The energy saving bulbs don't fit in our front room and dining room light fittings. I don't mind having them by choice in places where they fit but I do object to being forced into having to replace the light fittings.
New bulbs.
- Thread starter Lampman
- Start date
A-level Physics? I learnt that sort of stuff in a secondary modern third year science class back in the sixties, I tell you what, it was much better the way our teacher explained it!
A-level Physics? I learnt that sort of stuff in a secondary modern third year science class back in the sixties, I tell you what, it was much better the way our teacher explained it!
That is precisely why im not a teacher!
At what point is secondary modern third year science in relation to todays education? I hope its not 3rd year of high school cause we certainly never did advanced things like photons and electrons moving up and down energy levels back then!
Just a small aside here.......Netto sell the energy saving lightbulbs at 49 pence each. Ok so it isn't any good if they don't fit in your particular light fittings.
Methinks that this decision was possibly pre-empted by Australia saying that it is also going to outlaw the incandescent lightbulb......round about the same time too.
Methinks that this decision was possibly pre-empted by Australia saying that it is also going to outlaw the incandescent lightbulb......round about the same time too.
If these new low energy light bulbs cost 8 times a much and last 5 times as long then they cannot be cost effective.
If a hot filament bulb costs 40p and lasts for 1,000 hours 8 such bulbs costing £3.20 would last for 8,000 hours.
A new low energy bulb costs £3.20 and lasts for 5,000 hours.
However they do not give off 5 times as much light.
Some time ago some organisation or other sent all pensioners 2 of these new fangled bulbs and they were rated at 60w. Being a pensioner I got two and decided to try one in the table lamp sat on top of my telly.
I often use a solar powered calculator whilst sat at my computer and in the evenings with the curtains drawn and the light on top of the telly on, the light from it was sufficient to power my calculator. When I replaced the hot filament bulb with one of the low energy bulbs the light from it would not power my calculator unless I moved it at least two feet closer to the light. Ergo the new bulb did not produce the same amount of light as the hot filament one.
The other question I would ask is how much energy is consumed (and the carbon footprint that it produces) in making one low energy bulb compared to the amount of energy (and carbon footprint) used to make one hot filament bulb?
I would dare to suggest that if you took into account the cost, energy to make, the amount of light produced and the energy consumed in using each type of bulb, then there wouldn’t be a great deal of difference.
I will stick with hot filament bulbs until such times as they are no longer available.
If a hot filament bulb costs 40p and lasts for 1,000 hours 8 such bulbs costing £3.20 would last for 8,000 hours.
A new low energy bulb costs £3.20 and lasts for 5,000 hours.
However they do not give off 5 times as much light.
Some time ago some organisation or other sent all pensioners 2 of these new fangled bulbs and they were rated at 60w. Being a pensioner I got two and decided to try one in the table lamp sat on top of my telly.
I often use a solar powered calculator whilst sat at my computer and in the evenings with the curtains drawn and the light on top of the telly on, the light from it was sufficient to power my calculator. When I replaced the hot filament bulb with one of the low energy bulbs the light from it would not power my calculator unless I moved it at least two feet closer to the light. Ergo the new bulb did not produce the same amount of light as the hot filament one.
The other question I would ask is how much energy is consumed (and the carbon footprint that it produces) in making one low energy bulb compared to the amount of energy (and carbon footprint) used to make one hot filament bulb?
I would dare to suggest that if you took into account the cost, energy to make, the amount of light produced and the energy consumed in using each type of bulb, then there wouldn’t be a great deal of difference.
I will stick with hot filament bulbs until such times as they are no longer available.
You only got 2 jambutty - my mum got 6 20w = 100w sent through the post. Best is they are supposed to last 12 years - ive only used 1 of them so ive got another 60 years to go yet!!! Ive got them in 2 of the lights - in the living room and on the stairs because they are the ones that are used the most and theyre ok.
Yes I only got two but there was a card with them that I could use to send for two more. I did but they were two 40w bulbs, which are worse than useless. I get a brighter light from my fag lighter.
I recently bought myself two 75w bulbs from Asda at £1.76 each but they had been reduced from three pounds odd. I would never have paid the full price for them. They are supposed to last 6 times as long so I reckoned that it would be cost effective.
I reckon that the new fangled 75w will give off the same amount of light as the old 60w.
I recently bought myself two 75w bulbs from Asda at £1.76 each but they had been reduced from three pounds odd. I would never have paid the full price for them. They are supposed to last 6 times as long so I reckoned that it would be cost effective.
I reckon that the new fangled 75w will give off the same amount of light as the old 60w.
I think you will find a big difference in these energy saving lamps. It all depends on the make I think. I have a couple in the hallway down stairs and they strike instantly. I have had ones that are slow to strike as well. I have a very bright one that is almost blue in colour, it is that awful a light we don't use it. They are no good as outside security lights. I had a couple as outside lights a few years ago, they did not like cold weather. They were very dim when it was cold, I don't think they could get up to normal temp so the light output was very poor.
I think they have pro's and con's depending on the application. I personally don't believe in saving electricity to save the planet. It's the 21st century, we should have enough energy to use as we wish without damaging the planet. I blame the oil companies for keeping is the dark ages of burning oil for everything still.
I think they have pro's and con's depending on the application. I personally don't believe in saving electricity to save the planet. It's the 21st century, we should have enough energy to use as we wish without damaging the planet. I blame the oil companies for keeping is the dark ages of burning oil for everything still.
You have mentioned this before in the Tax on Lightbulbs
Thread, Cyfr took time and effort to explain the difference to you, you even thanked him for his explanation about how and why your calculator doesn't run from a low energy bulb and now you repeat the same inaccurate tale, you cannot compare the two different light sources by using a solar powered calculator and all you are managing to do is confuse the issue as you did in the earlier thread.
I totally agree with the comment made by Madhatter in that earlier thread.
sodding useless things , I have them in the bathroom , if I get up during the night I want instant light , I can be finished and back in bed before the things light up .
Also seem to remember reading a report that they are only manufactured in Asia , so that means more jobs out of the country and twenty years from now being held to ransom for light bulbs .
Also seem to remember reading a report that they are only manufactured in Asia , so that means more jobs out of the country and twenty years from now being held to ransom for light bulbs .
I have indeed Less and it is not inaccurate. It is an observed and measured fact. My solar powered calculator will function from the flame of my fag lighter, (although it has to be held pretty close) where before I mentioned a candle. It will function from torchlight or any source of visible light. That’s what solar panels do. They use visible light. I have a red and a blue bulb and the light from these also powers my calculator. Of course it has to be pretty close to do so.
So it is permissible to compare different sources of light on a solar panel and is a good way of measuring the intensity of that light, because it is the intensity of the light that is crucial not its source.
The wattage printed on the hot filament bulbs and their boxes refers to the electrical power required to light the bulb to its normal intensity. Thus a 60w normal bulb will require 60w of electrical power. Anyone remember Ivy Watts? That is I x V = W. However that applies to DC only. For AC it is a bit more complicated because of the RMS value of an AC voltage but Ivy Watts will do to get a rough idea.
A low energy bulb rated at 11 watts allegedly gives off the same amount of light as a 60w normal bulb. I have proven that it doesn’t. A 15w LE bulb is the alleged equivalent of a 75w normal bulb.
Low energy bulbs are more energy efficient and do last about 6 times longer than a normal bulb but they cost a lot more. So just do the maths and you will discover that the new low energy bulbs are not as cost effective as the old type. So we are being conned.
Must go Chelsea v Spurs has just started on the box.