Linear tubes-a better answer to home lighting than CFLs?

[jtr1962]

Although I've alluded to this topic in many posts, I thought it finally deserved its own thread. I've read many threads where some complain about CFLs, others mostly praise them, and nearly everyone mentions their hit or miss quality control. While CFLs are good for some uses, they are not the panacea they're sometimes made out to be. And even for those uses where they're entirely suitable, the ongoing push to make them less expensive has been the one thing most responsible for their bad rap. I'm in the electronics business. A CFL ballast, a decent one that is, is simply not possible to design into a lamp selling for $1.50. And it seems there is no desire to sell a more expensive CFL with a replaceable tube and non-throwaway ballast. The economics are against it. Even if people were willing to spend that much, consider that it wouldn't be a whole lot more to just buy a purpose-designed fluorescent fixture. And once you do that, you avoid all the drawbacks of shoehorning a fluorescent tube into a form factor better suited to a filament lamp.

This line of thought leads me to conclude that instead of CFLs, we would have been better off giving people incentives to replace their screw-in bulb fixtures with T8 or T5 linear fixtures. Perhaps something along the lines of a tax credit or some other incentive which covers a good part of the cost of a fixture, provided it's a fixture meeting certain quality guidelines, not cheap junk.

The advantages of linear tubes over CFLs are many:

1) Efficiency is about 50% more, and fixture efficiency is often higher than bulb fixtures, giving further gains.

2) The ballast lasts for the life of the fixture, not the life of the tube.

3) The tubes last 3 to 6 times as long as CFLs, and are very inexpensive to replace (generally under $2 in bulk packs of 25, even for the higher phosphor grades).

4) They are available in a much greater variety of color temperatures and CRI grades than CFLs.

5) The 4-foot tubes are very readily available, and other lengths are also commonly available.

6) They give diffuse, shadow-free light, much better than the shadowy point sources of either incandescents or CFLs.

7) Today's electronic ballasts usually have a high power factor. The ballasts are also available in several different ballast factors (BF is a measure of how hard the tube is driven).

8) They are easily integrated into most decors, either by recessing them completely in the ceiling, or by using them as indirect light sources (although this latter approach hurts efficiency somewhat).

9) They were in nearly their present state of development a decade ago, meaning we've missed a decade of opportunities to reduce power consumption.

10) They can be highly dimmable although this must be designed into the ballast (and it requires a special wall switch). Nevertheless, they are far more dimmable than CFLs.

The two reasons I gather as to why linear tubes haven't been used more in residential settings is the reluctance to change out fixtures, and also the fact that lighting designers have focused their efforts entirely on screw-based fixtures. There's little doubt in my mind you can make highly aesthetic linear tube fixtures for homes. There has simply been a reluctance on the part of lighting designers to do so. And some of the resistance may be entirely cultural. Along those lines I'll close with an interesting comment I read here (comment #93):

"In India, Incandescent light bulbs are considered 'bad lighting' - only the poorest people have incandescents. Tube lights are considered better because of their shadow free lighting, and CFLs are gaining ground as well. When I came to the US the first time, I was surprised at how most people had Incandescents in their homes - I personally consider them to be the worst light source - by light quality and for the environment. I use the CFLS which are 'Cool Daylight' ones - not the ones which give yellow light."

So, what are your thoughts on this? I know LED lighting is making great strides, but I suspect it'll be at least a decade before it gets as good as linear tubes (and will likely require a purpose-made fixture to do so anyway). We have a great answer sitting under our noses right now. Why not take advantage of it?

 

[VidPro]

perfect for when i move into that Quansit hut , or decide to rip the house to shreads and put big holes in it, or dance around on the top of drywall waiting for my foot to slip.
Then toss out all those lamp things that booringly sit by the night stand and put a nice Tube on the ceiling i can stare into as i read that book.
then stand up in the room and almost head butt the fixture that is 1.5feet from my head thanks to the low ceiling.

replace all 3 of them nasty $100 overpriced gold annodised candelabra with a nice gold painted BOX with a light tube in it, then dangle it from the ceiling with a gold chain.
then unscrew those stupid gold & glass things hanging under the $300 fan, and put a nice efficent T-8 hanging down from the fan, mabey have it spin around with the fan for that special look.

then replace all the $15 motion sencors with a nice $89 one with a dimmer in it and a motion sencor that wont destroy a flor balast.

then remove that special "track lighting" that cost some $50 per freaking head, that sits elegantly on the ceiling lighting only select areas without needing a Brim hat on to walk through your own house.

toss those $50-100 floor lamps with the "design" and then what? put in a floor lamp with a t-8 verticle in place of it? not likly to want to view that, so its up to the ceiling again, right next to the double tier bunk bed, where the light can be about 3 feet from the head of the person on the top. Rise and shine brother, time for my 2am pee.

then dont forget that nice small entry way, with the useless incan fixture , glistening in beveled glass and faux gold , strapped to the ceiling in a place that isnt even big enough for 4 feet of tube, so it can be turned on for 12.8 seconds as someone arrives at the door.

not gonna tear out the 2 useless floor striking hall lamps, Times 4 halls , when they are only on for 10seconds as the human walks through, as when else are hall lights needed?

then to maintain the "resale" value on the home i might have to unload on some hetrosexual couple , meaning it is likly to have a woman who reads "Better Lawn Gnomes and Gardens" who thinks a gaudy box light stuffed in the ceiling must be replaced and holed over before they will plunk down the balooned price for the house.

There are just to many places in some high faluting house designs , that were condemned to Incan and putting in a extreemly efficient long tube item wont work without a total redesign, and then that sort of has to "match" the rest of the house. meaning replace one, replace all.

then some of the places where they DID put in florescent, they felt they had to keep the "design" in the process, so they box it up, trim it, doubble frost it, and by the time the light makes it to the FLOOR, the extra 160W of tubes shoved in it, dont even light the stove, they probably forked out $500 in cute to put the efficency back to 50Lumens per watt.

it is easy in those places to toss in the nasty CFL, it is not very easy to redesign a whole home built with incan all over the place.

long tubes are wonderfull, and i would dangle them from the ceiling off of chains, but then again, I would rather be living IN the quansit hut, talk about efficency

those are just some of the reasons, why outright changing stuff that i have not already changed to Florescent isnt as easy as saying they are better. they still have thier place.

and i was able to change lots of that stuff to CFL and LED. but mostly i just Leave it All OFF automatically, saves everything.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm thinking here mostly of giving incentives to put tube fixtures in places where lights are on a lot, not to replace stuff which is only on 2 minutes a day. I see far too many houses with a kilowatt of can lights in the family room or kitchen, for example. Those can lights are just holes in the ceiling, not any more aesthetic than a tube fixture would be.

Yeah, it's better if you can design a house from the start to use tube lights. Retrofits are always going to cause some issues. Nevertheless, we're in a 1950s home which we converted to mostly tube fixtures in the 1980s. That includes the entire finished basement, the kitchen and my bedroom. My mom didn't want to replace the chandeliers in the master bedroom, family room, or dining room (she likes the look of the fixtures themselves but hates the type of light we get from the incandescents in them). So we're waiting on LED bulbs for those but in the meantime we hardly use them (a few hours a month, if that).

No track lighting here (it would be a MAJOR dust collector), and only 3 table lamps. I know lots of people use table lamps. I just personally don't "get" why. I'd rather just flood the room with about 10K lumens from a 4x32W T8 if I want to read. Seriously, it's easier for me to read that way than to deal with the shadows from task lighting such as table lamps. Not to mention I find it highly annoying/unnatural to look at a book being well lit while the background of the room is in shadows. Lots of reasons above and beyond efficiency to use linear tubes for us. Ease of use is one reason (one light does it all instead of having 4 or 5 fixtures cluttering up floor space). Low maintenance is another (replacing tubes once per decade, even in heavily used areas, is nice). Besides all that, if you want 10K or 15K lumens in an average sized room, no reasonable low cost, low fuss alternatives exist other than linear tubes.

 

[VidPro]

10-15K holy cow. no wonder why you have to have whole light tubes, i just want a 3W Cree to follow me around above my head

dont you have to vaccume daily if you have that kind of light, did you paint the walls black , do people wear sunglasses in your house :thumbsup:

 

[blasterman]

Biggest drawback against fluorescent tubes:

Try putting a lampshade on one, or, putting a shoplight on the ceiling of your living room - usually it's 'end of thread' right there. Who wants their house lit like the office supply store?

One other big point: A CFL with a lampshade or alabaster pendant over it has a reflector efficiency of 100% (basically because it doesn't have a reflector). I'm sure I could design some cool fixture to enclose a vertical fluorescent tube, but directionality would be limited.

External electronic ballasts whip the tar out of 99% of screw in CFL ballasts - agreed. Hower, plug in CFLs have all the advantages of CFL and commercial fluorescent tubes but are continually ignored by residential demographics.

