Post by thread:[TECH] Just how useful are CFLs ?

> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but I'll reserve the latter). _______ Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in Philips - I just tend to like their better products. Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison comprehensive investigation of issues involved. Writer is not anti CFL per se. 60+ screens. http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar > And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken (full-circle)). Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence of its operation. > The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. > Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a > relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs than for warm-white. I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be an issue. Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. Russell

My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. -- On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechnzTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? > > Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years > day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into > the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but > I'll reserve the latter). > > _______ > > Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in > Philips - I just tend to like their better products. > > Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison > comprehensive investigation of issues involved. > Writer is not anti CFL per se. > 60+ screens. > > http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar > >> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? > > Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. > Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones > (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken > (full-circle)). > > Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the > Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 > times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those > contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate > an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more > mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by > operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their > degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I > understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous > and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from > nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence > of its operation. > >> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a >> relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. > > As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures > but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs > subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of > manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I > usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each > location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. > > NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light > output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the > Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays > to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. > > Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases > with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs > than for warm-white. > > I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical > figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near > unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be > an issue. > > Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours > (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" > 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our > hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on > August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes > semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the > bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / > day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital > cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark > hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. > > > > Russell >

Could this be a thermal problem? Do they expect convective cooling of the lamp itself to NOT flow over the electronics package? Sean On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Bob Axtell <.....bob.axtellKILLspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree > angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out > in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to > replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. > > On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. > > Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. > > -- > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon <apptechnzKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: >>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? >> >> Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years >> day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into >> the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but >> I'll reserve the latter). >> >> _______ >> >> Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in >> Philips - I just tend to like their better products. >> >> Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison >> comprehensive investigation of issues involved. >> Writer is not anti CFL per se. >> 60+ screens. >> >> sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar >> >>> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? >> >> Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. >> Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones >> (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken >> (full-circle)). >> >> Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the >> Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 >> times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those >> contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate >> an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more >> mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by >> operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their >> degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I >> understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous >> and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from >> nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence >> of its operation. >> >>> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >>> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a >>> relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. >> >> As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures >> but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs >> subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of >> manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I >> usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each >> location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. >> >> NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light >> output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the >> Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays >> to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. >> >> Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases >> with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs >> than for warm-white. >> >> I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical >> figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near >> unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be >> an issue. >> >> Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours >> (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" >> 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our >> hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on >> August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes >> semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the >> bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / >> day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital >> cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark >> hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. >> >> >> >> Russell >> -

You must have gotten some defective CFLs. I have at least 12 of them in the exact position you mention, installed in 3 ceiling fan lights with 4 bulbs in each. They have been working for over 4 years so far and no failures. I would have replaced regular bulbs several times over. The ones I am using are the cheapest thing Home Depot had at the time, some no-name brand and they are still going strong. I have changed out every single regular bulb with CFL bulbs over the past 5 years or so and have only had 3 fail, those were in lamps and in an upright position. I also changed out all of the bulbs in my 30' x 48' shop building, using 150 watt equivalent CFLs, 4 of those are in a horizontal position and 2 in an inverted position, they have been in use for about 2 years with no failures to this point. Just my experience with CFLs. Randy Abernathy CNC and Industrial Machinery service, repair, installation and design 4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW Acworth, GA 30101 Fax: 770-974-5295 Phone: 678-982-0235 E-mail: EraseMErandyabernathyspam_OUTTakeThisOuTbellsouth.net --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Bob Axtell <bob.axtellspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: From: Bob Axtell <@spam@bob.axtellKILLspamgmail.com> Subject: Re: [TECH] Just how useful are CFLs ? To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <KILLspampiclistKILLspammit.edu> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 12:28 PM My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. -- On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechnzTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? > > Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years > day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into > the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but > I'll reserve the latter). > > _______ > > Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in > Philips - I just tend to like their better products. > > Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison > comprehensive investigation of issues involved. > Writer is not anti CFL per se. > 60+ screens. > > http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar > >> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? > > Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. > Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones > (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken > (full-circle)). > > Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the > Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 > times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those > contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate > an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more > mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by > operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their > degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I > understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous > and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from > nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence > of its operation. > >> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a >> relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. > > As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures > but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs > subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of > manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I > usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each > location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. > > NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light > output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the > Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays > to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. > > Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases > with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs > than for warm-white. > > I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical > figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near > unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be > an issue. > > Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours > (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" > 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our > hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on > August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes > semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the > bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / > day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital > cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark > hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. > > > > Russell >

