Actual trolls in newsgroups are few and far between. You can find most of them in alt.usenet.kooks if you need examples. You seem to think someone with an opinion different to your own is a troll.
That explains your misconception then.
That looks pretty close to the truth of the matter. However, The reality is that inductively ballasted tubes are a quite few percent more efficient than even the best CFLs (they don't need a mercury amalgam to optimize for the higher running temperatures of CFLs at a slight reduction of efficiency compared to the lower temperature conditions that normally apply to linear tubes).
When you equalise the benefit of HF electronic ballasting in a linear fitting to that of a modern CFL, the improvement in luminous efficacy is even greater.
As things stand, there isn't anything more efficient than an electronically ballasted linear tube for GLS.
True enough in this one particular condition. I'm sure it must be a great comfort to the pioneering souls who are prepared to 'splash the cash'. There are benefits to LED lamps which some might consider to be worth the expense but, like most folk, I'm not convinced it's worth the extra cost at their current price premium.
Fuck All.
It's not a misconception, I've got some here.
The other thing is to compare like for like. LEDs tend to have a pretty poor spectrum - and the better that is the lower the efficiency.
Of course if all you're doing is illuminating a corridor it probably doesn't much matter. But to many it will for, say, lighting a living room.
In my experience, the spectrum from an LED is vastly BETTER. The LEDs in here make the room look the same as when it's basked in sunlight.
There's no doubt about the former assessment and, despite his own protestations against the latter charge, the effect of his readyness to argue 'black is white' in the face of seemingly wilful ignorance makes his behaviour indistinguishable from that of the classic usenet troll.
I only bother to respond to his posts now to prevent any of his ill informed assertions going unchallenged (in this case 'that LEDs are ten times more efficient than incandescent lamps').
As far as trying to argue the facts with him, it's like "Trying to Educate Pork", so I avoid wasting too much time on this sort of enterprise. Life's short enough as it is.
In message , Uncle Peter writes
Right, as we are talking specifics here, "ten times more efficient" Could you enlighten us as to how you are measuring this?
10x less electricity, same brightness of bulb.
At the risk of repeating myself, knowing how much one has to be accurate in these types of discussion. "How are you measuring this?"
Presumably you are measuring power consumed and light output. How?
>
You're arguing with a troll. Why?
Because they look they same. And that is the only important factor in a domestic bulb.
Because he's not as judgemental and stupid as you are.
Ah ha, so in the interests of accuracy, which is also an important factor, could we agree on "appears to be 10X more efficient"?
>
Being a technical type of person I like people who state something as fact to be able to back it up, or if it is a personal observation to include "appears" or "seems to me" etc in with the statement.
>
That doesn't surprise me.
Of course they do, pet.
Yes, although you should acknowledge that lighting is designed to APPEAR, that's its only purpose, for us to see things. So the subjective brightness is all that matters (unless you're using it for scientific equipment or something). Consider pulsed LEDs for example.
What do they look like to you? Too red? Too green?
Are you a Yorkshirewoman?
Yorkshire people don't call each other pet. That's the geordies. We call each other love.
Bill
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.