 

[jtr1962]

Biggest drawback against fluorescent tubes:

Try putting a lampshade on one, or, putting a shoplight on the ceiling of your living room - usually it's 'end of thread' right there. Who wants their house lit like the office supply store?

That's actually kind of the point I'm making here-why aren't lighting designers making more aesthetic tube fixtures for residential use instead of focusing solely on bulb-based fixtures? Granted, the form factor can't work for table lamps (and LEDs are getting pretty close to filling that niche anyhow), but for ceiling fixtures, perhaps even for floor lamps, why not? And I'm not necessarily talking about the oak-enclosed fixtures with efficiency robbing diffusers here. Those are OK but they rob a lot of light from the fixture. And they're basically bland, utilitarian boxes with a little ornamentation. Rather, I'm talking about a way to make creative use of the tube in such a way that it mostly shows, but is still pleasing. The nice thing about linear tubes, unlike CFLs or incandescents, is the fact that you don't necessarily need shades or diffusers. The unshielded light source itself just isn't bright enough to cause an undue amount of glare, especially if ceiling mounted. But it needs to be presented in a home in such a way that you don't feel like you're in Walmart. While I personally might not find something like this or this overly objectionable in my bedroom or family room, I realize lots of people would. And even I would prefer something a little more aesthetically pleasing. Those boxes are just sooooo boring.

External electronic ballasts whip the tar out of 99% of screw in CFL ballasts - agreed. Hower, plug in CFLs have all the advantages of CFL and commercial fluorescent tubes but are continually ignored by residential demographics.

Agreed again but with one caveat. The main thing I have against plug-in CFLs right now is the fact that the tubes are more expensive and less available than linear tubes. 4-foot linear tubes are ubiquitous and cheap. Everyone has them. Not so with plug-in CFLs. And undoubtedly if residential fixtures were made each manufacturer would come out with their own form factor, keeping the price of lamps high. Not only that, but I wouldn't want to install a fixture where I'm locked into one proprietary type of lamp. If the manufacturer goes under, I'll need to buy a new fixture once I can't get replacement lamps any more. So if we can standardize on tube types, get the costs per tube down to the levels of linear tubes, and have the same wide availability of color temps/CRI grades (most bi-pins I see are only available in warm white, along with a few 4100K or 6500K, and all are CRI 80 or so phosphors), then plug-in CFLs are a great idea. Until then, however, I think linear tubes represent a more immediately viable solution for quite a few residential lighting needs. Not all of course, but quite a few.

 

[2xTrinity]

I strongly agree here. I would like to see most homes with grids of "recessed can" lighting fixtures instead have recessed T5 fixtures with high efficiency reflectors behind them, similar to the sort of fixtures being installed in office buildings these days. They are not nearly as ugly as bare tubes or shoplights in the garage, which is what most people picture and why everyone tends to recoil in horror if I actually suggest this outside of CPF... Also, that would be as aesthetically pleasing if not moreso as the recessed cans. And the fixtures could have a diming ballast built in.

Same funcitonality as the recessed can lighting (that is a dimmable light source for a whole room, usually intented to be on for a long time) with a lot better efficiency, and also more freedom to choose color temperatures higher than 2300k (the color temperature of an incan dimmed to a small fraction of an output). The fact that dimmable fluorescent fixtures maintain their color temperature is, IMO, actually a benefit.

Try putting a lampshade on one, or, putting a shoplight on the ceiling of your living room - usually it's 'end of thread' right there. Who wants their house lit like the office supply store?

In my apartment I currently have several T8 fixtures around -- including a shoplight in my living room. Admittedly I'm using them for indirect lighting (they are on top of some cabinets, bouncing off the ceiling. I have another behind the TV which set up as a "wall sconce". While not as efficient as direct lighting, it's still WAY more efficient and uniform than incandescent or CFL wall sconces (not uncommon in many homes...)

I have a wall cabinet over my desk, and an undercabinet fluorescent fixture there -- much better than a desk lamp as far as not casting shadows on my work. Admittedly there are still many CFLs, and a few incans in much of the apartment. Places like bathroom, hallway etc all still have incan as those lamps are on infrequently and for short periods of time.

