Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>It seems that the cost equations are still being worked on!

Not really. The _data_ used in the equations is changing to reflect changes
in the actual characteristics of actual CFLs in use. The form of the
equation, by and large, stays the same.

The complete absence of meaning _data_ and subsequent numerical analysis
("equations") in CHA is what has changed through several actual analyses of
actual costs and benefits of actual CFLs in actual use in an actual home
(like mine).

The CHA CFL naysayers (as in "CFLS are a really bad idea") post vague, false
information because up-to-date, real data does not support the conclusions
they want to promote. Here's an analogy they would understand: "They bet
against the winning horse and are trying to sell you their losing tickets
after the race is over".

>There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
>CFL equivalency ratings are overblown.  A poster to the discussion at
>wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to a
>100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer.

There is lotsa junk out there. Buy junk; get taken.

The major manufacturers' data is generally accurate to within the measurement
techniques and the comparative assumptions used.

Stuff posted on wikipedia is stuff posted on wikipedia.

...Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org