Peter and group,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency

     Category
       Type
       Overall
     luminous efficacy (lm/W) Overall
     luminous efficiency[3]
     Combustion candle 0.3 [6] 0.04%
    gas mantle 2 [7] 0.3%
     Incandescent 100 W tungsten incandescent (220 V) 13.8 [8] 2.0%
    200 W tungsten incandescent (220 V) 15.2 [9] 2.2%
    100 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 16.7 [10] 2.4%
    200 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 17.6 [9] 2.6%
    500 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 19.8 [9] 2.9%
    5 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 5 0.7%
    40 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 12.6 [11] 1.9%
    100 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 17.5 [11] 2.6%
    2.6 W tungsten glass halogen (5.2 V) 19.2 [12] 2.8%
    quartz halogen (12–24 V) 24 3.5%
    photographic and projection lamps 35 [13] 5.1%
     Light-emitting diode white LED 10–100 [14][15][16] 1.5–15%
     Arc lamp xenon arc lamp 30–50 [17][18] 4.4–7.3%
    mercury-xenon arc lamp 50–55 [17] 7.3–8.0%
     Fluorescent 9–26 W compact fluorescent 57–72 [19][20] 8–11%
    T12 tube with magnetic ballast 60 [21] 9%
    T5 tube 70–100 [22] 10–15%
    T8 tube with electronic ballast 80–100 [21] 12–15%
     Gas discharge 1400 W sulfur lamp 100 15%
    metal halide lamp 65–115 [23] 9.5–17%
    high pressure sodium lamp 85–150 [24][9] 12–22%
    low pressure sodium lamp 100–200 [24][25][9] 15–29%
     Theoretical maximum Green light at 555 nm 683.002 100%


73
Hugh M0WYE

To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:42 PM
Subject: LF: Re: energy saving bulbs

Peter some do and some dont. I have found the Osram bad and the Philips best

so far. There are a number of other things to think about too.
One, in normal replacement for tungten Fil they do NOT last 10,000 hours.
The reason seems to be that in a normal vertical hanging fitting the
connector end of the assembly get very hot....... this bit of course
contains the electronics which get unreliable with increasing temperature.
Bulb life test on fil bulbs is traditionally done the "other way up" for
ease of loading....so maybe this was not spotted.
They take several 10s of seconds to reach usable brightness....longer than
tuble starters. No good for short spells of activity as they are only
becomming usable when they are switched off.
They do contain mercury, albeit a small amount.
They should not be used in reading lamps which come close to the face as
there is a signigicant UV content.
I have just been using one in a bedside lamp and after a couple of days
relised I could smell a similar smell to that close to a Xerox
machine.....yes the lamp was pproducing sufficient ozone to significantly
irritate the nostrils.

I have a large stock of filament lamps!! but I use tube fluorescents for

main lighting which are even more efficient in terms of light for energy (no

a lot of "greenies" or lamp manufacturers admit that, and my tube
fluorescents are radio quiet for antennas outside the house. I have

relagated the CFLs to outside lighting fittings, which I occasionally forget

to switch off!!

The tale that filament lamps are inefficient is a myth !! All the energy fed

to the bulb is converted into radiation ! some is light and some is
heat.....a CLF just produces less heat and more light and more polution!

Alan G3NYK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cleall" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: LF: energy saving bulbs

  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