1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. More on light bulbs ...
  4. Page 2

More on light bulbs ...

AFAIK, less than 10% of the input energy is output as visible light anyway, so how do the numbers work on that then ? 90% of what exactly ?

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily
Loading thread data ...

I know many many people who hate them. They are a substitute technology for one that worked right in the first place. Maybe the people who have perfect eyes, and no concept of colour rendition, do get on fine with them. The rest of us are having to make do with the dreadful things ...

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

Oh, very good. No doubt all those who don't go into a froth when CFL's are mentioned will be lining up to respond to that. For myself, I think they're OK, and they even save a bit of energy.

Although I do really hate this new-fangled "sun" we've got -- I way prefer the gentle long wavelength glow of a pre-fusion protostar.

#Paul

Reply to
news10paul

I've tried to use them with some success. My problems have been the ultra short lifetimes on them. I replace them nearly as much as candle bulbs.

The only things that have really worked have been 12v Halogens. Hardly ever blow. Good light quality. Shame about the narrow beam.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Mmmmm no it didn't. Not really. What you want is visible light. So you heat something up to a point where its peak output is in the infra-red, with the tail of the curve being in the visible region. Hardly efficient, is it.

I want something that produces a band of frequencies in the visible, with nothing beyond. Anything else is a hack.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Yup. We have had them all over the place since soon after they came out and we are obviously deficient somehow as we don't have any 'issues' dealing with the startup times nor light colour etc.

We have a couple of 2 x 5' fluorescent in the kitchen and they are lovely and bright. ;-)

In here (lounge) we have a single top light that's rarely used (and still an incandescent because it's a ceiling fan / light and I can't find a CFL to fit - yet) and a fairly low W CFL on a time switch on top of a high shelf and I'm currently typing on a worn / black keyboard by it at the opposite side of the room. We changed it a while ago and according to the date I generally write on the things it was nearly 10 years old.

We also have dusk till dawn lamp holders with 9W CFL lamps in the front and rear hall fittings happily working for years where the switches say 'Not suitable for CFL's'. ;-)

I did buy one of those very white spiral CFLs and it's currently in the middle of the hall and it is very 'white' . However it's rarely needed as the two lobby lights cover the whole hall (it's only 13m end to end though).

But maybe our night vision is better than average as we don't need football stadium lights on the front of our cars either. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

of "THE EXTRA" energy that an incandescent lamp takes compared to a CFL.

I was going to write "nearly all of it", then was going to write 95%, but I though some picky bastard would ask where I dragged the numbers from, so settled on 90% as CFLs don't chuck out much heat, and as you say way under 10% of the energy consumed by an incandescent lamp is emitted as light - happy?

Reply to
Andy Burns

I reckon they are much better than they used to be. I have quite a lot of them; I get the occasional one with short life, but I get years out of most of them.

Reply to
newshound

I'm very happy with mine. It's in the cupboard under the stairs. Oh - and the outside light ones.

In an inhabited room? Never.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I have, including the lounge. (although at first I used SquareD lamps via an adaptor there. The lamps were fine, the adaptors weren't, but that must be over 20 years ago now).

Reply to
<me9

^^^^^^^ 2D lamps. I still use the odd one in outside lights.

Reply to
<me9

Ah. I see. You actually missed the point I was making. 60 watt *clear* bulbs are still readily available and, even if the ban legislation had actually been enacted, would have continued to be, as they weren't immediately subject to it, as a 60 watt *pearl* type should have been. The same has happened with halogen G9 capsule types. Clear still available, frosted all but disappeared. So I was querying why pearl bulbs should have been banned, when clear ones weren't, and I came to the conclusion that the pearling probably made them *slightly* more inefficient in terms of producing heat over light, than their clear counterparts.

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

Light bulbs worked 'right' because they produced light - however inefficiently - that was pleasing to the human eye, and allowed eyes to work reasonably well for reading with, even when they got old and tired and needed specs. There's something just not 'right' with the light (quality) from CFLs. I work every day under (conventional) flourescent light. My kitchen has conventional flourescent light. Neither of these bother me in the slightest. I don't find the light offensive in any way, and I can read under it perfectly well. Sadly, I can't say the same for CFLs, which is odd, because they are fundamentally the same technology. No matter what the make, power rating or colour temperature of a CFL, I find that its light has an indefinable 'sick' quality to it, and I really struggle to read under it. And that is why I hate the bloody things, and I suspect the reason that many others do to.

Apologies if anyone has directed any comments to me in this thread during Tuesday. Like several others have commented, I too have suffered the Virgin server meltdown that occurred earlier, and even the headers of the missing messages have now disappeared. Current posts seem to be appearing ok, however. So if anyone was expecting a reply from me on any specific points they may have made, I'm afraid I will have to ask for their posts to be re-sent, so that they appear again on the Virgin server, and I can read them. :-\

Arfa

Reply to
Arfa Daily

You're right, I did.

Reply to
Andy Burns

Yes, mostly CFL for many years.

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:59:20 +0100 someone who may be Chris J Dixon wrote this:-

I still have one of the "marmalade jar" ones with a dark grey base, which dates it to the early 1980s. The oven and microwave still have incandescent bulbs, working lights only used infrequently and for short periods are halogen, can't think of anything else that is not LED or CFL. I have a dusk till dawn light by the path, fitted with a PL lamp, I guess these last for a decade though I have never recorded when I put a new one in.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 02:29:31 +0100 someone who may be "Arfa Daily" wrote this:-

There are/were people who said they much preferred gas or oil lights to (incandescent) electric lights.

Although some of this is due to physical things a lot of it is emotional.

Reply to
David Hansen

Yes, I first bought one of those for an outside light in 1983, when I lived on a badly-lit road. I noticed it was a bit reluctant to strike on very cold nights. Having moved house, it ended up in the spare bedroom, and lasted until a couple of years ago.

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

These are considerably cheaper than the LED GU10 bulbs I have bought. Do these bulbs last a long time? I've had a £25 LED bulb fail after a year and, if this is their normal lifetime, I'd stick with halogen bulbs.

Reply to
Mark

I don't have a problem with CFLs in inhabited rooms. I agree that their benefits are much exaggerated since their wattage equivalents are plain wrong, they don't last as long as they claim, and they dim with age. The main problem I find is that they are usually physically bigger than the original bulb and will not go into many fittings.

Reply to
Mark

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.