New bulbs. - Page 3

shillelagh · 10-03-2007, 22:13

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.

jambutty · 10-03-2007, 22:27

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.

cashman · 10-03-2007, 23:01

i got a pack of 8 bulbs this morning for £1 from poundland on broadway so stuff em.

Neil · 10-03-2007, 23:06

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.

Less · 10-03-2007, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

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.

Quote:

Jambutty tries to confuse things MP, it's very simple, a flourescent gives out more light, a 21watt is equivelent to a 100watt.

steeljack · 11-03-2007, 03:54

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 .

Crabby · 11-03-2007, 07:54

LED lighting would be the most energy efficient it is just starting to come on to the market but being designed for shop displays and outside lighting also very expensive retailers wont like LED’s because they last forever!

Lampman · 11-03-2007, 10:13

Well I have found all this information very illuminating.

When/if Gordon Brown becomes PM we may not have to worry about the cost of light bulbs;it may be back to candles and whale blubber lamps for lighting purposes(is that what John Prescott is kept employed for?)

grego · 11-03-2007, 10:54

We changed all ours a while ago, got used to them now, didn't like them at first.

jambutty · 11-03-2007, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

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.

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.

Mick · 11-03-2007, 13:03

Well upto now i have been sent 3 boxs of them all free 8 in one box and 6 in the other 2 so they are cheap to get

i cant use them fast enough they just keep sending me a box every couple of months .

andrewb · 11-03-2007, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

What do you mean by intensity? It's a bad way because you're measuring the ENERGY which dosn't equate to 'X source is better than Y' because it depends on which bits of the light spectrum its actually giving out. A lot of it could be wasted because we can't see it, but it'll still energy that the calculator can use.

Quote:

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.

Again, LE light bulbs DO give off less light, this is the whole idea, its why they're more energy efficient. We're humans that use light to help us see things, we don't need the whole spectrum to do this, but if the whole spectrum is there then there is more energy so your calculator will work better, however this dosn't translate to your point because we don't need the extra energy as it makes no difference to our vision.

Quote:

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.

They might not be as cost effective (I can't be bothered to do the maths because its a none issue), but that isn't the point. We can't sit here relying on technology to save us from a decline of natural resources.

Normal light bulbs might be cheaper, but theres no point having extra cash in your pocket when theres no oil/coal/gas left!

jambutty · 11-03-2007, 16:00

Quote:

What do you mean by intensity? It's a bad way because you're measuring the ENERGY which dosn't equate to 'X source is better than Y' because it depends on which bits of the light spectrum its actually giving out. A lot of it could be wasted because we can't see it, but it'll still energy that the calculator can use.

Intensity in relation to light means brightness Cyfr. A 100w bulb gives off a brighter light than a 15w one. A 200w bulb will outshine a 100w bulb. As I stated before the wattage quoted is the amount of electrical energy that the bulb uses to produce that light although much of the energy is converted to heat energy. My calculator or any solar panel will work when visible light is shone on it. It matters not that the light is red or blue or yellow or green or any other spectrum colour or any combination of colours. However a solar panel will need a brighter light if only one colour is shone on it than it would if it was ‘white’ light.

Your graph at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22924&highlight=energy+saving clearly shows that visible light comes between the lowest frequency of UV light and the highest frequency of IR light. That is the visible spectrum. Light bulbs unless specifically made to radiate UV or IR emit the visible spectrum. However a UV or IR light will also emit the visible spectrum to a degree.

Quote:

Again, LE light bulbs DO give off less light, this is the whole idea, its why they're more energy efficient. We're humans that use light to help us see things, we don't need the whole spectrum to do this, but if the whole spectrum is there then there is more energy so your calculator will work better, however this dosn't translate to your point because we don't need the extra energy as it makes no difference to our vision.

We humans do need white light to see all the colours of our surroundings. In red light the blues and greens etc are not as visible. Similarly in blue light the reds and greens are not as visible. In dim light colours are not as distinct and the brighter the light the more distinct they are. So the brightness of light does make a difference to what we see. And the same goes for a solar panel. If the light is dull it will not produce as much electrical power as it would in brighter light.

andrewb · 11-03-2007, 16:24

I think you're just reiterating what im saying but missing my point.

You seem to think that because your calculator works better off a certain source then that source must be brighter. Which is incorrect as I have explained many times we only need certain parts of the spectrum for lights to work well. Therefore the energy saving lightbulbs only show the parts we need.

I don't know how to make it any clearer..

A normal lightbulb shows the full visible spectrum from red to purple including all the different shades of all the colours, every single wavelength from 400nm to 700nm. Where as an energy saving one dosn't use every single wavelength, this means it uses less energy but it is NOT less bright. It just simply uses less energy because its not outputting the same amount of wavelengths but its not noticeable to the human eye.

Oh and, the colour of light does matter because different wavelengths = different colours = different amounts of energy..... but in this case it dosn't because we're talking about all visible light and not blues/greens etc individually.

Margaret Pilkington · 11-03-2007, 16:37

We have the low energy bulbs lighting our staircase and they are pretty dim...which I suppose could be a hazard for the elderly.
(ours are supposed to equate to 100w bulbs)