 

[Random Guy]

...4-foot linear tubes are ubiquitous and cheap. Everyone has them. Not so with plug-in CFLs. And undoubtedly if residential fixtures were made each manufacturer would come out with their own form factor, keeping the price of lamps high. Not only that, but I wouldn't want to install a fixture where I'm locked into one proprietary type of lamp. If the manufacturer goes under, I'll need to buy a new fixture once I can't get replacement lamps any more. So if we can standardize on tube types, get the costs per tube down to the levels of linear tubes, and have the same wide availability of color temps/CRI grades (most bi-pins I see are only available in warm white, along with a few 4100K or 6500K, and all are CRI 80 or so phosphors), then plug-in CFLs are a great idea. Until then, however, I think linear tubes represent a more immediately viable solution for quite a few residential lighting needs. Not all of course, but quite a few.

With a few exceptions (like Lights of America), there is a standard for the base of plug in CFL lamps.

 

[jtr1962]

With a few exceptions (like Lights of America), there is a standard for the base of plug in CFL lamps.

Fair enough-I think I've been too exposed to Lights of America and their proprietary lamps. Still, if you look here and here, you can see some of the drawbacks I alluded to-limited selection of color temperature, no high-CRI grades, much higher cost per lumen than linear tubes, and also a 10,000 to 12,000 hours life, as opposed to typically 20,000 to 35,000 for linear tubes. Still, in places where linear tubes don't make sense, I'll admit plug-in CFLs are quite a bit better than taking a chance on the "quality lottery" with regular CFLs. Come to think of it, why aren't lighting designers doing table lamps with plug-in CFLs (incorporating features such as dimmability in the built-in ballast)? There sure as heck would be a market for it.

 

[blasterman]

I guess I'm confused as to what problem linear fluorescents would solve that they haven't already. Already pretty much every office space (and most grocery stores) use them. With industrial and manufacturing it's a fist fight between HID and T5 arrays.

Another issue with residential is that while dual and quad linear fluorescent fixtures (shoplights as a general term) put out a lot of light, the light is rather ambiguous. In an office work place or grocery aisle you want to evenly illuminate every square inch. In your home you typically want accent light in certain areas and localized light in others. Not the most practical thing for a linear tube or shoplight. Doesn't explain the popularity of can / recessed lights, but I'm not responsible for a lighting trend that should have died with flared corduroy pants and love beads

I have seen very nice, minimalistic fixtures using T5s that might work in residential - depending on your decor. Basically, these are low profile, open fixtures with a thin reflector housing a single T5. Done right this looks decent in the home and provides localized light.

 

[jtr1962]

Can lights are actually one of the primary types of home lighting that I was thinking of here. Every time I see a kitchen or family room lit with a kilowatt of can lights I cringe. The goal seems to be to provide both even, ambiguous light, and a lot of it when desired (hence the dimmability). Can lights are ripe for replacement with linear tubes on a dimming ballast as 2xTrinity mentioned earlier. Aesthetically, they're both zeroes-basically holes in the ceiling which emit light. On a practical basis, the linear tubes have all the aforementioned advantages. And yes, I can't fathom the popularity of can lights myself. While I can understand wanting a lot of shadow-free lighting, to me can lights seem about the worst way to get it. They're a major fire hazard, they consume a ton of power, and if you have, say, 12 bulbs with 750 hours life, then figure on replacing one bulb about every 10 days on average if the lights are one 6 hours a night.

In your home you typically want accent light in certain areas and localized light in others. Not the most practical thing for a linear tube or shoplight.

Depends upon the person. I'm personally not big on localized lighting-I find it very distracting to have an area I'm doing something in brightly lit while the background is dark. My eyes get confused trying to decide which light level to adjust to. So if I'm doing a task, I just flood the entire room with 10K or so lumens. On the other hand, if I just want to see to get around, then I could either have a small lamp with a CFL, or better yet a dimming ballast on my linear fixture. Hence, one fixture can do it all. No need to clutter up rooms with a gazillion fixtures for different purposes.

Your post made me think a bit more about what problems I think can be solved with linear flourescents, and I believe that the idea of having one fixture instead of many is certainly one. This is all the more important for those in small homes or apartments cramped for space. Get rid of your table lamps or floor lamps, and suddenly you declutter a room quite a bit (and give yourself fewer things to dust). Anyway, a linear fixture with a dimming ballast gives you the ability to do everything with a single fixture. Put it on full for tasks, turn it down to 10% or 20% the rest of the time. And if you want accent lighting, just use low wattage LEDs on whatever you're accenting. The idea here is that they don't need to emit enough light to light up the area around them, but just enough so they accent whatever they're in. I also think longer term instead of linear tubes we could use flat OLED panels on ceiling-basically the luminous ceiling idea which is what I always thought of as most practical for lighting.

