Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[[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

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

I'm somewhat skeptical of the explanation with respect to inductive or
capacitive coupling (though possible under just the right - or wrong -
conditions)

In the UK, it's common to drill holes in floor joists and run several
circuits through them, including lighting (6A) and ring (32A) circuits.
Thus a long length of ring main cable running alongside the lighting
circuit in question would easily be sufficient to induce some current
flow in the lighting circuit. This is where the energy comes from to
cause the CFL to charge up and flash.

To the OP: it's entirely normal and not indicative of a fault at all.
You only need to do something if the flashing bothers you.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

uk.d-i-y is a more appropriate group, where this phenomenon has been
discussed several times. A fix has also been posted several times.

 

[Eeyore]

In the UK, it's common to drill holes in floor joists and run several
circuits through them, including lighting (6A) and ring (32A) circuits.
Thus a long length of ring main cable running alongside the lighting
circuit in question would easily be sufficient to induce some current
flow in the lighting circuit.

Not mA worth though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

uk.d-i-y is a more appropriate group, where this phenomenon has been
discussed several times. A fix has also been posted several times.

Would you care to share with us ?

Graham

 

[Arfa Daily]

Would you care to share with us ?

Graham

Got home tonight, and the one CFL that I am running in the outside light,
has gone off. I would guess that it has done about 1000 hours. It is a
Philips one. I might try to get the time to whip it out tomorrow, and see
what has happened to it

Arfa

 

[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

 

[Arfa Daily]

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

I thought I was reasonably intelligent, but I gotta admit that I didn't
understand a word of the last half a dozen lines of that reply ...

Arfa

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

[snippit]

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

I thought I was reasonably intelligent, but I gotta admit that I
didn't understand a word of the last half a dozen lines of that reply
...

Arfa

Second time for me, and I'm still no wiser. It seems to have the general
tenor of talk that throws around terms like 'leverage', as a noun, and
'value-add', as a verb. Or a noun, I forget which. Do people really talk
like that? Makes me glad I'm a recluse.

 

[Mr.T]

At no time were we comparing CFLs to tube-type fluorescents,

Yes I did, maybe you missed it.

there is no comparison there.

So true!

One more fallacious and diversionary argument on your part.

Your name calling does not make you the sole person responsible for setting
discussion parameters on Usenet.

When *I* make a choice, I do not eliminate the best options just because
they don't suit YOUR arguments.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

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.

Sure, if your object is to confuse people, then not spelling out exactly
what you mean is a great way to do it.

MrT.

 

[Eeyore]

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.

There are plenty of countries where you'll find an ambient temp close to 40C.
Imagine they want CFLs too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I thought I was reasonably intelligent, but I gotta admit that I didn't
understand a word of the last half a dozen lines of that reply ...

Arfa

I'm certainly puzzled by the +/- 28% bit !

Graham