piclist 2008\07\27\003210a >
Thread: Better-designed CFL's?
face BY : Bob Blick email (remove spam text)

Vitaliy wrote:

> IIRC, it was Herbert who suggested using Philips bulbs in a similar
> thread a while back, and I must say the difference is indeed very
> drastic (just as he describes). Paradoxically, Philips bulbs weren't
> that much more expensive (certainly not x2) than the other CFLs
> available at the store.

Philips does seem to have pretty good QC compared to off-brands.

In California CFL's are subsidised by the electric company. I have never
paid more than about a dollar for a CFL. Last time I bought some
(Philips brand at Costco) they were about $.75 for the "60 watt
equivalents" and $1.05 for the "100 watt equivalents".

Consequently I use them almost everywhere. The name brands have nicer
light and fewer early failures than the generics. But basically they
last a long time on average. Failure modes are pretty varied. Some have
almost melted down.

Slow starting at low temperatures and short lifespan at high
temperatures. So I don't use them in outdoor fixtures or in the attic.

I prefer them to white LEDs in terms of light quality. I have trouble
seeing with the light from white LEDs.

Cheerful regards,

<488BFA45.1070505@ftml.net> 7bit

In reply to: <00e801c8ef59$43b8ee20$6f02a8c0@ws11>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=better+designed
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) Better-designed CFL's?

month overview.

new search...