Randy- Did I know you at one time? I used to live in Norcross...I'm in Tucson now. --Bob Axtell On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM, RANDY ABERNATHY <RemoveMErandyabernathyTakeThisOuTbellsouth.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> You must have gotten some defective CFLs. I have at least 12 of them in the exact position you mention, installed in 3 ceiling fan lights with 4 bulbs in each. They have been working for over 4 years so far and no failures. I would have replaced regular bulbs several times over. The ones I am using are the cheapest thing Home Depot had at the time, some no-name brand and they are still going strong. I have changed out every single regular bulb with CFL bulbs over the past 5 years or so and have only had 3 fail, those were in lamps and in an upright position. I also changed out all of the bulbs in my 30' x 48' shop building, using 150 watt equivalent CFLs, 4 of those are in a horizontal position and 2 in an inverted position, they have been in use for about 2 years with no failures to this point. > > Just my experience with CFLs. > > Randy Abernathy > CNC and Industrial Machinery > service, repair, installation and > design > > 4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW > Acworth, GA 30101 > Fax: 770-974-5295 > Phone: 678-982-0235 > E-mail: > randyabernathyEraseME.....bellsouth.net > > --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Bob Axtell <EraseMEbob.axtellgmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Bob Axtell <RemoveMEbob.axtellEraseMEEraseMEgmail.com> > Subject: Re: [TECH] Just how useful are CFLs ? > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistspam_OUTKILLspammit.edu> > Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 12:28 PM > > > My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree > angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out > in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to > replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. > > On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. > > Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. > > -- > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechnzTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote: >>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? >> >> Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years >> day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into >> the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but >> I'll reserve the latter). >> >> _______ >> >> Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in >> Philips - I just tend to like their better products. >> >> Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison >> comprehensive investigation of issues involved. >> Writer is not anti CFL per se. >> 60+ screens. >> >> sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar >> >>> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? >> >> Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. >> Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones >> (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken >> (full-circle)). >> >> Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the >> Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 >> times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those >> contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate >> an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more >> mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by >> operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their >> degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I >> understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous >> and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from >> nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence >> of its operation. >> >>> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >>> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a >>> relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. >> >> As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures >> but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs >> subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of >> manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I >> usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each >> location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. >> >> NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light >> output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the >> Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays >> to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. >> >> Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases >> with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs >> than for warm-white. >> >> I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical >> figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near >> unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be >> an issue. >> >> Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours >> (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" >> 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our >> hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on >> August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes >> semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the >> bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / >> day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital >> cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark >> hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. >> >> >> >> Russell >> -

Bob: I worked for SCMI (now SCM Group USA) from 1984 until I resigned in '94 and went out on my own. I still did a lot of contract work for them. They were located in Norcross when I started with them. Randy Abernathy CNC and Industrial Machinery service, repair, installation and design 4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW Acworth, GA 30101 Fax: 770-974-5295 Phone: 678-982-0235 E-mail: EraseMErandyabernathyspamspamBeGonebellsouth.net --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Bob Axtell <RemoveMEbob.axtellKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: From: Bob Axtell <bob.axtellSTOPspamspam_OUTgmail.com> Subject: Re: [TECH] Just how useful are CFLs ? To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistSTOPspamEraseMEmit.edu> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 1:32 PM Randy- Did I know you at one time? I used to live in Norcross...I'm in Tucson now. --Bob Axtell On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM, RANDY ABERNATHY <KILLspamrandyabernathyspamBeGonebellsouth.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> You must have gotten some defective CFLs. I have at least 12 of them in the exact position you mention, installed in 3 ceiling fan lights with 4 bulbs in each. They have been working for over 4 years so far and no failures. I would have replaced regular bulbs several times over. The ones I am using are the cheapest thing Home Depot had at the time, some no-name brand and they are still going strong. I have changed out every single regular bulb with CFL bulbs over the past 5 years or so and have only had 3 fail, those were in lamps and in an upright position. I also changed out all of the bulbs in my 30' x 48' shop building, using 150 watt equivalent CFLs, 4 of those are in a horizontal position and 2 in an inverted position, they have been in use for about 2 years with no failures to this point. > > Just my experience with CFLs. > > Randy Abernathy > CNC and Industrial Machinery > service, repair, installation and > design > > 4626 Old Stilesboro Rd NW > Acworth, GA 30101 > Fax: 770-974-5295 > Phone: 678-982-0235 > E-mail: > EraseMErandyabernathyEraseMEbellsouth.net > > --- On Thu, 1/21/10, Bob Axtell <@spam@bob.axtell@spam@spam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Bob Axtell <spamBeGonebob.axtellKILLspamgmail.com> > Subject: Re: [TECH] Just how useful are CFLs ? > To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> > Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 12:28 PM > > > My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree > angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out > in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to > replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. > > On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. > > Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. > > -- > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon <TakeThisOuTapptechnz.....TakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: >>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? >> >> Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Years >> day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch into >> the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but >> I'll reserve the latter). >> >> _______ >> >> Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests in >> Philips - I just tend to like their better products. >> >> Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison >> comprehensive investigation of issues involved. >> Writer is not anti CFL per se. >> 60+ screens. >> >> sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#cchar >> >>> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? >> >> Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. >> Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones >> (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken >> (full-circle)). >> >> Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the >> Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 >> times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those >> contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to operate >> an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more >> mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by >> operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to their >> degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I >> understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poisonous >> and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit from >> nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequence >> of its operation. >> >>> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >>> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. I have not seen a >>> relationship between brand name / cost and longevity. >> >> As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failures >> but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. Bulbs >> subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of >> manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bulb I >> usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each >> location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. >> >> NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light >> output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the >> Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowadays >> to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. >> >> Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases >> with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bulbs >> than for warm-white. >> >> I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical >> figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near >> unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable to be >> an issue. >> >> Sample of one: I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours >> (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Genie" >> 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our >> hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed on >> August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes >> semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the >> bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hours / >> day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capital >> cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat dark >> hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. >> >> >> >> Russell >> -

