Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[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

 

[Arfa Daily]

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

But also factor in the many more processes and transport movements to make
that one CFL. The PCB material has to be made. That then has to be shipped
to a PCB manufacturer, and from there to the lamp manufacturer. All of the
components on the PCB have to be made and shipped, and the materials to make
*them* made and shipped. Just think of an electrolytic cap for instance,
There's aluminium, steel, nickel, copper, rubber, paper, acid. Switching
tranny has copper, ferrite, steel, nickel, glue. Semicons have similar
metals plus silicon plus doping agents plus plastic. Every one of those
items has it's own manufacturing processes, spread all over the world, all
using energy, and no doubt creating their own pollutants. Plus workers that
have to be transported to and from a factory that has to be kept warm ( or
air-co'd ) and lit. They also have to be fed whilst they are there. Each
transport operation is another inefficient energy user, as the weight of the
transporting vehicle has to be shifted every time, as well as the load it is
carrying. Shifting the weight of a ship or aircraft is significant compared
to the weight of cargo it carries. Once all of those parts have arrived at
Philips or wherever, then they have to be assembled up into a CFL. I don't
really see how this whole process doesn't constitute "exporting pollution"
??

Also factor in the 'proper' recycling that is going to have to be done in
order for them to comply with the WEEE directive which already exists, but
for some reason, does not seem to be being applied to these devices at this
time. Clearly, the energy budget calculation for the manufacturing, lifetime
use, and disposal of these CFLs is very complex and probably almost
impossible to actually do with any accuracy but, when it comes down to it,
I'm willing to bet that there would not actually be much in it when compared
to manufacturing, using and disposing of 10 incandescents with their very
limited materials, processes and transport counts.

Unfortunately, these lamps are just another example of eco-hype, where it is
very easy to fool the average punter ( and politician, it would seem ) with
a bit of pseudo science regarding their apparent 'green' credentials with
regard to power consumption and lifetime. I don't dispute that they have
their place, and in pure terms of how much money they are going to take out
of my pocket in running costs, they almost certainly win over incandescents.
However, as others have mentioned, the light that they produce is not very
pleasant to 'use', nor is it very decorative, no matter how the
manufacturers mix up the phosphors to try to match the colour temperature of
an incandescent. Also, as Don says, where the useage period is short, and
there is not enough time for them to warm up properly, or where instant full
light is required, as when entering a room in the dark, they are less than
satisfactory. This problem is exacerbated in Northern Europe winters, where
it is both dark AND cold ...

Arfa

 

[Phil Allison]

"Don Pearce"

Very revealing table here, though.

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

120V incandescents are much better than 240V incandescents.

** That table says no such thing - fool.




........ Phil

 

[Mr.T]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Mr.T]

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?

In Australia the "reputable makes" are simply rebadged Chinese shit as well.
Are you sure you are not simply being fooled as well?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

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.

I have a brand new, unused, DEAD, Phillips CFL right here.
Marked made in China just like the rest.
What's so good about that?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

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

Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.

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.

Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

So far, I haven't seen any reliable figures for end-to-end engy usage on CFLs,
just consumption and lifetime.

I haven't seen any "RELIABLE figures" for those either.

MrT.

 

[Eeyore]

"Arfa Daily" wrote



In Australia the "reputable makes" are simply rebadged Chinese shit as well.
Are you sure you are not simply being fooled as well?

I'd like to know if you've tried a Philips CFL.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Eeyore" wrote


Ony for a good one at the start of it's life. They get even dimmer with use
though.


Me too, and those equally silly 8,000 hour claims.

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have lasted a
long, long time.

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

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.

Thanks for explaining why we get less life from them. Pity our distributors
claims seem to be based on globes not for sale (or general use) in
Australia. It suits their agenda, and no-one seems to have the power/will to
make them do otherwise.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

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.

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.

And the relevence to the current discussion is ..... ????????

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

I haven't been counting the precise hours but the ones I've had have lasted a
long, long time.

120V, or 240V like we have here?
Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years or
more.
I know which I prefer!

MrT.

 

[James Sweet]

120V, or 240V like we have here?
Mine never last a year, standard fluoro tubes however last for 10 years or
more.
I know which I prefer!

MrT.

The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.

Some are crap and fail quickly, others last years. Start cycles seems to
have a large effect on life, the ones that are in dusk till dawn lights
outdoors have lasted me to or beyond their rated life, save for one that
failed in the first couple weeks.

Full size fluorescent tubes do last a long time, though the ballast is the
reason for most of this. CFL ballasts are just not robust, they're built to
be disposable.

 

[Mr.T]

I'd like to know if you've tried a Philips CFL.

Why don't you read what I have already written then?

IF you CAN read this, I will repeat once again, I have tried MANY Phillips
badged CFL's, of at least 3 different types.
NONE were any bloody good, one was DOA brand new! You're welcome to come
collect it and test it for yourself!
I'm NOT buying any more of their overpriced shite.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

The only difference between 120V and 240V CFLs is the configuration of the
rectifier and filter capacitor(s) on the input.

Which do fail.

Some are crap and fail quickly, others last years.

Never had one that lasted "years", and I've used dozens.
12-18 months is the best I've had, zero being the worst.

Start cycles seems to
have a large effect on life,

Of course, and turning off lights when not in use saves more power than
leaving CFL's on.

the ones that are in dusk till dawn lights
outdoors have lasted me to or beyond their rated life, save for one that
failed in the first couple weeks.

Wow, and how much power can you save by turning them off?
My outdoor lights are solar powered.

Full size fluorescent tubes do last a long time, though the ballast is the
reason for most of this. CFL ballasts are just not robust, they're built to
be disposable.

Not all. I did buy a two part CFL once, and when the tube failed, no
replacements are available.
Back to standard tubes for me!

MrT.