Filament bulbs to disappear from the UK

[Steve Smith]

Which is to say, it's all very well saying that enlarger bulbs will still be legal, but I doubt it's enlarger bulbs on their own which keep the factories running. Without the mass sales of ordinary bulbs to keep the production lines going, will anyone bother making them for the few remaining niches?

Possibly... but probably not. I can still buy new audio valves from several sources which theoretically were obsolete by the end of the 1960's.

I think stocking up is probably the best plan as I don't want to try to convert my enlarger to take a 500w theatre lighting bulb..... or do I? Perhaps if I fit it with a shutter for 1/125 second exposures on paper!



Steve.

[ben-s]

...convert my enlarger to take a 500w theatre lighting bulb..... or do I? Perhaps if I fit it with a shutter for 1/125 second exposures on paper!

What do you call that - fast access printing?
If you heated the chemistry up and used the heat from the lamp for drying, you could probably make a print in about a minute

[Gary Holliday]

Don't forget to stock up on safelight bulbs too!

[Fotohuis]

http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documenta..._Coldlight.pdf

So please do not worry

Classical bulbs will be abandoned by EU law soon (There is already a date set in the Netherlands) and indeed the question is that specials lamps will be pretty expensive then if not discontinued in production.

[MikeSeb]

The regulatory imperative of the modern nanny state never ceases to amaze me.

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE=copake_ham;525713] but over on this side of The Pond we would never allow a government to decree this.

Yes but if you had Gordon( Uncle Joe) Brown as PM then you will do as you are told. The alternative is a spell in the infamous Scottish Porridge mines. Healthier than the salt mines of course which will all be closed down under the govt's healthy eating 5 year plan.

pentaxuser

[Dave Wooten]

Oh boy,

The Brits have got a "Hilary"

[dslater]

Not again!

Well we must be bored here on APUG that we're starting up another CF v. Incandescent thread!

FWIW, after the UK ban takes full effect - I will be offering incandescents on eBay.

I've sworn off the things myself - but over on this side of The Pond we would never allow a government to decree this. Advance orders are being accepted now! :rolleyes:

George,
I couldn't agree with you more. If the CF bulbs really save consumers money, then the government should let market forces drive adoption. If they're not, but there is a good environmental reason for them, then taxes or subsidies should be imposed to make the market drive adoption.
Also, I question the level of energy savings these bulbs will really lead to. AFIK, light bulbs are responsible for only a small amount of electricity use. Appliances, computers, televisions, etc. draw the bulk of your electricity. It would be much better for the government to provide incentives for people to replace old inefficient appliances with new efficient models.
Dan

[MikeSeb]

The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.

[Tom Kershaw]

The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.

Agree..., and I use CFs.

Tom.