Should There be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?

[jtr1962]

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.

I think it's bad simply because linear fluorescent is 50% more efficient than CFLs. Besides that, the tubes last anywhere from 3 to 5 times as long, depending upon brand. And when the tube goes bad you just throw away the tube, not the tube along with the entire ballast as with CFLs. It's not that CFLs are an entirely bad idea. They're much better than the incandescents they replace. It's just that linear fixtures would be much more prevalent if lighting designers integrated them into residences somehow rather than sticking with bulb-based fixtures. We might even have inexpensive dimming ballasts if linear tubes weren't just used in commercial or utility areas. Another pet peeve of mine is that decent CFL replacements for small-base chandelier bulbs aren't very available or cheap. This is particularly bad because these bulbs are the worst incandescents going, with efficiencies ranging from about 8 to 11 lm/W. I'll be a happy camper the day we have nice white LED bulbs to replace these sickly orange space heaters which happen to give off a little light. If it were my house the three chandeliers we have would be gone and replaced with linear tubes. Unfortunately, I have no say in the matter.

BTW, we were among the first adopters of CFLs. This was back in the late 1970s when they cost upwards of $25 each. Now I use them in things like desk lamps, table lamps, and outdoor lights not only to save energy, but to get rid of the horrid orange glow of the incandescents. Yeah, lack of readily available non-2700K CFLs is another pet peeve of mine. At least the local Home Depot is finally stocking the $8 four-packs of n:vision 5500K 14 watt CFLs. It was like a veil of yellow dirt was lifted when we replaced the 2700Ks in the entry foyer.

So in summary:

incandescents-bad
CFLs-better
linear tubes-even better
LEDs-the best

 

[jtr1962]

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.

Let's see, 30 hours of constant output runtime on 3AAAs equals about 0.135 watts (assuming that the AAAs are 1200 mAh and average 1.25V). Even if we assume decent LEDs (80 lm/W) and 100% conversion (i.e. no regulator losses), that's at best 10.8 lumens. In practice I'd say it's closer to 5. No wonder you can't light up a dark road. What you have is basically a light which lets others see you. My first LED retrofit using 20 5mm LEDs was about 50 lumens. It was very marginal on dark roads. The second one using 28 much more efficient LEDs of the same size gives about 150 lumens for roughly the same power. It is much better but the beam really isn't as focused as it could be. The Cree light will use an optic. It should be way better. My goal is to make a light powerful enough to enable me to see clearly at least 100 feet ahead. This should be enough to give me 2 seconds warning of any obstacles even in excess of 30 mph.

Once I make the light I can be more specific about cost. The emitters and optics are roughly $10 each. The electronics should be under $10. The only question mark is the case. I don't know what I'll be using yet. I'll see what I have handy in aluminum scraps, or check Home Depot. I think 3 emitters will probably be overkill here. I can probably make you and your friend a decent light with only 1 emitter (that's still in excess of 200 lumens at 1 amp drive current). Let me build mine first, test it, and then I'll see about building them to sell. I know I'll come out cheaper than anything similar. Most decent Cree bike lights are in excess of $75. The multi-emitter ones can be over $200.

 

[timwhit]

JTR: Have you checked this out yet?

 

[mubs]

Every hotel I've stayed in this year in the US has had CFLs and tube FLs; no incandescents. They seem to use CFLs that are yellowish to approximate the color of incandescents. The first few times I even checked to see what kind they were, because they were yellow enough but not quite, and I wasn't sure.

 

[Bozo]

Every hotel I've stayed in this year in the US has had CFLs and tube FLs; no incandescents. They seem to use CFLs that are yellowish to approximate the color of incandescents. The first few times I even checked to see what kind they were, because they were yellow enough but not quite, and I wasn't sure.

Same here. I would guess they were installed to lower the electric bill and not have to be replaced as often.

Bozo :joker:

 

[LunarMist]

Are the woldwide bans mainly for E26/E27 bulbs, or for incandescent lights of all types? How do the bans affect automotive, marine and aircraft lighting, projectors, and a myriad of special purpose devices, etc?

 

[LOST6200]

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.

WHere do you read, in teh toilet?

 

[LOST6200]

Are the woldwide bans mainly for E26/E27 bulbs, or for incandescent lights of all types? How do the bans affect automotive, marine and aircraft lighting, projectors, and a myriad of special purpose devices, etc?

No way they can ban aZll indecadent light bulbs so quickly. FAA and other organizzations have own regualotions and certification is a pain in hassle.

Just buy up some extra bulbs for a few years of sghortages. I can see people selling blak market bulbs on de street after 2018. "Pssst, genuine Sylvanista 100W sofwt white bulb for $100."

 

[e_dawg]

LOL... In the year 2018...

They will sell fake Sylvanias, GEs, and Philips out of a garbage bag on the street corners in NYC. You will see a wholesale shift in people selling Prada and LV purses to light bulbs.

The market for "Sealed, New In Box" incandescents will reach unprecedented highs on eBay. In the news: AP Newswire reports "One collector from the UAE was reported to have paid $1.7 million USD for a limited edition 100 W Sylvania "Rural Service" Bug Light." Of course, $1.7 million USD is only worth about $2,000 Canadian or $3,000 Euros in 2018, but it's still a lot of coin for a lightbulb

 

[jtr1962]

Just buy up some extra bulbs for a few years of sghortages. I can see people selling blak market bulbs on de street after 2018. "Pssst, genuine Sylvanista 100W sofwt white bulb for $100."

Funny but I also see a collector's market for old light bulbs. Obviously nobody who intends to use it will pay $100 for a light bulb. The only reason people still use incandescents is because the initial purchase price is less than the other options. Once they're no longer made the price will creep up, creating a collector's market for genuine vintage bulbs. That's why I'm saving whatever light bulbs we have. We haven't had need for them in years, but they may well turn out to be cash cows.

Are the woldwide bans mainly for E26/E27 bulbs, or for incandescent lights of all types? How do the bans affect automotive, marine and aircraft lighting, projectors, and a myriad of special purpose devices, etc?

Most of the enacted and/or proposed bans don't ban incandescents explicitly, but rather specify a minimum efficiency which is beyond the capabilities of incandescent. Some even specify minimum operational lifetime also. As far as I'm aware most of the bans focus on household incandescents since this is where most of the waste is. Most of the bans prohibit the sale of inefficient bulbs, although a few even prohibit their operation. The other types of lighting mentioned will probably end up going to LED on their own, without any forcing by the government, just by virtue of LED's long life saving significantly on maintenance. It's simply a matter of waiting until LED arrays exist which make replacement of large incandescents practical.

 

[time]

I think it's bad simply because linear fluorescent is 50% more efficient than CFLs.

Yes, but it's quite easy for CFL to even that up when the efficacy of the luminaire/fixture is taken into account. Let's face it, you'd have to be losing at least half the illumination from a traditional domestic linear fixture.

Spiral CFLs, in particular, are a lot more effective than the older folded designs at projecting light usefully into the room. I also suspect that output figures are understated on the newer stuff. For example, the lowly 5W 4100K spirals I picked up a few weeks ago look like they're getting close to some older, inferior 8W examples. IMO, an 8W GE mini-spiral easily matches a Phillips folded-tube 11W. I'm going to go crazy and guess that they're already at 70lm/W or better in actual production samples.

Besides that, the tubes last anywhere from 3 to 5 times as long, depending upon brand.

There's a growing number of 15,000hr CFLs. Therefore, I'll concede 2 times.

And when the tube goes bad you just throw away the tube, not the tube along with the entire ballast as with CFLs.

Of course, the ballast may also be near death, or halfway there anyway.

It's just that linear fixtures would be much more prevalent if lighting designers integrated them into residences somehow rather than sticking with bulb-based fixtures.

