Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:16999 misc.consumers.house:15982
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!decwrl!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: ca.environment,sci.electronics,misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Compact Fluorescent Varieties (Was Re: Recycling LIGHT BULBS?
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.203819.16618@amd.com>
Date: 16 Jan 91 20:38:19 GMT
References: <1991Jan9.171802.509@amd.com> <10215@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Jan16.161148.3458@cs.umn.edu>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jan16.161148.3458@cs.umn.edu> sec@cs.umn.edu (Stephen E. Collins) writes:
|In <10215@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> charless@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Charles R. Sullivan) writes:
|>>I have four Q-lites in my bathroom. I used to object to CFs because
|>>they weren't bright enough (you can't get them in a 100 watt
|>>flavor) but I think I have solved that problem now with my 300
|>>watts (equivalent) of light.
|
|A number of others have made similar comparisons.  Light is measured in
|lumens, not watts.  Comparing watts will give you absolutely no idea
|of the difference in light output.  Even with the same technology, it

Which is why I said "100 watt flavor" and "300 watts equivalent".  Most
people relate to light in terms of the wattage of an incandescent bulb.
Most people wouldn't know how many 20 watt CFs they need for a given
application.

|light bulb.  When you look at different technologies, the difference
|is even greater (e.g., hologen or fluorescent).

That's the whole idea, that CFs give more lumens/watt, but since most
people don't know how many lumens an incandescent gives off, it's
easier to talk in terms of "equivalent" wattage.

--
           The Am386s are coming!