New bulbs.

[accymel]

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

Unlike that Fifer in 11 Downing Street.

thats a true point lol!! anything is brighter than that LOL

[accymel]

Originally Posted by Lampman

The cost to industry will be prohibitive if the bulbs cost is x 8 then most offices of any size will not comply.I reckon there will be a panic buy up of stocks as the date approaches. I might follow my own E bay suggestion!

I wouldnt be surprised if they bump the cost of them before they go out of stock either

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by panther

so what about those other type of bulbs?
like the long fleuresent (cant spell) lights or the spot light ones, because as you said spuggie them 'things' are absolutley ****e!!

Without trying to give you all an Alevel physics lesson, fluorescent lighting is created when electrons hit mercury particles inside the tube. The collision excites the atoms which bumps the contained electrons up to higher energy levels, they're then pulled back in by the atoms nucleous and give out a particle named a photon, which is light.

However the light given out is ultraviolet which we can't see, so the tube is coated with phosphor. The same process happens but instead a photon hits the phosphur atom, electrons move up to a higher energy level, then get pulled back in and release the excess energy as heat and light photon, but this time its white light because some energy was lost in form of heat.

Because it converts ultraviolet light to light we can see, its more efficient than normal light bulbs as they waste the ultraviolet light which is no use to anybody, except maybe your fish.

Therefore; me thinks fluorescent lighting will be fine as works similarly to energy saving bulbs in that they both prevent wasting ultraviolet light, although I think the energy saving ones cut out bits of visible light too, although its not supposed to be noticeable, clearly some people find it is.

[lancsdave]

What about all the money people have spent on lamps and light shades that the new ones don't fit in to.

[accymel]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

What about all the money people have spent on lamps and light shades that the new ones don't fit in to.

LOL they still be bayonet or screw cap ones, but admittantly they are rather cumbersome to fit with some light shades as i have found when ran out of short ones & the short ones are only 40w equiv which isnt very bright

[WillowTheWhisp]

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.

[accymel]

Thats the trouble with this nanny culture gov in this country willow, treated like kiddies being 'told'!

[Less]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Without trying to give you all an Alevel physics lesson,

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!

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Less

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!

[Margaret Pilkington]

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.

[entwisi]

You also can't use them with dimmer switches.

I have them in some places but in others like stairs I keep filament lights as they need to be on when you want them, not 5 mins later

[K.S.H]

double post

[K.S.H]

1sf of all there were 3 posts now theres only 1 that I edited, who's nicked my others?

[K.S.H]

Right, I'll post it again.
Go for the SAD bulbs, think there 6500K as opposed to about 3000K, they give a pure white light and not a yellow one, bright enough when there switched on too.
PS, good for indoor photography


Edit - I knew I'd posted this before, HERES the link

[jambutty]

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.