 

[blasterman]

Agreement on the can lights. Like I said in another thread awhile back is who wants to light their living room like the banquet room at the Ramada?

While you bring up some good ideas, the problem is that you don't want to make your living room look like the office. I have though about building a larger version of my Shoji using several thousand lumens of Bridgelux because it creates near 360 light that seems to come from everywhere, but the light can get too diffuse if it's too bright

Also, if you're an apartment dweller it's kind of a bad idea installing built in fixtures, so then lamps become a better idea. Doesn't mean you can't build a lamp with linear tubes though. I've alread got an idea for a stack of three where they intersect at right angles about 5-7feet off the floor and do exactly what you want.

Get rid of your table lamps or floor lamps

That's like telling women to get rid of doilies and drapes

 

[ponygt65]

It's very simple why not........it's called correctly design the lighting for it's environment.

Vaulted ceilings? Most homes have them. You woudl NOT install a linear fixture on a vaulted ceiling.

Uh...6-7' hallway, install what? ... a wrap fixture in a HOME? no.

THe SINGLE LARGEST problem with lighting and what gives certian lighting setups a bad wrap is INcorrect/poor design. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the almighty $$$$ didn't rule the roost. Incan cans are cheap and are a dime a dozen. People want Hollywood Luxury at 'bad part of town' pricing. Can't have both.

Cans, just like linear's, have their place in the lighting industry. They are just over/poorly spec'd. I think if more commercial products were used in the resi. market, it would be better. IN commercial, you rarely see a white trimmed white baffle can setup. It's typically a specular/chrome to increase reflectance value.

And although plug in cfls are higher $$, they have their place and should be used. Linear fluorescents do not have an advantage in teh dimming or motion sensor side. They only advantage is price for ballast, and price for 'bulb'. But, when you can't use a 2 or 4' fixture, it's what should be used.

 

[blasterman]

Nothing to disagree with

Here's my take on this from a different angle. Looking at housing trends in the U.S. I'll make the following predictions:

- The days of the McMansion for the middle class are over. Not only is the housing boom obviously over, but fuel/electricity costs are eventually going to start going back up again. Families are getting smaller and we're already seeing the beginnings of a revolt against over-size houses. Does a family of four want to pay for heating/cooling a 4000sq foot house with vaulted ceilings or a 2000sq foot house with standard ceilings?

- The over use of recessed lighting in residential has created problems that might not have a practical solution. Main stream CFLs can't be dimmed, and they generally don't look good in cans anyways. LED retrofits might be further off the scope. This leaves incans/halogens about the only solution and back where you started from.

So, I still see the trend moving more towards modular / lamp style lighting and moving away from built in / fixed lighting because the later has been land-locked so to speak with dead-end technology.

 

[jtr1962]

I agree the days of huge homes (and for that matter building in ever more remote areas) are over with. I'll also add that vaulted ceilings seem to be more a thing in suburbia. Not one house on my block has them. They're actually somewhat of a rarity in the city. But then again, a lot of the housing stock here dates back to the 1960s or 1950s (and this is a relatively new area). Some areas have homes from the 1920s or earlier. And most of the new construction has been luxury condos or townhouses, neither of which have vaulted ceilings.

Like I said earlier, I honestly think replacing can lights was the primary thing I had in mind when I started this thread, although there are other uses also. You're obviously not going to stick four foot tubes in a small hallway or a walk-in clothes closet. But in any room with can lights, to me they seem like an obvious choice as can lights are basically stuck with outmoded technology. Sure, you could replace the cans with those nice Cree downlights, but in a world where $$$$ govern that's mostly not going to happen. So flush mount linear fixtures seem the obvious next choice. I suppose you could also go with smaller fixtures using bi-pins. To be honest though, I don't see that it looks any better have a ceiling with a bunch of ~18" square holes emitting light, or fewer 18" x 48" holes doing the same thing. At least with the linears the tubes are cheaper, last longer, are more efficient, and are available in more choices.

I'm not so sure lamps/modular lighting are going to be the next thing. I've been following OLEDs. If they live up to the hype, you'll basically stick them on your ceiling. Nice even diffuse light, even better than linears, saves painting the ceiling, and it'll probably be infinitely adjustable in brightness and color temperature. Plus it goes with any decor. The fixture itself is essentially part of the room. Primary lighting problem solved. And you can still stick accent lights using LEDs wherever you want if it suits your decor.

