Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Serge Auckland]

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our
lives. All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up
as a response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands.
At the moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment'
or 'global warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to
its 'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new
bits of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to
justify what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of
scientists getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to
promote the government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one
form of alleged pollution, for another definite one ...

Arfa

Arfa

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.
Putting in a low-energy lamp mean that there is less heat being put into the
room, and consequently, more heat has to be supplied externally. The only
way that Low Energy lighting makes a positive difference is if people change
their lamps when they stop using external heating. As in Northern Europe we
usually have to have our heating on for at least 7 months of the year,
typically 8 months, low energy lighting doesn't make a lot of sense. Also,
how much energy does it take to make a low-energy lamp compared with a
conventional one? When this is factored in, together with the extra energy
required to dispose of it safely, I doubt very much whether low-energy
lighting helps at all.

S.

 

[Eeyore]

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

 

[David]

"Eeyore"
<[email protected]>
wrote in message

That's sort of fine if you want extra
heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is
that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large
amount).

No, that's no excuse for low
efficiency lighting.

Graham

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country. If it was not subsidized
by the taxpayers, no one would use it.
The 3% number is higher if you only
consider the energy from oil, but we are
looking for solutions for the CO2
problem and you have to count all fossil
fuels including natural gas and coal.
Where are we going to get the holy grail
of hydrogen for our cars? Yes, it takes
energy to create it. Solar cells for
home use are another myth. It takes more
energy to produce the solar panels,
batteries, and all of the auxiliary
equipment than the system will ever
generate. Large scale applications in
areas with high solar illumination have
a much better equation. I could go on,
but you get the idea.

The switch to more efficient lighting is
a good conversation measure, but the
energy production area is where the hype
sets in. In general energy use is
directly proportional to population and
standard of living. The best way to save
energy to reduce one or both of those.
Alternatively we could create the
necessary energy form nuclear power
which has essentially zero carbon
emissions.

David

 

[Seán O'Leathlóbhair]

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our lives.
All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up as a
response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands. At the
moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment' or 'global
warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to its
'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new bits
of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to justify
what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of scientists
getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to promote the
government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one form of alleged
pollution, for another definite one ...

I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

 

[Eeyore]

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country.

The idea of making ethanol fuel from corn is unique to the USA. I hear ADM
regularly named as the culprit here.

Far better to use feedstock that doesn't require intensive agriculture.

Is your newsreader set to a line length of about 30 chars or so btw ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

The low energy bulbs cost considerably more.

I can buy 11 and 18W Philips CFLs for 39p (78 cents US) in the local supermarket.
I think they're subsidised by the local electricity company in some 'green'
initiative.

A traditional incandescent costs about the same or more.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

from other sources. However, even here in the UK

You're in the UK !

Go to Morrisons for the cheap Philips CFLs.

Graham

 

[Seán O'Leathlóbhair]

You're in the UK !

Go to Morrisons for the cheap Philips CFLs.

Graham

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Serge Auckland]

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

Agreed , but cost isn't part of my argument, energy usage is. The end to end
energy costs of low energy lighting, that is, the energy to make them, use
them and dispose of them compared with conventional filament lighting isn't
at all clear. I have not seen any such figures published, only for the
energy consumption in use, which is clearly lower, but again, the energy
re-use as heat doesn't seem to be taken into account in any calculation I've
seen..

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

It's not an excuse, but to me the case isn't completely made. In my own
home, any light that is on for more than an hour a day is a low energy
light, but that's more an act of faith on my part rather than a soundly
calculated decision.

S.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly
than other heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted. Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.

 

[R!]

I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

I think CFL's just don't wash..

I have bought several in various price ranges...

The really cheep ones only last about 3 months...

The medium priced ones last about 1 year to 18 months.

The one I paid the most for has been going for about 5 years.

Based on this it only makes sense to buy the longest lasting ones...

At $22.00 US I could buy aproximately 88, 60W 120V lamps.

Which gives me 88,000 hours of light.

The life of the lamp that has lated five years was promoted at

30,000 hours...

So that makes the inital cost about 1.5 times as much as the standard
bulb.

I also use 2, 100w 120 lamps as a heat source to keep the water pipes
from freezing in really cold weather...

I haven't figured out a safer or more economical way to heat a 5' x 5'
pump house.

R!

 

[Ray King]

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated. The mercury issue can be
solved as suerage is now. This could be fixed overnight.
Almost all of the CFLs will be made in Asia. Not many are made in the US
now. Asia competes with Europe. The US is not in the running. The best CFL
is now Philips.
Ray

 

[webpa]

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

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow...

 

[Eeyore]

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated.

How about you tell me ?

I'm all ears.

Graham

 

[Seán O'Leathlóbhair]

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow.

More complicated than the common two switch set-up but not necessarily
that complicated. I have not traced the wiring to be sure how this
particular installation works but I am reasonably sure that it does
not involve a relay. I have researched how it may work and I have
described that elsewhere in the thread. The switches need to be more
complicated than typical. They need two inputs and two outputs. Each
input is always connected to one of the outputs but the connections
are reversed when the switch is changed. The live goes to one input
of the first switch. The two outputs of the first switch are
connected to the two inputs of the second. This continues through as
many switches as you wish. Finally one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb. The neutral is connected normally. So, if any
switch is changed, the live will go down the other wire through the
rest of the system. Since only one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb, if it was on, it goes off but of it was off it
goes on. This set-up is rare in the UK but the necessary switches are
available, I have seen them in my local hardware shop. They can be
used for the more typical two switch set-up by simply ignoring one of
the terminals. I have read that this set-up is more commonly used in
some other countries such as Spain.

 

[Eeyore]

"Eeyore" wrote

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Graham

 

[Franc Zabkar]

I can also use a multimeter and one of those neon screwdrivers to
perform some more tests. Sticking the probes of the multimeter into
the light socket sounds a little scary. This is a UK lamp socket
which may be unfamiliar to US readers and some others. The bulb does
not screw in it is a bayonet mount. You push the bulb in and turn and
a couple or prongs catch the mount and hold the bulb. The contacts
are two sprung pins which press onto contacts at the bottom of the
bulb. The collar is metal. To UK readers and others who know the
system: is the collar connected to anything? If my multimeter probe
touches a contact and the collar, is something nasty going to happen?
Obviously if both probes touch their contacts and the collar,
something nasty may happen.

I've just checked the Australian fittings. Our new batten holders have
bakelite collars, but the old ones were metal. There is no continuity
between the collar and any other terminal, including the earth
terminal (which doesn't exist on some fittings).

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Franc Zabkar]

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

I'm also cynical about the "green" benefits of CFLs, but I found this
interesting document that claims that incandescent bulbs are
responsible for more mercury than CFLs.

US Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

CFLs Responsible for Less Mercury than Incandescent Light Bulbs

"Ironically, CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury from
entering our air, where it most affects our health. The highest source
of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal,
the most common fuel used in the U.S. to produce electricity. A CFL
uses 75% less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at
least 6 times longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to
produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only
2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time."

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Peter Dettmann]

I've just checked the Australian fittings. Our new batten holders have
bakelite collars, but the old ones were metal. There is no continuity
between the collar and any other terminal, including the earth
terminal (which doesn't exist on some fittings).

- Franc Zabkar

That is true Frank, but often the ring is earthed which effectively
connects it to the neutral pin of the socket.

Easiest way is to make a lead which plugs into the socket, and then
you have access to the test leads in a more controllable situation
than probing into the socket itself.

Peter Dettmann

 

[Richard Crowley]

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to
warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light!