cfl's

[Brendon]

On 28/08/2013 3:38 PM, Jeßus wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.

I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
go for the warm ones.

Wow - I hate the warm ones that much I didn't think anyone would like
them! Different stroke I guess!

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 28/08/2013 4:54 PM, Brendon wrote:

On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.



I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.

I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
crossed.

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.

I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
incandescents they're meant to replace.

However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see the
blue in things.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 28/08/2013 1:04 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"felix_unger"

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all the
way to the bank.

** Australia's lighting importers could not believe their luck when
approached by the Govt about phasing out GLS bulbs.

There was obviously big money in it for them, so the REAL issues with two so
very different products were never mentioned.

No CFL maker claims they can replace GLS bulbs in all or even most
situations or ever demonstrated the assumed cost benefit to be real.

The alleged CO2 reduction is non existent in reality.

not only are they an environmental hazed, they are simply not cost
effective. they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,

** All true.

Greenies dreamt up the mad idea for political reasons and we know
technically savvy they are.

Banning transformer based plug paks was their other triumph.

Were they actually banned?

I'd assumed that it was economics that eliminated them.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sylvia Else"

Banning transformer based plug paks was their other triumph.

Were they actually banned?

** In the same way that GLS lamp were.

By using the MEPS provision of the energy act.

GLS lamps were banned by artificially setting the MEPS just above ( about
10% ) what such lamps normally achieved.

CFLs easily complied, but so did ALL quartz halogen lamps - most of which
are PRIZE examples of bad lighting efficiency.

The similar MEPS rule for external power supplies was *very carefully* set
at the exact level that excluded transformer types in preference to SMPSs.

Wot a fucking scam.



.... Phil

 

[Jeßus]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:05:07 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:

On 28/08/2013 3:38 PM, Jeßus wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0800, Brendon <Brendon@spam.com> wrote:

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.

I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
go for the warm ones.



Wow - I hate the warm ones that much I didn't think anyone would like
them! Different stroke I guess!

Heh... yep, each to their own

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:

On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed of?

**Points:

* I did not say they presented NO hazard.
* Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount of
mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from CFLs
is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to keep an
incandescent of equivalent light output operating.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

**I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 28/08/2013 4:57 PM, felix_unger wrote:

On 28-August-2013 12:51 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 12:19 PM, annily wrote:
On 28.08.13 11:35, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.


I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.


**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced
300 Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers).
As the CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.


and according to you that will be in 10 years time..

**Quite likely. Efficiency of LEDs and CFLs is similar.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[SG1]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
Snip

I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the incandescents
they're meant to replace.

However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting used
to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never willingly go
back - the world looks quite different when you can see the blue in
things.

Sylvia.

When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life and
improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the manufacturer, I
bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty finding
Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..

 

[felix_unger]

On 29-August-2013 12:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 28/08/2013 4:54 PM, Brendon wrote:
On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.



I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.

I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
crossed.

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.



I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
incandescents they're meant to replace.

yes, they are

However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
the blue in things.

the cool seem too white to me and the warm too yellow. something in
between would be good

Sylvia.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
disposed of?

**Points:

* I did not say they presented NO hazard.
* Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.



I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

**I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office
all day

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 29-August-2013 8:28 AM, SG1 wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
Snip

I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
incandescents they're meant to replace.

However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
the blue in things.

Sylvia.

When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life
and improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the
manufacturer, I bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty
finding Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..

eBay

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[Rod Speed]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b87h7nFk3qpU1@mid.individual.net...

On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be disposed
of?

**Points:

* I did not say they presented NO hazard.
* Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount of
mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from CFLs is
MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to keep an
incandescent of equivalent light output operating.



I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

**I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office all
day

Doesn't mean that he has a valid claim just because he claims that tho.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.








--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[felix_unger]

On 29-August-2013 10:22 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b87h7nFk3qpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing
all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed,
they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
disposed of?

**Points:

* I did not say they presented NO hazard.
* Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.



I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20
CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've
replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

**I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on
his head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an
office all day

Doesn't mean that he has a valid claim just because he claims that tho.

yeah of course he has to prove it

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/

 

[annily]

On 29.08.13 10:36, annily wrote:

On 28.08.13 16:24, Brendon wrote:
On 28/08/2013 10:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs. They were in use for more than 10
years each @ around 4 hours per day each. The total amount of mercury
released by all the extra coal burned exceeds the amount of mercury in
each lamp by a very considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is
substantial.

I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are both
very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20 hours/year
operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see less than 20
hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_cfl.cfm


Get your information straight before you post.



I wish my CFL's had the same longevity as yours Trevor.

I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
phut & went black, some just stopped working. They were mainly Ikea
sourced CFLs. I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers
crossed.

Out of interest does anyone actually like the yellow output of the "warm
white" CFL's? I find the "cool white" much more pleasant for both work
areas & the lounge etc.



