On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:28:22 -0500, Rich Conley
wrote:

Theres also the fact that wattage is one thing, efficiancy with used wattage is
another. Seeing that fluorescent tubes have been around for decades, and energy
saver type bulbs maybe ten years, I would have to think that the energy saver
bulbs could be a good deal more efficient


The energy saver bulbs have a ballast included inside them. When you
purchase ballasts for regular fluorescents, you can buy a low
efficiency ballast for about $10.00 or a high efficiency ballast for
$25-30. Do you think they would spend a lot of extra money making
more efficient ballasts for them? There is no cost benefit for them
to include a more efficient ballast. It's already 5-10 times more
efficient than the incandescent it's meant to replace.

And, as was mentioned, those energy-saver bulbs are twisted, so that
about 1/2 of the light produced is totally wasted, since the only
place it can go is straight into another part of the twisted tube.

They appear brighter because they are more compact, but they are not
any brighter than a regular fluorescent tube.


Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua