On 11/30/2010 5:34 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
> 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.
> :-)
I have seen a few CFLs with Lumens given but they were pretty rare the
last time I looked.
OTOH I don't think I've seen a fluorescent "tube" without the lumens given.
My shop uses 11 8' fixtures, or 22 8' 75 watt tubes. I switched to full
spectrum about 2 months ago. They appear to run about the same temp as
the regular tubes with the 5 year life ...that last about 14 months.
However the lumens for the full spectrum tubes are a bit less than the
others.
Replacing tubes can get a bit pricey as I know when the first one fails
the rest will go within two months. That being the case, I purchase them
two cases at a time, and take an evening to change them all.
One thing I noted; With my eyes the full spectrum appear brighter than
the regular tubes that have a notably higher lumen rating.
At least my Aloe vera plants (great for burns and scrapes) seem to like
them.
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|