TECHNET Archives

August 2012

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bob Landman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:29:27 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
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-bidding-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-lester-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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2