Re: d-day

["John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

These CFLs do not illuminate full brillance until they fully warm up
the internal gases. This is another reason they are not recommended
for motion detectors.

I have one in my barn that can barely be seen to illuminate for the
fist few seconds in the cold. It takes a good three to four minutes to
illuminate the area and then it produces equiv to about a 60w
incandescent bulb. The CFL flood I have out the back are a similar
problem but not so pronounced

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47797007.387172156@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Perhaps newer CFLs are different but most FAQs recommend they not be
> used in
> conjunction with motion detectors because turning them on/off
> frequently
> shortens their life. That's no longer the case with the latest
> straight tube
> fluorescents but I'm not sure whether that's due to their newer
> electronic
> ballasts, different phosphors or a bit of both.
>
> ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
> roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx