The height of cheapness

I have great difficulty understanding why the traditional filament lamps have been banned.

When you switch on the light - you have light immediately. It is a bright, clear light - easy to read things illuminated by one.

Replacing these with something that takes a few minutes to reach a pathetic intensity???????

They are also obviously dangerous and I have had some for several years and found that they do not last as promised and do not look attractive, being oversized, in quite a few of my light fittings.

I also do not understand the concept of "energy saving".

How am I to save energy with the newer lights? I accept that the tungsten lights had an inefficiency as far as producing light and produced heat. However, in Winter what is this heat being replaced with.

The lights assisted in warming rooms - that assistance has now gone and the home heating has to compensate.

In Summer lights are hardly used (and in the UK - home air conditioning is rare!) but in Winter the lighting supplemented the heating.

So now I pay more for dangerous lights and have increased heating bills plus, technically, I have to arranged for special disposal of dead bulbs.

There is also a flicker. The light is not crisp and constant. I have noticed I get readings around 3500 rpm on the rev counter which disappears when I turn the lights off.

Also, some of the pictures I take indoors sometimes have a yellow hue!

Banning/regulating any of our current "energy burners" is merely a means by our governments.. to decide for us.. while receiving consideration/compensation from huge corporations in the way of campaign funds and returning the favor; in the way of financial grants to these corporations for research and development... while claiming that it's stimulating the economy and saving energy... using our tax dollars.

How about repairing our countries bridges and roads.. and helping our farmers to produce the food we need domestically... instead of discouraging them from planting.. or tying their hands if they do; with GMO seedlings?

Ian:

Isn't it enough that our "gubment" considers incadsecent bulbs BAAAAAAAAD?

  


SD

All I know is that I need to save a *load of energy to justify a $15.00 light bulb!

George

I like the LED lighting technology.. but can't understand why a 60w. home replacement lamp is so much $$$...   I think the automotive applications are great. Especially where in-dash back-lighting is concerned. There's nothing worse than having a lamp burn-out, that lights up your instrument panel... and what you'd have to go through to access the lamp to replace it.

The new LED "cans" for stage-use are really great. They are SUPER BRIGHT color-changing... and several can be run on one circuit while drawing a very small amount of power. This is a big help when you're trying to do a gig in a small club with limited circuits available on stage. Compare their 30W power consumption to a 150W Par can... and that's a BIG difference. Two 4-lamp "trees" (a typical small light show that a small band might have) would draw 1200W using incandescent PAR lamps... and they're HOT!!! LED cans by comparison need no color gels... so you don't need a lamp for each color.. they're COOL (no heat) and if you used 8 of them.. the total watts would be 240. they also "daisy-chain" making connectivity easy.

PV Pilot wrote:This link has some graphic pics,,so take care when opening.  Seen this and thought of this thread. http://www.drbuttar.com/energy-saving-bulb-dangers/

I think there is more to that story. The amount of mercury is a very small quantity, in the form of mercury vapor. See Fluorescent Lights' Mercury Poses Dim Threat

Somehow I wonder if the victim may also suffer from other health problems, such as diabetes or poor circulation causing severe feet issues.

I've been using CFL's for over 10 years. The reason why I like them, is if you buy them on sale, they last for years, not months like the incandescents. Granted, you can't use them where incandescent dimming circuits are used, unless they are specificially design to be used in that type circuit. Here in rural New Mexico, the cost savings I calculated some time back were due to the cost of all the incandescent bulbs I'd buy over the life span of the CFL. Electricity then was around five cents per kWh, whereas on the east coast it was around 12 cents.

However as to the government mandating these, I think they just should have laissez-faire regarding the issue, allow the market and people's purchasing to determine what products people use. The CFL's already were becoming a more frequent choice, as people saw a reduction in their utility bills, as well as not having to replace bulbs every couple months.

I agree with what the others say, I think government is getting too involved with our every day lives, instead of ensuring the safety of our rights, freedoms, lives, and properties by giving us a safe environment free from crime and abuse. I remember back in the mid 1960's, in Biloxi, Mississippi that overall it was safe for me as a child to ride my bike all over the neighborhood, play in the yards. We never heard about recreational drugs, kids packing deadly weapons, drug dealers or murder.

If money diverted to social programs spent on those otherwise capable of work was spent on taking care of the crime problem, our society would be a much safer place to live. We the people have much to blame, as we elected those to office who have made decisions not in our best interests.

Pops used to put a 75-100Wt Incan bulb hanging in the cabin of his Cessnas in the winter. For that little bit of heat to keep the interior from cold cracking due to age. We flew in the winter,,just the bulb helped the interior to stay warm and not age as fast.

The 56 Chevy still gets a bulb in the winter to keep it warm,,or the mice,,can't decide which. Furry little vermin love it more than me and I'm jealous, so they get a load of One-Bite as a Chevy Diner Appetizer. It's working,,so far no return customers.

And good riddance. Nothing I despise more than rodents. My neighbor in Texas had an infestation of them and due to proximity so did I. I offered my assistance in eradicating them one day. I had been watching them hole up in a large half rotten Elm in his back yard.

Speaking of cheap, all I took with me was a spade shovel. Best rodent killer ever made.   

It wasn't pretty, and I was bit quite a few times. I had a newborn in the house so they had to go. Problem solved. Never saw one after that day.

roddie wrote:

The new LED "cans" for stage-use are really great. They are SUPER BRIGHT color-changing... and several can be run on one circuit while drawing a very small amount of power. This is a big help when you're trying to do a gig in a small club with limited circuits available on stage. Compare their 30W power consumption to a 150W Par can... and  that's a BIG difference. Two 4-lamp "trees" (a typical small light show that a small band might have) would draw 1200W using incandescent PAR lamps... and they're HOT!!! LED cans by comparison need no color gels... so you don't need a lamp for each color.. they're COOL (no heat) and if you used 8 of them.. the total watts would be 240. they also "daisy-chain" making connectivity easy.

I fully agree.   While I don't much like the LEDs for household use (seems such an unnatural light), the stage lights are great.  No heat, no changing colour filters, really bright, lighweight and versatile.
Our sound guy just changed over to a full digital mixing desk. Uses a small cat.5 data cable & no huge heavy multi-core.  Get to the next gig & he just hits the pre-programmed mix and bingo, soundcheck one song and it's all there.  Due to an acoustic nuroma (tumor on the acoustic nerve) I need to use in-ear monitors to block out stage noise and the foldback mix is set specifically for me and stays in the desks memory.  Sweet.   

Rod.