Releasing compact fluorescent lamp

[F]

I've never come across one of these

before and don't know how to release the failed lamp.

So how do I do it without shredding my fingers?

[ARW]

You grab the plastic base and pull downwards - best bet is to hold the base with your fingers to the left and right of the words Edison on the base when viewed horizontally. However the pins on the lamp may be well stuck into the lamps socket and some force may be needed.

And that light fitting came from 10 Pound Walk in Doncaster:-)

[Murmansk]

I change lots of these at work - it's easy, just pull it as people have said, holding the white plastic central bit.

[ARW]

This is what the lamp looks like when removed

Dunno if yours is a 4 pin of 2 pin version

[F]

Thanks. I had given it a pull down but it didn't move. So I tried a horizontal pull with the same effect. I wondered then if I needed to press the end and pull... etc etc.

I'll give it a firm pull down and brace against the rest of the fitting.

One of Donny's famous exports then?

[F]

I found the Screwfix image and a whole lot of others but none showed the 'other' side. Looks like I'll have to remove it to know what to order.

[F]

Unless the '2P' in the embossed 'ED16/835/2P' means 2 pin?

[ARW]

I was too lazy to expand the picture.

It is also possible that the lamp has slightly melted the lamp fitting socket as the pins got hot. TBH brute force is needed and if the lampholder base is already shagged then it's just tough - there is nothing that you can do about that.

Good luck mate.

I estimate that 5 to 10% of the ones I replace have shagged lamp fitting bases and need a full replacement.

[tim.....]

Why oh why, does a simple picture sharing web site insist on downloading so much background s**te that my poor little PC can't cope?

tim

[Capitol]

Yes. It's fascinating to read the activity headers which are nothing to do with a simple picture. I find about two thirds of the pictures put up, will not display on my browser, which implies that the web page is incompetently written. Google have recently changed the coding for their maps facility, which meant I had to use Bing maps. There is no consideration for the user whatsoever as far as I can see. Fortunately Amazon still works.

[FullyDetached]

To drift off-thread a bit, am I the only person who finds the light output from 2D light fittings like that a bit disappointing?

I bought a 38W 2D fitting hoping it would be bright, but it seemed dimmer than a 23W Tesco CFL in a bayonet fitting, and much dimmer than a

58W linear tube.

[F]

Apologies for that. I suppose they do it because they can...

[F]

Brute force not needed, just a little more than I used when I was exploring. It came away OK, it's 2 pin, and the base is fine.

Thanks, everyone, for the suggestions.

[Harry Bloomfield]

F a écrit :

Right in the middle, where the plastic lamp centre is, there is a tiny socket on the fitting and a plug 2 or 4 pin on the lamp. Sometimes there is some extra support in the form of half a terry clip. Just grip the plastic part and pull it straight out from the fitting.

[Andrew Gabriel]

There are several factors. The efficiency of the tube (and ballast if separate). The efficientcy of the luminare. The distribution of light emitted.

A 58W linear tube is about as efficient as you can get - it casts no shadow loss on the light output, although bear in mind this doesn't include the ballast power consumption. Light output is highest on the plane perpendicular to the tube centre, dropping to zero along the axis of the tube. Distribution can be controlled by the luminare, although generally the more control, the less efficient the luminare is.

For a 2D lamp, to meet the original electrical characteristics, they could only be rated B for efficiency, although that has changed recently, and there are lower power retrofits too (check what the actual power rating is marked on the lamp). Efficiency is also lower because it casts a self-shadow on the output - all non-linear tubes do, but because the folded tubes are widely spaced, it's less of an effect than most compact fluorescent retrofits. The highest light output is to front and rear along a line perpendicular to the plane of the tube, and the lowest is along the plane of the tube where most of the tube is in shadow with only 1/4 of the length of the tube visible. The luminare can be a very large factor here too, as it can easily lose most of the rear-emitted light output, which is almost half the light from the lamp, and almost all have a diffuser cover, which if not well designed can easily lose half of what's emitted from the front. In summary, the tube itself is actually pretty good, and when it was used as originally designed by Thorn Lighting (it was their competitor to the Philips SL18), it was significantly better. It's not generally used as optimally today although its has stood the test of time well.

A retrofit CFL is generally the least efficient because of the shadow loss - in all directions, a significant length of the tube is shadowed by another part of the tube. Closely spaced (compact) designs are worse than widely spaced ones. Light distribution depends on tube shape - spiral and many folded tube ones are mostly directed to the sides. This is the opposite of the 2D. Having said this, the tube design can be changed to become more efficient as we discover how to do that, because the electrical characteristics of the tube are hidden by the integral control gear. Again, luminare has a major impact on further light loss - often 3/4 of the light is lost here.

[tim.....]

Oh it's not your fault

many "newspapers" sites do it as well, but I can get around that by putting them on the "naughty shelf"

but you can't do that with (most) picture sharing sites, as if you do they don't show you the picture.

(if any one newspaper site refuses to show me its content if I won't let it run its script there are 100 alternatives)

tim

[Andy Burns]

I find that using ABP to ditch the analytics, social media and tracking stuff, there's nothing objectionable about the remaining content from PhotoBucket itself, even without ABP I've seen pages that are much worse (as you say, newspapers in particular are very heavily bogged down without using blocking).

[tim.....]

I find that having ABP installed gobbles up so much memory that my PC won't run anything else

It's not about it being objectionable.

It's about the background downloading/executing of whatever shit it is trying to do, makes the browser hang

not even Chrome could manage it

tim

[Andy Burns]

On my previous "home" laptop I had Win7 with 4GB, and between them FF+TB would gobble almost 3GB and slow it down, so when I bought a new Win8 laptop for home I got 8GB of RAM, since then I rarely see FF+TB eat more than 1GB, even with 120+ tabs open, oh well.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Andy Burns escribió:

ABP plus Ghostery for the win!

Ghostery blocks the ever-increasing number of trackers on the Torygraph site, over 30 on some pages.