Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > really big CFL lamps.

Reply
Thread Tools

really big CFL lamps.

 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2010
On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:21:18 +1200, bAZZ wrote:

>> The really big "CFL" lamps contain two 4" long tubes.
>>
>> Have you considered getting one of those?

>
> Yes. The Mitre10ones were much cheaper on a per watt ratio etc. I'm
> using U tube flouros ATM but they do cost to replace and usually dont
> have ability to chuck them in places to replace incad lights as these
> just fitted right in.


All fluorescent tubes have a replacement cost, but they last for such a very long time and produce
considerably more light output than a "compact" fluorescent tube, and yes you do need to buy a fitting
to put the tube into as they are very different from all the various incandescent lamps available.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2010
Sweetpea wrote:

> The really big "CFL" lamps contain two 4" long tubes.
>
> Have you considered getting one of those?


Cant be stuffed installing them, the CFLs just go in place of a 150w
incandesent and are brighter and use less power and have better colour.

Got some on trademe at a great price so will just have to get some ES
holders to swap out to take them when they get here.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2010
On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:38:49 +1200, Richard wrote:

> the CFLs just go in place of a 150w
> incandesent and are brighter and use less power and have better colour.


ROTFLOL!

*******s to "better colour", and *******s to "brighter". They fool the
eye into thinking there is more light but they do not produce a constant
light output. You can expect eye-strain if you put a "150W equivalent"
Compact Fluorescent tube in your ceiling as a direct replacement for a
150W incandescent lamp and wanted to read books with 10 or 12 point font
sizes.

I do agree, however, that they use less electricity to operate. Can't say
the same about manufacturing them.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:38:49 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>> the CFLs just go in place of a 150w
>> incandesent and are brighter and use less power and have better colour.

>
> ROTFLOL!
>
> *******s to "better colour", and *******s to "brighter". They fool the
> eye into thinking there is more light but they do not produce a constant
> light output. You can expect eye-strain if you put a "150W equivalent"
> Compact Fluorescent tube in your ceiling as a direct replacement for a
> 150W incandescent lamp and wanted to read books with 10 or 12 point font
> sizes.
>
> I do agree, however, that they use less electricity to operate. Can't say
> the same about manufacturing them.


I would call 6500K daylight way better than the 2700K orange crap that
an incandesent puts out.

No problems with eyestrain here at all reading under the ones I have, or
the ones I have in the house replacing incandesents to get the better
colour that daylight lamps offer.

Perhaps you should stop getting the cheap bottom of the barrel "warm
white" (which means as orange as incandesent) ones before spouting off
about things like that?

And why would large text like 10 or 12 point cause eyestrain?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-24-2010
On Mon, 24 May 2010 22:36:08 +1200, Richard wrote:

> Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:38:49 +1200, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> the CFLs just go in place of a 150w
>>> incandesent and are brighter and use less power and have better
>>> colour.

>>
>> ROTFLOL!
>>
>> *******s to "better colour", and *******s to "brighter". They fool the
>> eye into thinking there is more light but they do not produce a
>> constant light output. You can expect eye-strain if you put a "150W
>> equivalent" Compact Fluorescent tube in your ceiling as a direct
>> replacement for a 150W incandescent lamp and wanted to read books with
>> 10 or 12 point font sizes.
>>
>> I do agree, however, that they use less electricity to operate. Can't
>> say the same about manufacturing them.

>
> I would call 6500K daylight way better than the 2700K orange crap that
> an incandesent puts out.


Incandescent tungsten is 3050K

And just because it puts out a white at a higher temperature does not
mean that its CRI is better!


> No problems with eyestrain here at all reading under the ones I have, or
> the ones I have in the house replacing incandesents to get the better
> colour that daylight lamps offer.


Ah. Are you using more than one mini pseudo 150W fluro in a room?


> Perhaps you should stop getting the cheap bottom of the barrel "warm
> white" (which means as orange as incandesent) ones before spouting off
> about things like that?


I don't use mini fluros. The CRI rating is considerably inferior, and
they use considerably more energy to manufacture than do tungsten
incandescent lamps.


> And why would large text like 10 or 12 point cause eyestrain?


