Re: Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Don Klipstein]

But even then not for their full life expectency unfortunately.


And they seem to be both hard to obtain, and expensive. And since the
wattage is approx 1/3rd, the savings are less than claimed.

Easily available at Lowes and Home Depot. And I don't see 30 watts vs.
26 being some huge major deal.

40degC ambient???
Is that how you get the claimed life expectency, no wonder I never do.


And I still dream of even getting that much. I guess it will happen one day.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Don Klipstein]

With people running lamps 24/7, no wonder we have an energy problem.
Domestic houses don't require permanant emegency lighting in Australia.
And if that's how you get a CFL to last, then there are no power savings to
be had.

I never run mine 24/7, and they last.

My experience too.

I had a dollar store junker DOA, and another die spectacularly in 3
minutes (lots of smoke and orange burning glow in the ballast housing that
did not stop until I shut off the power).
I have had a couple Lights of America ones get flaky, another die in
just several hours, and an LOA 25 watt spiral from about 2001 die in
only a few hundred operating hours. I also had a couple GE 25 watt
spirals from about 2001 die in a few hundred operating hours.

Next up in life were Osram 13 watt quadtubes with glow switch starters
used in a bathroom, where they get turned on and off a lot. Those mostly
got about twice the life of incandescents. One spiral that I had in a
bathroom had life expectancy along those lines.

I have had over a dozen CFLs get a few thousand hours in household use,
some not yet dead but left behind during a move.

And fires have been caused by them as well. A real worry for those 24/7
lamps.

The only fluorescent lamp caused fire I ever saw (or saw the aftermath
of) was caused by an overheating ballast for a 20 watt linear one when the
lamp failed, then caused the starter to get stuck shorted. That happened
in an elevator in an apartment building.

However, I think the fire risk of dollar store CFLs is worse than the
fire risk of other fluorescents, CFL or standard. One Teng Fei model was
recalled for having the ballast housing being made of non-flame-retardant
plastic. Then again, in my experience the dollar store junkers have worse
color and fall well short of claimed light output.

Certainly not IME. I've had some non electronic starters last over 20 years!

Standard linear fluorescents do generally last longer than CFLs.

Keep in mind that a bad lamp causes extra wear on a starter, and a bad
starter causes extra wear on a lamp. Then again, most fluorescents now
don't use starters.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Eeyore]

I had a dollar store junker DOA, and another die spectacularly in 3
minutes (lots of smoke and orange burning glow in the ballast housing that
did not stop until I shut off the power).

That'll doubtless be a certification failure.

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

"I pity the fool who can't follow a thread!"

Me too, especially those who can't even read the header of the thread they
are posting to.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

But that's the whole point, isn't it ? It's a judgement call, which we in
the electronics business, are better placed to make than the average Joe on
the street. As you rightly say, *some* Chinese-manufactured gear *does*
represent very good value for money - but it need not necessarily be 'cheap'
to fall into that category.

True, by cheap I simply mean cheaper than equivalent items made in
USA/Europe/Australia.

It could be cheap and good or cheap and crap. Or
badged and cheap and good. Or badged and cheap and crap. Or any of the same
combinations but with "expensive" substituted for "cheap".

Naturally. However how many Chinese manufacturers are actually world
*leaders* in quality, rather than value for money?
I don't know of any yet. I'm not saying it won't happen eventually.

Just because it says "Made in China" on the pack, that doesn't automatically
make it crap. By the same token, just because it says "Philips" or "Osram"
on the pack, that doesn't necessarily make it good. Saying both on the
pack - well, what *can* you say ?

That's my point. Others keep claiming just because it says "Phillips" it
MUST be better.
I say I'm not willing to pay more without PROOF. And MY experience proves
otherwise, to me at least.

Maybe, it's not even a make-able judgement call. Perhaps it's just a

lottery

In many cases, yes. Which is why paying more is often a dubious proposition.

MrT.

 

[Eeyore]

Others keep claiming just because it says "Phillips" it MUST be better.

Philips seem to have good QC. That's based on experience. Philips CFLs were once
made in Holland, then in Poland and now in China. I haven't seen quality
decrease.

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

I am personally not terribly happy about 'excessive' government
regulation, excepting that it has given us (here in the US) clean
water, much cleaner air, much safer cars, better drugs (in general),
and a few other benefits such that we all pretty much live better for
it. The brute fact of the matter is that many must be dragged kicking
and screaming to learning and knowledge... and live in a near-constant
state of denial as long as their personal space is not affected. Since
it is manifest that the average human being would like-as-not even
wipe his/her own butt were it not for social consequences, the sad
result is regulation of what should be within the general condition of
that rarest of all commodities: Common Sense.

