Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?

[udaman]

So I was looking for CFL to work with a motion/occupancy sensor over the kitchen sink. Apparently CFL's don't work so well with certain types of circuits, and can cause fires to the unknowing ignorant public!

That and the side issue of poor manufacturing standards, falsification of test certification protocols in China . According to the article below, I would say yes to the answer to the question of should we all stop using CFL, cause were adding to the premature deaths of an estimated 700k Chinese according to the World Bank, each and every year? (link for jtr: http://time-blog.com/china_blog/2007/07/
http://time-blog.com/china_blog/200...ut_you_didnt_hear_it_from_the_world_bank.html)

"Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?"
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#dim

Then I was looking at the alternative LED alternatives...hmm, guess those newer higher efficiency LED's haven't made it into the real market place yet. Least not at this site:

http://members.shaw.ca/sagelighting/led_spotlights_and_bulbs_specifi.htm



So I'm still trying to figure out if the Maxlite 25w dimmable will work in a motion sensor switch, or will it catch on fire?
"automatic shut-off protects lamp" huh?
http://www.goodmart.com/products/973909.htm

According to the link above about the thread title here, those dimmer circuits not designed or incompatible with CFL could be dissipating 450ma or 3W of heat, which the author claims is enough to melt the solder on the PCB! Yikes, so if I buy one of those new made in China Fenix brand LED flashlights, that use these 'latest' tech LED's like a Luxeon Rebel Premium, with 'Turbo' function not more than 10 minutes at that setting to get 175 or more lumens from a tiny metal flashlight, could the LED driver circuit meltdown, and would it cause someone holding it burned skin? Wouldn't want to get my elderly mother one of these if they can get that hot. Needs to be fool proof, nice an safe/cool running. Where are those 150+lm/w efficiency LED's in flashlights now, or will it take years more before they make it into flashlights and incandescent replacement bulbs for the home?

 

[ddrueding]

Should there be a ban on anything that doesn't directly and significantly harm someone other than yourself?

No.

Are incandescent bulbs sub-optimal for most applications?

Yes.

I hate this nanny-state BS.

 

[jtr1962]

There's so many angles to this question. For starters, direct screw-in incandescent replacements are a half-assed idea whether they are CFL or LED. While it's true that it allows immediate replacement of an inefficient incandescent without replacing the fixture, the fact is that most incandescent fixtures are suboptimal for LED or CFL. This is especially true of the totally enclosed ones. Maybe what we should do is ban the sale of screw-in type fixtures so as to get rid of the bulb mentality once and for all. Sure, cheap CFLs can have issues. Ditto for many of the screw-in LED replacements. Fact is for whatever reason the powers-that-be never chose to push linear fluorescent for residential use. This would have been the optimal solution for the last 20 years. It would have encouraged the production of less expensive dimming ballasts. It would have made the changeover to LED within the next five years easier as the general public would be in the habit of buying fixtures purposely built for a given type of light emitter. Screw-in bulbs are yesteryear's technology. They have been for a good 20 years at least. This is how long decent T8 triphosphor fluorescents have been around.

So should we ban incandescents? Not directly, but we should have a minimum efficiency requirement for lighting. 60 lm/W might be a good place to start. We could raise that to 100 lm/W within a few years as LEDs reach that point. We could discourage the use of screw-in type bulbs by requiring either linear T8 fixtures or some type of LED fixture in all new construction. Nothing will prevent the home owner from removing the fixture, patching the hole in the ceiling, and buying some bulb-based fixture. However, my guess is that if the fixture designed for more efficient lighting is already there, most people will use it rather than spend money/time putting in a less efficient fixture. Having used linear fluorescent in every room I use frequently for the last 20+ years, I honestly can't fathom why anyone still uses incandescent light bulbs. Not even getting into efficiency or color temperature issues, it's just so annoying having to constantly replace burnt-out bulbs. Bulbs used to last 1 to 2 months in our outdoor fixtures. Once we went to CFL we replace them about once a year. I replace the linear tubes in the kitchen, basement, and my bedroom probably once or twice a decade, and this is with fairly heavy use. If they were used only 4 hours a night like in many homes, I would probably be on Social Security before replacing them.

I also think it's rather funny that mercury in CFLs is brought up every time incandescent bans are discussed. While this is undoubtedly true, none of these pundits realize that thanks to LED, CFLs are on their way out soon anyhow. By the time any incandescent bans kick in, LEDs will have surpassed CFLs in efficiency, perhaps come close to matching them in cost. Due to their much longer lifetime, TCO will undoubtedly be less even at a higher purchase price. And they will have none of the disadvantages of CFLs. They operate fine a low temperatures, are immune to frequent starting, and are dimmable. Provided they're heatsinked properly, heat isn't an issue.

Should there be a ban on anything that doesn't directly and significantly harm someone other than yourself?

