Re: N:Vision CFL's

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Slammer" <mjinks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B-2dnUU9Tty5DJjbnZ2dnUVZ_q-vnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> >> >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.
> >
>
> I'd like to point out that all these bulbs, for sale in the USA, are
subject
> to and must
> comply with the FTC Lamp Label Rules. These specify a voltage of 120VAC
and
> output in AVERAGE INITIAL lumens, power consumed in AVERAGE INITIAL
> wattage and life of each lamp in hours.

Rated life is subjective for a number of reasons, as average lifetime
lumens.  If bulbs are subjected to dimmers, they may fail prematurely, far
before their rated life.  Lots of CFL's will be run from lots of PIR and
lots of dimmer controllers simply because those devices are already out
there.  If their mid-life useful light output drops enough for a consumer to
notice, it may be retired long before the testing says it ought to have
been.  If these conditions occur on a large scale, the amount of mercury
that ends up in landfills and the net cost to society to clean it up may be
seriously understated.

Hopefully my lightmeter will show up eventually so I can see for myself.  So
far, to my IR cam at the front door, the CFL seems noticeably dimmer.  I'm
assuming that's because the tungsten bulb has a much, much higher IR output
than the CFL bulb.

--
Bobby G.