Which proves the fallacy of your argument. Firstly butt wiping is not
legally mandated, (yet most seem to manage it) secondly Politicians with
common sense is an oxymoron, so why do you think their decisions are any
better?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Philips seem to have good QC. That's based on experience.

You're lucky, that's certainly not my experience.

Philips CFLs were once made in Holland, then in Poland and now in China.
I haven't seen quality decrease.

Nor increase unfortunately.

MrT.

 

[Don Klipstein]

That'll doubtless be a certification failure.

In my experience, most dollar store CFLs do not have any sign of
certification by UL or CSA, nor FCC. Some show the CE symbol.

I am a bit leery of dollar store electrical items anyway. I once got an
extension cord at a dollar store that claimed UL listing, even mentioning
the file number. I believe that cord was not the one that is legitimately
listed with that file number, because it was rated 13 amps and got awfully
warm at 2.5 amps. The wire appeared to me to be about 24 AWG, maybe 26,
and had much higher resistance than normal copper wire of that size.

I got the cord to see how bad it was. I knew better to actually
normally use a dollar store extension cord that claimed a 13 amp rating
and was thinner than 18 AWG lamp cord. I did report it to UL. I now
cannot find that same cord at any dollar store.
I do see at one dollar store another similarly thin extension cord not
claiming certification and rated for 3 amps, and its resistance is in line
with normal copper wire of 24 AWG. If my ohmmeter was reading high due to
contact resistance, the wire could be anywhere from 24 to 20 AWG. I
consider that one unsafe because it could burn up if a load fails short or
worse still fails with decreased impedance drawing increased current but
not tripping your breaker.
Somehow I suspect 18 AWG lamp cord is the thinnest that reasonably
reliably carries the current through a dead short until a usual household
breaker trips or fuse blows. I don't see 18 AWG extension cords but I see
a lot of 16 AWG ones, so I suspect 16 is the thinnest that is "reasonably
safe" against overloads due to load malfunction.

For that matter, based on the usual ratings of 14 and 12 AWG extension
cords (15 and 20 amps respectively), I feel that the 13 amp rating usual
of 16 AWG ones to be a couple amps on the aggressive side. But enough
digressing from CFLs...

- Don Klipstein ([email protected], [email protected])

 

[mc]

In my experience, most dollar store CFLs do not have any sign of
certification by UL or CSA, nor FCC. Some show the CE symbol.

I am a bit leery of dollar store electrical items anyway. I once got an
extension cord at a dollar store that claimed UL listing, even mentioning
the file number. I believe that cord was not the one that is legitimately
listed with that file number, because it was rated 13 amps and got awfully
warm at 2.5 amps. The wire appeared to me to be about 24 AWG, maybe 26,
and had much higher resistance than normal copper wire of that size.

I got the cord to see how bad it was. I knew better to actually
normally use a dollar store extension cord that claimed a 13 amp rating
and was thinner than 18 AWG lamp cord. I did report it to UL. I now
cannot find that same cord at any dollar store.
I do see at one dollar store another similarly thin extension cord not
claiming certification and rated for 3 amps, and its resistance is in line
with normal copper wire of 24 AWG. If my ohmmeter was reading high due to
contact resistance, the wire could be anywhere from 24 to 20 AWG. I
consider that one unsafe because it could burn up if a load fails short or
worse still fails with decreased impedance drawing increased current but
not tripping your breaker.
Somehow I suspect 18 AWG lamp cord is the thinnest that reasonably
reliably carries the current through a dead short until a usual household
breaker trips or fuse blows. I don't see 18 AWG extension cords but I see
a lot of 16 AWG ones, so I suspect 16 is the thinnest that is "reasonably
safe" against overloads due to load malfunction.

For that matter, based on the usual ratings of 14 and 12 AWG extension
cords (15 and 20 amps respectively), I feel that the 13 amp rating usual
of 16 AWG ones to be a couple amps on the aggressive side. But enough
digressing from CFLs...

- Don Klipstein ([email protected], [email protected])

 

[mc]

I am a bit leery of dollar store electrical items anyway. I once got an

extension cord at a dollar store that claimed UL listing, even mentioning
the file number. I believe that cord was not the one that is legitimately
listed with that file number, because it was rated 13 amps and got awfully
warm at 2.5 amps. The wire appeared to me to be about 24 AWG, maybe 26,
and had much higher resistance than normal copper wire of that size.

I got the cord to see how bad it was. I knew better to actually
normally use a dollar store extension cord that claimed a 13 amp rating
and was thinner than 18 AWG lamp cord. I did report it to UL. I now
cannot find that same cord at any dollar store.
I do see at one dollar store another similarly thin extension cord not
claiming certification and rated for 3 amps, and its resistance is in line
with normal copper wire of 24 AWG.