I prefer "warm white" myself. Each to his own, I guess. And I hate those
headlights in a lot of newer cars (halogen, I think) which are also
towards the blue end of the spectrum, rather than the warmer colours of
older cars. I find them very harsh on my eyes.

Also, the "warm white" of the LEDs I've used is noticeably bluer than
the "warm white" of the CFLs I've used.

--
Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 29/08/2013 9:59 AM, felix_unger wrote:

On 29-August-2013 6:46 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 5:01 PM, felix_unger wrote:
On 28-August-2013 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 28/08/2013 11:30 AM, felix_unger wrote:

whoever conned the govt into mandating their use must be laughing all
the way to the bank. not only are they an environmental hazed, they
are
simply not cost effective. they don't last 10 times longer than
conventional bulbs, or however many times it was supposed to be, and
they cost heaps more. they emit UV radiation too.


**Bollocks to all the above.

I just replaced my first two CFLs.

I've had to replace heaps in just a few years

They were in use for more than 10 years each @ around 4 hours per day
each. The total amount of mercury released by all the extra coal
burned exceeds the amount of mercury in each lamp by a very
considerable amount. CO2 reduction, using CFLs is substantial.

if they're not an environmental (and health I should have said) hazard
why does the govt issue instructions about how they are to be
disposed of?

**Points:

* I did not say they presented NO hazard.
* Given the long life and lower power consuption of CFLs, the amount
of mercury entering the environment (if disposed of improperly) from
CFLs is MUCH, MUCH lower than burning the amount of coal required to
keep an incandescent of equivalent light output operating.



I've lived in my present home for 7 years. I have more than 20 CFLs, a
handful of regular incandescents, 20-odd halogens (presently being
replaced by LEDs) and a 13 linear fluoros. In that time, I've replaced
two CFLs (which had I transferred from my previous home - these are
both very high use lamps), 6 incandescents (which see around 20
hours/year operation), 4 linear fluoros and 15 halogens (which see
less than 20 hours/year operation.

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

**I suggest you read the link I provided. The risk is minimal.

I recall hearing of someone who was suing for getting skin cancer on his
head allegedly caused by working under fluorescent tubes in an office
all day

**People claim all sorts of idiotic things every day. That does not make
those claims factual.

Read the fucking link.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/08/2013 8:28 AM, SG1 wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:b86e56Fcne1U1@mid.individual.net...
Snip

I dislike the "warm white". Some are even yellower than the
incandescents they're meant to replace.

However, the cool white (or daylight) ones did take a bit of getting
used to, after half a century of yellow night-times. But I'd never
willingly go back - the world looks quite different when you can see
the blue in things.

Sylvia.

When triphosphours first came out an electrian suggest their long life
and improved brightness would be a benefit. Well it was to the
manufacturer, I bought a couple. Bright yes, Warm white YUK.
Cool white only way to go for these aging eyes. Am have difficulty
finding Cool white in cfls and LEDs but I will continue my search..

I buy my cool white CFLs in Woolworths. Most recently, a few months ago.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b85lavF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...

I suppose CFLs will be relaced by LEDs as the preferred home lighting in
the not-too-distant future, when they drop in price.


**They already are. I'm replacing all my halogens with LEDs. There's a
drop in light output, but there's a huge number of them, so the total
light available is plenty. The power savings are massive. I replaced 300
Watts of halogens with 30 Watts of LEDs (electronic transformers). As the
CFLs fail, they'll be replaced with LEDs as well.


and according to you that will be in 10 years time..

Right, the price should be competitive by then. Hopefully a little less.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Brendon" <Brendon@spam.com> wrote in message
news:9MOdnYNv3ZEOA4DPnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

I've replaced probably 6 or 8 so far. Some went bang & smoked, some went
phut & went black, some just stopped working.

Yep, just replaced a two year old one with very little use yesterday.

>I'm now only installing Philips branded units - fingers crossed.

You'll need it! I bought two Phillips cfl's a couple of years ago. One
lasted a year, and when I went to replace it with the other it was dead from
new! And of course I no longer had the reciept :-(
Mirrabella I have found to be just as bad too, the electronics inside die
before the tube.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message
news:94ms19pu2uoa3rdn8b8fmdpuu15ic0c53f@4ax.com...

I can't stand the cool colour temps, especially with CFLs... I always
go for the warm ones.

Wow - I hate the warm ones that much I didn't think anyone would like
them! Different stroke I guess!

Heh... yep, each to their own

That's why they make different color temp versions, and have done with
normal tubes before CFL's even existed.
My preference is by far for quad phospur long tubes. They put out a better
spread of light for the same energy, and a bettter spectrum spread as well.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

"felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:b85liaF7h84U1@mid.individual.net...

UV radiation is substantially blocked by regular glass.

they still emit radiation

But not enough to be of any concern. I guess you never watched an old CRT TV
or heaven forbid used a CRT computer monitor as they are far worse for
radiation emmision.

Trevor.