On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 15:54, Roger (K8RI) <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com> wrote:
> Jut the opposite here. The newer ones are cheaper, but last longer, get
> up to full brightness faster, and handle low temperatures better. I
> have 4 200 watt CFLs in the garage and they are doing just fine. Yes,
> in the cold weather (30s "F" and lower" they do take two or three
> minutes to come up to full brilliance. The only drawback is the high
> wattage CFLs are still expensive.
"High-lumen CFLs."
In terms of lighting, wattage, as I know you know, means the amount of
power consumed and has little to do with amount of light output. The
lighting industry has done itself a disservice by pushing the "100 W
equivalent" crap. Tell me the Lumens, tell me the Watts, and I'll
figure it out.
A CFL that consumed 100 W would be very bright. And probably pretty warm. :-)
--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|