Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge

[BruceM]

Optimistic news for folks who don't like CFL's with some blurbs on various new incandescent technologies. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

[wrightkiller]

COOL 

[Wizard]

I can report on this use of this halogena line by philips using this type.  Does work but they emit less lumens (slightly than a regular incendsecent) and glows barely orangish (more like 2500K-3000K).  The biggest problem these are rather delicate (bump this, like a tap or shake the desk arm lamp will go pop after using for awhile, around 3 months 8 hours daily during business week) and 1/2 less life-time than a true halogen bulb due to poor physical shock resistance.  So I stick with the halogen bulbs with medium base.

Using these expensive bulb in scone, table lamps where there's no impacts/bumpings, ceiling fixtures where there is no floor shake above this fixture would be EXCELLENT use.

As you notice I DO NOT like CFL in desk lamps due to poor color rendition (not broard enough spectrum and don't like WW in lower watts because of "false 3500K look" and neither CW or daylight, too harsh).  But for general lighting with good spectrum and 3500K and I overrate it to around 100W to 150W using two 25W or 27W CFL is fine in a room.  But for bathroom, I use two halogen bulbs 60W or 75W as I like "sunny" plus attempt to chase away "dark" cave feeling in the shower.

BTW, quality LED bulb with very good color rendition is extremely expensive and I tried philips 7W LED WW, awful color rendition.

In nutshell, CFL and any most fluoresecent lightings I find them "empty light" makes me go for a desk lamp with halogen at work and flashlight.

What is needed is a efficent bulb has much of color spectrum filled in much as possible not just 2 or 3 narrow spikes of colors then I'll buy them.

Cheers, Wizard

[BruceM]

Thanks for the report, Wizzard!

I can't resist this rant:
Phillips company wrote the law, so not surprisingly, they put in loopholes that JUST fit their "natural light spectrum" bulbs and the Halogena.  I tried both, and was unimpressed.  To my eyes, for reading, the Halogena was not as bright as  claimed, I would have to use a larger wattage, thus defeating the alleged savings.

The law is such a gerrymandered (by Phillips' lawyers) POS, I drives me nuts.  If you shop, you can find low hours (500hrs) incandescent bulbs that do put out a lot more lumens, double or more than the long life bulbs.  Hotter bulb, shorter life, better efficiency, no fancy new engineering required. Then we could use 25 cent bulbs and got the same efficiency as a Halogena, with a bit more "sweat equity" changing bulbs.  And remember, in the winter, when we use more lighting, the heat ISN'T wasted, especially if you use table lamps.  Oh, yeah, that doesn't work for Phillips' bottom line.
End Rant