A tax on lightbulbs.

[Madhatter]

you can dim them, you just need the right dimmer.
Yes they do contain mercury and you are supposed to have them recycled, but the mercury is less than the murcury produced at the power station by not using them. I'd imagine the local council would have some sort of legal obligation to provide disposal facilities
they still take time to warm up yes, especially outside, but it's not as bad as it used to be.

MP what is this fitting that you can't get one for. Why can't you. ?

[Madhatter]

if they seem more muted then you've got a lower value than you should. 21 watts flourescent is about 100w incandescent.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh MH it isn't the fitting...it is the size of the bulbs.......they are too big for the shades......even the small ones. My shades will only take the teardrop type bulbs.

[garinda]

Yeah, until they do little fancy ones you can shove in a chandelier, they can keep them.

Ugly is the word.

Ok in lightshades where you can't see the bulb though.

[Madhatter]

they do cancle lamps in flourescent but they're bout 6 quid each, I think b&Q do them

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Madhatter

they do cancle lamps in flourescent but they're bout 6 quid each, I think b&Q do them

...but are they aesthetically pleasing?


Thanks, I'll check them out and give my verdict.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by garinda

...but are they aesthetically pleasing?

Nope they are not. They look more like a b*** plug than a candle lamp. Then again you might like them

[Madhatter]

I hope to god you don't think a b*** plug is that shape, it'll be be going north for the winter

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Some time back, being a pensioner, I received two free 60 watts low energy bulbs from some organisation or other with a coupon to send for two more.

I don’t know about anyone else but I have a small lamp on top of my telly to soften the glare from the screen when I’m watching so I put one of these low energy bulbs in the lamp when the normal 60 watts bulb gave up the ghost. Even if I’m not watching telly I still have it on from dusk onwards.

These new fangled bulbs are supposed to give off the same amount of light that a normal bulb does but it uses less electricity. I did say supposed to but they don’t.

How do I know?

Well it’s like this. I have a solar powered calculator that works quite well with the only light source being my telly lamp. Ignore the computer screen because that is always behind the calculator when I use it. Yet with the new bulb in place it wouldn’t work because there wasn’t enough light. I had to move the calculator a couple of feet closer to the light to get it to work. Ergo the new bulbs do not give off the same amount of light as a normal bulb of the same wattage. It may use less electricity but part of the reason has to be that it doesn’t give off the same amount of light. Are we being conned – again?

No we're not being conned.
Normal lightbulbs give off all the visable light possible from the electromagnetic spectrum (the one where you shine a light through a prism and get the spectrum like this one the other side):

Energy saving ones give off parts of the visable spectrum, which makes no difference to the majority of people because they use lights to light up the house and we see no difference.
Obviously 'energy saving' lightbulbs do what they say, and hence use less energy, so no, your calculator isn't going to get the same energy going to it, because as the name says, theres less energy being used, so less energy being given out.

[entwisi]

You have to be a little careful in your assumptions of energy conservation. When a normal bulb uses energy it transfers it into both light and heat. the percentage of each I don't know but it is significantly biased towards heat!, likewise with a energy saver, there is light and heat although significantly less of the latter hence teh input requirement is much less.

[jambutty]

Much obliged for your brief science lesson Cyfr.

Visible light is indeed made up of various colours of light, which combined produce what we call white light. As you point out the full light spectrum can be seen by shining a beam of light through a prism or a raindrop or two to produce a rainbow.

I don’t know why I didn’t think of this earlier because I have the equipment and the ability to measure the current drawn by a normal 60 watts light bulb and the current drawn by a 60 watts low energy bulb. This would truly determine which was more energy efficient.

A 60 watts normal bulb draws 200mA at 230 volts.
A 60 watts energy efficient bulb draws 20mA at 230 volts. That is ten times less and is thus much more energy efficient because the energy being used is used to produce light and very little heat.

As entwisi points out the normal bulb produces an awful lot of heat as anyone who has tried to change a bulb that has just blown after being on for a few minutes will know to their cost. I have no idea what the temperature of the glass is but it is enough to inflict quite severe burns.

So the answer to the eternal question of “How many electricians does it take to change a light bulb?” the answer is three. One to grab the hot bulb and fall to the ground with third degree burns to his hand. One to administer first aid and send for the ambulance. One to get asbestos gloves and change the bulb.

The light that either bulb produces is in the visible spectrum and general purpose solar panels are activated by light in the visible spectrum be it in the red range or the blue or anything in between. So my calculator did indicate that a 60 watts energy efficient bulb does not give off quite so much light as a normal 60 watts bulb. The difference to the naked eye is barely noticeable, if at all, but instruments like a solar panel can ‘see’ the difference. My calculator will work in candlelight if I put it very close to the flame.

To get back to the topic, adding extra tax to light bulbs is just another scheme to extort more money out of the long suffering public and to try to force people into buying the energy efficient versions to replace the normal type.

If they really want people to change to the new type then the way to do it would be to have a scheme where we could return a normal bulb and get a new type for the price of the normal one or no more than half the cost of the new type. Obviously the sale of normal bulbs would have to be stopped.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

So my calculator did indicate that a 60 watts energy efficient bulb does not give off quite so much light as a normal 60 watts bulb.

I like how you used a meter to measure milliamps and and a solar calculator to determine light output level. I suppose you did not have a lux meter to hand.

[jambutty]

I know that no home would be complete without a lux meter Neil but no I didn’t have one to hand.

I used to have a light meter in the days when cameras didn’t have built in exposure meters. But that has been long gone.

[Madhatter]

A 60 watts normal bulb draws 200mA at 230 volts.
A 60 watts energy efficient bulb draws 20mA at 230 volts
Thats impossible jambutty.
You meant the equivelent wattage energy saver lamp to 60w.
which is about 15w
It isn't actually a full spectrum of the incandecent, but the flourecent concentrates more on the blue spectrum , the incandescent on the red.
FACT is that most people don't swap because
They are more expensive
They can't get one to fit
They don't like the colour of the light, that is a normal lamp makes you feel healthy because it's a warmer colour, a glow. The flourescent is cold, people look pale and drawn.
People think the heat helps to heat the house

If tungsten fillament incandecscent lamps were invented today they would be banned straight away, because they are just about the most unefficent electrical product you can buy. look on the packaging and it's rated F or G
G for Global dissaster.

[Madhatter]

I'll say again, if your getting less light with a cfl lamp than a 60w normal one then you must be using a 9w one instead of a 15w