I'm with you 100% except that widespread use of incandescent does directly harm me. You have more power plant pollution. You also have the need to eventually build more power plants or face a power shortage. I would be very annoyed if we ever had to implement rolling blackouts because my neighbors insist on wasting power heating up tungsten filaments. If there were no alternatives it would be one thing. However, there have been a plethora of alternatives for years. I think the fact that the crappiest fluorescent lighting (T12s, magnetic ballasts) is what you usually see at Home Depot is part of a larger conspiracy to keep people buying bulbs. Among things which should be banned, magnetically ballasted halophosphor T12s are right up there. They don't even offer any cost advantage over electronically-ballasted T8s any more. I honestly can't think of any valid reasons to continue selling them. They're garbage, plain and simple. And I'm all for minimum CRI requirements in both CFLs and linear tubes of around 85, better yet 90. This would stop people from using the poor color rendering excuse.

Like I said, lots of angles on this topic. I could probably write more but I want to see what others have to see. This topic has already been extensively discussed on CPF.

 

[Bozo]

A relative put a dimmer ahead of a high intesity under counter lamp set (6 bulbs) The bulbs are incandesent but operate at 400Hz rather than 60Hz. There was no warning on the box or paper work about using a dimmer. So about once a year the 'ballast' would die. The dimmer reduced the voltage to the ballast, and I guess the electronics inside didn't like it.

CFLs work fine with motion detectors. It is just a switch...on/off.

CFLs don't work well with dimmers. Usually die very shortly.

There was a study out not too long ago that said if every house in the US would install just one CFL, we would not need to build another power plant. Have you done your part?

Bozo :joker:

 

[Clocker]

CFLs don't work with some motion detectors....at least not the ones I have in my basement storage room. I bums me out, actually. I wish I knew why they don't work. They just hum and buzz and flicker a little bit now and then. The bulbs work fine in fixtures w/o the sensor.

I do use them a lot though. The 15 120W equivalent ones I use in my basement take about 2min to get to full brightness though which would be unacceptable in an area where full brightness is required quickly (like a stairwell or walk-in closet.

 

[ddrueding]

...power plant pollution.
...need to eventually build more power plants
...face a power shortage.
...had to implement rolling blackouts

These are all indirect effects. The moment someone buys an incandescent bulb you do not suffer. Indirect effects need to be followed down the chain until the direct cause is identified (power consumption), and then methods can be applied towards that. Example? Add a fat tax on power producers directly linked with the amount of pollution leaving their plant. Let this have a direct impact on the prices people pay for electricity. Let this be a factor people consider when buying lighting equipment.

When people are paying $2/kWh, they will start to make smarter decisions.

To restate one of my pet peeves: Banning anything that does not have a direct and significant affect on someone else is poor legislation; there are better ways to steer the ignorant masses.

 

[Fushigi]

There was a study out not too long ago that said if every house in the US would install just one CFL, we would not need to build another power plant. Have you done your part?

Yes, although we've more lights to cut over. We took our eat in kitchen from a 60W incandescent to a 23W (100W equivalent) CFL. I replaced 3 75W bulbs in my den's overhead ceiling fan with 3 13W (60W equivalent) CFLs. Our kitchen uses a quad T8 overhead.

We have a lot more bulbs to replace, but most of the remaining ones are either light duty use (minutes a day or occasional) or a smaller form factor plug for which no CLF is currently available. I also have some 3-way lamps; I haven't checked on replacement CFLs for those just yet.

One thing I'm struggling with is a replacement cycle. Do I pre-emptively replace the bulbs to achieve the energy savings while throwing away (into a landfill..) perfectly good bulbs or replace them as they burn out?

 

[e_dawg]

And I'm all for minimum CRI requirements in both CFLs and linear tubes of around 85, better yet 90. This would stop people from using the poor color rendering excuse.

I think there's more to it than CRI, because I've been looking for and trying high CRI fluorescent products for a while now, because fluorescent lights deliver such unlovable output quality -- at least for home use. Unless you use the warm kitchen & bath "for natural, life-like rendering of skin tones and food", most of the cooler (supposedly more natural and daylight/sunlight-ish) fluorescents at best impart a sterile, business-like mood devoid of warmth, and at worst (even those with 80-90 CRI), impart a sickly, eerie, greenish-yellow or cold arctic-bluish feeling.*

Fluorescent is "okay" for task-oriented rooms like the kitchen and bathroom (although suboptimal), but in the living and dining rooms, fluorescent lighting is basically taboo. It's just not warm, romantic, or stylish enough to be used if you care about design, style, decor, and lighting quality.

* - I remember reading somewhere that fluorescent lighting can have a high CRI yet still not look as good as high temperature incandescent because the emission spectra is still localized to three prominent spikes in the spectrum, as opposed to a smooth curve. Ultimately, the spikes combines to form "white" light, but with notable peaks and dips in the emission spectra, it is not as natural. While a high CRI fluorescent may not have massive holes in the spectrum as a lower CRI might, its emission spectra is still not nearly as smooth and inclusive as an incandescent's.

What kind of emission spectra do LED"s have?

 

[Will Rickards]

I have mostly CFL in my house. Exceptions are the outdoor bulb out front (one of those yellow ones), the motion sensor out back in the driveway, and the bulbs for the chandelier in the dining room. There really needs to be a solution for the chandelier bulbs.

