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:
Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:26:15 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
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] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2