Re: Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote


Don't be daft, I don't exist in a vaccuum! I already posted, at LENGTH,
that it's healthier to avoid excessive thermal gradients focussed on our
own bodies. I'm sure you disagree, but by now that's because it's me saying
it, isn't it? Nothing to do with actual science.

I don't understand your objection to direct radiant heat.

In any event if you were intentionally adding heating you wouldn't locate it on
the ceiling !

Graham

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

In any event if you were intentionally adding heating you wouldn't
locate it on the ceiling !

I take it that big post of mine never got through... I described a house
where that is exactly what had been done. I don't think it's a great idea,
but it's more effective than you'd think. The sun doesn't add heat to the
earth from below, either.

 

[[email protected]]

Do you need a new calculator, or is that necessary for your argument?


Which is silly because I find the 40 cent incandescents last just fine since
there is so little to get wrong.
The same does not apply to CFL's though.


First mistake. To be a real comparison you have to make *measurements* of
your own. Not accept blindly the bullshit offered by manufacturers.


Lucky you.




One needs to compare the actual lumens emmitted over the life of the lamp,
rather than use *possible* efficiency figures.


Unfortunately they are used in large numbers in Australia.


What the hell happened to the....
"a 28 watt CFL will give as much visible light as a 100 watt
tungsten-filament lamp"

Since one inc. bulb is often used in a centre mounted light fitting, now do
the figures for a single 100W bulb and a single 28watt CFL using actual
measured lifetimes and measured lumens, using various on/off duty cycles for
comparison.

<snip irrelevant figures which bear no relationship to his initial
assumptions.>

MrT.

OK.... you and Allison are more than welcome to give your money to the
power companies and the fossil-fuel companies and so forth. Far be it
from me to confuse your closely-held beliefs with anything outside
your (very) limited experience. Writing for myself and my family, I
would much prefer having the extra cash to spend on more enjoyable
pursuits.

As to the source of lamps, if you buy shit at shit prices, you will
get shit, and generally, shit is a waste of time and frustrating. So,
if you are going to base your pathological and fanatical distrust of
new technology on shit and anecdote, I wish you well as you impoverish
yourself. And given the general basis of your arguments, you would
prefer a rock over a hammer, as the cheap Chinese hammer you bought at
the dollar store shattered the first time you used it.

Luddites abound even after the advent of the power loom, it seems.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

 

[Chris Jones]

** So fucking what ?

God you stinking YANKS are so fucking parochial.

Actually, I think that this is a bit hypocritical. Australia is VERY
UNUSUAL in having a lot of very cheap coal-generated electricity, so cheap
that in Australia the general public does not even recognise that resistive
electric heating is stupid. In most developed countries, the cost of
electricity is higher and therefore more efficient methods of heating (such
as heat pumps or even just burning fossil fuel directly in the house - and
avoiding the pathetic 35% efficiency of power stations) - are much more
common.

If the low efficiency and consequent heat generation of filament bulbs ie an
"advantage" to you, then exactly how low would you like the efficiency to
be, for the ideal light bulb? Perhaps you could paint half of the bulb
black, to reduce the efficiency further, in you "better" bulb, and fit a
black lamp shade, and wear sunglasses....Then you could install ten times
more wattage of lamps and your lighting would be ideal...

I agree with some of your other criticisms of at least some CFLs, and I
think that a ban on incandescent bulbs is stupid, but this idea that the
low efficiency (and consequent heat generation) of incandescent bulbs is a
good thing just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and being rude won't make you right, by the way.

Chris

 

[Arfa Daily]

OK.... you and Allison are more than welcome to give your money to the
power companies and the fossil-fuel companies and so forth. Far be it
from me to confuse your closely-held beliefs with anything outside
your (very) limited experience. Writing for myself and my family, I
would much prefer having the extra cash to spend on more enjoyable
pursuits.

As to the source of lamps, if you buy shit at shit prices, you will
get shit, and generally, shit is a waste of time and frustrating. So,
if you are going to base your pathological and fanatical distrust of
new technology on shit and anecdote, I wish you well as you impoverish
yourself. And given the general basis of your arguments, you would
prefer a rock over a hammer, as the cheap Chinese hammer you bought at
the dollar store shattered the first time you used it.

Luddites abound even after the advent of the power loom, it seems.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

There seems to be a point being missed here though. Governments are trying
to force these things on us. So they are now appearing in shops at very
cheap prices. That includes both 'reputable' makes, which must be being
subsidised by the manufacturers or somebody in the supply chain, as well as
'no names' that probably are Chinese manufactured shit. How is Joe Public to
know which he is buying, when they are all the same price?