Sorry for reviving an old thread. Most of the bulbs in my house are CFL. The only bulbs that are still incandescent are those that are on dimmers or in fixtures that accept only candelabra bases. I hope to replace all of those fixtures soon. Both upstairs bathrooms have a long light-bar that holds 8 bulbs. Those used to be 60W but were changed to 9W CFLs. I'm *really* happy with the light from those - and, more importantly, so is my wife <grin>. These mount 'sideways' (90 degrees). Many people have commented favorably upon seeing them for the first time - there is a LOT of very-high quality light coming out of those bulbs. All outside lamps were changed to CFL: 13W for the front and back doors (base UP), 25W for the lamps on the outside of the garage (base DOWN). Kitchen light used to be a 100W incandescent, was then a 25W CFL for several years, was recently changed to a Phillips 42W CFL (base UP). I'm not real happy with the recent change (the Phillips bulb takes several minutes to reach full intensity) and may change back to the original 25W CFL. All table lamps have been 13W CFL bulbs for years now - all of these are base DOWN. For what its worth, pretty much all of the CFL bulbs I'm currently using are Noma brand purchased from Canadian Tire here in Canada. The Noma bulbs have been just excellent - I believe that I've installed significantly more than 100 bulbs in several households over the past 5 years and I can't recall having replaced any of them so far. Most of the other brands of CFL bulbs that I have purchased have failed within a year or two of installation. The cool thing (pun not necessarily intended) is that these Noma bulbs appear to reach full intensity within a second or two upon being turned ON (room temperature). That's a big deal for me. Far too many of the other brands seem to take forever to reach full intensity upon being energized. On the other hand, the Noma bulbs installed outside take a LONG time to reach full intensity when turned on while sitting at ambient temperature of -20 or -30. I now leave the back door bulb on 24 hours a day during the winter months just so that I have light whenever I need it. I figure that I can afford the ~13W consumption given how much energy I save with the rest of the CFL bulbs we have. As an interesting aside, I recently purchased a 3W LED light from Home Depot and currently have it installed in a pot-light fixture at the bottom of the stairs at my shop. It has 3 LED chips and is in a funky die-cast metal enclosure. Although expensive, I hope it lasts long enough to pay for itself. It has much less light output than a 9W CFL but I don't need much light where I'm currently using it. I also saw some interesting LED light clusters at Costco last week: 3- LED bulbs for about $20. Each bulb has a cluster of 5mm white LEDs (I didn't bother counting how many). They have candelabra bases but come with standard-size Edison base adapters. I think that I'm going to purchase some of those to use in my hallway light fixtures, at least until I get around to replacing the fixtures. I'll post here what I think of them when I do install them. dwayne At 10:28 AM 1/21/2010, Bob Axtell wrote: >My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree >angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out >in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to >replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. > >On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. -- Dwayne Reid <TakeThisOuTdwaynerKILLspamspamplanet.eon.net> Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax http://www.trinity-electronics.com Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing