Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: full-spectrum lamps?
Message-ID: <1990Dec6.173941.29080@amd.com>
Date: 6 Dec 90 17:39:41 GMT
References: <1990Dec2.075008.6832@xrtll.uucp> <1990Dec5.053428.810@amd.com> <13425@encore.Encore.COM>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 22

In article <13425@encore.Encore.COM> jcallen@encore.Com (Jerry Callen) writes:
|Regardless of whether or not Frank can spell it right, I agree that the light
|from compact fluorescents is miserable. My in-laws have installed them
|all over their house, and it drives me crazy to be there after dark.

What is it you don't like about CF and what type did your in-laws put in?
I can't believe anyone could complain about the light from a lamp like
the Philips SL18.

|I'm fond of halogens. More light per watt, long life, nice spectrum. But
|they aren't cheap and they aren't as energy efficient as fluorescents.

Halogens are certainly better than regular incandescents and have no equal
for a fine point source, but they're still not that efficient.

My calculations show a 500 W Q-H at 21 lumens/watt compared to 16 lumens/watt
for a 75 W I. However, a 150 W I gives 19 l/w and a 300 W I gives 21.2 l/w.

I don't have any numbers for the lower power Q-H and would love to get some.

--
Intentions are often more important than capabilities.