Quote Originally Posted by ForgetClassC
Thus me stating that the investigation proves that CFL are that much better than incandescents. Seeing as they last about 10x longer and that even if an incandescent COULD last as long, they would be THAT MUCH MORE better. Think sometimes, its helpful.

-C
The only thing I see that makes this study "dumb as shit" would be it pointing out the obvious. No one ever said incandescent's were better than cfls. We all know they last longer, we all SHOULD know they lose brightness, and we all know incandescent's are the past.

There's NO WAY in knowing what an incandescent luminosity loss would be IF an incandescent could last as long as a cfl. Now if you knew WHEN the luminosity was lost and what factors contributed, then we'd have more information to make an informative guess.

I've been there, done that with cfls. And now I've been there, done that with HID's and there's no comparison. HID/HO floro's is where I'm at now. So many people use cfls for "stealth" grows but in the end they realize stealth is hard as fuck to do when growing a plant that smells, needs ventilation (fan noise), and much more.

Soooo people just use HID. You'll be glad you did. :stoned:
Balkey Reviewed by Balkey on . study indicates CFL lumen loss ... Study Casts Dim Light on Energy-Efficient Bulbs Thursday, November 19, 2009 They're billed as energy-efficient, but compact fluorescent bulbs are getting a dim review in a new study. The study, published in Engineering and Technology magazine, shows the energy-efficient light bulbs lose on average 22 percent of their brightness over their lifetime, the BBC reports. Compact fluorescents reduce energy consumption by up to 80 percent compared to traditional bulbs. But the study Rating: 5