 

[ponygt65]

I agree the days of huge homes (and for that matter building in ever more remote areas) are over with. I'll also add that vaulted ceilings seem to be more a thing in suburbia. Not one house on my block has them. They're actually somewhat of a rarity in the city. But then again, a lot of the housing stock here dates back to the 1960s or 1950s (and this is a relatively new area). Some areas have homes from the 1920s or earlier. And most of the new construction has been luxury condos or townhouses, neither of which have vaulted ceilings.

Like I said earlier, I honestly think replacing can lights was the primary thing I had in mind when I started this thread, although there are other uses also. You're obviously not going to stick four foot tubes in a small hallway or a walk-in clothes closet. But in any room with can lights, to me they seem like an obvious choice as can lights are basically stuck with outmoded technology. Sure, you could replace the cans with those nice Cree downlights, but in a world where $$$$ govern that's mostly not going to happen. So flush mount linear fixtures seem the obvious next choice. I suppose you could also go with smaller fixtures using bi-pins. To be honest though, I don't see that it looks any better have a ceiling with a bunch of ~18" square holes emitting light, or fewer 18" x 48" holes doing the same thing. At least with the linears the tubes are cheaper, last longer, are more efficient, and are available in more choices.

I'm not so sure lamps/modular lighting are going to be the next thing. I've been following OLEDs. If they live up to the hype, you'll basically stick them on your ceiling. Nice even diffuse light, even better than linears, saves painting the ceiling, and it'll probably be infinitely adjustable in brightness and color temperature. Plus it goes with any decor. The fixture itself is essentially part of the room. Primary lighting problem solved. And you can still stick accent lights using LEDs wherever you want if it suits your decor.

I think that's part of the problem. Geography and the limited exposure you have ot other building developments. I mean no offense, I grew up in a 60s home and loved it for hte most part. I think if you had more exposure to different designs, developments (IE: getting a feel for what others run into), you might have a slightly different view point.

It's a good thing they dont' install cans in a garage.

 

[jtr1962]

I think if you had more exposure to different designs, developments (IE: getting a feel for what others run into), you might have a slightly different view point.

That's true, although a lot of what I said here would definitely be applicable to houses in the city, but not to the McMansions typically seen in the suburbs (I agree linears won't work well on vaulted ceilings). Frankly, when lighting a cavernous space like that the best bet is just lamps and task lighting. No point at all trying to light the parts of the room 20 feet above.

It's a good thing they dont' install cans in a garage.

I agree. I think myself and blasterman should write a book on can lights given how much we both hate the things. :laughing:

 

[blasterman]

I've been following OLEDs. If they live up to the hype, you'll basically stick them on your ceiling.

Essentially, turning the ceiling into the out-door sky. Makes perfect sense if it's not a very high ceiling.

I still think the best use for vaulted / high ceilings is a tall and diffuse lamp. Condo I rented before I bought my house had vaulted ceilings, and the best way to light the room was with my photographic umbrella at about 9' height and CFLs shooting up into it. Looked incredible, and gave awesome space to the entire room. Some light goes through the umbrella and creates diffuse bounce light while most of it deflects downward for bright yet soft reading light. This gave me a lot of ideas.....

Yeah, it's stupid to try and light the ceiling with a vaulted ceiling because you need a frikken 400watt metal halide to do it, but with a lot of open floor plans out there it's a reality. I still think you could make a slick looking and functional floor/wall lamp with linear tubes that would do the job nicely and better than CFL.

 

[ddawg16]

While I agree with many of your points.....I hate to see exagerated #'s.

1) Efficiency is about 50% more, and fixture efficiency is often higher than bulb fixtures, giving further gains.

I would like to see your source for the '50%'. I've been doing my research and if you compare the best t8 to the worst CFL....the t8 'might' have about a 30% hedge in efficiency. But on average I would say it's more in the 10% range.

3) The tubes last 3 to 6 times as long as CFLs, and are very inexpensive to replace (generally under $2 in bulk packs of 25, even for the higher phosphor grades).

And where did you get that #? A good CFL is going to last 5-8000 hours? So your saying that T8/5 tubes last anywhere from 15K to 50K hours?

I agree with you on LED's...but as we both know LED's have a long way to go to be the cost effective solution that we all want to see....but it's not there yet....and most likely won't be for another 10 years or so.

Making the wholesale changes you suggest to a house to accomodate T5's is going to cost a lot more than the potential savings.

The existing pool of light fixtures that exist in our country far outnumbers any cost benifit from changing to a tube.....

