nal-september.org> c100d010   
   XPost: uk.rec.driving   
   From: dave@davesound.co.uk   
      
   In article   
   <1453041046388492124.730151%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal-september.org>,   
      Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:   
   > Dave Plowman  wrote:   
   > > In article   
   > > <2082196069388490010.841939%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.eternal   
   september.org>,   
   > >    Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:   
   > >>> No idea. They are crap and I wouldn't have one in the house.   
   > >   
   > >> The LED bulbs I have used have been anything but "crap". They use   
   > >> 1/10th the electricity of equivalent halogen bulbs and can be bought   
   > >> as flood or spotlight versions.   
   > >   
   > > They may well use less electricity. But if that's the only criterion   
   > > for domestic lighting a fluorescent tube will do the job rather better   
   > > and for less cost.   
      
   > Where did I say it was the only criterion?   
      
   It's the first thing you mentioned about them?   
      
   > The major objection from   
   > SWMBO is that they are "too bright".   
      
   Typically yes - when you look at them. Sadly the actual usable light from   
   them is anything but.   
      
   > Way better than CFL and, as I mentioned, equivalent to halogen, in fact   
   > a 3W LED with SMD elements providers better illumination than a 35W   
   > halogen.   
      
   Define better. That usually means the latest thing to impress the gullible.   
      
   There are no LEDs on the domestic market that come even close to matching   
   the quality of light from halogen. Of course that doesn't much matter to   
   many.   
      
   --   
   *I want it all and I want it delivered   
      
       Dave Plowman     dave@davesound.co.uk     London SW 12   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)