Comments on: New Light Bulbs

By: Pyst

Pyst — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:09:28 +0000

Family Guy episode with Peter Griffin riding an elephant:

“Look at me Lois, I’m the 2 symbols of the Republican party. An elephant, and a big fat white guy afraid of change.”

Truer words couldn’t be spoken Peter….hehehehehehehehehe.

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:05:46 +0000

Are they routinely dimmable now, flicker-free, free of producing radio interference?

Do you realize that the geek drawing is worthless as well as stupid, that so much of this progress (as well as with LEDs) has taken place in those big, evil corporations that produced and sell lamps of all kinds? This isn’t another NUT-root tech-drool expression, is it? (The original, incandescent light bulb merited much more news.)

By: Jim B

Jim B — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:42:24 +0000

Fox,
Please show me an L.E.D bulb for less than the cost of the spirals. A quick google/froogle search show a single bulb going for around $14 at the cheapest.

All my spiral bulbs have lasted far longer than my incandescents. I can’t remember replacing any of them thus far. I’ve never used them in our ceiling fans, but most are not designed for that use anyhow. I’ve had our outside bulb for about 3 years now, maybe I’ve just been lucky to have them last a long time.
Plus the light output on mine seem to be just fine, I usually purchase the ones that put out 75 watts of light or above though.

By: fox

fox — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:50 +0000

Oh, please! What a load of crapola! Those bulbs barely-barely make it to the same length of time as incandescent ones! Some might make it longer, and yes they do use less energy. HOWEVER, the bigger problem is that the flurescent tubes’ lamps aren’t anywhere near as useful as the newer L.E.D. lamps that are coming on strong. Phillips Lighting, and others, are just jealous that they made a mistake by investing sooo heavily in technology that isn’t very stable in smaller light fixtures! They’re hoping to sucker Americans into buying more of their products, to pay off their investment. Should have followed Sylvania’s example: Stay in the market of 4′, 8′ tubes, etc., and not so deeply invested into the little bulbs. And, obviously, I’ve bought the bulbs and been disappointed with the pitiful amounts of light-output, to say nothing of the increased costs up front!

By: yonason

yonason — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:52:29 +0000

Apart from the Mercury they contain (about 0.25 to 0.50 mg per bulb), they are fine as long as you don’t break too many of them in your house. Of course, if they are properly recycled, that should not be a problem. Mercury is reusable, whereas I believe tungsten is not.

I began switching to them because I got tired of replacing the incandescents all the time, and since these last about 3 times as long and use 1/4 to 1/3 the electricity, I’m even more pursuaded. Since I started using them about 2 and a half years ago, I’ve had to replace three, and those were on almost all the time. I think I payed less than $10.00 for 4, which works out to about the same as Incnadescents when adjusted for usage.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:43:19 +0000

I’ll be able to use more of them when they come to full brightness faster and when they’re usable in ceiling fan light fixtures without producing a headache inducing flicker for some people in my household. I look forward to it.