porno türk porno rokettube
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #1
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    cfl's


    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.

    --
    rgds,

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


  2. #2
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote

    > whoever conned the govt into mandating their use


    The govt conned themselves...

    > must be laughing all the way to the bank.


    Unlikely given that none of them are made here.

    > not only are they an environmental hazed,


    Bullshit.

    > they are simply not cost effective.


    Bullshit.

    > they don't last 10 times longer than conventional bulbs,


    The best of them do.

    > or however many times it was supposed to be,
    > and they cost heaps more.


    Mine have been quite literally free.

    > they emit UV radiation too.


    Bullshit.

  3. #3
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm


    Get your information straight before you post.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  4. #4
    Ext User(annily) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/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.

    --
    Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

  5. #5
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/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.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  6. #6
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    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.


    Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    superior alternative.

  7. #7
    Ext User(Peter Howard) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/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.


    Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
    bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
    weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
    of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
    after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
    and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
    minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
    switching off the main bedroom light.
    As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
    lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
    history when better technology comes along.
    PH



  8. #8
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:19:20 +1000, "Peter Howard"
    <rover110@bigpond.com> wrote:


    >As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
    >lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
    >history when better technology comes along.


    And good riddance to them.

  9. #9
    Ext User(Petzl) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:19:20 +1000, "Peter Howard"
    <rover110@bigpond.com> wrote:

    >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/RadiationP...ets/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.

    >
    >Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
    >bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
    >weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
    >of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
    >after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
    >and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
    >minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
    >switching off the main bedroom light.
    >As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
    >lighting world. Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
    >history when better technology comes along.
    >PH
    >

    Good advice I bought 4 fom Aldi 3 weeks ago strong but even at $10 a
    piece not good value, take years to get my $10 back. Aldi would of
    replaced it but couldn't be bothered, I buy $2, 18 watt fluro's which
    work well
    --
    Petzl
    http://www.aec.gov.au/election/pva/
    DON'T VOTE ABOVE THE LINE
    PUT POWER BACK IN DEMOCRACY

    In a democracy of course you always get a choice
    Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue
    it’s entirely up to you
    Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks
    you get to choose.
    Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by
    con-men or by charlatans
    In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil
    and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it’s
    your choice
    Do you want, some more choices.
    take-it-or-leave-it
    Now there’s a real choice
    we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT
    I’d be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you
    I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't’give a
    damn who’s in it
    as long as it doesn't’include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or
    Green party
    organizations that show themselves to be without shame or principle
    All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the
    same time

    Put Labor, Liberal and Green party last on your Ballot choose your
    independant or small parties first then donkey vote down to those last
    on your ballot

    Personally I'll be voting Christian Democratic Group first, One Nation
    Group second, Palmer United group third, Katters Australia Party group
    fourth

  10. #10
    Ext User(Dechucka) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    snip

    I buy $2, 18 watt fluro's which
    > work well


    you know those are halal don't you?

  11. #11
    Ext User(annily) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28.08.13 12:21, 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/RadiationP...ets/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.
    >


    Preferred was the wrong word. I really meant the most common form of
    home lighting.

    I've never had any halogens, so I'm going straight from old incandescent
    and CFL to LED.

    --
    Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia

  12. #12
    Ext User(Brendon) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/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.



  13. #13
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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?

    >
    > 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

    >
    > http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >
    >
    > Get your information straight before you post.
    >




    --
    rgds,

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


  14. #14
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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/RadiationP...ets/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..

    --
    rgds,

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


  15. #15
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28-August-2013 2:19 PM, Peter Howard wrote:

    > 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/RadiationP...ets/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.

    > Keep the receipts for the LED lamps. When they were very new on the market I
    > bought four BC globe type Osrams as an experiment. One failed within a few
    > weeks but Bunnings replaced it willingly when I showed them the dated proof
    > of purchase. The other three plus the replacement are still going strong
    > after three years. Very satisfactory experiment. No warm up time like a cfl
    > and nice light quality. Mine at least also have a slight afterglow for a few
    > minutes after switching off which is handy for finding the bed after
    > switching off the main bedroom light.
    > As the LED technology matures I think that the cfl might be the vcr of the
    > lighting world.


    It can't happen soon enough

    > Brief moment of glory but consigned to the dustbin of
    > history when better technology comes along.
    > PH
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

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


  16. #16
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    > 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.

    > Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    > superior alternative.


    it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.

    --
    rgds,

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


  17. #17
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:05:32 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    wrote:

    >On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    >> 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.

    >> Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    >> superior alternative.

    >
    >it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    >output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.


    It's true that they're still pricey, I personally find the output very
    good. I have a few 4.5W LEDs in some downlights scattered around the
    house, a few in desk lamps as well. Oh, and a 1.somethingW globe in
    the fridge. I have an outdoor globe as well, very bright. All doing a
    great job.

    One thing that drove me crazy about CFLs is a high-pitched tone that I
    frequently encountered. Haven't noticed that with LEDs so far.

  18. #18
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    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.

  19. #19
    Ext User(Petzl) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:05:32 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    wrote:

    >On 28-August-2013 2:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
    >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.com>
    >> 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.

    >> Never been a fan of CFLs, it's a good thing LEDs matured into a much
    >> superior alternative.

    >
    >it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    >output is too low. ok for desklamps tho.


    The Aldi 8 watt ones ($10) I reckon are equal to a 60 watt
    incandescant
    out of four one blew after a week so not convinced of reliability

    The light is warm the brigther cool bring in to many bugs
    --
    Petzl
    http://www.aec.gov.au/election/pva/
    DON'T VOTE ABOVE THE LINE
    PUT POWER BACK IN DEMOCRACY

    In a democracy of course you always get a choice
    Do you want to be governed by the red or by the blue
    it’s entirely up to you
    Do you want to be patronized or condescended to, by liars or by crooks
    you get to choose.
    Would you prefer your fundamental values to be insulted or ignored by
    con-men or by charlatans
    In short do you want your influence to be zero or nil
    and when would you like to be listened to, never or not at all, it’s
    your choice
    Do you want, some more choices.
    take-it-or-leave-it
    Now there’s a real choice
    we have proportional voting in Australia USE IT
    I’d be happy with any kind of representation wouldn't you
    I would like to see a new government and part of me doesn't’give a
    damn who’s in it
    as long as it doesn't’include anybody from the Labor, Liberal or
    Green party
    organizations that show themselves to be without shame or principle
    All spineless and authoritarian both cowardly and war mongering at the
    same time

    Put Labor, Liberal and Green party last on your Ballot choose your
    independant or small parties first then donkey vote down to those last
    on your ballot

    Personally I'll be voting Christian Democratic Group first, One Nation
    Group second, Palmer United group third, Katters Australia Party group
    fourth

  20. #20
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



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


    Because they are even less of an environmental hazard when disposed of
    properly.

    >> 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


    So does everything.

    >> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationP...ets/is_cfl.cfm
    >>
    >>
    >> Get your information straight before you post.
    >>

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


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •