I have not noticed any QRM with these bulbs, but I don't seem to get a much 
greater life than with the traditional ones.  Also, a few months ago one of the 
IEE/IET journals carried a letter from a member who had dissected a dead unit.  
It had more than 60 soldered joints, and he suggested that this might cast 
doubt on the economics of the product over its whole life.

I have found another problem.  The control gear in these devices is often 
enclosed in a collar round the base.  As most ceiling-mounted sockets (ES or 
bayonet) in this area have a ceramic collar, the new device cannot be inserted 
far enough into the socket to be energised.  You have to change the socket or 
(in the case of an ES socket) buy an ES to SES adapter and an SES energy-saving 
bulb.  Given that people have experienced much shorter lives for these bulbs 
than has been claimed, this does seem to raise questions about the economics of 
these products.

John Rabson 
F5VLF
58800 Cervon
France
JN17vg

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 08/03/2009 at 14:53 Peter Cleall wrote:

>For many years I have avoided using the energy saving bulbs under the
>impression that they were major RF pollutents. I am under increasing
>pressure to move to using these bulbs. 
>
> 
>
> Are my concerns still the case or are they old fashioned and out of date. 
>
>Do you have experience of using these bulbs in the home. 
>
>Do modern versions interfer with your Radio receiving , I am interested in
>signals from 15 kHz to 500 MHz. 
>
>Are there specific types or manufactures to be avoided 
>
>Any thoughts would be appreciaated 
>
>regards 
>
>peter