[LINK] Here's one that will snag a few

[Adam Todd]

At 08:08 PM 20/02/2007, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>> > they cause epileptic reactions and migraines in some people
>>
>>So do some incandescent lights.
>
>Oh? how? do they have a frequency flicker like fluoros?

Around 10 PM at night in every household in Australia the lights will 
flicker to the tune of the hot water ripple!

It's known the cause epileptic episodes.  However such people who have 
Energy savers haven't reported ongoing issues.  Maybe a solution rather 
than a cause, but you need to purchase the proper energy savers and not the 
"Fluro" version.

Not all globes are equal ":)

>yes, low voltage. And they're quite bright. (yes RC: halogens, my bad) One 
>over a spot works very well. I have three in my kitchen only replacing a 
>60w max ceiling fixture, but they are only on when I work in there.

So you replaced a 60 Watt light with 3 x 55 watt halogens and now use 165 
watts of power :)

>I can finally see when I wash the dishes (by hand, no dishwasher)! I use a 
>stove light for when I am out of the house and want light on for when I 
>come home. See below re costs.

Use LED lights :)  Solar charged ones are even better.

>> > the sales pitch about length of life is not always reliable,
>>
>>Nor is it for incandescents.
>
>But one of the economic support positions is that they ARE long life. If 
>it's not true, they need to adjust the economic analysis. BTW, I have 
>lamps that were put in my house when it was built 8 years ago that I've 
>never had to replace. So I think I'll get a replacement set for all my 
>lamps, and get another 8-10 years out of them.

Incands tend to "burn out" faster if they are installed with the mount at 
the bottom.  They last longer with the mount at the top.  Sideways is just 
as bad as bottom mounted.

This is why those chandelier globes die so quickly.

>> > up to 200 times the cost of incans, there will be a lot of unhappy campers
>>
>>Only those who can't do the maths and work out that a bulb that lasts
>>200 times as long is worth it. Well, the number "200" is probably bogus
>>on both sides of that argument. Unreasonable prices won't survive the
>>first couple of months, though. And asking people to pay a litle mor
>>efor their energy, even indirectly, is a Good Thing.
>
>$.50/60w lamp vs $10/fluro lamp = 200 times. Those are the figures being 
>used on the radio this morning. The fluro rep said the cheaper ones were 
>less reliable than the more expensive ones for life of use.

Except a fluro uses around 5 watts, whereas the lamp uses 60 watts.

The saving isn't so much in the purchase, but the electricity bill.  And 
then amortise the cost of the fluro over the life time where as the incand 
will die much sooner.


>> > they claim savings that are outlandish on electricity bills - rubbish!
>>
>>Prove it. Show us the numbers. Until then it's just claim against claim.
>>Assuming a 20W longlife replaces a 100W incandescent bulb, it is
>>directly saving 80%, or 80 cents in every dollar. Is that outlandish? If
>>so, how?
>
>Most of my lamps won't take a 100w lamp. All are rated for 60, including 
>my ceiling fixtures.
>
>The claims by Turnbull today to the school kids was a savings of 60% on 
>power bills! That is rubbish. I'll use my house as an example. My last 
>electric bill for 1 Aug to 1 Nov was $146, average of $49/month even 
>numbers. Is Turnbull really wanting us to believe that $36 of that is 
>electric lights, and only $13 is for everything else including: TV, radio, 
>computers, refrigeration, toaster, electric drier, washing machine? Again, 
>rubbish. Wait, he's probably talking about his Vaucluse house with all the 
>exterior security lights and vanity lighting to keep the wife in vogue 
>with the latest house beautiful mags, not the real people of the place.

You work from home, like me :)  The balance is different!  Most people have 
empty homes for 8 hours a day, they use little in the morning, and mostly 
at night.  Therefore the average two parent working household uses 
electricity, mostly for lighting in the evening, and computers aren't 
usually on that much.


>Oh, and my water use is also less than half of the average for a single 
>person (77 v 154) according to Southeast water. Reason: I don't water the 
>garden, ever, even before the restrictions went on.

Nor do we :)  Never bothered.  If it can't survive, then it wasn't meant 
to!  Darwin wins on that one :)