There's a point below which 'low energy' bulbs cease being useful

[slowfox]

I've always thought that the wattage-equivalent ratings on low-energy CF light bulbs are somewhat over-optimistic, and the (until today) latest acquisition, deemed to be a 60W equivalent, proved the point rather nicely.

I won't say that the room got dimmer when I turned the light on, just that it failed to get any darker when I turned it off...

So I've now replaced the living/dining room lights in Castle Fox with 20W CF bulbs, labelled this time as 100W equivalent, but I'm not convinced. Still, it's a marked improvement over the purported 60W pair.

Actually, these bulbs are also supposed to have a 10,000hr lifespan. I doubt that highly, and remain unsettled over the disposal issues once they do expire. But the dining room light (which was replaced first with the 60Weq and now with the 100Weq) managed to die in most peculiar fashion (for a light bulb): I turned it on, and it started to warm up, then flickered. Thinking that this might be a signal of some kind of power surge, I initially dismissed it, but then the light settled into a steady rhythm of blinking about once every two seconds, before it finally flickered out for the last time.

Yes, I do realise that I've just written a post about CF light bulbs, thanks.

Comments

[schnurble]

The chandelier in the living room needs five light bulbs, so when we bought it we thought it would pay off to have five energy saving bulbs for this. Well, they die regularly after a few months, but never all at once, so we keep replacing the broken ones with other energy saving bulbs so all look the same. I think we'd gone much much cheaper if we'd started out with ordinary light bulbs...

[slowfox]

Argh! That must be frustrating!