[LiveBrianD]

I'm just wondering - what type and color temp of light bulbs do you use in your house? I currently have 3000K CFLs and think they look terrible (I'm thinking about getting 5000-6500K CFLs to replace them).

[waldojim]

Whatever the house came with.

I honestly don't care for most CFL or LED lights.

[LiveBrianD]

What types do you like then?

[waldojim]

Sorry! I was trying for a reply - and somehow ended up clicking a red - button. I feel freaking terrible!

To answer your question though, I prefer lights that last over anything else. Lights that have a pleasing, natural light. In other words - nothing made in the last 10 years.

edit: I put a green plus on a different post of yours to offset the little red guy. Again, sorry about that.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 08 March 2012 - 10:10 PM

[Evildave]

Fixed it.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 08 March 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Sorry! I was trying for a reply - and somehow ended up clicking a red - button. I feel freaking terrible!

To answer your question though, I prefer lights that last over anything else. Lights that have a pleasing, natural light. In other words - nothing made in the last 10 years.

edit: I put a green plus on a different post of yours to offset the little red guy. Again, sorry about that.

It's not a big deal.

So... if you mean nothing made in the last 10 years, then what? CFLs weren't commonplace before that, and incandescents have a very unnatural ~3000K light.

[mjd420nova]

I just recently replenished my stock of 100 (92) watt and 75(68) watt incandesant bulbs for my home. CFLs are a hazard to our environment due to the mercury used and then eventually disposed of in landfills. CFLs and LEDs are too expensive and not as long lasting as incandesant bulbs. I do a lot of home photography and hate the green hue from floresant lamps. True, incandesant lamps provide a bit of a reddish hue but this does not cause a change in hue with people shots. Just like the difference between Fuji film and Kodak, it is a personal preference. CFLs also tend to flicker more and when doing photos will leave dark spots and strange shadows. Give me the old school anyday.

[LiveBrianD]

Actually, that's not true. Sure, the bulb contains a tiny bit of mercury. However, what about all the extra mercury released from burning coal to power the light bulb? (Yes, I know in California coal is not used much, but still...) I haven't seen any green hue from CFLs (though the 6500K ones do, if anything, have a slight bluish tint, maybe a little too cool for me). I haven't seen any flickering with CFLs (maybe the earlier ones were that way, but the newer ones are fine).

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 09 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Actually, that's not true. Sure, the bulb contains a tiny bit of mercury. However, what about all the extra mercury released from burning coal to power the light bulb? (Yes, I know in California coal is not used much, but still...) I haven't seen any green hue from CFLs (though the 6500K ones do, if anything, have a slight bluish tint, maybe a little too cool for me). I haven't seen any flickering with CFLs (maybe the earlier ones were that way, but the newer ones are fine).

Never heard of natural light or daylight bulbs?

[coastie65]

mjd420nova, on 09 March 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

I just recently replenished my stock of 100 (92) watt and 75(68) watt incandesant bulbs for my home. CFLs are a hazard to our environment due to the mercury used and then eventually disposed of in landfills. CFLs and LEDs are too expensive and not as long lasting as incandesant bulbs. I do a lot of home photography and hate the green hue from floresant lamps. True, incandesant lamps provide a bit of a reddish hue but this does not cause a change in hue with people shots. Just like the difference between Fuji film and Kodak, it is a personal preference. CFLs also tend to flicker more and when doing photos will leave dark spots and strange shadows. Give me the old school anyday.

I agree. Due to my Mother's eyesight and the fact she needs a lot of light. I am well stocked in 100w incandescent bulbs. Again Congress has passed judgement and forced people into something that is less than environmentally friendly ( as mjd stated, a hazzard ), more expensive, and less efficient due to the shorter lifespan. In California, you have not only the interference from the Federal Gov't. but also the State Gov't. As a result, Californians pay a much higher price for fuel as weel as goods due to the higher cost of shipping due to regulations. Higher prices for vehicles due to the "California" emmission requirement which significantly increases the cost of a vehicle and reduces performance. So be it as long as it stays within their borders, but I do get a bit tired of them trying to force that crap on the rest of the country as seems to be the case, through Federal Regulations, and usually written by incompetent Members of Congress from Calf. I am a Californian by birth and have relatives there ( Eureka area ), but would not want to live there, not as long as stupidity rules. The point is that that CFL bulb stuff begain in California and was made mandatory. Some California kook in Congress decided that it should be a Federal standard and apply to everyone and thus everyone was forced to bend to California standards and choice was taken away. I am still able to find the incandescient stuff though.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 10 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 09 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Actually, that's not true. Sure, the bulb contains a tiny bit of mercury. However, what about all the extra mercury released from burning coal to power the light bulb? (Yes, I know in California coal is not used much, but still...) I haven't seen any green hue from CFLs (though the 6500K ones do, if anything, have a slight bluish tint, maybe a little too cool for me). I haven't seen any flickering with CFLs (maybe the earlier ones were that way, but the newer ones are fine).

