Lamps are too long. Also some with neck too fat, but I don't much care about those cases.
Where, or what make? That will be a 20-25W CFL (although I'd settle for 18W at a pinch). I've never seen any as short as a standard GLS lamp (108.5mm). I've got quite a number at home, but shortest I've found is 130mm (and that's dropping down to an 18W one). I could probably use a 120mm one if I could find one.
On 03 Jul 2006 18:16:04 GMT someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-
Then they wouldn't fit in several fittings, for example some bulkheads, which are a tight fit for a GLS bulb. However, they do in several examples I can think of.
100W GLS bulbs are generally for badly designed lighting systems. Far better to modify it so that lower wattage bulbs can be used.Was this in the past year or so? Until then that was the case, usually due to the length.
On 03 Jul 2006 18:49:24 GMT someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-
People have remained wedded to "traditional" styles of fitting. Whether this is a chicken or egg is debatable. When they started off Thorn did sell a 2D conversion kit which had the control gear in a box with a bayonet fitting on one end and a standard 16W 2D lamp on the other.
With the modern fittings it takes perhaps half a second to strike and reach decent brightness. I don't think there is now a reason to complain about this aspect.
If it was a serious problem people wouldn't buy the lamps.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:50:26 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
I have one that is now almost 25 years old.
Does anyone make such claims, for an individual house?
You are assuming that the house needs to be heated all year.
Actually, that brings up another point. A secondary reason for reduced light output is that the light comes from a different position relative to the lamp base. A case in point was a bulkhead into which I recently fitted a CFL. It has a reflector positioned to direct the light in the right direction. With a CFL, no light is seen coming off the reflector because what you see in the reflector is a reflection of the control gear and the bottom dim ends of the tubes. This issue of the light coming from a different position relative to the lamp base is one cause of apparent reduced light output, when it doesn't match the design of the luminare optics.
People don't redesign lighting systems just because a light bulb doesn't fit. I was giving an example of the most common reason given in the EU for not using energy saving lamps. The light bulb needs to be designed to fit the fittings. They are getting better -- probably commonly an inch shorter than a few years ago, and another inch or even half an inch shorter would open them up to even more use.
It's been ongoing and as they get smaller, more fittings are catered for. Last attempt at the more troublesome ones was only
2 weeks ago, and still no go.
I have an SL25 which is almost that age, and a few SL9's which are probably 20 years old but not currently installed. I did have one of the very first SL18's which would be over
25 years old, but I accidently left it behind when I moved out of digs many years ago.The message from David Hansen contains these words:
Isn't that what this whole discussion is about - how many people aren't buying the lamps?
It's not the strike time, but the run-up time which is complained about, which tends to be around 30-60 seconds (time taken for the amalgam pellet to warm up and release currect quantity of mercury, and for it to diffuse along the tube). Different lamps have differing percentage of initial light output though.
The 2D lamps are actually some of the better ones for initial light output, and I have used them in several of my own conversions, particularly with instant start control gear. I don't think any of the users have even realised these are not filament lamp fittings.
David Hansen typed
I dislike the colour of the lamps so much that I only have one in use so far, on the landing.
Some red garments appear an awful shade in their light.
Is that the one in the spare store room that gets switched on for 5 mins every couple of years? B-)
A lot of the "energy effciency" advertising extols only boiling the amount of water you need rather than a whole kettle full each time.
snipped-for-privacy@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel)typed
Well, they make me feel uneasy.
I won't have them anywhere I sit for a long time and certainly not where I get dressed.
A good idea. However I'm not sure how accurate the data would be for, say, a Media Centre PC. You would have to make wild guesses on its usage as the power drawn would vary immensely. I can't think you could describe a typical pattern of use that easily.
Mark
Are you saying that you have so many clothes of similar yet subtley different shades that you simply can't remember what goes with what? Is this really a problem for you?
Personally I find normal house lighting to give a different colour to daylight anyway. So dressing in any artificial light will not match daylight.
I would have thought that most people would know what went with what in their wardrobe.
I wonder why no maker puts the spiral tube round the outside with the control gear sitting up the centre of the spiral in a white tube. This would reduce length by the size of the control gear. Also the spiral would be wider thus shorter.
NT
Ouch. Sounds like suntiles would give you very good ROI,
I've used external reflectors to double light levels, even better ROI
NT
The message from "Fitz" contains these words:
I'm too colourblind to tell so I've learned not to care.
I daresay its one of the things that will get labour voted out. But I dont think it matters too much to either of them, each party just runs and runs till people vote them out, knowing its a duopoly game of handing power back and forht between them. Parties dont seem to hahve been elected on the basis of being liked for quite some time, more a case of having to get rid of the other one.
NT
I think the usual practice is the builder has one set that gets installed (then promptly replaced) over and over. The wasted labour is worth far more than any wasted materials. Tis an idiot law.
NT
I think CFLs are falling prey to the same phenomenon that wiped linear fluorescnet out as a domestic lighting option. Linear fl is an excellent method of lighting houses _if_ its done right. The problem is it can go so very wrong. Inevitably ignorant end users install the wrong type of light in the wrong type of way, and the result is awful. Lacking the awareness to discriminate between different types of tubes, fittings and installation methods, users then condemn all fls as awful.
There are very good quality cfls, but there are also al ot that have a funny and unpleasant pinkish tint to them. All deliver well below claimed output too, so the result for an unaware end user is crap lighting.
CFL mfrs are really shooting themselves in the foot by continuing with their disingenuous equivalent power claims.
NT
There are a few issues like this to address. Pattern of use is probably one of the easier ones, as firstly the assumptions would be stated on the label, and if they look unrealistic the end user that reads it would see that. Secondly a typical mixture of computer use isnt hard to come up with, just monitor a handful of employee home PCs with a killawatt meter for a week, job done. In practice there would also be the extra step of massaging the figures as much as possible.
Some standard conditions might be established so figures were comparable and realistic across the board, and mfrs would need to state the BS whatever figures as well as their own more optimistic ones. This is how cars are mpg rated, and although its not accurate it does give a reasonable comparison. Imagine buying cars with no mpg info, it really helps to have the info available.
The biggest issues are predicted lifetime, which is harder to estimate and easy to get wrong, plus the question of what do you do with lifetime claims that turn out to be wrong. However if the expected lifetime on the tag is 5 years, the consumer at least has a stronger legal position when claiming for premature failure outside of warranty, this might provide the necessary feedback mechanism.
If that doesnt prove an effective feedback mechanism, what else to do about false lifetime claims I dont know. Its an idea that needs these things addressing if its to work well, but even if they all remain unaddressed the consumer will still be more aware and make choices based on these factors more often. Its just a questoin of how much gain such a scheme could bring.
It would make us all a bit richer too, since we would be better equipped to make good choices and thus would end up with more goods for the same money in the long run, or the same for less.
NT
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.