While it's possible to do what your saying....from a marketing point of view...and by that I mean the company that has to design and build said fixtures for the applications you suggest.....I doubt the payback would be anywhere close to the development costs....sure, there are a lot of things we would like to have different....but unless your going to pay for it....it's not going to happen.....

Right now CFL's are doing a good job bridging that gap of wanting decent lighting at an affordable cost with good energy savings....and using existing fixtures....

The money to be made is not in designing new lights that require new fixtures....but making a light that fits existing fixtures....

BTW.....I just finished a new garage....20x25....I wanted recessed lighting because I do woodworking....and 2x4's and lights hanging down are not a good match.....I would have gone with tube t5's or 8's....but I had two issues....1st...I did not have enough room for most of the linear tubes....my floor joists are on 12" centers....2nd...the 24 6' cans were about $200 cheaper than the tube fixtures. I was able to place the cans where I wanted them. I'm getting plenty of light right now just using 23w CFL's. Here is a pic taken in the afternoon with no flash....

And one last thing.....I can mix and match color and wattage all I want....not too many options with 4' tubes on the wattage....

 

[jtr1962]

I would like to see your source for the '50%'. I've been doing my research and if you compare the best t8 to the worst CFL....the t8 'might' have about a 30% hedge in efficiency. But on average I would say it's more in the 10% range.

CFLs are typically in the 50 to 65 lm/W range. I've seen a few that are about 70 lm/W, but the average seems to be around 60 lm/W. Those figures include ballast losses. A 32W T8 linear tube is usually rated anywhere from 2800 to 3200 lumens, with 2950 being a common number. This is for the tube itself but these industry standard ratings are on a magnetic ballast. On an electronic ballast you get maybe 10% more, and interestingly, this about makes up for the ballast losses. Therefore, in effect you can get a good estimate of the entire system efficiency just looking at the tube efficiency, which is typically about 92 lm/W. Or if you want to do things more accurately, look at the ballast factor, tube rating, and ballast power consumption. Good example is the 4-tube fixtures in the kitchen and my bedroom. The tubes are rated at 3200 lumens. The ballast factor is 0.89, meaning the tubes run at 0.89 x 3200, or 2848 lumens, each. The total output for four tubes is therefore 2848 x 4 = 11392 lumens. Power consumption is 107 watts. Overall system efficiency is 11392/107 = 106 lm/W. Granted, these are among the most efficient tubes and ballast. Nevertheless, this is about 50% better than the most efficient CFLs I've seen. If you want to go with more typical numbers, then you might have 0.89 ballast factor, 2950 lumen tubes, and maybe 112 watts total consumption for 4 tubes. This gives you 93.8 lm/W, or roughly 50% better than "typical" CFLs, and about 34% better than the best ones. Note that in both cases I'm not even taking into account fixture efficiency. Chances are it'll be somewhat better even in a cheap linear fixture, as opposed to omni-directional CFLs in cans, but for the purposes of argument let's assume it's the same. The linears do in fact come out 50% better when comparing like to like (typical to typical, best to best).

Not sure where you got your numbers from. Either you're aware of very efficient CFLs, or maybe you're assuming T8s have efficiencies comparable to the old school T12s which were anywhere from 60 to maybe 75 lm/W. And here is a source for some linear tubes I own in case you doubt my numbers. These aren't anything special, just commodity 850 T8 tubes similar to those made by any of the other big players (GE, Philips, Sylvania).

And where did you get that #? A good CFL is going to last 5-8000 hours? So your saying that T8/5 tubes last anywhere from 15K to 50K hours?

Yep (and 3x 5-8K is 15-24K, not 15-50K). Typical lower grade T8s available at Home Depot for $1.50 a tube are rated at 20K hours. Better ones like the ones I'm using are more (my Paralite Maxum 5000s are rated at 34K, the Ushio 850s at 24K). And unlike with many CFLs these days, provided you use the tubes in a halfway decent fixture, you'll actually stand a good chance of getting something approaching this rating. I've even had tubes last a very long time in cheap $10 shoplights (just avoid anything made by Lights of America).

I agree with you on LED's...but as we both know LED's have a long way to go to be the cost effective solution that we all want to see....but it's not there yet....and most likely won't be for another 10 years or so.

LED is almost there for incandescent replacement. I agree though it'll be probably 10 years or more before it makes sense for places using linear tubes to make the switch.

Making the wholesale changes you suggest to a house to accomodate T5's is going to cost a lot more than the potential savings.

Actually, T8s make a lot more sense now. T5s are still not as widely available, plus the tubes cost more.

