🚀 go-pugleaf

> GE's CFL's may be marginally less efficient than Phillips',
> but GE's are commonly half the price of Phillips . . .
> Any CFL is so much more efficient than any other screw-in lamp
> that discussing minor differences in CFL luminous efficiency
> sounds awfully silly to me.

=o= I don't disagree that GE CFs are a major improvement over
incandescents, but minor differences can really add up.  I'm
typical of advocates of alternative energy in that I'm always
trying to promote the most efficient tools available for as many
people as possible.  Ten million people using GE CFs are going
to use a lot more energy than ten million people using Phillips
and Osram CFs.

=o= I'm also unimpressed with GE's lights because they're so big
and bulky.  They use more materials than those of Phillips and
Osram, and they fit in fewer fixtures.  In general, GE seems to
be lagging behind in the technology.  I'd rather use my consumer
dollars to support the innovators, not the imitators.

=o= Finally, I'm also pretty unimpressed with GE itself.  They
have marketed their CFs as peers with their pathetic line of
"Watt-Miser" incandescents, a move that some consumer groups
have criticized as deceptive.  They also have a long history
of exerting undue political influence, and while I don't know
this for sure, I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the
reason you'll find energy utilities subsidizing GE's lights
rather than the superior lights made by Phillips and Osram.

=o= I'm not going to fault anyone who needs to for trying to
save money.  I've got a reasonable middle-class income, though,
and don't mind spending a few more bucks to support a worthy
enterprise.

> Now if you want to discuss CRI and light _quality_, I have
> some interesting points to make...

=o= I would actually be quite interested in hearing your points
about this.  Most of what I've seen published on the matter is
several years old, and doesn't cover many of the newer models.
    <_Jym_>