Well, if you're using a single compact fluro in place of a single 150W
lamp you're almost certain to get eye strain.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-25-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 22:36:08 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>> Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:38:49 +1200, Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> the CFLs just go in place of a 150w
>>>> incandesent and are brighter and use less power and have better
>>>> colour.
>>> ROTFLOL!
>>>
>>> *******s to "better colour", and *******s to "brighter". They fool the
>>> eye into thinking there is more light but they do not produce a
>>> constant light output. You can expect eye-strain if you put a "150W
>>> equivalent" Compact Fluorescent tube in your ceiling as a direct
>>> replacement for a 150W incandescent lamp and wanted to read books with
>>> 10 or 12 point font sizes.
>>>
>>> I do agree, however, that they use less electricity to operate. Can't
>>> say the same about manufacturing them.

>> I would call 6500K daylight way better than the 2700K orange crap that
>> an incandesent puts out.

>
> Incandescent tungsten is 3050K


Hardly, 2700K is the accepted norm for it, lov voltage halogens are
higher, perhaps 3500K, still well on the orange side of things.

> And just because it puts out a white at a higher temperature does not
> mean that its CRI is better!


No, but it makes things look better being that they are white.

>> No problems with eyestrain here at all reading under the ones I have, or
>> the ones I have in the house replacing incandesents to get the better
>> colour that daylight lamps offer.

>
> Ah. Are you using more than one mini pseudo 150W fluro in a room?


Loungeroom has 2 of the 23watt ones in it, can read fine anywhere in the
room at any time. except perhaps daytime after coming in from outside
for a bit.

>> Perhaps you should stop getting the cheap bottom of the barrel "warm
>> white" (which means as orange as incandesent) ones before spouting off
>> about things like that?

>
> I don't use mini fluros. The CRI rating is considerably inferior, and
> they use considerably more energy to manufacture than do tungsten
> incandescent lamps.


Why do I care about the energy used to make them? The overall cost is
lower even with the vastly lower than they claim lifespans they have.

>> And why would large text like 10 or 12 point cause eyestrain?

>
> Well, if you're using a single compact fluro in place of a single 150W
> lamp you're almost certain to get eye strain.


Perhaps if your eyes are rooted to start with. Otherwise no.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2010
On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:59 +1200, Richard wrote:

> Hardly, 2700K is the accepted norm for it, lov voltage halogens are
> higher, perhaps 3500K, still well on the orange side of things.


The most common/standard color temperature for lamps used in performance
lighting is 3050K to 3010K.

When they're burning at their rated volts/amps I wouldn't call them
"orange".


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sweetpea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2010
On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:59 +1200, Richard wrote:

>> I don't use mini fluros. The CRI rating is considerably inferior, and
>> they use considerably more energy to manufacture than do tungsten
>> incandescent lamps.

>
> Why do I care about the energy used to make them? The overall cost is
> lower even with the vastly lower than they claim lifespans they have.


Their CRI rating is considerably inferior.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/5...r-spectrum-cf-
daylight-bulbs.html


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:59 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>>> I don't use mini fluros. The CRI rating is considerably inferior, and
>>> they use considerably more energy to manufacture than do tungsten
>>> incandescent lamps.

>> Why do I care about the energy used to make them? The overall cost is
>> lower even with the vastly lower than they claim lifespans they have.

>
> Their CRI rating is considerably inferior.
>
> http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/5...r-spectrum-cf-
> daylight-bulbs.html


So they dont interact with obsolete photography technology well?

How does that affect me when I dont own any film cameras, are not using
them to photograph things and find they work perfectly fine when using
the digital camera or mini dv camera under them?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-26-2010
Sweetpea wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:23:59 +1200, Richard wrote:
>
>> Hardly, 2700K is the accepted norm for it, lov voltage halogens are
>> higher, perhaps 3500K, still well on the orange side of things.

>
> The most common/standard color temperature for lamps used in performance
> lighting is 3050K to 3010K.
>
> When they're burning at their rated volts/amps I wouldn't call them
> "orange".


I would. compare one to outside daytime, and its orange.

The only reason they operate at those temperatures is because thats
about the upper limit for them with reasonable lamp life, much hotter
and they die too quickly.

Plus I am not putting on a stage show in my work area so interaction
with the gels used for stage lighting is a non issue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net 0 12-26-2008 09:29 AM
GIDS 2009 .Net:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf ASP .Net Web Controls 0 12-26-2008 06:11 AM
GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008 Shaguf Python 0 12-24-2008 07:35 AM
invalid Email error for myname@cfl.rr.com address Cirene ASP .Net 1 12-23-2007 11:13 PM
OT: CFL kpg MCSE 58 12-03-2005 03:23 PM



Advertisments