(no subject)

[torkell]

The CFL-only light fittings (like these) have an absolutely rubbish failure rate. Out of a sample of 7:

One failed within a couple of months.
One failed after a year and a half.
One failed after about 3 years.
Two still work after 2 and a half years.
One still works after 4 or so years.
Another still works after 4 or so years, but has only been used for a handful of hours (it's in a cupboard).

So that's a failure rate of 43%. These things are supposed to last longer than the bulbs, which have a rated lifetime of 5 or so years. I'd have expected them to outlast several bulbs, otherwise what's the point of separating the electronics and the fluorescent tube?

I think I'll see if I can get the landlady to replace the latest dead fitting with a classic non-CFL-only one.

Comments

[tau-iota-mu-c.livejournal.com]

Since half the time a combined unit dies it's the actual electronics that died (a cheap unheatsunk transistor and a diode not even operating in bridge configuration and an underspecced transformer) and the tube is still perfectly fine, I guess it would be considered progress to separate it out so that the reliable bit is field replaceable and the unreliable bit is fixed into the ceiling.

I hate progress.

[torkell]

Sounds about right for the contents - http://electricstuff.co.uk/lowbulb.html has a couple of photos of the innards of a CFL. One would have thought that by separating the electronics and the bulb, it would be possible to use higher quality and specced components without trying to cram everything into the same dimensions as a classic bulb.