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

[Karl Auer]

On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 20:08 +1100, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> You left out the important part, Karl. These were points by callers 
> to radio with experience using them.

No worries - but anecdotal evidence ain't evidence.

> and overhead hanging fixtures at a minimum.

?!? There are plenty of overhead fixtures that take perfectly ordinary
bulbs. And plenty of longlife bulbs in new sizes and shapes to fit ever
more fixtures.

> > > they interfere with remote controls for tv
> >
> >Sounds totally bogus. Proof please. Our house is full of longlife bulb
> 
> the guy who called in spent money and time trying to figure out why 
> his remote stopped working. He went to a shop which sold him whatever 
> the device was the remote went with and was asked immediately: do you 
> have any fluoro light globes? yes. Take them out. The remote then worked.

Well, right now I think he's mistaken or deliberately lying. But that's
just my thought, maybe it did happen that way. Knowing how longlife
bulbs and remotes work, it seems - to say the least - highly improbable
that a properly functioning longlife and a properly functioning remote
would interact like that. Perhaps the bulb was between the remote and
the telly, who knows? BTW, fluoro is not the same as longlife. Similar
but different.

> > > they cause epileptic reactions and migraines in some people
> >
> >So do some incandescent lights.
> 
> Oh? how? do they have a frequency flicker like fluoros?

No idea. But I have a friend who heard from his third cousin that there
was a fellow who knew her dad who had an epileptic fit every time the
neighbour over the road turned on his washing machine! True! Every word!

Personally I have never (ever) seen a flickering longlife. And yes, I am
one of those unfortunates that sees flicker in neon tubes. But I realise
that is mere anecdotal evidence.

> 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.

Short of outrighyt fraud and the very bottom of the quality tree, any
longlife bulb will outlast the equivalent incandescent bulb, generally
by several hundred percent. But usage does make a difference - how long
they are on, how often they are switched, how hot the location is etc.
No doubt there are edge cases where an incandecent might outlast the
equivalent longlife, but I venture to suggest they are very very seldom.

> $.50/60w lamp vs $10/fluro lamp = 200 times. Those are the figures 
> being used on the radio this morning.

Well, whoever provided them either is not comparing apples to apples or
hasn't bought light bulbs in a long while. The more common ratio is 1:5,
maybe 1:10 at the absolute outside. The ratio doesn't include the power
savings either.

>  The fluro rep said the cheaper 
> ones were less reliable than the more expensive ones for life of use.

Sure - same for incandescent. Without test data, it's hard to say. Where
is the ACA when you need them?

> It's a trade off concern for the environmental impact of adding even 
> more toxic chemicals to the waste stream. Surely there is an economic 
> and environmental impact that needs to be factored in for a fair assessment?

Certainly. Let's hear from someone who knows whether these long life
bulbs do actually contain mercury etc, and if some do, whether they all
do. I hadn't heard that they do.

> It relates to saving power, which was the original goal. has nothing 
> to do with perfect, but better options to reach the goal.

??? Don't do A because we should be doing B, though A works towards the
same goal as B, if arguably less effectively?

Silly argument - do both!

> > > 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 rating is for incandescent bulbs, because of the heat they generate.
You can safely put a 20W longlife in any fitting rated anything higher
than 19W, and get the same effect as a 00W incandescent - except without
the heat.

Which reminds me - incandescent globes will still be needed as
specialist heat sources for things like chickens, aviaries, terrariums
and fishtanks... 

> The claims by Turnbull today to the school kids was a savings of 60% 
> on power bills!

I didn't hear the claim. Unless it related to a saving over the power
used *for lighting* then it was indeed rubbish. And if it didn't factor
in the additional cost of the longlife bulbs, amortised over a few
years, then it was disingenuous as well.

> I stand by what I ended with. It was policy on the run (again).

Perhaps. But attack it on its merits. It might be made on the run, but
it might still be good policy...

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)