But if I couldn't screw these CFL bulbs into my existing fixtures, I probably wouldn't have replaced them. In the kitchen when we redid it a few years back, we used a CFL that isn't the screw in kind. I think it actually has a ballast.

However in my living room we just have lamps. Actually I hate the lighting situation in my living room. But in those I have CFL. Because they are in lamp bases that I think are designed for three way bulbs, they burn out quicker than say my hallway or my basement lights.

I would argue that most people don't want to replace the fixture. For most that would involve calling an electrician. And most people aren't going to spend that $$$ just to save long term on light bulbs when the actual light bulb cost is so low.

I agree with ddrueding that legislation really isn't the answer. I'm not really sure how to solve the problem. We have a lot of old houses in this country, even with really old electrical systems (two prong versus three prong outlets). Maybe we could make real flourescents mandatory for new houses. But the existing houses are the real issue. And even a tax break for getting your fixtures replaced wouldn't spur many people to do it.

 

[P5-133XL]

Absolutely not. Since technology is very much a moving target, you don't get rid of options because in a different situation, the outlawed item may be the optimum choice. This is a perfect situation, where market forces are the best tool to optimize and people can then make the best choices for their particular needs.

 

[jtr1962]

I think there's more to it than CRI, because I've been looking for and trying high CRI fluorescent products for a while now, because fluorescent lights deliver such unlovable output quality -- at least for home use.

I agree that CRI is lacking as a metric, but it is the only widely-adopted one. Gamut area (GA) and full-spectral index (FSI) are both better in many respects, but have yet to be widely used.

Unless you use the warm kitchen & bath "for natural, life-like rendering of skin tones and food", most of the cooler (supposedly more natural and daylight/sunlight-ish) fluorescents at best impart a sterile, business-like mood devoid of warmth, and at worst (even those with 80-90 CRI), impart a sickly, eerie, greenish-yellow or cold arctic-bluish feeling.*

Fluorescent is "okay" for task-oriented rooms like the kitchen and bathroom (although suboptimal), but in the living and dining rooms, fluorescent lighting is basically taboo. It's just not warm, romantic, or stylish enough to be used if you care about design, style, decor, and lighting quality.

Well, I hate the CFLs which mimic incandescents with a purple passion, especially the 2700K ones. The 3000K ones are marginally tolerable but I wouldn't purposely use them, either. I just plain hate warm lighting, no matter the room. It distorts colors and gives me major headaches. As for other types of lamps, you probably need to go with a pentaphosphor lamp to overcome most of the issues you mention. The triphosphor lamps just don't cut it, especially the lower grade CRI 76-78 ones. The upper grade (CRI 86) is acceptable for all but color critical tasks. They do make CRI 98 tubes which for all intents and purposes match sunlight, but they suffer from lower efficiency due to filling in the ends of the spectrum. And they're generally only made in the 5000 to 5800K range. If you want something at a lower color temp, you're stuck with probably CRI 86. But like I said, I guess I never understood the desire of preference for incandescent type lighting. Even before I knew about color temp, or CRI, or anything technical, the sickly yellow-orange glow was something totally unnatural. I guess it had to do with spending enough of my time outdoors.

A lot of the rest you talk about purely has to do purely with personal decorating preferences. I couldn't care less if my fixtures are stylish. In fact, my ideal is that a room is just lit without any visible light source. The idea of light fixtures calling attention to themselves dates back to the days of candles when they were by necessity bulky. Now with ever thinner linear tubes (T5s are getting common), and even thinner LEDs, the idea of light fixtures as part of the decor should be on the way out. Indeed, the popularity of high hats (which I personally can't stand) shows that the idea of recessed lighting is catching on. To me a big fixture hanging in the middle of a room, or a table lamp, is just a dust collector. It's also less than optimal for lighting. A flush ceiling fixture, or better yet a entire glowing ceiling, is much more natural, more like skylight. A lot of the present day lighting conventions and expectations are based purely on incandescent being the only major available light source. That have obviously changed dramatically in the last 20 years, but the lighting industry has yet to take notice. For those who actually care about such things, where are the decorative T8 and T5 fixtures? All I ever see in lighting stores are dated-looking incandescent fixtures. I don't want to feel as if it's perpetually the 1940s.

What kind of emission spectra do LED"s have?

Present-day blue plus phosphor whites basically have a two-lobed spectrum with one peak around 560 nm (yellow) and the other around 460 nm (blue). There is a valley in the blue-green area (~500 nm), and a deficiency of deep reds, but the spectrum is far more continuous than most fluorescent spectra. Some examples here. Some people have supplemented the whites with a small number of red LEDs. The resulting spectrum is claimed to be superior to both incandescent and LED. Here is an example of such a light. White made of red, green, and blue LEDs is even better. The resulting spectrum is a series of peaks and valleys, but for some reason colors just pop out. Compared to RGB LED, even sunlight looks like a low color rendering source. And with the appropriate circuitry, you can have variable color temperatures from the same light source. So yeah, even if you're not keen on fluorescent, you'll probably like LED. Just don't get the cheap, strongly blue tinted ones. To me they're as headache inducing as incandescents.

