Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Phil Allison]

"Eeysore ASD retarded MORON"

Not wrong.

** Its a whole lot worse that just wrong.

It is massively asinine, autistic fuckwit think.

The only kind the Graham Stevenson menace ever does.




........ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

The basic premise is "Life-time Costs". I will not use your "most
common 60W incandescent" as my basis, but rather the 100W lamp as it
lends itself to round numbers.

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

Assumptions:
I will ignore the Chinese-Junque mass-market crap just as I avoid
those same sources for incandescent lamps.

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.

c) I will point to where I obtain my lamps, and the cost, and the
published service-life, mean-average lumens and so forth.

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

My source
will, without question, accept and replace without cost any lamp that
fails within the specified lifetime.

Lucky you.

d) The cost of electricity from PECO at present at our location, RS-1
rate is ~$0.145/kwh, delivered. That is 1000 wats for one hour.

e) Tungsten-filament lamps are about 6% efficient (and that is being
generous as they age), so in 100 watts, 6 are emitted as visible
light, 94 as heat.

f) CLF/PL lamps are ~23% - ~26% efficient depending on ballast losses.
We will use 23% as it most favors Phil. So, that means a 28 watt CFL
will give as much visible light as a 100 watt tungsten-filament lamp.

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

g) We will ignore halogen lamps for any number of reasons, mostly
because excepting miniature LV reading-type lamps, they are not
commonly used for general lighting.

Unfortunately they are used in large numbers in Australia.

We purchase, in our house, either this:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1E563
or the "75-watt" version thereof. The specifications are given for
fair comparison to:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/5V600
So. It will take sixteen (16) 100-watt lamps to equal one (1) CLF
lamp.

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.

 

[Mr.T]

Put more simply, the equation in favor of CFL/PL Lamps only

..... happens if you compare 16 globes with one CFL to try and make your case


MrT.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not wrong.

Graham

Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.


--
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]

Then you've never been in a TV studio

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.
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.
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.

MrT.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Not wrong.

Graham

Yes it is. Most of the heat is radiant. Just because the intensity falls
off fourfold per unit distance doesn't mean the energy vanishes. Even if
you consider the ceiling covering nearly half of the volume through which
heat tries to radiate through, the shallow angle of incidence means that
most of that reflects to join the rest to warm the walls and anything else
it can reach. The small amount of heat above the lamp is from convection,
and keeping the bulb clean will help to let the heat radiate more
efficiently and usefully.

Cieling heat isn't useless in heating a room anyway. While I think it IS a
bit daft, I remember a house I visited a few times as a kid, it had a low
temperature heater in the entire ceiling of one room. It was very low-grade
heat, but it still warned the room. I felt it on my face when I looked up
at it. Less so while sitting, but not much, because the area was so large.
Similarly, a lightbulb radiating across a ceiling adds heat usefully to the
whole room. More in fact (proportionally), because more of it is radiated
than conducted away above.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

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

It is, and it's not wise. It places stresses on the body, strong enough to
make it ill. I remember getting into the strong localised heat one winter.
I ended up shivering if I moved away to another room, even if moving out of
the direct radiance. Going outside felt terrible. I had headaches and flu-
like symptoms. It was one of the more stupid experiments I ever tried.

It's far better to live with a well-spread heat source that doesn't cause
strong changes. That way the body can maintain thermal equilibrium and stay
safe, the immune system strengthens, and going outside is an easy extension
of internal activity. It makes it easier to get used to wider extremes.

If I have to use a radiant heater, I point it at distant furnishings at low
level but not at me. Most times I now rely on convection and low-grade
radiation from electrical devices, relying on their waste heat and on good
home insulation but also good ventilation. In short, anything that produces
heat but no strong thermal gradients. I've found it the most healthy way to
get heating done. A single strong lamp in the centre of the ceiling fits
into that well enough.

 

[Eeyore]

Then you've never been in a TV studio, Donkey.

It's a hell of a lot hotter up where the lamps are.

Besides, TV spotlights are hardly a valid comparison with ordinary domestic lighting.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

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.

I have one of those. It's quite nice in the winter.

Graham

 

[[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

 

[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

 

[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