Re: d-day

[ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)]

In article <flaiok$3sl$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ghost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ghost) writes:
| Why not good in cold climates? And more interesting question - what CFL have
| to do with "motion detectors"?

I assume the problem is that when the motion detector detects motion you
want the light to come up to full intensity quickly, and cold climates
exacerbate the the slow-start problem.

In any case, I've found many outdoor CFL floods that claim the equivalent
light of a 120W incandescent but not yet any 150W.  I'm also a little
confused about the actual wattage.  Typically the 120W-equivalent floods
are around 23W actual.  Other types of 150W-equivalent CFLs (e.g., reader
lights) are around 40-45W actual.  Even allowing for the difference between
120W and 150W "equivalent" this seems to suggest that either CFL floods are
far more efficient than other form factors or they use a different definition
of "equivalent."  When I find a 150W-equivalent I'll give it a try.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com

| U?ytkownik "John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisa3 w wiadomo6ci
| news:NaidnS0IXuNfde7anZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > Sure are. Most of them need to warm up before the lumen strength matches
| > the old incandescent though. This is not good in cold climates or for
| > motion detectors.
| >
| > "Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
| > news:1345089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >> In article <fkoaa4$iki$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ghost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >> (Ghost) writes:
| >>
| >> | Yeap, I saw new incandescents (osram) - still far, far behind CFL. I
| >> don't
| >> | agree that incandescents ever be good as CFL (just physics laws).
| >>
| >> Are there any outdoor CFL floods that put out light similar to the 150W
| >> bulbs I used to be able to buy before they were banned?