Anyone used this type of lamp? The image looks like "clear" but they call them "frosted" ...are they as opaque as "pearl" ones?
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com coughed up some electrons that declared:
Can't see much fundamental difference between that and this:
Maybe the former is a concession to trying to make a more energy efficient GLS type lamp without involving CFL technology???
Cheers
Tim
just another mistake
NT
ones?
Well it would mean going to a branch as I can't see the order line knowing .That's why I asked in here to see if anyone had used them.
The former is an energy saving lamp using technology newly developed by Philips, giving a 30% energy saving for the same amount of light.
The latter is a bog standard halogen lamp which does not include the energy saving technology.
The energy saving halogen lamps are extensively used by the National Trust because they retain the original appearance of incandescent bulbs while saving that all-important 30%. They also have the advantage of low UV emissions reducing the rate of ageing of things like upholstery fabric and wallpaper.
Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:
That is interesting - thanks Bruce.
I'm bored with CFLs that die in 18 months so I might try these.
Cheers
Tim
SF have answered some questions for me very well over the phone & via e-mail. They do seem to have a technical dept.
It's not. Both of these are bog standard halogens.
You are referring the the Philips Master Classic lamps, which use a low voltage halogen capsule and a small switched-mode PSU in the lamp base to generate the low voltage for it.
They are genuinely more efficient than mains halogens, but their cost premium is too high, and they cost more to run than a higher powered halogen with same light output.
Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:
I got confused trying to research this. When I googled "HaloLux" I ended up at Osram's site where they were extolling the benefits of halogen lamps with a special coating on the glass that reduced energy consumption. They were claiming 28% savings. But none of the "HaloLux" lamps I could find were in GLS format. They did have some GLS energy savers, but it wasn't clear if they were the same technology or not...
Before anyone asks, I did do a quick lumen/watt calculation from Osram's datasheet and they are no where near good enough to satisfy Part L low energy lamp requirements :(
Cheers
Tim
You dont know whether they'll know or not. Help yourself, youre a big boy now.
NT
theyre just halogen lamps, which are not low energy in any substantial sense.
NT
theyre just halogen lamps, which are not low energy in any substantial sense.
As for CFL life, halogen life is way shorter.
NT
ones?
I think I've seen enough replies to tell me they are not what I am looking for clear,frosted or anything else :-)
I've only seen the IR coating on the 300W and 500W equivalent linear halogens in this country (225W and 375W respectively). In the US, you can find them on some other halogens too, but I think the issue is that anyone bothered about energy saving isn't going to be using halogens in the first place, so there isn't much market for energy saving halogens, and the IR coating bumps up the cost of the lamp quite a bit.
No filament lamp is (not even the Philips Master Classic). (Well, a photoflood might be, for the couple of hours it lasts!)
There is work going on to make much more efficient filament lamps. The basic idea is that the surface of the filament is marked with a pattern which repeats at wavelength of IR such as to interfere with the emission of longer IR wavelengths, giving you a filament which doesn't emit so much IR.
That doesn't make sense. If the others are a higher power they take more electricity to run.
I didn't put that very well -- I mean if you factor in the lamp price, the electricity savings won't pay for the extra price of the lamp.
You're welcome.
Me too. Not only do CFLs die quickly, but their performance drops off dramatically after a few months.
I used to use 20W Philips CFLs which were quite expensive but gave a soft light and just fitted into some fittings I had installed throughout the house (five of them). I got fed up with the short life, deteriorating performance and high cost.
Now I buy 20W GE CFLs from ASDA which give more light when new and cost a fraction of the price of the Philips CFLs. The light is not quite as soft but the difference isn't great.
I haven't had them long enough to see if the performance drops off as quickly, but they are cheap enough to replace them more often if necessary.
As to their energy saving qualities of CFL bulbs, I think not enough attention is paid to the energy cost of manufacture. Probably because the things are made in China.
It's part of the manufacturing cost, which is a small part of the price you paid for them.
Why not change the habit of a lifetime and actually read what you are replying to first? It might help your postings make some sense to people other than yourself.
I wrote "the energy cost of manufacture". I specifically did not refer to "the price I paid for them". Money has very little to do with it because of the low cost of energy in China, thanks to low wages, low environmental standards and cheap and plentiful coal.
The energy cost of making a CFL bulb (in terms of CO2 emissions) is apparently very much higher than the energy cost of making an incandescent bulb. You have to set that energy cost against the saving in CO2 emissions the bulb will offer against an incandescent bulb used for the same number of hours per year.
The arguments in favour of using CFL bulbs include longer life than incandescent bulbs. However, my experience so far (and I have been using CFLs - and not so compact FLs - for over a decade now) is that the claims of longer life are not supportable. So in my experience, the higher energy cost of manufacturing CFLs is certainly not offset by a longer life before replacement is needed.
I would like to see a properly constructed study of the energy cost of manufacturing and transporting CFLs, versus the energy saved through lower power consumption, factoring in a realistic expectation of life before replacement. all compared to the same for incandescent bulbs. I would approach the results with a completely open mind, however I feel sure that the CO2 savings currently claimed for CFL bulbs are likely to be shown to be highly over-optimistic.
None of this involves the monetary aspect; I am happy to pay more for environmentally friendly lighting and, indeed, I have been doing exactly that for the last decade. It just occurs to me that CFLs are not nearly as environmentally advantageous as claimed.
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.