energy saving light bulbs

[Chri5]

@chri5

I've kept the boxes and the receipt because at £22 each the things had better come within 50% of the claimed life expectancy

But won't the wording be such that this is a guideline or estimate for a large sample rather than any one item thus making it impossible to claim ?

Hoepfully I won't find out, I will await failure and if that happens at a time much, much earlier I will kick off and find out.

All the marketing goes on about 15 x life of standard lamp, 10% of run cost. So if they fail within a year I WILL spit my dummy out, trading standards / misrepresentation etc

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I find that energy saving bulbs are useless. They are not bright enough and take too long to warm up. I dont want to sit in dim light until they get to maximum brightness and even then they are not bright enough (the energy savers in my garden lights say they take 30min to get to 60% of maximum brightness). They are a complete waste of time in a hallway (by the time they getting even a little brighter i have reached the other end) and even worse in a toilet (I am a man and again by the time i have finished peeing and have left the room they are only just getting going),

Then you are using the wrong ones.

Some makes are worse than others, and some lamp formats are worse than others.

My experience of GU10 CFLs is that they are indeed poor, but you shouldn't be using them to light rooms anyway.

My experience of Philips & GE MiniTech replacements for regular GLS lamps is that they are just fine, particularly the latter. The ramp-up to full brightness is literally 1 or 2 seconds and the colour temperature is fine.

No, they are not as bright as the makers claim, but that's an endemic problem with replacement CFLs. The GE ones are small enough for you to be able to get ones which are bright enough into most luminaires.

I know i am going to hear about the environment blah blah, and cost blah blah. I am prepared to pay the extra it costs to run normal bulbs or even 2 energy savers and i dont buy all this environment stuff (call me a heretic but thats what i believe).

Do you not believe that CFLs reduce carbon emissions by much when their whole lifecycle is considered, or you don't believe that there is such a thing as human-induced climate change?

The former is a valid POV.

The latter makes you as loony as people who believe the earth is flat.

Anyone come to a solution to the dim lights from energy savers!

Proper CFLs, by which I mean ones without integral ballasts.

Magnetic Induction lamps.

Cold cathode neons.

Dielectric barrier discharge lighting - Osram have been sitting on their Planon technology for b****y years, which is a shame.

Electron stimulated luminescence.

 

[big-all]

i simply don't recognise any off the problems described
most modern l/e bulbs are 80% instantly and 100% within a few seconds
the main problems are manufacturers claims they say 5 to 6 times the output where in fact if you call it 4 times you wont be disappointed so a 11w =44w
or 20w=80w 23=92w and not 125-150 that some claim

 

[delboybully]

I know i am going to hear about the environment blah blah, and cost blah blah. I am prepared to pay the extra it costs to run normal bulbs or even 2 energy savers and i dont buy all this environment stuff (call me a heretic but thats what i believe).

Do you not believe that CFLs reduce carbon emissions by much when their whole lifecycle is considered, or you don't believe that there is such a thing as human-induced climate change?

The former is a valid POV.

The latter makes you as loony as people who believe the earth is flat.

I knew this would come up.

Then it looks like i am as loony as people who believe the earth is flat then.

The difference is the earth has been proved to be round (a slight elipse actually but near enough round) whereas the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal. In fact some of the evidence has been adjusted, some has been suppressed. There is no open discussion on the subjuct, people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'.

The thing is, i don't believe the environment is in danger and as such im not particularly worried about it. I think that all these environmental rules will hold growth back and we will all suffer for it. It is unaffordable to achieve the goal our government has set us.

 

[Paul_C]

I hate CFLs. They take forever to come on, they are never as bright as theyre supposed to be and worst of all, the light they produce is absoloutly horrible

And on top of that, I really have to question just how "energy efficient" they are. Sure, in terms of the power consumed in actually keeping them alight in the home they use less energy, even after adjusting the manufacturers' inflated claims to something which matches reality.

But when one considers the extra energy consumed in manufacturing them, plus the fact that to satisfy the same "environmentally conscious" people who advocate them they then need much more energy to be expended to safely recycle them afterward than does the humble tungsten filament lamp, I think any claim that they save energy overall, at least in the average domestic situation, is dubious at best. I think that's especially so considering the very high failure rate some of them exhibit.

Then it looks like i am as loony as people who believe the earth is flat then.

Looks like I'm with the loonies as well then......

whereas the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal. In fact some of the evidence has been adjusted, some has been suppressed. There is no open discussion on the subjuct, people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'.

Precisely. Is the climate changing? Yes, undoubtedly, just as it has done for millennia. Is it man's industrial efforts which are causing that change? The case for that is unproven at the very least. But it's become one of those things where governments have successfully brainwashed a significant proportion of the population into believing it so that they can keep on pushing for more and more regulation and taxation, all supposedly in the name of saving the planet.

As with quite a number of other things these days, they've managed to get a certain segment of "believers" worked up into a sort of frenzy where they can point a finger and metaphorically shout "Witch!" at anyone who dares to question just where the proof - or at the very least some credible evidence - can be found.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I knew this would come up.

Then it looks like i am as loony as people who believe the earth is flat then.

The difference is the earth has been proved to be round (a slight elipse actually but near enough round) whereas the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal. In fact some of the evidence has been adjusted, some has been suppressed. There is no open discussion on the subjuct, people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'.

There is a huge amount of open discussion of it.

An overwhelming amount of open discussion about it.

There are thousands and thousands of people who know more than you about it discussing it, and you know what?

THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

The evidence and consensus is so overwhelming that for you to not accept it does make you an utter loony. Or stupid beyond belief

I'll show you the extent of your madness, not that it will change your mind, because you really are either an utter loony who refuses to accept the reality or you are, actually, stupid beyond belief, but it might give a few people a laugh at your expense.

the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal

I wonder why, in that case, the IPCC have stated that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations?

And that the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%?

I wonder why over 30 national science academies have issued joint declarations confirming man-made global warming, and urging countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases?

I wonder why hundreds of countries have signed the Kyoto protocol?

I wonder why survey after survey of published papers and of direct polling of scientists shows that an overwhelming majority agree that man-made climate change is real?

We are talking here of the work involving thousands of scientists, all peer-reviewed. We are talking here of organisations like the Royal Society saying ""There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." Of the American Association for the Advancement of Science saying "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

I wonder why surveys have formed conclusions such as

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

and

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

?

I wonder why not one scientific body of national or international standing now rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming?


Do you really think that all this is some fantastically, (and historically utterly unprecedentedly well) organised conspiracy by hundreds of countries and thousands of scientists to scare us all into using less oil before it runs out?

Does every individual scientist agree? No.

Is 100% of the evidence unequivocal and consistent? No.

Is every single scientific paper correct? No.

But "the environmental case is not proved, it is anecdotal ... There is no open discussion on the subject"? Please don't insult our intelligence.

people who question the case for environment being in danger are called all sorts of things like 'being as loony as people who think the earth is flat'

Those writing official papers have to be a bit more mealy-mouthed.

"Expert credibility in climate change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010: "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2009: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."


I prefer a more concise observation - anybody who thinks that all those thousands of scientists, all those hundreds of scientific bodies are wrong, anybody who thinks that the fact that not one scientific body of national or international standing now rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming can just be dismissed, and that they, as a non-expert in the field, are right to reject all of that is either a total loony or unbelievably stupid.

 

[delboybully]

Your 'proof' uses words like 'very likely', 'strong evidence' and 'probability'

Hardly proof!!!

And there has been a consensus like this before, it was when Darwin first announced his theory of evolution. He had to put a disclaimer on the first page because he was going against consensus. He couldnt risk the taking on consensus

I refuse to be brainwashed into what the environmental lobby believe

There is no open discussion, any scientist who dares to suggest that the environmental lobby is wrong will find their funding cut or withdrawn and find themself ostracised

Anyway according to you i am either a loony (Wibble Wibble Wibble) or dumb (Kwik, means fast, is that spelt right)

Its a free country and i can believe what i like and what i believe is that the environmental case is FALSE. Deal with it

Anyway this is off topic, please can we stick to the topic please, anyone else with ideas of how to get round the rubbish energy savig bulbs

 

[compynei]

Why in summer is it called global warming, but in winter its "climate change?".

Don't believe much of it is man made either. Infact, if I thought my 50w halogens were contributing to the demise of the polar bear I would install 10 more, nasty animals who eat their young.

