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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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/

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.