God forbid! I've yet to see an example of a builder having a clue regarding lighting design!

We might even have inexpensive dimming ballasts if linear tubes weren't just used in commercial or utility areas.

Given that especially a dimming ballast is specific to a particular class of tube, surely an integrated ballast would make more sense in this scenario? (Sorry, sounding excessively negative).

Another pet peeve of mine is that decent CFL replacements for small-base chandelier bulbs aren't very available or cheap. This is particularly bad because these bulbs are the worst incandescents going, with efficiencies ranging from about 8 to 11 lm/W.

I replaced mine in two different houses. Check out the extraordinary Megaman range if physical size is critical - I currently have "Lilliput" bulbs, the smallest SES or SBC CFLs you can buy (Mind you, they're not bright, but with 4 or 5 in a fixture, I don't care).

I'll be a happy camper the day we have nice white LED bulbs to replace these sickly orange space heaters which happen to give off a little light. If it were my house the three chandeliers we have would be gone and replaced with linear tubes. Unfortunately, I have no say in the matter.

We all have a blindspot - yours seems to be bright lights.

BTW, we were among the first adopters of CFLs. This was back in the late 1970s when they cost upwards of $25 each. Now I use them in things like desk lamps, table lamps, and outdoor lights not only to save energy, but to get rid of the horrid orange glow of the incandescents.

I agree completely.

Yeah, lack of readily available non-2700K CFLs is another pet peeve of mine.

I find it hard to get 4000K in the low power ones (5 and 8W) that we prefer in desklamps, etc (at only 0.4m above the desk, a 5W is equivalent to a 20W big bertha overhead).

 

[Bozo]

jtr1962: the Sun is yellow

Bozo :joker:

 

[e_dawg]

I am currently quite fond of the Sylvania Daylight Extra CFL's, which are 3500 K. To me, they almost look like the 4100 K Cool White linears of old, except with better colour fidelity and uniformity. They also have the slightest pink tinge in colour, don't look eerie at all, and are able to match the halogens enough that they look like they belong in the decor.

Tried Philips Marathon 13 W 5000 K CFL's a couple months ago from Home Depot. Unfortunately, they are too eerie and too cool in colour temperature to match any of the other fixtures. It's almost as if they have no colour. They look like massive white LEDs to me, which honestly, I can't stand. Very sterile and devoid of any warmth or colour. They don't even have a bluish tinge, which is the least I could say about the Daylight 6500 K CFL's

I still have 5 unopened from the 6 pack I bought at Home Depot (damn those bulk packages at Home Depot!). Anyone want them, let me know. Just pay for shipping & handling and they're yours.

 

[Bozo]

e_dawg: maybe you can use those lamps outside?

Bozo :joker:

 

[jtr1962]

jtr1962: the Sun is yellow

Actually it's around 5800K. Due to the filtering of the atmosphere it appears as roughly 5500K when directly overhead, or as low as about 2500K just before sunset/sunrise. Average appearance is probably around 5000K. The sun appears yellow simply because the sky is blue. It's all a matter of your eye adjusting to different white points. In a typical sunlight/skylight scenario the white point is around 6500K to 7000K. This makes the 10000K sky look blue and the 5000K sun look slightly yellow.

 

[jtr1962]

Yes, but it's quite easy for CFL to even that up when the efficacy of the luminaire/fixture is taken into account. Let's face it, you'd have to be losing at least half the illumination from a traditional domestic linear fixture.

Actually the loss figures are closer to 20% to 25%, depending upon the fixture. The best T5 linear fixtures using aluminum mirrors only lose about 5% of the light. Don't forget that unless you have a bare CFL hanging from the ceiling there will be fixture losses there also. Let's just say that the fixture losses are probably a wash at this point, although a well-designed linear fixture can have a edge.

I'm going to go crazy and guess that they're already at 70lm/W or better in actual production samples.

Some CFLs are at 70 lm/W or slightly better. Note that since these figures take into account the ballast losses they're not that much worse than an average T8 fixture, and slightly better than a T12 fixture. However, a top of the line ballast with top of the line T8 or T5 tubes can have an overall efficiency of roughly 100 lm/W. A typical T8 fixture and tubes from Home Depot might only be around 82 lm/W.

There's a growing number of 15,000hr CFLs.

That's good to hear. No inherent reason CFLs can't have much longer life. It's just that many don't see a need for it in the residential market. After all, at 4 hours a night even a 6000 hour CFL will still last over 4 years. I guess this seems short to me simply because I'm conditioned to only changing tubes about once a decade, even when they're on 10 hours a day.

I replaced mine in two different houses. Check out the extraordinary Megaman range if physical size is critical - I currently have "Lilliput" bulbs, the smallest SES or SBC CFLs you can buy (Mind you, they're not bright, but with 4 or 5 in a fixture, I don't care).

We'll just wait for the small-base LED replacements. I'll give it about 3 to 5 years at the most. Although the Megaman range sounds great, LED promises 100+ lm/W plus instant start, dimmability (important in a chandelier), and immunity to frequent starts.

We all have a blindspot - yours seems to be bright lights.

Bright lighting definitely helps SAD. Given that I don't go out much during the day, especially in summer when it's way too hot, bright interior lighting is essential for my well being.

I find it hard to get 4000K in the low power ones (5 and 8W) that we prefer in desklamps, etc (at only 0.4m above the desk, a 5W is equivalent to a 20W big bertha overhead).

For very small lighting needs like desklamps, LEDs are starting to make more sense than anything else. We finally have a wide variety of decent, efficient LEDs available in the neutral whites (3500K to 4500K) typically demanded for things like desklamps or residential lighting. I'm sure we'll soon have a wide variety of desk lamps based upon them.

 

[udaman]

umm, jtr, except for you and a few other 'enthusiasts' (read: tech zealots ), what about the gazillion other inhabitants on the planet who don't care about all the technical details, they just want an exact replacement for an incandescent bulb, in terms of ease of use with existing incandescent light fixtures.

Worry about replacing incandescent fixtures in the future, and forcing people to spend money they don't want to spend on products that give inferior light (by our standards, not your own particular...err, or should I say peculiar? standards).

Now if this ideal could work, meaning if they could get plastic to smooth out the light/diffuse it enough to cast no more harsh shadows than a soft reader incandescent bulb (this is even softer than standard soft white bulbs, requiring even more inefficient use of electricity, but much nice for reading) I would buy this 10w to 200w adjustability running in a standard incan bulb socket, they should do it, they'd sell a billion of them...why don't they make it? Is it too expensive, is it not reliable, is it not compatible for some electronics reason?

http://design-notes-deepankar.blogspot.com/

the crew hit on a better idea: a bulb in the familiar, socket-compatible form but powered by a high-output LED. It would use half the power and last 10 times longer than a fluorescent, cast the warm light of an incandescent, and be made of unbreakable plastic. "Everybody's got a light socket," says senior industrial designer Michael Delpier. "This bulb is twice as efficient as a compact fluorescent and has a nicer light. Plus, you can adjust it up or down, from 10 watts to 200 watts (assume they mean 'equivalent' lumen output of incandescent, not 200watts of LED output as this would be enough to replace streetlight/stadium-larger area HID's). And because it uses LEDs, it doesn't create heat."

 

[jtr1962]

Now if this ideal could work, meaning if they could get plastic to smooth out the light/diffuse it enough to cast no more harsh shadows than a soft reader incandescent bulb (this is even softer than standard soft white bulbs, requiring even more inefficient use of electricity, but much nice for reading) I would buy this 10w to 200w adjustability running in a standard incan bulb socket, they should do it, they'd sell a billion of them...why don't they make it? Is it too expensive, is it not reliable, is it not compatible for some electronics reason?

You could put a big plastic diffuser the size of a light bulb around an LED right now if that's what you want. Of course, you'll lose 15% to 20% of the light in the process. This is why it isn't done. Just compare the lumens for a 100 watt clear and frosted bulb to see for yourself. An easy 10% difference, even using less lossy, very thin glass. There are less lossy ways to diffuse light. How about just using multiple emitters spread out across a room? Or better yet just use linear tubes. No need to wait 3-5 years for the latest LED technology to make it to market when we have what you're after right now. Better yet, you can get linear tubes in any shade of white you want. In the future, we may have OLED panels which mount like ceiling tiles, giving a nice, diffuse light over the entire room. For now linear tubes are a decent alternative better than any point source, whether that source is LED, HID, CFL, or incandescent. That's one reason I use them a lot. I hate harsh point sources myself. Incandescent bulbs create as many shadows as any other compact light source.

There's lots of great reasons to replace incandescent fixtures once decent LED fixtures are available. The main reason is that most incandescent fixtures are horribly designed to project light where it is actually useful. A typical table lamp blocks 50% of the light with the shade. Some actually even have black shades. Most of the rest of the light hits the floor or ceiling where it is not terrible useful. In all, you probably end up with one-third of the original lumens actually lighting the room. Why bother trying to make screw-in retrofits for this when an LED fixture designed to emit light where it is needed can get by with only one-third of the lumens? Better yet, LED can be designed to do things incandescent or fluorescent can't, like changing color temperatures to suit one's preference, or even lighting in colors. It's just a shame many people can't see this potential, but rather seek to just shoehorn LED into the same, old boring incandescent fixtures we've been using since the 1700s. No, that's not a typo-many of today's incandescent fixtures are based on designs used for old-style candle and gas lights. If you want to have hanging things in a room to "look pretty" that's fine. Just don't use them as your primary light sources. Maybe dress up a chadelier with a few quarter watt LEDs to resemble lit candles while you light the rest of the room with diffuse overhead panels, or indirect fluorescent or LED, or something similar, if an old-fashioned aesthetic is what you're after. I personally prefer high-tech decor but to each his own.

 

[LunarMist]

Ordinary consumers just want a screw-in E26/E27 diffused, ominidirectional bulb replacement with instant turn on to high brightness, no toxic waste disposal requirement, and a reasonable efficiency similar to CFL.

Have fun replacing several thousands of dollars worth of lamps and fixtures in your home with some spacy, futuristic ones to save a couple of bucks on electricity over CFL.

 

[jtr1962]

Ordinary consumers just want a screw-in E26/E27 diffused, ominidirectional bulb replacement with instant turn on to high brightness, no toxic waste disposal requirement, and a reasonable efficiency similar to CFL.

For now. As new homes are built or fixtures reach their end of life they can be replaced with purpose-built fixtures. The life cycle of the average mass-produced incandescent fixture from Home Depot is less than ten years. By then it either breaks, or looks like crap. When that happens, it's no big deal putting a fixture designed for more efficient light emitters in its place.

Have fun replacing several thousands of dollars worth of lamps and fixtures in your home with some spacy, futuristic ones to save a couple of bucks on electricity over CFL.

I'll probably make them myself when the time comes, and it won't cost thousands. No need for now. The last few years as work was done in different parts of the house we replaced the old, mostly T12 fixtures with electronically ballasted T8s. Even counting the fancy $85 3-tube fixtures in the main room of the basement, I doubt we spent more than $750 on both fixtures and tubes. When LED lighting is mainstream, costs per fixture will likely be similar. There may well be retrofits for old, linear tube fixtures also. When electricity costs $1 per kW-hr it will make sense to spend $1000 replacing old, incandescent fixtures even if they're using CFL. And we're not that far from costs like that. Last electric bill the total power and delivery charge came to $0.35 per kW-hr. It's projected to top $0.50 and stay there by summer.

To udaman:

Here's the answer regarding your question about CFLs and motion sensors:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2229966&postcount=55

The whole thread is actually an interesting read if you have time, as is this one.

 

[LOST6200]

Whats up with thwe reliability of the mini fluorescent sprial byulbs? I have 3 dead ones of 12 in lesss than a year. 2 are over the mirror/sink in the small toiklet which is not even used thaty much.

 

[jtr1962]

Whats up with thwe reliability of the mini fluorescent sprial byulbs? I have 3 dead ones of 12 in lesss than a year. 2 are over the mirror/sink in the small toiklet which is not even used thaty much.

The problem is that the quality of those spirals is vastly inconsistent. Some makes last for their rated life or better with no problems. Others burn out soon after they're screwed in. Avoid the ones in the dollar stores. They're usually garbage. The ones Home Depot sells under the n:vision brand seem to be pretty good. So were the Commercial Electrics they used to sell. They even specifically said they could be used in enclosed fictures. Some stores might still have those in stock.

One thing to check for are dirty or corroded lamp sockets. That can cause problems with the ballast, leading to premature failure. Also, as a general rule it's better to run these things base down. This prevents the heat from the tube from also heating the base.

Here's a thread on this very subject which might be of interest.

 

[timwhit]

Whats up with thwe reliability of the mini fluorescent sprial byulbs? I have 3 dead ones of 12 in lesss than a year. 2 are over the mirror/sink in the small toiklet which is not even used thaty much.

I've heard that CFLs don't do well in overly humid environments, a bathroom where the shower is used probably gets pretty humid.

http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2567

 

[ddrueding]

Also, from what I've heard, power cycling is way more of a factor than power-on hours. Some analysis stated that if you were going to turn the light on again within an hour, you should just leave it on (from a bulb-life standpoint, not energy consumption).

 

[LOST6200]

I've heard that CFLs don't do well in overly humid environments, a bathroom where the shower is used probably gets pretty humid.

http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2567

I dont; ever use the shower in that batchroom (tiolet. )

 

[Fushigi]

Some analysis stated that if you were going to turn the light on again within an hour, you should just leave it on (from a bulb-life standpoint, not energy consumption).

Mythbusters - yeah, I know it's edutainment & not science - measured the startup & operating power draws of various bulbs types, including incandescent, CFL, and LED. For fluorescent-type bulbs, regular or compact, the "just leave it running" time was just a few seconds. The other bulb types didn't have a startup "surge" so they can be cycled off/on with nary a thought to power consumption.

 

[ddrueding]

(from a bulb-life standpoint, not energy consumption)

I know it uses more power when it is on (I saw that show, too). The argument I read was that it "killed" the bulb faster to turn it off/on more than just leave it on.

 

[jtr1962]

Doing things in a more analytical manner, let's say that the CFL is rated for 6000 hours. This is based on a 3 hours on, 30 minutes off cycle as most fluorescents are, so for this lamp it lasts 2000 starts. Generally, you'll get about 40% more life than rated if the lamp is left on continuously. In this case that would be 8400 hours. So 2000 starts costs about 2400 hours of lamp life, or 1.2 hours per start. Starting with the 8400 hour baseline life then the lamp can last approximately 7000 starts. Let's say the lamp costs $5. Each start costs 0.0714 cents.

Now let's analyze power usage. Use electricity at 12 cents per kW-hr and assume the lamp is 23 watts. Therefore the lamp uses about 0.276 cents per hour when running. An hours running costs roughly the same as 3.865 starts. Let's call it 4 for the sake of simplicity. So if you're coming back into the room within 15 minutes it's better to leave the light on. If not, turn it off. Higher electrical costs will reduce this time, as will higher lamp wattages. Lower costs or lower wattages will increase it. Longer rated life will tend to decrease it, as will lower lamp costs. If the same CFL only cost $2 then the time drops to only 6 minutes. Probably 15 minutes is a good rule of thumb for most situations.

There's no such trade-off for incandescent lamps or LEDs. When you're out of the room, turn it off.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks for the in-depth analysis JTR, you never fail to impress.

 

[LOST6200]

The problem is that the quality of those spirals is vastly inconsistent. Some makes last for their rated life or better with no problems. Others burn out soon after they're screwed in. Avoid the ones in the dollar stores. They're usually garbage. The ones Home Depot sells under the n:vision brand seem to be pretty good. So were the Commercial Electrics they used to sell. They even specifically said they could be used in enclosed fictures. Some stores might still have those in stock.

One thing to check for are dirty or corroded lamp sockets. That can cause problems with the ballast, leading to premature failure. Also, as a general rule it's better to run these things base down. This prevents the heat from the tube from also heating the base.

Here's a thread on this very subject which might be of interest.

Yeah it be aqwas nvidia blulb. The light was mounted horizonattly over the sink i n a 6 soket linera fixture from ~2006. Nor corrotions, just defect blulbs.

 

[LOST6200]

Probably 15 minutes is a good rule of thumb for most situations.

All so much that analysuis, but it takes severla minutes to get any fair brightness from the CLF. Less that 15 miutines is crazxy. I have at least one regulatr blurb in the array so that ther is a reasonble ligth in the first minuet.

 

[ddrueding]

I hadn't noticed CFLs getting much brighter after the first 5-10 seconds. Do they really get brighter after that?

 

[jtr1962]

I hadn't noticed CFLs getting much brighter after the first 5-10 seconds. Do they really get brighter after that?

The ones which have mercury amalgam instead of liquid mercury tend to take a few minutes to come up to full brightness. However, they also tend to be able to endure more starts. Even the CFLs that seem to come up to full brightness right away actually get a little brighter as they run. In fact, so do linear tubes. Of course, the difference is only 10% or 15% so you need a light meter to detect it.

All so much that analysuis, but it takes severla minutes to get any fair brightness from the CLF. Less that 15 miutines is crazxy. I have at least one regulatr blurb in the array so that ther is a reasonble ligth in the first minuet.

My analysis just shows that if plan to be out of a room for more than 15 minutes, it's best to just turn out the lights. If you'll be going in and out every few minutes, might as well just leave the light on.

 

[jtr1962]

I just came back from Home Depot. I noticed something interesting with the n:vision CFLs regarding the output. The 14 watt "60 watt equivalent" warm whites give 900 lumens. The 3500K bright whites are 800 lumens, and the 5500K daylights are 630 lumens. Respective efficiencies in lumens per watt are 64, 57, and 45. Same trend with the "100 watt equivalents". The warm whites are 23 watts and 1600 lumens (69.6 lm/W). The daylights are 27 watts and 1300 lumens (48.1 lm/W). So it seems we're around 70 lm/W with these, at least in the warm whites. Not bad. Also, the incandescent wattage equivalents are pretty close in terms of lumens, at least for the warm whites.

The apparent lumen deficiency of the daylights doesn't carry over into the real world. The 14 watt daylight we have in the front outdoor light actually seems as bright as the 23 watt warm white on the side. Granted, the one on the side is older, 60 lm/W technology putting out only 1380 lumens, but that's still more than twice the lumens of the one in front. Same thing with the front entry foyer. We replaced two 14 watt warm whites with the same wattage daylights. It looks way brighter even though the lumens are less. Some companies put so-called brightness lumens on their packages to quantify this phenomena. The new flouresent floodlight we bought for the side is 68 watts and 4200 lumens. However, the package mentions 6850 brightness lumens. Color temp looks around 6000K. Anyway, none is this is anything new. It's just that we've finally become more aware of it. When the old mercury vapor lamps were replaced with sodium vapor which allegedly had the same lumens but used less power, people said the streets looked much dimmer than before.

 

[jtr1962]

Yeah it be aqwas nvidia blulb.

No wonder it broke. Definitely an overheating problem, just like their video cards.

 

[LOST6200]

OK, maybe the N:Videa. I think it was a gereen one, whichever phorsphors are used.