porno türk porno rokettube
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #41
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "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.



  2. #42
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "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.



  3. #43
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b85lq9F7h84U3@mid.individual.net...
    > it hasn't really become cost effective yet, and I tried some, but the
    > output is too low.


    For the incorrect ones you tried maybe, but there are LED's replacing 500W
    halogen floodlights now. That's when you start to see serious energy savings
    and huge heat reduction!


    >ok for desklamps tho.


    Will be when the cost comes down. Not cost effective there yet IMO.

    Trevor.



  4. #44
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "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.



  5. #45
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


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


    And what was the outcome of the case? Thrown out as he couldn't prove it was
    not from sun exposure I bet. (FAR more likely)

    Trevor.



  6. #46
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >
    > whoever conned the govt into mandating their use


    I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.
    I believe it's a choice, so far.

    >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


    The ones I buy dirt cheap from warehouses do last lot longer than that.

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


    They cost more, dunno about heaps more. Depends where you buy it and how
    smart shopper you are.

    >they emit UV radiation too.
    >
    > --
    > rgds,
    >
    > Pete
    > -------
    > http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    > http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/
    >




  7. #47
    Ext User(Damian) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    > 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.


    Yes. they do, whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another
    story. That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.



  8. #48
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Damian"
    > "felix_unger"
    >>
    >> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use

    >
    > I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.



    ** GLS bulbs ( that do not met MEPS) were taken off sale several years
    ago - it is now a punishable offence to sell them.

    > I believe it's a choice, so far.



    ** Only for those with a stash of such bulbs OR are using the still legal
    halogen kind.

    Which is a hoot since they have little of no efficiency advantage.

    Eg like these:

    http://cdn.ukofficedirect.co.uk/od/i...1/0-Huge-0.jpg


    ..... Phil







  9. #49
    Ext User(SG1) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
    news:b87r2jFlsc5U1@mid.individual.net...
    > 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.


    That is where I got some but our favourite wollies no longer sells them,
    Woolies brand that is, too many claims for them not lasting I would say. Had
    to take one back that died an early death and anoth died the other week.
    SWMBO prefers incandescants.


  10. #50
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's



    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> 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.


    > Yes. they do,


    No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.

    > whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story. That
    > would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.


    Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.


  11. #51
    Ext User(Rod Speed) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    news:kvmkom$13c$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b8526dF3sfjU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>
    >> whoever conned the govt into mandating their use


    > I'm not aware of anybody mandating it.


    It was mandated anyway.

    > I believe it's a choice, so far.


    You're wrong, as always.

    >>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


    > The ones I buy dirt cheap from warehouses do last lot longer than that.


    I get them for free and they last fine. Haven't had to replace any of them.

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


    > They cost more,


    Nope, mine didn’t. Didn’t cost a cent.

    > dunno about heaps more. Depends where you buy it and how smart shopper you
    > are.


    In spades when you get them for free.

    >>they emit UV radiation too.




  12. #52
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Rod Speed"
    >
    > Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.


    ** I wonder how they make "black light " fluoro tubes then ?

    Are the tubes made from quartz glass ?



    ..... Phil



  13. #53
    Ext User(Sylvia Else) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29/08/2013 5:21 PM, SG1 wrote:
    >
    > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
    > news:b87r2jFlsc5U1@mid.individual.net...
    >> 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.

    >
    > That is where I got some but our favourite wollies no longer sells them,
    > Woolies brand that is, too many claims for them not lasting I would say.
    > Had to take one back that died an early death and anoth died the other
    > week. SWMBO prefers incandescants.
    >


    I was buying Philips brand in Woolies. But since you have a SWMBO, the
    point seems moot.

    Sylvia.



  14. #54
    Ext User(Jeßus) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:54:37 +1000, "Trevor" <trevor@home.net> wrote:

    >
    >"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.


    True, I have a pair of quads in the kitchen, and also a down light
    with a 4.5W LED, which is on most of the time in the evenings.

  15. #55
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 28/08/2013 5:05 PM, felix_unger 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.
    >


    **More bollocks. I have a 100 Watt LED here right now. It is (measurably
    and visibly) brighter than a 500 Watt halogen floodlight. LEDs head
    lamps are now common-place amongst some automobiles.

    So much for your "desklamp" bullshit.

    Do some research, before you post more of your nonsense.

    Refs:

    http://lumin8lighting.com.au/category/floodlights

    http://www.toyota.com.au/prius-v/range

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  16. #56
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    > news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>
    >>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit.

    >
    >> Yes. they do,

    >
    > No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.
    >
    >> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >
    > Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.


    That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..


    --
    rgds,

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


  17. #57
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 29-August-2013 1:59 PM, Trevor wrote:

    > "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.


    everybody used CRT monitors. there was no other choice until LCD's came
    on the market

    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

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


  18. #58
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30-August-2013 7:30 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

    > On 28/08/2013 5:05 PM, felix_unger 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.
    >>

    >
    > **More bollocks. I have a 100 Watt LED here right now.


    and how much did you pay for it?


    --
    rgds,

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


  19. #59
    Ext User(Trevor Wilson) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 30/08/2013 1:50 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 29-August-2013 5:23 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "Damian" <damian_andrews75@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
    >> news:kvmkcr$b3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
    >>>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b853tsF46heU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> felix_unger <me@nothere.com> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>> they emit UV radiation too.
    >>>>
    >>>> Bullshit.

    >>
    >>> Yes. they do,

    >>
    >> No they don’t. UV doesn’t get thru glass.
    >>
    >>> whether it gets out enough to damage our skin, etc is another story.
    >>> That would depend on the quality of the bulb and the age.

    >>
    >> Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

    >
    > That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >
    >


    **Points:

    * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    produce UV radiation.
    * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)

    Stop grasping at straws. Your ignorant claims have been demolished. Shut
    the **** up.

    --
    Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

  20. #60
    Ext User(Phil Allison) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "Trevor Wilson"
    felix_unger wrote:
    >
    >>> Nope, because UV doesn’t get thru glass.

    >>
    >> That must be why solariums are not dangerous then..
    >>
    >>

    >
    > **Points:
    >
    > * A typical tanning bed uses 24 X 100 Watt fluoros.
    >
    > * The lamps used employ a phosphor which is SPECIFICALLY designed to
    > produce UV radiation.



    ** The mercury vapour discharge inside any fluro produces little else.


    > * The person using the bed is often within 100mm of the lamps (don't
    > forget that pesky inverse square law applies with UV radiation)


    ** Invese square law ONLY applies to a point source of light.

    > Stop grasping at straws.



    ** Wot - like you are ?

    FYI Fluoros used for UV light uses special glass like quartz.


    .... Phil



Posting Permissions

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