Never heard of natural light or daylight bulbs?

What, the 5000K CFLs? What are you talking about? Those, along with the "soft white" 3000K ones, are VERY common nowadays.

[LiveBrianD]

coastie65, on 10 March 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

I agree. Due to my Mother's eyesight and the fact she needs a lot of light. I am well stocked in 100w incandescent bulbs. Again Congress has passed judgement and forced people into something that is less than environmentally friendly ( as mjd stated, a hazzard ), more expensive, and less efficient due to the shorter lifespan. In California, you have not only the interference from the Federal Gov't. but also the State Gov't. As a result, Californians pay a much higher price for fuel as weel as goods due to the higher cost of shipping due to regulations. Higher prices for vehicles due to the "California" emmission requirement which significantly increases the cost of a vehicle and reduces performance. So be it as long as it stays within their borders, but I do get a bit tired of them trying to force that crap on the rest of the country as seems to be the case, through Federal Regulations, and usually written by incompetent Members of Congress from Calf. I am a Californian by birth and have relatives there ( Eureka area ), but would not want to live there, not as long as stupidity rules. The point is that that CFL bulb stuff begain in California and was made mandatory. Some California kook in Congress decided that it should be a Federal standard and apply to everyone and thus everyone was forced to bend to California standards and choice was taken away. I am still able to find the incandescient stuff though.

Just get some 3000K soft white higher wattage CFLs then. How are they less environmentally friendly? They use a LOT less energy, and although they have a little mercury, as long as you dispose of them properly it's not an issue. Besides, the reduced energy usage means a lot less mercury being released at the power plant. I don't see what the benefit of incandescent bulbs is. They run hot and waste energy, the color temperature isn't natural, and you can get the same light with less energy from a CFL.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

waldojim, on 10 March 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 09 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Actually, that's not true. Sure, the bulb contains a tiny bit of mercury. However, what about all the extra mercury released from burning coal to power the light bulb? (Yes, I know in California coal is not used much, but still...) I haven't seen any green hue from CFLs (though the 6500K ones do, if anything, have a slight bluish tint, maybe a little too cool for me). I haven't seen any flickering with CFLs (maybe the earlier ones were that way, but the newer ones are fine).

Never heard of natural light or daylight bulbs?

What, the 5000K CFLs? What are you talking about? Those, along with the "soft white" 3000K ones, are VERY common nowadays.

Nope, http://www.verilux.c...andescent-bulbs

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Just get some 3000K soft white higher wattage CFLs then. How are they less environmentally friendly? They use a LOT less energy, and although they have a little mercury, as long as you dispose of them properly it's not an issue. Besides, the reduced energy usage means a lot less mercury being released at the power plant. I don't see what the benefit of incandescent bulbs is. They run hot and waste energy, the color temperature isn't natural, and you can get the same light with less energy from a CFL.

For starters - Incandescents last longer in a wider range of environments.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 10 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Just get some 3000K soft white higher wattage CFLs then. How are they less environmentally friendly? They use a LOT less energy, and although they have a little mercury, as long as you dispose of them properly it's not an issue. Besides, the reduced energy usage means a lot less mercury being released at the power plant. I don't see what the benefit of incandescent bulbs is. They run hot and waste energy, the color temperature isn't natural, and you can get the same light with less energy from a CFL.

For starters - Incandescents last longer in a wider range of environments.

What, in appliances or in harsh outdoor temperatures? I've been using CFLs for several years and they seem to work just fine.

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

coastie65, on 10 March 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

I agree. Due to my Mother's eyesight and the fact she needs a lot of light. I am well stocked in 100w incandescent bulbs. Again Congress has passed judgement and forced people into something that is less than environmentally friendly ( as mjd stated, a hazzard ), more expensive, and less efficient due to the shorter lifespan. In California, you have not only the interference from the Federal Gov't. but also the State Gov't. As a result, Californians pay a much higher price for fuel as weel as goods due to the higher cost of shipping due to regulations. Higher prices for vehicles due to the "California" emmission requirement which significantly increases the cost of a vehicle and reduces performance. So be it as long as it stays within their borders, but I do get a bit tired of them trying to force that crap on the rest of the country as seems to be the case, through Federal Regulations, and usually written by incompetent Members of Congress from Calf. I am a Californian by birth and have relatives there ( Eureka area ), but would not want to live there, not as long as stupidity rules. The point is that that CFL bulb stuff begain in California and was made mandatory. Some California kook in Congress decided that it should be a Federal standard and apply to everyone and thus everyone was forced to bend to California standards and choice was taken away. I am still able to find the incandescient stuff though.

Just get some 3000K soft white higher wattage CFLs then. How are they less environmentally friendly? They use a LOT less energy, and although they have a little mercury, as long as you dispose of them properly it's not an issue. Besides, the reduced energy usage means a lot less mercury being released at the power plant. I don't see what the benefit of incandescent bulbs is. They run hot and waste energy, the color temperature isn't natural, and you can get the same light with less energy from a CFL.

You break one of those bad boys and you have to call a hazmat team to clean up the mess. As for color temp, it depends on which incandescent bulb you get. Yes, they do generate some heat and I'll give you that. They ARE expensive and not for seniors on a fixed income trying to make ends meet as it is. I guess the next thing will be to subsidize seniors for those things. The one lamp I have in this room has a three way CFL in it ( I have a florescent lamp on my desk here ) as does the lamp next to my bed ( I never said that I didn't use them ). I don't like being told what I can and can not use by some nit wit that doesn't even have the facts. The power company here is starting to build Power plants using natural gas. Will they eventually replace the coal fired plants? Don't know, but probably not, at least in the foreseeable future because of the demand for power and the need for reserve capacity ( we do sell power to other states ).

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

What, in appliances or in harsh outdoor temperatures? I've been using CFLs for several years and they seem to work just fine.

Working fine, and long lasting are two very different standards. I also have used CFLs for quite some time. NONE have lasted as long as a quality incandescent. Worse still, the offset in electricity savings are destroyed by the higher bulb cost. If they lasted 80x's longer (considering their price), they might be worth it. But 80 times longer life, means lasting until I am long dead. That isn't going to happen.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 10 March 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

You break one of those bad boys and you have to call a hazmat team to clean up the mess. As for color temp, it depends on which incandescent bulb you get. Yes, they do generate some heat and I'll give you that. They ARE expensive and not for seniors on a fixed income trying to make ends meet as it is. I guess the next thing will be to subsidize seniors for those things. The one lamp I have in this room has a three way CFL in it ( I have a florescent lamp on my desk here ) as does the lamp next to my bed ( I never said that I didn't use them ). I don't like being told what I can and can not use by some nit wit that doesn't even have the facts. The power company here is starting to build Power plants using natural gas. Will they eventually replace the coal fired plants? Don't know, but probably not, at least in the foreseeable future because of the demand for power and the need for reserve capacity ( we do sell power to other states ).

My 3way CFL lasted about 3 months before the electronics got fried. I just use a standard CFL in the bedside lamp now.

[LiveBrianD]

coastie65, on 10 March 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

You break one of those bad boys and you have to call a hazmat team to clean up the mess. As for color temp, it depends on which incandescent bulb you get. Yes, they do generate some heat and I'll give you that. They ARE expensive and not for seniors on a fixed income trying to make ends meet as it is. I guess the next thing will be to subsidize seniors for those things. The one lamp I have in this room has a three way CFL in it ( I have a florescent lamp on my desk here ) as does the lamp next to my bed ( I never said that I didn't use them ). I don't like being told what I can and can not use by some nit wit that doesn't even have the facts. The power company here is starting to build Power plants using natural gas. Will they eventually replace the coal fired plants? Don't know, but probably not, at least in the foreseeable future because of the demand for power and the need for reserve capacity ( we do sell power to other states ).

Yeah... unless you're really that clumsy, that's not an issue. CFLs are cheaper over the lifetime if you look at the energy cost and the lifespan of the bulb you know. The CFLs I have seem to last pretty long (keep in mind that I turn them on and off quite a bit, whenever I leave the room for a minute).

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 10 March 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Yeah... unless you're really that clumsy, that's not an issue. CFLs are cheaper over the lifetime if you look at the energy cost and the lifespan of the bulb you know. The CFLs I have seem to last pretty long (keep in mind that I turn them on and off quite a bit, whenever I leave the room for a minute).

No, you have it exactly wrong. Factoring the life of the bulb in, CFLs are several times more expensive. If you factor in how long manufacturers CLAIM they will last, you are correct. But those claims have never even been CLOSE. With over a dozen of those lights in my last home (in Ohio), the average lifespan of a CFL was less than one year. Old fashioned bulbs averaged about 2 years. 2 years @ $0.50/ea VS 1yr @ $5 /ea. Now how much electricity must you save to make up for that cost?