Arfa

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Hey you're both partly right. As it generates heat, it will add *something*
to the room temperature. But if the fitting is at ceiling height, and since
hot air rises, it is not an efficient way to warm the part of the room that
humans inhabit. And if you don't have ceiling insulation, it will do even
less.

Military TV station in Alaska in the early '70s: Halogen studio
lights at the ceiling, and less than half in use at any one time. In the
winter I would open the back door to the studio to allow the sub zero
air into the studio to keep it below 80 degrees. In the summer, the
talking heads did the news in a dress uniform shirt and jacket, and
their underwear, because there was no air conditioning.

It's normally considered far better to place electric radiant heaters at
floor level, and relatively close to humans.

Of course the radiant heat from studio lamps is far greater than normal
domestic bulbs, but I wouldn't want to be paying for the electricity they
use either.

Newer studio cameras need less light than the older models. That
reduces studio operating costs, and mantainenece costs, as well.

Even bathroom heat lamps are mirror backed to project the heat downwards,
and they are a pretty inefficient heating method regardless. Fortunately
they are only designed to be used for short periods.

Its stupid NOT to have a reflector on any ceiling mounted lamp. When
it comes to studio lighting, there are different types of fixtues to
choose from. The choice depends on the lighting pattern that is
required. Also, small studio spotlights are used with brass Gobos to
project patterens on the studio walls. The last custom one I made was a
Shamrock, for an Irish preacher, who was visiting WACX TV.

http://www.sfxdesigninc.com/v2/ for examples of stock Gobos.


--
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

 

[Eeyore]

As to the source of lamps, if you buy shit at shit prices, you will
get shit, and generally, shit is a waste of time and frustrating. So,
if you are going to base your pathological and fanatical distrust of
new technology on shit and anecdote, I wish you well as you impoverish
yourself. And given the general basis of your arguments, you would
prefer a rock over a hammer, as the cheap Chinese hammer you bought at
the dollar store shattered the first time you used it.

I couldn't agree more re: the 'shit'.

Apart from 3 'cheapy' CFLs I bought last year and one I bought recently with a
5000k colour temp to try out (these seem to be quite rare), all of mine have been
Philips or Osram and all of these have worked perfectly, giving decent light
output and long life. None of these has stopped working in a cloud of smoke or
melted a fitting either. One is also used outside and does work in zero C
temperatures (another classic complaint).

The 'cheapies' work perfectly well too as it happens.

Whilst I'm a CFL 'fan' I am nevertheless anti compulsion wrt 'banning'
incandescent bulbs.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

There seems to be a point being missed here though. Governments are trying
to force these things on us. So they are now appearing in shops at very
cheap prices. That includes both 'reputable' makes, which must be being
subsidised by the manufacturers or somebody in the supply chain, as well as
'no names' that probably are Chinese manufactured shit. How is Joe Public to
know which he is buying, when they are all the same price?

Most ppl I know recognise the Philips brand name. These are the ones that seem
to be being subsidised, currently 39p each in Morrisons with an E-on (power
company) logo.


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I take it that big post of mine never got through... I described a house
where that is exactly what had been done.

It's a very odd idea indeed.

I don't think it's a great idea, but it's more effective than you'd think. The
sun doesn't add heat to the earth from below, either.

Neither does it do so in these latitudes from above.
Graham

 

[Don Pearce]

I couldn't agree more re: the 'shit'.

Apart from 3 'cheapy' CFLs I bought last year and one I bought recently with a
5000k colour temp to try out (these seem to be quite rare), all of mine have been
Philips or Osram and all of these have worked perfectly, giving decent light
output and long life. None of these has stopped working in a cloud of smoke or
melted a fitting either. One is also used outside and does work in zero C
temperatures (another classic complaint).

The 'cheapies' work perfectly well too as it happens.

Whilst I'm a CFL 'fan' I am nevertheless anti compulsion wrt 'banning'
incandescent bulbs.

Graham

There are places you really want to keep incandescent bulbs. I use one
in the lavatory, because generally at night the light will only be on
for a few seconds - nothing like long enough for a CFL to reach its
proper brightness. Also in the main living rooms I have tried CFLs and
rejected them because the light they give is just too unpleasant to
live with. I use CFLs in the hallway and on the upstairs landing. That
will do.

d

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Neither does it do so in these latitudes from above.

