Europeans drop watt in favour of lumen

[Sylvia Else]

rebel wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:28:50 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:

The Real Andy wrote:
Seems the europeans have finally had the bright idea of using lumens
instead of watts for the classification of light bulbs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187175/So-watts-lumen-The-EUs-bright-idea-rename-light-bulbs.html

They could usefully require that the light output when cold after, say,
50 hours of total use, also be quoted.

or after 5 seconds. Many of the types I've encountered wouldn't make 50% of
their "ten minute output" at that time.

You mean when they're new? My experience is that they're reasonably OK
when new, but quickly acquire a significant warm-up time as they age,
hence my suggested 50 hours of use criterion.

BTW, anyone know what the aging mechanism is?

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:50:45 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:29:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

That would break consumer law.
shakes head
What? You think it wouldn't?

Wrong phrasing; what makes you think they wouldn't?

Threat of prosecution?

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"terryt the cunt"

Eeysore wrote:

That would break consumer law.

shakes head

** Makes loud rattling noise ...

then falls off.




...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"rebel" <me@privacy.net>

They could usefully require that the light output when cold after, say,
50 hours of total use, also be quoted.

or after 5 seconds. Many of the types I've encountered wouldn't make 50%
of
their "ten minute output" at that time.

** Nice point.

All CFLs should be first labelled with their average lumen output at 5000
hours life - ie about 50% of initial.

Then, also labelled with their lumen output 1 second after switch on at 0C
ambient - ie about 10 % of later.

Then labelled with dire warnings about how they will explode if ever used
on a dimmed circuit - ie burn your house down.

Then labelled with the dire MERCURY clean up hazard involved with any
breakage - ie poison your kids.

Then labelled with the monstrous health problems their unregulated
manufacture is causing in China - ie poisoning hundreds of thousand of
young women and their recent and yet born infants.

Then also show the names and faces of the stinking criminal cunts who have
conspired to make them compulsory in this country.

So they can all be shot.




..... Phil

 

[ian field]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:006821ad$0$25675$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:28:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address
wrote:

The Real Andy wrote:
Seems the europeans have finally had the bright idea of using lumens
instead of watts for the classification of light bulbs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187175/So-watts-lumen-The-EUs-bright-idea-rename-light-bulbs.html

They could usefully require that the light output when cold after, say,
50 hours of total use, also be quoted.

or after 5 seconds. Many of the types I've encountered wouldn't make 50%
of
their "ten minute output" at that time.

You mean when they're new? My experience is that they're reasonably OK
when new, but quickly acquire a significant warm-up time as they age,
hence my suggested 50 hours of use criterion.

BTW, anyone know what the aging mechanism is?

One possibility is the rectifier reservoir electrolytic, it was a common
cause of failure in early types. The fact that space limitation restricts
this component to smaller than adequate remains true, the component is
highly stressed and I suspect the ESR rises significantly in a short time.

 

[Phil Allison]

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


** Fuck off -

you rabid, alien kiddie fucking pommy IDIOT !!!

One possibility is the rectifier reservoir electrolytic, it was a common
cause of failure in early types. The fact that space limitation restricts
this component to smaller than adequate remains true, the component is
highly stressed and I suspect the ESR rises significantly in a short time.

** Peeeeuuuuukkkeeeeeeee..........................

Wot absolute, vomitous spee.



..... Phil

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:29:11 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

That would break consumer law.

shakes head

I'm right, you're wrong.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"terrycunt"
Eeysore wrote:

That would break consumer law.

shakes head

** Makes loud rattling noise ...

then falls off.

LMAO

Graham


due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

terryc wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
terryc wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

That would break consumer law.
shakes head
What? You think it wouldn't?

Wrong phrasing; what makes you think they wouldn't?

Threat of prosecution?

Sale of Goods Act in the UK. Or deception.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:24:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

You will find it quoted on most bulbs sold in the UK if you look.

Lol, guess that is like all your advice, not relevenat or helpful.

It's highly relevant.

Watts = electrical power in
Lumens = visible light out.

Lumens / watt = measure of lighting efficiency.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

pfree wrote:

Eeyore a écrit :
terryc wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:

Seems the europeans have finally had the bright idea of using lumens
instead of watts for the classification of light bulbs.
So we go from something we can measure to something we can not with all
the credibility of a Standard and Poors credit rating. Brilliant, just
brilliant.

Lumens of light output are what matter. The power INPUT in watts is a
worthless measure aside from judging your electricity bill.

hello,
well, not only! You can have any output of lumens if you input enough
watts, with any light emitting device. What is a really interesting
measure of "merit" is the ratio of lm/W, i.e ouput/input

I agree. The exact figure ought to be added to the A-G Energy efficiency
rating bar on the side of the carton.

Oh and bulb output should be measured at half life. That'll knock the CFLs a
bit.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

"Mr.T" wrote:

Eeyore a écrit :
The power INPUT in watts is a
worthless measure aside from judging your electricity bill.

And of course no-one is interested in that are they!

They have nothing to do with how bright the light is.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2009 02:24:09 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Lumens of light output are what matter. The power INPUT in watts is a
worthless measure aside from judging your electricity bill.

Well, you have made the statement. Back it up with exactly whuch natural
unit is a lumen and how do you build a circuit to measure them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photometer

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:38:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Are you aware that 60% of British legislation

Blink, we became a seperate nation quite a few decades ago old chap.

The newspaper article is British, old chap.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:48:47 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

The info is already there on the boxes I have.

Yes, but you're just another lying whinging pom.

I have the carton in front of me.

OSRAM CLASSIC A
CLAS A FR 150
240V - B22d/BC

Bar code 4 050300 035925

What have you got to substantiate your claim ? NOTHING !

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

Sylvia Else wrote:

The Real Andy wrote:
Seems the europeans have finally had the bright idea of using lumens
instead of watts for the classification of light bulbs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187175/So-watts-lumen-The-EUs-bright-idea-rename-light-bulbs.html

They could usefully require that the light output when cold after, say,
50 hours of total use, also be quoted.

I was thinking half-life actually.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address

 

[Eeyore]

Phil Allison wrote:

"rebel" <me@privacy.net

They could usefully require that the light output when cold after, say,
50 hours of total use, also be quoted.

or after 5 seconds. Many of the types I've encountered wouldn't make 50%
of their "ten minute output" at that time.

** Nice point.

All CFLs should be first labelled with their average lumen output at 5000
hours life - ie about 50% of initial.

Then, also labelled with their lumen output 1 second after switch on at 0C
ambient - ie about 10 % of later.

Then labelled with dire warnings about how they will explode if ever used
on a dimmed circuit - ie burn your house down.

Then labelled with the dire MERCURY clean up hazard involved with any
breakage - ie poison your kids.

Then labelled with the monstrous health problems their unregulated
manufacture is causing in China - ie poisoning hundreds of thousand of
young women and their recent and yet born infants.

Then also show the names and faces of the stinking criminal cunts who have
conspired to make them compulsory in this country.

So they can all be shot.

.... Phil

The greens don't want you to know real facts.

The upcoming new halogen styles will give CFLs a run for their money.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

 

[Sylvia Else]

Phil Allison wrote:

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


** Fuck off -

you rabid, alien kiddie fucking pommy IDIOT !!!



One possibility is the rectifier reservoir electrolytic, it was a common
cause of failure in early types. The fact that space limitation restricts
this component to smaller than adequate remains true, the component is
highly stressed and I suspect the ESR rises significantly in a short time.


** Peeeeuuuuukkkeeeeeeee..........................

Wot absolute, vomitous spee.

It doesn't seem totally implausible. Have you a theory of your own, Phil?

Sylvia.

 

[ian field]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00660d5f$0$31251$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Phil Allison wrote:
"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


** Fuck off -

you rabid, alien kiddie fucking pommy IDIOT !!!



One possibility is the rectifier reservoir electrolytic, it was a common
cause of failure in early types. The fact that space limitation
restricts this component to smaller than adequate remains true, the
component is highly stressed and I suspect the ESR rises significantly
in a short time.


** Peeeeuuuuukkkeeeeeeee..........................

Wot absolute, vomitous spee.


It doesn't seem totally implausible. Have you a theory of your own, Phil?

Sylvia.

He's too busy throwing a tantrum because he didn't think of it!

When the electronic ballast CFLs first hit the market and were much more
expensive, I attempted to repair any that failed - vented electrolytics were
at least as common as tubes dieing.

The quality of the electrolytics has improved significantly over the years
but space is limited and the small electrolytics are not ideal and succumb
to ripple current eventually.

 

[Phil Allison]

"ian field" <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com


** Fuck off -

you rabid, alien fucked pommy IDIOT !!!

One possibility is the rectifier reservoir electrolytic, it was a common
cause of failure in early types. The fact that space limitation restricts
this component to smaller than adequate remains true, the component is
highly stressed and I suspect the ESR rises significantly in a short time.

** Peeeeuuuuukkkeeeeeeee..........................

Wot absolute, vomitous spew.

Total CRAP.



..... Phil