Printable View
Only comment I'd make on the cost issue is that if you take Ozwinner's approach of adding cheap fluros until you have enough light, you theoretically will wind up running more of them than if you use good tubes - so obviously that costs more in electricity.
But then you can run a double 4ft fluro fitting for 33 hours for the cost of running a heater for 1 hour - so maybe it's not a big deal either way :)
Well I bought one and while its better than the standard fluro by a large margin I dont think it is quite as good as a Philips Alto. I have 3 fluro's in a line from left to right. Standard, NEC then the Philips and I think the Philips gives off a whiter light than NEC, has anyone else tried the Philips offering?
Haven't tried the Alto's, but put 2 quads in last week. They are that good I will have to save up & replace the rest of the old ones.
Ken
David,
Several of the ones I replaced were Philips Alto that I put in around a year ago. They were good when they went in, but had gone very yellow and dull - and no, they weren't covered in dust :)
Remains to be seen how the NEC quads do over the long haul, but with all of my tubes now replaced it's one hell of a lot brighter in there. My better half reckons it looks like an operating theatre! :)
I put in NEC Quad Phosphor 32W lamps in my workshop and kitchen 2 years ago. They were noticably brighter than the Tri's which were in previously, I have had to replace my first one today. The original packaging rated them for 9000 hrs however I only have had 4000. This may be a one-off but I'll be interested to see how the rest last.:)
I have used tri phosphor lamps for many years, while they are very good, particularly the NEC I dont believe you get the life quoted for them. Also they age and discolour over time the light output goes down and they go yellow.
Have used a number of different ones, some better than others
Doug