Heads up on Tesco value energy saving light bulbs

[Arfa Daily]

And the problem with that is ... ?? :-)

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

By which you mean ... ??

Arfa

[Bob Mannix]

Not a lot IMHO, as long as you avoid all the columnists and the editorial like the plague they are. If you do that, it (and the MoS) isn't bad. (ex Grauniad reader who hasn't the time any more - or maybe age-onset fascism is setting in ;o)

[Arfa Daily]

Some of the MoS columns are worth reading. William Rees-Mogg springs to mind, and mostly Peter Hitchens, although some of his recent musings are a bit 'radical' if perhaps the truth ...

Arfa

[Doctor Drivel]

You don't know the problem with reading the Daily Mail? Are you serious?

[Doctor Drivel]

Well apart from the football there is sweet FA left, so best avoid. The hard of thinking read it.

[Doctor Drivel]

"They use the correct solder and do it properly." You must be a Daily Mail reader.

[Arfa Daily]

I am. Do tell ...

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

Ah ... It is now abundantly clear why your nic is "Drivel"

it given to you, or did you pick it all on your own ... ?

Arfa

[Doctor Drivel]

the Daily Mail.

[Arfa Daily]

Riiiiiiggghht ... Gotcha now. You're the last genuine Daily Mirror reader. Sorry. Didn't recognise you out there in the dark ...

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

C'mon then Drivel. Cat got your tongue now ?

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

You still make no sense. The words are English, but the meaning is Double Dutch. Explain yourself. I don't know about your nic meaning that you can spot drivel, seems to me that it holds far more meaning in regard of the drivel you speak. As the saying goes, "Physician - heal thyself ..."

Arfa

[stan]

. From Canada. While some of the newer CFLs (Compact Fluorescents) have a better light spectrum there are now some problems showing up with reliability. Locally, as discussed on our CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) station, there have been a few burn ups. Not necessarily in enclosed fixtures, although bathroom dampness MAY have been a factor in one case. In another it set fire to the fixture and the house needed considerable ventilation to get rid of a strong 'electrolytically' smell. Some research found that there are recommendations from some other places in North America to not to use them in 'damp' locations such as, say, a bathroom (even a bathroom equipped with exhaust fan)! Another not to use them in outdoor/damp fixtures! Another poster complained about a high failure rate or MTBF (Mean time between failures) although the supplier would replace any that failed during first two years. It sounded in that case as though the use was in a condo or apartment block where the high number of failures compared to the 'expected' life would be more noticeable and, at from $3 to $5 per CFL a more significant cost factor. We have used CFLs on a very limited basis for two/three main reasons.

1) We heat electrically anyway. So any energy saving from CFLs merely requires more electric heating! 2) CFLs are more costly. Compared to a 25 cent incandescent a fluorescent costs 10 to 20 times more. 3) CFLs do not work as well when outside temps. are well below freezing (Minus 20 Celsius) which is where wasted heat energy is lost to outdoors! 4) It is recommended that CFL life is best if they are switched and left on for extended periods. This is not the case for say, stairways, bathrooms, closets and other short period uses. 5) Technically CFLs are classified as 'Hazardous waste' and SHOULD be treated as such. The one and only CFL failure we have had (cos we use so few anyway) was; a) Where the plastic base became loose. And the bulb now loose in the fixture just sort of hung there by it's wires! Then b) There was a defective component. Also later dissecting it we found two poorly soldered wires in the little printed circuit board. Conclusion: CFLs are not yet a proven product. 1) They may save energy in certain instances. Not in others. 2) More costly and require greater manufacturing use of various materials, time and energy. 3) Not as suitable for low temperature use. e.g outside where they can be an energy saver. 4) Not as suitable for on/off short term use; which manufacturers themselves do not recommend. leaving them switched on therefore use more energy! 5) Require treatment as Haz. Waste; although how many are just pitched in the landfill? Our recycling depots won't even take them! And the garbage collector crews are not supposed to take them either, but if they are inside a bag of garbage! 6) Reliability and actual working life?

[Arfa Daily]

. From Canada. While some of the newer CFLs (Compact Fluorescents) have a better light spectrum there are now some problems showing up with reliability. Locally, as discussed on our CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) station, there have been a few burn ups. Not necessarily in enclosed fixtures, although bathroom dampness MAY have been a factor in one case. In another it set fire to the fixture and the house needed considerable ventilation to get rid of a strong 'electrolytically' smell. Some research found that there are recommendations from some other places in North America to not to use them in 'damp' locations such as, say, a bathroom (even a bathroom equipped with exhaust fan)! Another not to use them in outdoor/damp fixtures! Another poster complained about a high failure rate or MTBF (Mean time between failures) although the supplier would replace any that failed during first two years. It sounded in that case as though the use was in a condo or apartment block where the high number of failures compared to the 'expected' life would be more noticeable and, at from $3 to $5 per CFL a more significant cost factor. We have used CFLs on a very limited basis for two/three main reasons.

1) We heat electrically anyway. So any energy saving from CFLs merely requires more electric heating! 2) CFLs are more costly. Compared to a 25 cent incandescent a fluorescent costs 10 to 20 times more. 3) CFLs do not work as well when outside temps. are well below freezing (Minus 20 Celsius) which is where wasted heat energy is lost to outdoors! 4) It is recommended that CFL life is best if they are switched and left on for extended periods. This is not the case for say, stairways, bathrooms, closets and other short period uses. 5) Technically CFLs are classified as 'Hazardous waste' and SHOULD be treated as such. The one and only CFL failure we have had (cos we use so few anyway) was; a) Where the plastic base became loose. And the bulb now loose in the fixture just sort of hung there by it's wires! Then b) There was a defective component. Also later dissecting it we found two poorly soldered wires in the little printed circuit board. Conclusion: CFLs are not yet a proven product. 1) They may save energy in certain instances. Not in others. 2) More costly and require greater manufacturing use of various materials, time and energy. 3) Not as suitable for low temperature use. e.g outside where they can be an energy saver. 4) Not as suitable for on/off short term use; which manufacturers themselves do not recommend. leaving them switched on therefore use more energy! 5) Require treatment as Haz. Waste; although how many are just pitched in the landfill? Our recycling depots won't even take them! And the garbage collector crews are not supposed to take them either, but if they are inside a bag of garbage! 6) Reliability and actual working life?

I'm beginning to have real difficulty with this. Many of us here understand the shortcomings of these lamps, and it would seem that you folk over in Canada do too. Why are we all letting ourselves be steamrollered like this ? Is it just that in the name of this deluge of eco-bollox from the green mist brigade, we are becoming brow-beaten into just accepting that if the government say so, it must be right ?

If anybody reading this doesn't know just what is in one of these lamps - and hence the manufacturing budget to produce them, and why they go wrong - take a look at

you can get past the nvg English, it's a very good site.

Arfa

[stan]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

------------- Hi Arfa! (Not Askey is it?)

Thanks for the comment; this thread coincides with a recent local discussion (In this particular Can province), inspired by a medical doctor after a 'near-fire' (It actually burnt her bathroom fixture! to point where it had to be replaced!). So she contacted the local Fire Dept./Fire Commissioner and learnt that there HAD been some concerns with a few minor 'incidents' involving CFLs. Whether more so than with other 'bulbs/lamps' was not clear.

I heard her discussion on the local radio and contacted her to swap experiences. An intelligent professional she immediately recognised my contention that any/most electrcity brought into a home is, one way or another, turned into heat. No matter how it is used. Two 'wasters', however, being warm shower water that goes straight down the drain and electric clothes dryer blowing warm damp air outside. Also come to think of it a dishwasher that sends its effluent down the kitchen drain ..... Ah well; it will wash away the dead peas and congealed bacon grease!!!!

Also since New Year we have had several fire deaths (including three children) blamed on 'An electrical problem'. However those electrical problems could have been due, IMO, to anything; considering the bone- headed risks some people take!

There seems to some sort of herd instinct towards being told "If it's green it's the way to go". And CFLs are 'GREEN', right?

Well, MAYBE! And any energy conserving can be a) Good for environment and b) Possibly defer capital expensditures?

But one would have thought that by now in this information age we should all be cynical enough to not buy the instant solution, the miracle drug, the 'fat cure', the car that runs on (or uses some water) and so forth and especailly the government inspired 'Fast solution'..

For example I have neighbours; very good ones by the way, one could not ask for better, who have gone heavily into CFLs. My 'Buddy' now complains when he comes over many nights for a 'cuppa' that his electricity bill has not reduced at all!

Well that makes sense they, like us use electric heating and most months of the year, here, require some heating. Especially cool evenings when the lights tend to be on anyway! He does however have three CFLS outside his front door and garage that are on all night most nights. And despite low temps. they work quite well and are saving him energy.

However to deter prowlers (An amusing story there, for another time!) he installed (with my help) a mercury vapour back yard lamp controlled by a built in photo cell. It also lights up the area behind his transport truck which is parked next to his two bay garage and double driveway. So that, while a powerful light, it uses another 100 or so watts, for most of each night.

Maybe one of these days we will have an LED wall or ceiling or reflective window that shines inwards and use less energy with greater simplicity?

BTW just for giggles bought (At the one dollar emporium, everything there is one dollar unless otherwise marked "Two for a dollar etc") a one dollar LED night light bulb. That we are now trying out in the bathroom in place of the 7 watt incandescent, in the existing little plug in fixture that includes a photo cell, it replaces. It has a number of components under a little plastic cover and this one has a weird bright white metallic sort of light.

We already had a couple orange, non photo cell LEDs 'Night lights' plugged into outlets in the passageway to bedrooms etc. The idea being to see if there was any incompatibility between the little plug in with its photo cell, designed for an incandescent but now fitted with the mini-LED. That one dollar by the way is no more IIRC than the cost of half of those two-pack 7 watt incandescent (Christmas tree style) bulbs/lamps. So far after several weeks no signs of incompatibility!

Again talking about compatibility. Haven't tested the new LED for radio noise (RFI) yet. Always a question. Some dimmers create a lot of radio 'hash'*. For example we have one non-rechargeable AC plug in shaver that creates clicks at radio frequencies when off. We have to remember to unplug it! Probably a multi voltage device?

PS. Seem to remember that the word 'hash' was in use long before an current connection with 'The weed'? And back when it originally meant 'Bubble and squeak' or Sunday's dinner fried up on Monday, it also meant unwanted radio noise/interfereence.

[Doctor Drivel]

What I write is clear - unfortunately you are brainwashed by the Daily Mail.