying the exemption list (which is what allows wood burners in smoke-free areas at the moment) requires no legislative changes at all. The reason these are coming under fire is that they were granted an exception if the manufacturer claimed they emitted below a certain level of PM2.5 soot. It's now been shown that these manufacturer claims are miles off reality, and many (if not all) are emitting way above the permitted levels to have got on to the exemption list. At the beginning of the year, GLA was looking to get wood burners retested and the list updated accordingly, to stop their use in London (although it would change everywhere, as the list is not London-specific). The other pressure on this is a very rapid rise in new deployments of wood burners in last few years, particularly in areas of highest premature death rates from polution such as Barnett. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: Of course being bagless the filters clog up with fine dust in weeks. The dust ends up in the thingy. That's what it's for. Then they stop working. No, they are popular because they work. On ours, I clean the filters about every six months, but only because SWMBO insists, not because they need it. Sounds like you choose the vacuum cleaner your wife uses. Figures. -- *You're never too old to learn something stupid. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
On 23/04/2017 21:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That's unusual. All te Die-sons I have come across didnt work. Well that's why I came across them I suppose. I now understand why they are popular. You can see the dust. You can tell when they are full and they do the virtue signalling bit by visibly filling up before your eyes. Of course being bagless the filters clog up with fine dust in weeks. That usually happens because they've been used to vac up lots of plaster dust. This sticks to the inner surface of the cyclones and drastically reduces their effectiveness. Then they stop working. Then you strip it down and clean the cyclones. It's a tedious and dusty job but they run fine after that ... providing you don't use them for cleaning up more plaster dust. -- Mike Clarke |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Capitol writes: Oldest CFLs I bought around 1980 IIRC.Made by Philips. Yes, first commercially available was the Philips SL18 - I got a pre-production one in 1980 (worked but smelt of burning polystyrene for first few weeks). I used it until 1984, when I accidentally left it behind when I left a bedsit. I still have a SL25 which was a later higher powered version, but it's not in use. The SL18 was quickly followed by the Thorn 2D lamps - same idea but with separate reusable control gear. (Thorn eventually sold all their lamp manufacture to GE, although they retained luminare design.) Thorn Lighting had done the first energy saving fluorescent tube, the 100W 8' tube to retrofit into 125W fittings, around 1978, and there was a bit of a race to come up with the first filament lamp retrofit compact fluorescent after that. Both Philips and Thorn Lighting demonstrated their products, but I think Philips was first to get theirs to market, just. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote: The SL18 was quickly followed by the Thorn 2D lamps - same idea but with separate reusable control gear. (Thorn eventually sold all their lamp manufacture to GE, although they retained luminare design.) Can you explain to the likes of me how a fluorescent tube with separate control gear is a CFL? -- *I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Andrew Gabriel wrote: The SL18 was quickly followed by the Thorn 2D lamps - same idea but with separate reusable control gear. (Thorn eventually sold all their lamp manufacture to GE, although they retained luminare design.) Can you explain to the likes of me how a fluorescent tube with separate control gear is a CFL? The C stands for compact. The tube is compact - in comparison with a 4ft batten fitting. -- from KT24 in Surrey, England |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
charles wrote: In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Andrew Gabriel wrote: The SL18 was quickly followed by the Thorn 2D lamps - same idea but with separate reusable control gear. (Thorn eventually sold all their lamp manufacture to GE, although they retained luminare design.) Can you explain to the likes of me how a fluorescent tube with separate control gear is a CFL? The C stands for compact. The tube is compact - in comparison with a 4ft batten fitting. There were smaller than 4ft tubes around before the 2D. Surely what most understand as a CFL is a complete unit which can replace a tungsten bulb? Of course it would have made far more sense to stay with the 2D principle - as it would with LEDs. A separate PS. -- *My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
New Woodburner Regulations
Dave Plowman wrote:
Surely what most understand as a CFL is a complete unit which can replace a tungsten bulb? Of course it would have made far more sense to stay with the 2D principle - as it would with LEDs. A separate PS. With LED lamps it's more likely the PS (dodgy or cooked capacitors etc) that will fail before the actual lamps. So unless you have a way of persuading manufacturers to use a *good* separate power supply, is there much point? |
New Woodburner Regulations
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: Surely what most understand as a CFL is a complete unit which can replace a tungsten bulb? Of course it would have made far more sense to stay with the 2D principle - as it would with LEDs. A separate PS. With LED lamps it's more likely the PS (dodgy or cooked capacitors etc) that will fail before the actual lamps. So unless you have a way of persuading manufacturers to use a *good* separate power supply, is there much point? Yes. It can be situated away from the heat the actual LED or tube generates. -- *Frustration is trying to find your glasses without your glasses. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter