phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (11/21/90)
In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes: |Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been |described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one |of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a |whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the |amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular |incandescent bulb. I have a 300 watt one. I'm not really impressed. If energy use were not an issue, they would be pretty neat. I do like the kind of indirect lighting they provide. But they are horribly inefficient. 300 watts and I still don't consider it good for reading. A 75 watt in a Luxo makes me happy. Or a 50 watt halogen above my bed is almost too bright. One of these 300 watt guys just does not do it for reading. Think about it. Is 500 watts less than a regular incandescent? It is true that halogen is more efficent. My 50 watt halogens are very nice. But the lamps you are talking about simply lose too much light through the indirect mode. What I like and am looking for is the recessed ceiling lights which use small fluorescent tubes. By S.F.T., I mean the kind commonly sold as incandescent replacements. They are high frequency, color balanced, and low power. The fixture is reflective and the mode is direct so the lighting power and efficiency is excellent, yet nobody (except people like me) would ever know you were using fluorescents. I have seen them at the ANTC, a fancy Chinese restaurant (the kind with marble floors) and Kentucy Fried Chicken, of all places. -- KristallNacht: why every Jew should own an assault rifle.