 

[Bozo]

Our power company bill shows a comparison of electric used to-date compared to the same time period as last year. I am seeing a substantial decrease in power consumption this year over last.
I have installed 18 CFL lamps throughout the house, inside and out. I also upgraded my computer power supply to a high efficiant Antec.

Seems to be lowering my electric bill.

Bozo :joker:

 

[LunarMist]

No.

 

[Pradeep]

The man-trap at one of our colo datacenters has a CFL for illumination. Unfortunate when you are the first one in after a while (it has a motion activated switch), because it is so dim that it is almost impossible to see the keypad to enter a pin. In certain applications you still need instant brightness.

 

[Fushigi]

... fluorescents at best impart a sterile, business-like mood devoid of warmth, and at worst (even those with 80-90 CRI), impart a sickly, eerie, greenish-yellow or cold arctic-bluish feeling.

I believe Joe Versus the Volcano demonstrated that look.

Legislating new light fixtures would never fly. There really is nothing wrong with the standard screw-in bulb. It's simple, user-serviceable, cheap, and reasonably flexible in terms of potential uses, placement, & housing. That CFLs and some other lighting technologies struggle to fit the form factor and still be aesthetically pleasing isn't much of an issue.

Those who desire CFLs, T8-based lighting, etc. are free to use it wherever they choose. There's nothing to say that someone can't use non-incandescent fixtures other than potential economic barriers.

If you truly want to move away from the traditional light socket, the only method that will work is to incent home builders, interior designers, and consumers to use other lighting methods. A tax incentive to home builders who use alternative forms might help, but since fixture cost is basically a pass-through I'm not sure how much impact it would have. Lowering the cost of a $300K home by $400 probably won't make that much difference to a buyer.

Not to mention home builders have a different approach to reducing the cost. Many home builders opt to not use built-in fixtures and instead just supply switched outlets in most rooms. Thus the problem of lighting is handily transferred to the home buyer.

Maybe an incentive against electric bills would help. The electric savings alone may not justify it for some but offering, say, 5 never-expiring coupons good for $10 off your electric bill (no more than 1 coupon per month) for each fixture designed to use non-incandescent lighting and less than 40 or 50 watts total would go a longer way. People like coupons and the builders can pass those along to the new home buyers.

Also, the lighting needs to more closely match what consumers are used to. Forget matching sunlight or some natural look or some arbitrary standard. If it doesn't look "normal" people aren't going to want to do it and face it, incandescent light looks normal to most people.

jtr, fixture aesthetics may not matter to you but they do to most people. And to many people tube fluorescent lighting simply reminds them of the office or the local megamart. You may as well use drop-hung ceiling tiles or have not a ceiling; just spray-on insulation against naked roofing structural members. Also, the ballasts normally used have a hum to them and that's really annoying. To influence people's mindset about tube lighting that hum has to go. I know modern ballasts don't have it or it is reduced but most people aren't exposed to that. I even specifically looked for an electronic ballast when I replaced my kitchen fixture and had no luck finding anything.

 

[jtr1962]

Also, the lighting needs to more closely match what consumers are used to. Forget matching sunlight or some natural look or some arbitrary standard. If it doesn't look "normal" people aren't going to want to do it and face it, incandescent light looks normal to most people.

Sunlight is what the human eye is optimized for over millions of years of evolution. Matching sunlight makes a lot more sense than matching an arbitrary type of artificial light like incandescent since it's the benchmark. Besides improving contrast, the colors in the room will more or less look the same day or night. This makes decorating a lot easier. On CPF quite a number of people have made the switch from either incandescents or 2700K CFLs to ~5000K. The majority like it better and will never go back, although some admit it takes their eyes some time to get unused to the warmer light they've lived under for years. I'm thoroughly convinced any preference for incandescent is purely a habit rather than physiological. Just as some people learn to live with, and eventually even prefer, sounds others find annoying, so it is with incandescent light. Interestingly, in Japan 5000K is pretty much preferred for residential interior spaces. Even without going all the way to 5000K, almost everyone will prefer 3500K over 2700K or 3000K.

jtr, fixture aesthetics may not matter to you but they do to most people. And to many people tube fluorescent lighting simply reminds them of the office or the local megamart. You may as well use drop-hung ceiling tiles or have not a ceiling; just spray-on insulation against naked roofing structural members.

I specifically asked earlier where are the decorative tube fixtures? It's lack of imagination which prevents designing these into homes, not any inherent properties of the tubes themselves. Indeed, linear fixtures offer far better light distribution than a point source like an incandescent bulb. Aesthetics may not be terribly important to me, but even I draw the line at making where I live look like the local Home Depot. We can make decent looking tube fixtures. For whatever reason (GE's bulb sales?) we just don't want to. It's probably getting moot anyway with the coming of LED, but here too I really hope lighting designers use a little imagination. There's no need to even make LED fixtures relampable due to the 100,000+ hour life. This gives tremendous design possibilities.

