Steve,

I have bedside lamps which have shades which clip to the light bulbs. Very difficult to attach to CFLs.

I'm surprised that they start for you in outside winter conditions. Didn't know they had reflector flood type lamps.

I've had so-so luck with Philips halogen floods - several have popped their lenses off leaving the bulbs exposed 3 stories above the ground.  No fun changing bulbs.

And even less success with T8 fluorescent fixtures.  Philips/Advance electronic ballasts failing frequently.

Good old incandescent lamps are much more reliable.  And GE and Sylvania are making them more efficent and longer lasting.

http://m.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-07/bright-idea-law-forces-incandescent-bulbs-become-better

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Bob,
> 
> I can't say that my early experience with CFL's was all that good - high
> cost, early/immediate failure, non-existent disposal infrastructure,
> definite fire hazards, and bulbs that illuminated the room like a singular
> tiny birthday candle - poorly.
> 
> More recent CFL's appear to be more reliable, but I remain cautious about
> the type of fixture they are utilized in.  Disposal infrastructure is still
> very weak, with all the burden falling upon the consumer.
> 
> Strangely, some of the best results I've had with 'CFL's' is with the
> reflector/floodlight version where the entire bulb is contained within the
> glass envelope, similar to the conventional incandescent flood light.  I
> have 4 of them in my 'woodshed' that surrounds my outdoor boiler.  They
> operate ON & OFF all year long - steaming hot Summer and bitter cold Winter
> [although in the Winter-time they seem agonizingly slow to warm up.  Their
> cool glow is complemented by the how glow of the coals in the stove  :-) ].
> The bulbs have been in intermittent use for 4 years, and are still going
> strong ...
> 
> Use of a conventional open coil CFL's in outdoor fixtures is futile.
> 
> The last four sentences of Phil's second article pretty much say it all.
> Reminds me of the push for Pb-Free - a great deal of hand-waving and smoke &
> mirrors.  Very much a 'feel good' type of justification, rather than
> science/math.
> 
> IMHO - Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] what is the reliability of CFLs and LEDs as incandescent light
> bulb replacements?
> 
> A very interesting discussion about what's inside these new devices.  Have
> any of you torn one of them apart to see how well they are made?  You'll be
> amazed at the poor quality of the components in a lamp that's supposed to
> have a 10 year life.
> 
> -Bob Landman
> 
> IFTLE 98 Lester the Lightbulb vs CFL and LED : the Saga Continues By Dr Phil
> Garrou
> 
> In IFTLE 63 [ see IFTLE 63, "Bidding Adieu to Lester Lightbulb
> http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2011/08/iftle-63-b
> idding-adieu-to-lester-lightbulb.html] back in Aug 2011 IFTLE attempted to
> make the case that our little 25 cent friend Lester the incandescent bulb
> had gotten a bump rap as he awaited extinction on death row. 
> 
> It's not that the claims of the newer technologies (CFL and LED) using less
> power than incandescent bulbs are invalid, but rather what appears to be the
> bold faced lie that their much greater cost is compensated by their decades
> long lifetimes that upsets all Lester supporters.
> 
> http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2012/04/iftle-98-l
> ester-the-lightbulb-vs-cfl-and-led-the-saga-continues.html
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________