On 30/08/2013 1:59 PM, felix_unger wrote:
> 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, JeŖus wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:30:38 +1000, felix_unger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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?
**Utterly and completely ****ing irrelevant. I responded to yet another
of your ignorant claims. Nothing more.
FWIW: I paid $60.00 for it. It sure cost more than the halogen, but
costs 1/5th the amount of electricity to operate and radiates 20% of the
heat. In confined spaces, it is well worth it. Lots of light and minimal
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au