Hell, right now it barely shines at all. >

 

[Eeyore]

Also in the main living rooms I have tried CFLs and rejected them because the light
they give is just too unpleasant to live with.

Even with the current 'warm white' types ?

Graham

 

[Don Pearce]

Even with the current 'warm white' types ?

Graham

Yup. For me they have never felt warm - just dim. They put me in mind
of wartime and rationing.

d

 

[Eeyore]

Yup. For me they have never felt warm - just dim. They put me in mind
of wartime and rationing.

Well, they *are* dimmer than conventional incandescents. I've always found the idea that
they use 1/5 the power misleading. Those comparisons were made with 'softone' bulbs.

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and 1200 lumens for a
20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter than a standard
40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Graham

 

[Don Pearce]

Well, they *are* dimmer than conventional incandescents. I've always found the idea that
they use 1/5 the power misleading. Those comparisons were made with 'softone' bulbs.

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and 1200 lumens for a
20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter than a standard
40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Graham

I noticed that from the start. They never stood up to the brightness
claims they made about them, but it isn't even just that. There is
something dingy in the quality of light that isn't fixed by going up
in power.

d

 

[Eeyore]

I noticed that from the start. They never stood up to the brightness
claims they made about them, but it isn't even just that. There is
something dingy in the quality of light that isn't fixed by going up
in power.

It's some time since I did a side by side comparison. I shall do so again.

Graham

 

[Don Pearce]

Well, they *are* dimmer than conventional incandescents. I've always found the idea that
they use 1/5 the power misleading. Those comparisons were made with 'softone' bulbs.

You need at least a 23W CFL to match the output of a 100W incandescent.

The table here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_lamp#Power

Shows a 100W incandescent providing 1700 lumens.

In comparison some new CFLs I have claim only 1100 lumens for an 18W and 1200 lumens for a
20W.

The 11W CFLs claim 600 lumens and that makes them only slightly brighter than a standard
40W bulb instead of equivalent to a 60W as claimed.

I do wish they wouldn't make these silly claims for them.

Graham

Very revealing table here, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

120V incandescents are much better than 240V incandescents. I guess it
is that they will use a shorter, fatter filament that will support a
much higher temperature without breaking. LV halogens look good.

d

 

[Serge Auckland]

I noticed that from the start. They never stood up to the brightness
claims they made about them, but it isn't even just that. There is
something dingy in the quality of light that isn't fixed by going up
in power.

d

That's pretty much my (or at least, my wife's) view. She can't stand the
light they give, much prefers halogens for reading and incandescents for
background lighting. Ths was part of the reason why I was trying to find out
if converting to CFLs would really help reduce energy use, or just move the
energy equation from UK electricity use at home to Chinese energy usage in
the factory, which is most likely produced from dirtier sources. So far, I
haven't seen any reliable figures for end-to-end engy usage on CFLs, just
consumption and lifetime.

S.

 

[Eeyore]

Very revealing table here, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

120V incandescents are much better than 240V incandescents. I guess it
is that they will use a shorter, fatter filament that will support a
much higher temperature without breaking. LV halogens look good.

Yes, exactly.

Philips have indeed put a low voltage halogen 'capsule' inside a standard bulb and run it from
120/240V using a small internal SMPS.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_...main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

It's supposed to be on sale later this year AIUI.

GE are doing something similar too it seems.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/...cent-light-bulb-that-matches-cfls-efficiency/

As you say, running the filament at a lower voltage allows a higher filament temp which leads
to higher efficiency. The next step is to use IR reflecting coatings to reduce the power needed
to keep the filament at those temperatures. These coatings are in use only on specialist bulbs
right now it seems.

Google "HIR lamp" or "ir reflecting halogen".

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

That's pretty much my (or at least, my wife's) view. She can't stand the
light they give, much prefers halogens for reading and incandescents for
background lighting. Ths was part of the reason why I was trying to find out
if converting to CFLs would really help reduce energy use, or just move the
energy equation from UK electricity use at home to Chinese energy usage in
the factory, which is most likely produced from dirtier sources. So far, I
haven't seen any reliable figures for end-to-end engy usage on CFLs, just
consumption and lifetime.

A 23W CFL will save 462 kWh over a 100W incandescent during a typical low end
6000 hour lifetime. Adjust upwards for 12,000 and 15,000 hour examples.

There's no question of simply 'exporting pollution'. Also, don't forget to
factor in the energy to make anywhere between 6 and 15 incandescent bulbs for
every CFL.

Graham