That's the kind of thing your state government would like to know about, if
you're in the USA. Or your local newspaper or TV news reporters.

 

[[email protected]]

Which proves the fallacy of your argument. Firstly butt wiping is not
legally mandated, (yet most seem to manage it) secondly Politicians with
common sense is an oxymoron, so why do you think their decisions are any
better?

MrT.

You are a piece of work ;-)>. Fallacy of my "argument"? If the
refutation and/or fallacy is based on your last statement, that would
be (and being very specific) the fallacy of "false premises" on your
part as to the quality of politicians, and "leaping to conclusions" on
the 'firstly' part. There are only seven fallacies, you are off to a
very good start.

As to how things work here in the US... as it happens, politicians
make very damned few 'decisions', that would be very dangerous
behavior. What they do is make laws. The regulations that enforce
those laws, together with the interpretations, decisions and so forth
are made by bureaucrats sitting in some cubicle somewhere. Mostly
those individuals live and work much as the rest of us and have the
same general interests as much of the rest of us, and want the same
things as much of the rest of us. So, by guess and by God and by
great good luck, we do get largely what we deserve both in our
politicians and in the results of their efforts. If you detect an
undercurrent of cynicism... well, you are not far off. But there are
results.

But the brute fact is that I have seen three major rivers local to me
turn from open cesspools to clean, living rivers, air that I once
could cut with a knife and had to leave the windows closed against
soot become clean... And I live in a state that remains a net-exporter
of energy to this day and the one where the very first oil well was
drilled in 1859, and had the distinction of being perhaps the most
polluted state in the United States in the 1950s, running in a close
contest with Ohio. In Cleveland, Ohio, the Cuyahoga River actually
caught fire once upon a time.

So, don't hold it against me that I have the wit to actually pay
attention to the lamps (and appliances, utilities, vehicles and so
forth) that I purchase and do so in an informed and thoughtful way...
in other words, I wipe my butt. That would be the point and in
refutation of your statement that 'most people seem to manage'...
actually, they do not. Example... one who purchases a Hummer for the
macho image while driving around on city streets. A definite lack of
butt-wiping skills there. And you may derive from there with many more
examples.... one who drives 22 miles round-trip to save $0.05 per
pound on chicken, and buys five pounds. Oh, and when they go they take
the Hummer, not the Prius... and so forth.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[[email protected]]

That is for 3 hours per start in a 25 degree C ambient. This is the
actual industry standard for fluorescents. I think that a more
appropriate one for incandescent-replacement CFLs should be 1 hour per
start in a 40 degree C ambient.

104F ambient? I spend 2.5 years in Saudi Arabia (eastern province) and
we seldom saw those temperatures steady-state outside of July and
August.

BTW, ALL of our common-area and exterior lamps there were PL-types,
mostly GE, and in 2.5 years across 295 residences (villas and
apartments), 100,000 square feet of office, two schools, four gyms and
two supermarkets, we purchased less than 144 lamps.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Me too, especially those who can't even read the header of the thread they
are posting to.

MrT.

Sigh. Snipping things that you don't agree with? You're no "Mister
"T". PLONK.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Mr.T]

Sigh. Snipping things that you don't agree with?

So you can't remember what you wrote, and it's total irrelevance to the
current discussion? Try Google then.

PLONK.

Good riddance.

MrT.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <[email protected]>,

104F ambient? I spend 2.5 years in Saudi Arabia (eastern province) and
we seldom saw those temperatures steady-state outside of July and August.

Check out the temperature of the air or the inner surface of the "cup"
in the "base end of the cup" of the "cups" (I don't know what to call
them) of ceiling fan fixtures when a CFL has been running there at least
15 minutes.

Same story for small enclosed fixtures. For that matter, not-so-small
enclosed fixtures are good for a good 10 degrees C difference between
"ambient temperature for the CFL" and "ambient temperature outside the
fixture".

Same or worse still with recessed ceiling fixtures. Keep in mind that
IR-sensing non-contact thermometers do not read bare metal well, but do
read masking tape well.

For that matter, see how air is sometimes a little warmer within a few
inches of the ceiling than elsewhere in the room when lights are running.

Also consider that temperature 15 degrees high increases wear rate more
than temperature 15 degrees low decreases wear rate.

BTW, ALL of our common-area and exterior lamps there were PL-types,
mostly GE, and in 2.5 years across 295 residences (villas and
apartments), 100,000 square feet of office, two schools, four gyms and
two supermarkets, we purchased less than 144 lamps.

Is this in PA or in Saudi Arabia?

Is this at a rate of 1 lamp serving more than two residences and about
690 square feet of office space in addition to about 1.4% of a school plus
about 2.8% of a gym and about 1.4% of a supermarket?
Is this a claimed burnout rate per 2.5 years? Two residences, 690
square feet of office space, 1.4% of a school, 1.4% of a supermarket and
2.8% of a gym combined burn out CFLs at a rate less than 1 a year even
with CFL for all "common area and exterior" lighting? Or is this going to
go up after the first 2.5 years?

Also, I expect PL types to usually outlast screw-base types in many
areas.
As for downsides of PL compared to screw-base ones with electronic
ballasts:
1) Nominal wattage of screw-base includes ballast losses while this is
not the case with PL. Add about 3 watts for PL. However, this is
probably not much of an issue, especially not with the 9-watt one (whose
effeciency after ballast losses is only a little worse than that of
screw-base electronic-ballasted ones of nominal wattage 10 watts or less).
2) In my experience, warm color PLs tend to be purplish-pinkish worse
than most screw-base ones (especially screw base ones 19 watts or less).
I find some correlation betwee this and ballast type, with electronic
ballasts resulting in a more yellowish color and non-electronic ballasts
giving a more pinkish color.
3) Some fixtures do not work as well with PLs optically as with
spirals, because PLs in general less resemble incandescents in light
source shape/size/location than spirals do.
4) With more frequent starting, in my experience PLs have worse extra
wear than most CFLs with electronic ballasts. I suspect the glow switch
starter causes starting wear for each "blink" as well as for the starting
attempt that takes hold.

If the color is OK with you, you don't have frequent starting, the light
distribution is OK and all that good stuff, then you are probably better
off with PL than with spirals. PLs don't have built-in disposable
ballasts.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Mr.T]

Check out the temperature of the air or the inner surface of the "cup"
in the "base end of the cup" of the "cups" (I don't know what to call
them) of ceiling fan fixtures when a CFL has been running there at least
15 minutes.

That would not normally be descibed as "ambient temperature" then.

Same story for small enclosed fixtures. For that matter, not-so-small
enclosed fixtures are good for a good 10 degrees C difference between
"ambient temperature for the CFL" and "ambient temperature outside the
fixture".

Or far more accurately, (and far less confusing) the enclosure temperature
and the room temperature.

MrT.

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Klipstein" wrote ...

That would not normally be descibed as "ambient temperature" then.

It *IS* the "ambient temperature" for the CFL
(which is all that matters in this discussion.)

Or far more accurately, (and far less confusing) the enclosure temperature
and the room temperature.

The "enclosure temperature" *IS* the "ambient temperature"
for the lamp. Whether the rest of the locale is -40F or +135F
makes no difference to the discussion.

 

[[email protected]]

...







It *IS* the "ambient temperature" for the CFL
(which is all that matters in this discussion.)



The "enclosure temperature" *IS* the "ambient temperature"
for the lamp. Whether the rest of the locale is -40F or +135F
makes no difference to the discussion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are two ambient temperatures to consider. First, that at start-
up... that would seldom be anything near 40C. Then, there is ambient
during operation. And that would depend on the nature of the enclosure
(if any). My direct experience is that all of our CFL-type lamps may
be handled without discomfort at any time during operation, base and
tube.

That would be meaningfully cooler than any similar brightness
(irrespective of wattage) incandescent.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[[email protected]]

So you can't read, no surprise there I guess.
If you could you would have read at least three times that I am quite happy
with standard long fluro tubes.
They last longer, give off a better spread of light, and cost even less to
run per lumen.



Yes, pity they ALL seem to be shit.
If the situation is different in your country, then good luck to you.



I have to laugh since I am the total opposite of a luddite. I readily
embrace new technology that is ACTUALLY better than what already exists.
That is certainly not the case when comparing CFL's to the very old
technology long fluoro tube.
Hopefully improvements on CFL technology may change the situation for the
better in future. In the meantime I will let you fund the current consumer
trials, they have already used too much of my money.

MrT.

At no time were we comparing CFLs to tube-type fluorescents, there is
no comparison there. We were comparing CFLs to equivalent
incandescents as replacement options.

One more fallacious and diversionary argument on your part. The bottom
line is that at this point, our CFLs (& PLs) have more than paid for
themselves in power-saved as a measurable dollars-and-cents result. If
every one of them failed tomorrow, we would still be ahead of the
game. Of course, they will not, so we are continuing to "for-free" at
this point (as compared to incandescents), quite far from subsidizing
experimentation. Put more realistically, the tilt-point is long since
in favor of the CFLs, now we are operating at +/- 28% of similar
lighting costs if incandescent.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA