On 29 Mar 2007 00:33:33 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:834m035ca8khg0dcvaickl9p0vq9lepeqs@
4ax.com:

And I'm still interested in opinions as to why OTT or Solux are "better"
- they may be, but I can't find anything that would convince me they are
- it all seems to be salespitch.

First, I'm not talking about "lamps" in the sense of the fixture, the
thing that you put the "bulb" into, I'm talking about the "lamp" in the
sense of the "bulb" itself.

Are you wondering about "better than a standard task light", "better than a
standard CFL", or such? Try http://www.solux.net/comparison.htm, and they
have a pretty good comparison. The standard solux uses is basically a
spectral comparison to daylight, and they claim they're better than the
products they compare too, which seem pretty representative.

Thanks for that, but what I'm wondering is what, if anything, makes an
OTT "bulb" better than any other CFL with what would seem to be the same
specs (I say "seem" because I didn't see any real specs on the OTT
"bulb"). Look at the comparison of the Solux to the Osram and the OTT -
the Osram and the OTT seem pretty close. If that's the case, then the
OTT isn't any "better" than a 10-12.00USD CFL. As to the Solux, it
appears it is a pretty good "bulb" at a more-or-less reasonable price,
pretty much in line with other such lamps, er, "bulbs."

So far as "is it better to use a light source that's close to daylight?"
who really knows?

And it would depend on what you wish to light, and how.

TC,
R