 

[sherlockholmes]

The global warming debate between left wing environmental hippies and daily mail readers it not the same as the global warming debate between scientists. The physical properties of carbon dioxide really are not in doubt. Scientists do not have their funding cut or get ostracised for producing valid contrary theories or criticisms, though they may well do if they publish in tabloids and 'sceptic' websites rather than peer reviewed journals.

The same claims of coverup and conspiracy are made by many other groups that the typical middle class 'climate sceptic' laughs at, such as creationists, MMR-autism fools and the like. (That last one on reflection is a staggeringly poor example of something the typical middle class contrarian would laugh at, a problem which will kill or maim many who need not have suffered).

Believing in Christian folklore, homeopathy, MMR-autism or the absence of any affect of man on environment can indeed be justified by saying 'it's my belief and i've a right to believe what I want'. You do indeed. But you don't get to call irrational beliefs science or pretend science backs them. They're irrational beliefs based on emotion not evidence, and should be recognised as such.

I believe the main reason for the 'controversy' is the woeful standard of science reporting in the popular press. In scientific circles it's all a lot less alarmist and controversial.

 

[delboybully]

The case for global warming is not proved, it is anecdotal, and i dont buy it. There is a lack of debate in the amongst scientist, politicians and the popular press for the case against global warming. Any person or organisation who dares to suggest global warming is questionable gets attacked viciously. I believe that any temperature change (which is often compared to 1961, a particularly cold year) is part of the natural cycles of the planet!!! Did you know that they used to make wine in the northern part of England as it was warm enough

 

[ajrobb]

Proper CFLs, by which I mean ones without integral ballasts.

My stepson bought a new-build a couple of years ago and had low-energy light pendants (Part L?) in the hallways. Unfortunately, they have no way of fitting standard lampshades. While you can pick up discounted CFLs for as little as 10p, I doubt that replacement lamps for the low-energy pendants will be discounted. However, I have some concerns about these cheapies; while my first CFL was discounted to £5 over 25 years ago and lasted until a couple of months ago, its replacement has already stopped working.

Fluorescent lamp characteristics vary. I think some have only 2 phosphors (yellow and blue?) while others have 3. Is there standard packaging to differentiate between them? Hopefully some manufacturer will soon twig that even 3 phosphors is not enough to get faithful colour rendition.

 

[Stoday]

Energy saving lamps are fluorescent tubes twisted into a less efficient shape and controlled by a cheap 'n nasty control gear.

Lighting fittings that use fluorescent lamps with separate electronic control gear are far superior, but cost more. So you won't find the better fittings in the sheds, you have to look at commercial fittings, such as those supplied for hotels. For example the Thorn Chalice range, which are rescessed downlighters that use 26W plc lamps.

 

[Stoday]

Much as I'd like to argue with BAS about his being suckered into the unsustainable proposition that the current climate change is a consequence of man's burning fossil fuels, this is not the forum in which to do so.

If he would like to suggest a more appropriate place I'd be delighted to lock (metaphorical) swords...

 

[ajrobb]

Any science article that has not been reviewed by several scientists in the same field should be treated with extreme caution. This is almost universally true of articles written by journalists.

 

[Stoday]

I can’t resist responding to one of BAS’s outrageous and idiotic statements.

The evidence and consensus is so overwhelming that for you to not accept it does make you an utter loony.

Consensus does not identify a scientific truth. Quite the opposite.

* Consensus was that the earth was at the centre of the universe until Galileo showed that it was not.
* Consensus was that God created man until Darwin proposed evolution.
* Consensus was that the heavier an object, the faster it fell until Galileo’s experiment from the tower at Pisa.
* Consensus (among the clergy) was that pain in childbirth was the will of God and therefore anaesthesia sinful, until Queen Victoria proclaimed otherwise.
* Consensus was that the universe always existed until Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background which proved the Big Bang theory correct.
* Consensus is that the universe is comprised of physical matter. The proposal that physical matter comprises only 4% of the universe has still to be resolved. My view is that the current consensus view will be shown to be false within my lifetime.
* And lastly, the consensus view is that God exists and those who think he does not are utter loonies.

So you see, all the major scientific advances were made in opposition to the prevailing consensus. Consensus is bad science. Anyone who has to claim consensus to support his view is probably a charlatan.