I'm really hoping that with LED we'll gradually see the death of the bulb mentality. The standard lamp socket was fine in it's day when short-lived incandescent lamps were all there was in lighting. The passage of time has rendered it obsolete. The lighting designers are just clinging to the form factor now out of habit more than anything else. Just as most people don't use a manual typewriter, it no longer makes sense to try to shoehorn new lighting technologies into a suboptimal form factor. CFLs try to do that. Sure, they work fairly well. However, they lose about a third of their potential efficiency in the process. And cramming the driver electronics into a small space means most CFLs can't be used in totally enclosed fixtures. Most of the LED bulbs which do the same aren't that great, either. My analogy here is that it's like putting car tires on a bike. Sure, with some major modifications to the frame you can make them fit. However, they will be ill-suited to the task at hand due to size, weight, rolling resistance.

Also, the ballasts normally used have a hum to them and that's really annoying. To influence people's mindset about tube lighting that hum has to go. I know modern ballasts don't have it or it is reduced but most people aren't exposed to that. I even specifically looked for an electronic ballast when I replaced my kitchen fixture and had no luck finding anything.

You can get electronic ballasts on eBay. Most Home Depots have them as well. You just have to look. My bedroom and kitchen fixtures both have electronic ballasts. Both were bought at Home Depot. Like I said earlier, it makes no sense why they even still sell magnetic ballasted fixtures, or for that matter CRI 62 cool-white tubes. They aren't even any cheaper than the T8 stuff at this point but they're vastly inferior. Thanks to clueless store managers offering yesteryear's fluorescents, people like you are negatively influenced. Then again, maybe this is exactly what they want. After all, during the time it takes to go through one set of decent T8 tubes you can go through about 50 incandescent bulbs instead. I think it's the landfill problem of used incandescents as much as their poor efficiency which is prompting all this "ban the bulb" legislation. Ditto for the legislation to ban disposible batteries sales in the EU.

If you truly want to move away from the traditional light socket, the only method that will work is to incent home builders, interior designers, and consumers to use other lighting methods. A tax incentive to home builders who use alternative forms might help, but since fixture cost is basically a pass-through I'm not sure how much impact it would have. Lowering the cost of a $300K home by $400 probably won't make that much difference to a buyer.

Or conversely raising it by $500 or $1000 to install linear tube fixtures with dimmable ballasts won't make much difference to a buyer, either. Lots of people spend way more than that on other energy-saving options like central air. As solar power goes mainstream in the next decade I'd imagine that efficient lighting would become even more important in order to stretch the stored power from the day as far as possible. Maybe this, plus better looking tube or LED fixtures, is all it will take to get most to give up their light bulbs.

BTW, don't sweat replacing any incandescents with CFLs before they burn out. You can always keep the bulbs if you're worried about potential landfill. I plan to keep whatever bulbs we have even though I'll never use them. I'm thinking in time they may go for $$ on eBay.

 

[time]

There really needs to be a solution for the chandelier bulbs.

Allow me to introduce everyone to Megaman. Wonderful stuff.

I agree with ddrueding that legislation really isn't the answer. ... But the existing houses are the real issue. And even a tax break for getting your fixtures replaced wouldn't spur many people to do it.

You can't have it both ways, Will. Market forces will never work in this sort of thing, that's why we have governments. Australia plans to phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010.

 

[time]

Some random lighting thoughts:

I've found that although 2700K is way too yellow, 4000K and up tends to wash out lighter wall colors. I have tried mixing one of each a couple of times and suspect that 3500 would be best, but I can't find that option here in CFL at least. Or, it might be just that overall CRI is improved by mixing two different phosphors?

In other words, I agree with e_dawg.

All CFLs are not created equal. Certainly, color rendiiton varies between brands, even when the manufacturers claim the same CRI. Some brands are *a lot* more reliable than others. My experience backs up tests that I've read: GE (and Osram?) is highly reliable and yum cha brands aren't. This will vary from country to country, but the Philips products sold in Australia are complete and utter shite (but sometimes there just isn't anything else with the desired specification).

As far as I know, a delay on startup or initial dimness are methods to minimize the damage from repeated power cycles. My excellent Megaman recessed downlights start at probably a quarter brightness and slowly brighten over a minute or two. They also have a life expectancy of 15,000 hours and are rated for an absolutely amazing 600,000 starts!

 

[jtr1962]

You can't have it both ways, Will. Market forces will never work in this sort of thing, that's why we have governments. Australia plans to phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010.

That's one of my points. Selling light bulbs which last on average 750 hours is big business. So long as that's true, the companies that sell them will spread misinformation and just plain not tell consumers the whole story. Stores will not stock as many more efficient, longer lasting lights simply because the turnover is less. You see this all the time. Every home improvement store mostly has the crappiest versions of linear fluorescent. My guess is this is purposely done to get customers disgusted with the technology so they stick with incandescent. As much as I hate the nanny state, there's only one way to stop people from using incandescent bulbs-ban the damned things by law.

I have tried mixing one of each a couple of times and suspect that 3500 would be best.

3500K is commonly called neutral white or brite white. I prefer 5000K, but to me 3500K is a reasonable compromise which generally both those who like warm lighting and those who don't can live with. The eye's auto white balance can adjust to 3500K so that whites appear normal. Not so with 2700K incandescent. Those always look yellow to me even if I'm sitting under them all night.

They also have a life expectancy of 15,000 hours and are rated for an absolutely amazing 600,000 starts!

Wow, that is amazing. You basically don't need to worry about power cycling any more then, and that is one huge disadvantage which fluorescents usually have (but LEDs don't).

 

[time]

I have to take a swipe at my American friends here. If it's not ludicrously oversized cars or oversized kitchen appliances, it's oversized luminaires!

We all know that jtr1962 is half-blind and needs stadium lighting inside his house, but my eyebrows started to rise when Fushigi mentioned a ceiling fan with 3x 75W (incandescent) bulbs! Good grief - why didn't it melt?

Then he dropped a casual reference to a quad T8 in the kitchen; 128W of high-efficiency fluorescent lighting, nearly 12,000 lumens by my reckoning.

How big is this kitchen exactly?

Meanwhile, Clocker lived up to his name with a claim to 15 120W equivalent lamps to illuminate what must be a basement on the scale of the Kingdom Under The Mountain. That's over 1800 incandescent watts (400 fluorescent). I guess it keeps the basement dry.

 

[ddrueding]

Keep swiping. We're just entering fall here, and we get quite a bit of overcast before noon. In order to overcome this, I have the CFL equivalent of 1200W of lighting in my living room (5m x 3m) and would love more. My kitchen (3m x 2m?) has 3 120W equivalent bulbs in it, and I love it. It's still not close to outdoor lighting levels, but it isn't a dungeon.

 

[jtr1962]

We have quad T8s in the kitchen also (it's 10'x12') and in my bedroom (a little smaller), although I have a 23W CFL which I use most of the time in the bedroom. The T8 fixture causes too much glare on my monitor, so I only use it occasionally. My workroom (7'x11') has about 14,000 lumens and 210 watts of fluorescent lighting, but don't forget that I do very close work there. I sometimes wish I had more. Forget task lighting. It creates too many shadows and it's too distracting having the immediate work area bright, but the rest of the room darker. In the end a quad T8 doesn't use much more power than the typical 100W bulb in a table lamp that many people use.

You might try reading a bit about SAD (seasonal affective disorder). One reason people get it is because they light their homes like caves. As bright as even my workroom is, it's still under 2 percent of full sunlight. The beauty of adopting more efficient lighting is that you can light brightly, yet still use less power than you did before. I can't wait until 250 lm/W LEDs are available. I'll probably put about 150 watts worth in my workroom, effectively nearly tripling the light output while still saving power over what is there now. Even at that, I'll still only be at about 5% of maximum solar intensity.

 

[time]

100W in a table lamp?

The majority of lamps and fixtures available in Oz are only rated to 60-75W!

Your talk about sunlight ignores the fact that it's actually far too bright for humans to resolve things well. The pupils are fully constricted under these conditions and people may choose to wear hats and sunglasses.

Daylight as we know it is really indirect light (I realize in some climes it comes like that already). Because it's reflected off our environment, the color is often not going to match the 6000K of direct Sunlight. In any case, sunlight varies from 2000 to 6000K throughout the day.

 

[jtr1962]

100W in a table lamp?

The majority of lamps and fixtures available in Oz are only rated to 60-75W!

100W is actually pretty common here, or at least it's the size we used to buy years ago when we only used incandescent bulbs.

Your talk about sunlight ignores the fact that it's actually far too bright for humans to resolve things well. The pupils are fully constricted under these conditions and people may choose to wear hats and sunglasses.

True. I think 5% of solar maximum is as high as I would care to go for interior lighting. Just to get around without bumping into things a few tens of lumens is all I need. BTW, direct sunlight is around 5500K at noon, perhaps as low as 2500K right before sunset. Skylight is something like 10000K. The combination of sunlight/skylight is usually in the 6500K to 7000K area (hence the term daylight for 6500K fluorescent). It's a well know fact that as light intensity decreases, a lower color temperature looks "white". At typical indoor lighting levels (not the levels I use) most people might say 3500K to 4000K is white. At the levels I use 5000K looks white. Note however that on a bright day even the 5500K sun looks a bit yellow. Color temperature choices are greatly influenced by lighting level.

 

[Fushigi]

I have to take a swipe at my American friends here. If it's not ludicrously oversized cars or oversized kitchen appliances, it's oversized luminaires!

Well, a lot of us Americans wind up being a bit oversized ourselves.

We all know that jtr1962 is half-blind and needs stadium lighting inside his house, but my eyebrows started to rise when Fushigi mentioned a ceiling fan with 3x 75W (incandescent) bulbs! Good grief - why didn't it melt?

It is a fan with a lighting fixture mounted below. The fixture has 3 arms that terminate in a glass housing. Each housing is rated for 75W. The room is roughly 12x13 with a 9 foot ceiling.

Then he dropped a casual reference to a quad T8 in the kitchen; 128W of high-efficiency fluorescent lighting, nearly 12,000 lumens by my reckoning.

How big is this kitchen exactly?

The entire kitchen with eat-in area is 13x27x9 and is lit by the T8 in the kitchen area + a 23/100W CFL in the eat-in area. Lighting is adequate; way better than the 2-tube original fixture.

 

[time]

It is a fan with a lighting fixture mounted below. The fixture has 3 arms that terminate in a glass housing. Each housing is rated for 75W. The room is roughly 12x13 with a 9 foot ceiling.

Ah, of course - I was visualizing an oyster style fitting like I have here.

Out of interest, do the bulbs face up or down?

The entire kitchen with eat-in area is 13x27x9 and is lit by the T8 in the kitchen area + a 23/100W CFL in the eat-in area.

The other thing which you've confirmed for me is higher ceilings. The standard here is 8ft and a small percentage are 10ft (unless you've got a raked ceiling like I did in the last house; it was 4.5m high, timber, and a bitch to light.

 

[Bozo]

One thing I have noticed about the CFL lamps that I have installed: the ones that hang from the ceiling ( with the curly glass hanging down) don't last very long. The plastic around the glass turns brown and melts, then the light stops operating.
But, I just call the 800 number on the lamp, explain what happened, and they send me new bulbs!

Bozo :joker:

 

[Fushigi]

Out of interest, do the bulbs face up or down?

Down. The fixture looks similar to this.

The other thing which you've confirmed for me is higher ceilings. The standard here is 8ft and a small percentage are 10ft (unless you've got a raked ceiling like I did in the last house; it was 4.5m high, timber, and a bitch to light.

The US standard is also 8ft. 9+ ft ceilings can be found in older homes and premium/luxury homes. We have 9ft ceilings on the main floor and 8ft on the second floor, which is common for newer homes in the area I live (middle-middle & upper-middle class). The foyer is open to the second floor so it has a 20ish ft ceiling.

 

[time]

UK to ban traditional lightbulbs

 

[Howell]

My kitchen (9x19') has 8 of the four foot 40W tubes (chroma 50 baby) for a 10.5' ceiling.

My living room ceiling fan has 4x 60W incandescent lights in it.

 

[Bozo]

Did I hear right??? Ann Arbor Michican's street lights are LEDs??
Found it:

http://www.a2gov.org/news/Documents/Cree-Ann_Arbor_LED_City.pdf

Bozo :joker:

 

[udaman]

The beauty of adopting more efficient lighting is that you can light brightly, yet still use less power than you did before. I can't wait until 250 lm/W LEDs are available. I'll probably put about 150 watts worth in my workroom, effectively nearly tripling the light output while still saving power over what is there now. Even at that, I'll still only be at about 5% of maximum solar intensity.

You're going to wait until your death bed then jtr, lets see those 200lm/w LED's that are *not* rated @100ma. Got take alook at the tri-die Luxeon at a monumental 700lumens (basically low output 60w incandescent bulb). It's only ~70lm/w to output that 700 lumens.

At any rate I see no one clicked on my links (typical), and as such I should have posted a hugely long post (can win either way) quoting the links in their entire lenghts with huge bold face for items everyone seems to have missed. I kind of figured jtr would go off on multiple tangents given the thread title. And yes, this has been debated on CPF, but as you know jtr, CPF does not allow debate of any kind that does not fit with their biased mind think, they ban you when you disagree with the prevailing popular opinions.

Alright everyone go back and actually click on the links, comprehend, not just skim the text...there will be a test

So jtr, for those who disagree with your assesments, answer me this one question from my link:

How does one replace an incandescent bulb with a CFL, in motion detect system? Bozo is wrong, I have tried, all standard CFL's will not work in such a motion detect, and if they do and they are not specifically designed and stated to work as such, you risk running dangerously high currents (not to mention excessive power consumption) that could result in a fire that could kill you and cause your house to burn down...this was a recent article jtr, from this year! Address those safety concerns 1st and formost fo those who do not want to spend hundreds of dollars to have their ceilings *ucke* up by even the best of 'professional' installers. We already know jtr would be fine with the ceiling less industrial minimalist warehouse design that has been popular with retail and restaurant establishments ove rthe past few decades. Some of use don't like that, we want something more pleasing to our eyes.

Now how does one get a replacement for a incandescent bulb, without changgin out the fixture and spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, that works with a motion detect sensor...answer the question please? I could care less what CPF members think, those insane zealots will spend litterally thousands of dollars on dozens and dozens of flashlights; hardly unbiased or even remotely rational opinions there. The can discuss there warped visions until they are blue in the face for all I care, JS too . Might as well be having a discussion with a radical extremist Muslim about how good LED's and the USA are, how keeping women barefoot and pregnant is the root of all evil (not withstanding Bill Gates, for Merc ).

 

[Will Rickards]

udaman,

I think your question has already been answered. You don't "get a replacement for an incandescent bulb without changing out the fixture and spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars that works with a motion detect sensor".

The problem is in the fixture, not the bulb. I'll quote jtr
"direct screw-in incandescent replacements are a half-assed idea whether they are CFL or LED"

 

[mubs]

uda,

I'm sorry, but I can barely read a few lines of your posts before my eyes glaze over and I skip the rest. I guess my poor brain isn't wired to handle your style of communicating. My bad.

 

[jtr1962]

Now how does one get a replacement for a incandescent bulb, without changgin out the fixture and spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, that works with a motion detect sensor...answer the question please?

You're thinking of one specific, rather narrow example of where CFLs don't work particularly well, and forgetting the majority of times where they work just fine. Motion detector lights are not a big consumer of energy overall. They go on for a few minutes, then may be off for hours. Why sweat over it if you can't presently find an energy efficient lamp which works in them? I'm reasonably sure that once LED replacement lamps are available they'll work just fine with motion detectors (and standard lamp dimmers as well). Anyway, a CFL or any type of fluorescent is a bad fit in a motion detector setup as frequent starts greatly shorten their life. I'll also say again what I said earlier: direct screw-in incandescent replacements are a half-assed idea whether they are CFL or LED. Why shoehorn new technology lamps to fit into an old paradigm of lighting? It's not like most existing incandescent fixtures are so expensive to replace or things of beauty. Most of them are horrible, obstrusive dust collectors. They were designed around the reality of the bulbs they required. There's nothing sancrosanct about them. Why not make fixtures resemble the candleholders of the 18th century while we're at? Time moves on. New lighting technology, new fixtures. In light of how fast housing is replaced in some parts of the country, it's no big deal to stress going with purpose built fixtures.

You're going to wait until your death bed then jtr, lets see those 200lm/w LED's that are *not* rated @100ma. Got take alook at the tri-die Luxeon at a monumental 700lumens (basically low output 60w incandescent bulb). It's only ~70lm/w to output that 700 lumens.

Incandescent lamp mentality again. Why does a single LED have to emit the same amount of light as an incandescent lamp? I can't think of one damned good reason why they have to, even in an LED screw-in replacement lamp. Ever heard of multiple emitters? In fact, since LEDs are directional, even the wide angle power LEDs, this is more or less necessary anyway if you're seeking to replace an omnidirectional source like an incandescent lamp. And it makes even more sense to use multiple emitters in a purpose-built LED fixture. You gain built-in redundancy. If some emitters fail, you still have some light. We're already around 100 lm/W at 350 mA for production LEDs. In two years we should be at 150 lm/W at the same current. Also note that at 700 mA you still get ~80% of your 350 mA efficiency. This means the 150 lm/W LED will be 120 lm/W at 700 mA and ~2.5W, or roughly 300 lumens. Six of those would replace a 100 watt bulb. Once cost per emitter falls to a dollar or so, such lamps can easily be mainstream. Right now I'm really more concerned with cost per emitter than any other factor. LEDs are already there as far as efficiency goes. Present cost is still too high to get many to adopt them. Even I won't spend over $100 for an LED replacement lamp, but at $20 each they start to make sense. Sure, increasing the efficiency at high currents is one way to bring down prices, but so is drastically decreasing the cost per emitter. The latter is probably easier. The raw materials to make a power LED cost pennies. It's all a matter of streamlining the manufacturing process and adopting economies of scale.

As for the 250 lm/W LEDs I mentioned, I'll admit those aren't right around the corner, but I think in 10 to 15 years they'll be reality. Remember that the 150 lm/W emitters which should be out in 2009 or so only represent ~50% efficiency. That leaves plenty of room for improvement.

Yeah, I know CPF is pretty narrow-minded sometimes. They also have a propensity to close threads when the discussion gets even a little controversial. That's why I come here.

P.S. I'm making a new bike light with 3 Cree Q5 emitters. Should be good for 700+ lumens at maximum power (~10 watts), and give about 3 hours of ~275 lumens off 4 AA Eneloops at normal power. I'll probably even put in a 10-hour low power mode of ~100 lumens.

P.P.S. Haven't been in the frame of mind to read the links. I'll get to it.

 

[mubs]

Are y'all gonna shout? Sheesh!

 

[timwhit]

P.S. I'm making a new bike light with 3 Cree Q5 emitters. Should be good for 700+ lumens at maximum power (~10 watts), and give about 3 hours of ~275 lumens off 4 AA Eneloops at normal power. I'll probably even put in a 10-hour low power mode of ~100 lumens.

How will the light you are building compare to my light? I wish they would publish how many lumens it emits so I could compare it with others. How much will it cost to build, and are you interested in selling them? I would like to get a light that is actually bright enough to light a dark road/path. I have a friend that is looking for the same thing.

 

[Mercutio]

The only places I even turn lights on are the bathroom, kitchen and the one beside my bed. I am of the opinion that natural illumination should come from large monitors.

 

[ddrueding]

I am of the opinion that natural illumination should come from large monitors.

Between the 42" LCD and the 2500 lumen projector, my living room is covered

You don't have enough monitors in the kitchen or bathroom? Instead of a light switch, just find a mouse and shake it.

 

[Bozo]

I have replaced 16 incandescent bulbs in my house with CFL's. They work just fine, even outdoors. My electric bill shows a marked decrease comparing this year to date consumption with last year at the same time.
Why do you think it is so bad to use a conventional fixture for these bulbs? With that way of thinking we will never cut electrical use and greenhouse gases.
When LEDs become cost effective, I will put them in the light fixtures I already have and hopefully save even more.

Bozo :joker: