OT: CFL Problems (was Re: Transformer repairs)

Roy J. Tellason wrote: Incandescents make great dummy loads for transmitters. CFL's decidedly do not. etc... Another problem with CFL's is that they are very risky in explosive and combustible atmospheres than incandescents. There are sealed light fixtures for incandescents but they are not approved for use with CFL's. Some CFL's, perhaps all, will not fit in the incandescent fixtures. CFL's may also be too hot for such sealed fixtures. And another problem is that CFL's cannot tolerate shock & vibration anywhere near to the degree that incandescents can. There are fluorescents specifially designed for vibration but they are expensive as hell and they are not CFL's. In a recent 1.0 quake on an unknown fault, all the CFL's broke in an office building less than 1/2 mile And yet another problem is that CFL's cannot tolerate the high temperature environments that incandescents can. There are fluorescents specifically designed for this, too, but they also are very expensive. Oh, I think this might be a problem too: The color and color temperature of CFL's is not consistent even within lots and there is frequently UV leakage, especially among the imports (yeah, like Chinese imports). For some imaging apps, this is intolerable. Requires the lamps be replaced with very expensive lighting systems like gas discharge lighting. Or requires time-wasting constant color adjustments, etc, adn. Most incandescents used in imaging have known colors and color temperatures and any changes over the bulb's lifetime are predictable. Ever put a CFL on a microscope, replacing the halogen lamp? Doesn't work very well. It's impossible to get a good parallel light onto the work. This is for inline lighting, with the lighting done through the optical path, not the external illuminators. == jd