Um, I did say that the oils from your fingers affect badly all bulbs - incandescent, halogen filaments, CFLs. Some are more sensitive than others, some brands are more durable than others, but none should be touched with bare fingers.
And I don’t know why it’s so terribly difficult to pick up an old piece of cloth rag and wrap it round the bulb when switching light bulbs.
People make it sound as if switching bulbs is such a terribly difficult and complicated chore as if they have to do it twice an hour, when it normally comes up once every 5 years or so.
I think there’s a language misunderstanding here. I did NOT say “Unscrew the bulb FROM the base” but “when unscrewing the bulb, grip it BY the base (instead of gripping the glas/tube part)”.
So your personal anecdote trumps reputed organisations that set up two dozens of bulbs and have experienced experts who set up the test to be as realistic as possible.
Okay then, playing the usual cite games again… Goodbye.
The only bulbs I ever broke were because I was stupid.
CFLs have broken with much less stupidity.
Exactly because you change them far and between, they should be less prone to problems, like those that may happen when two pieces of metal come into static contact for two years.
Exactly what I understood.
The lights I was refering to go into fixtures that are like tubes (they are like metal condoms). It is physically impossible to get to the base, you have to unscrew by the glass.
My personal anectdote (and after 15 or 20 changed CFLs in 11 years it is a bit more than anecdotical) trumps any research as it pertaind to my house.
Maybe I got crappy sockets, crappy installation, crappy power supply; but I want my lights to work inthose conditions.
CFLs are the future for most uses and that’s why I keep buying them even when they make no economic sense. Heck, even if they worked exactly as advertised it would be about even money.
The non-completely-safe content of CFLs, however, worries me.
It’s easy to dismiss a test you didn’t personally observe as “anecdote”. I would say that the data from a test I observed trumps the data from a test I read about. Especially when those tests were done under carefully controlled circumstances.
The fact that CFLs last longer under laboratory conditions is only meaningful to someone who lives under laboratory conditions. Incandescents last longer in my house, and no amount of pointing to to a paper written about a study done elsewhere under different conditions is going to change that.
I am eager for someone to come up with a viable alternative to incandescents. When it happens, I suspect it will be LEDs, and I will gladly switch over. But I don’t see it happening for some time yet.
Is that the new standard for the Dope - not lab tests, only personally observed “tests”?
Step two of the cite game: inpugning the people and organisations who do the tests.
Because the conclusion obviously isn’t that your own house has sub-standard wiring, flucuating power supply or that you’re buying cheap bulbs - not, those tests must be wrong. And it’s now completly allowed to extrapolate from your own experiences and anecdotes to the general cases.
If you really were honestly interested in saving energy instead of blasting CFLs, and the problem was with the specific setup in your house causing problems with CFLs, you would switch at least from incandescent to halogen and save 1/3 of energy, until LEDs become cheaper.
Nobody is impugning any people or organizations. Just pointing out that replicating the lab tests requires controlling for variables that cannot be controlled in the real world.
My house has the wiring it has. I cannot reasonably change that. It would require ripping out nearly all the walls and ceilings of a 1 1/2 story house with accompanying money and energy costs. My house has the power supply it has. There is nothing I can do to change it.
I’m not tying to extrapolate my experience to general cases. I’m doing just the opposite. I’m saying that lab test results cannot be extrapolated to all cases. The lifespan of CFLs varies wildly depending on variables that can’t always be controlled. Even in the lab it varied from 3000 to 15000 hours. That’s a huge variation.
This isn’t about condemning CFLs. It’s about acknowledging that incandescents can be a better choice in some circumstances.
CFLs are like a Ferrari 458 and bulbs are like a Nissan Sentra. The Ferrari wins, but if there are potholes and tall speedbumps and maybe a dirt/gravel road, the Nissan would be the best.
So that’s why I can’t find a 25 W refrigerator bulb. I can find 40 W, but not 25 W. :smack: It’s going in my freezer, I kinda don’t want more heat than required, and a CFL isn’t best in that application, where it will be cycling on/off in less than a minute.
Um, I meant a serious person or an actual law. This sentence does not make any sense because the phasing-out is not based on brightness, but on efficiency.
Unless you have an unusual fridge, the bulb will be quite different from those you put into your living room.
Bulbs for special applications - e.g. fridges - are exempt from the rules, as clearly stated in the law.
I was actually replying to Doug K., because he replied to Anthony Kaye trying to explain the difference between bright and dim 75 Watt bulbs. But the point of my comment was to ask lighthouse how there is a distinction from the legal standpoint, and how there are two phase out dates for 75 W bulbs, which is essentially the same question from Anthony Kaye. Basically, it was a call for an explanation for why the phase out dates would be counterintuitive. lighthouse stated that brighter bulbs for the same power use would be phased out first. I was pointing out that makes no sense.
lighthouse’s reply was “well there you go”, as if I just supported his statement, rather than the reverse. I’m still waiting for an explanation from him for how brighter bulbs at the same wattage are going to be phased out before dimmer ones. Unless his original statement was a typo, and he meant that 75W bulbs would be phased out after dim 60W bulbs. But that isn’t what he said.
My original post quoted no one. See?