The existing pool of light fixtures that exist in our country far outnumbers any cost benifit from changing to a tube.....

While it's possible to do what your saying....from a marketing point of view...and by that I mean the company that has to design and build said fixtures for the applications you suggest.....I doubt the payback would be anywhere close to the development costs....sure, there are a lot of things we would like to have different....but unless your going to pay for it....it's not going to happen.....

There are no development costs here. We're simply leveraging a technology which has been in widespread commercial use for decades for home use. The point I'm making with this whole thread is that linear tubes had all the advantages I mentioned 10 or 15 years ago. They could have been widely used in residences back then, long before inexpensive CFLs existed, and long before white LEDs existed at all. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with CFLs, it would have made more sense to mandate their use in new structures rather than continuing to build such structures with screw-based fixtures. Granted, this wouldn't do anything at all for existing structures, but at least we're not adding to the problem with new structures.

As for payback periods, it all depends what you had before. If you had a screw-in fixture with incandescents, then a linear fixture can pay for itself very quickly. On the other hand, it may take a bit longer with CFLs. It's not just the electricity saved, but also the lamp replacement costs. Moreover, I've never once suggested replacing infrequently used fixtures with linear tubes. That makes zero sense. But if you use a fixture 4, 6, 10 hours a day, then you can justify it on economics alone.

Right now CFL's are doing a good job bridging that gap of wanting decent lighting at an affordable cost with good energy savings....and using existing fixtures....

When lights aren't heavily used, or it's a fixture not really amenable to tubes (i.e. a table lamp), then I agree. One major problem though is the inconsistent quality of CFLs. That alone has discouraged many from continuing to use them.

The money to be made is not in designing new lights that require new fixtures....but making a light that fits existing fixtures....

There's money in both actually. I'll also add that most of the problems CFL and LED bulbs experience have nothing at all to do with the technology being flawed, and everything to do with trying to shoehorn one type of technology into a fixture designed for another type. It's sort of like trying to design a freight train which can run on an interstate highway. Maybe with great difficulty you can get it to work, sort of, some of the time. But it won't work as well as it will if you just left it on a railroad track. Some thing with fluorescents and LEDs. They can work OK in a screw-based fixture on a good day. But they'll more reliably work well in a fixture designed for them.

BTW.....I just finished a new garage....20x25....I wanted recessed lighting because I do woodworking....and 2x4's and lights hanging down are not a good match.....I would have gone with tube t5's or 8's....but I had two issues....1st...I did not have enough room for most of the linear tubes....my floor joists are on 12" centers....2nd...the 24 6' cans were about $200 cheaper than the tube fixtures. I was able to place the cans where I wanted them. I'm getting plenty of light right now just using 23w CFL's. Here is a pic taken in the afternoon with no flash....

You could have put flush-mount 2-tube fixtures between the joists. They wouldn't have been hanging down any more than the can lights. Going by typical light outputs of about 5200 lumens per fixture, each fixture would have been equivalent to maybe 3.75 23 watt CFLs (I'm using 1380 lumens each for my calculations). So maybe 7 fixtures to light the garage, and you would have been using maybe 400 watts compared to 552 watts now. And the linear tubes would be giving you about 36,000 lumens (with typical tubes, perhaps close to 40,000 with the best ones) compared to 33,000 for the CFLs. Or you could have used 6 fixtures with the best tubes for comparable lighting levels, and power consumption around 350 watts. Another option if linear fixtures really couldn't be made to fit somehow would have been bi-pin CFL fixtures. These are much more reliable and consistent than screw-in CFLs. Moreover, when they go, you only replace the lamp, not the lamp and ballast.

Not knocking what you did, just I'm thinking of all the additional work and cable to wire together 24 cans as opposed to 6 or 7 tube fixtures. Not to mention cutting all those holes in the ceiling. I'll grant that you can more easily change wattage with the cans, but it seemed your goal here was to light the garage as brightly as possible. As for mixing tube types, you can do that with linears if you want but I never understood the point. You can get any color temp and CRI grade you want with T8s. The whole idea of mixing tubes goes back to the days when cool white and warm white T12s were all that was commonly available. If you wanted something in between, then you mixed them. If you're happy with the results mixing 2700K and 5500K CFLs, you might be better served by just getting 4100K CFLs for all the fixtures.

Another thing I should add here is lamp replacement. Even if you do in fact get 8000 hours out of those CFLs you may find that still results in a distressing amount of lamp replacement. Let's say you use these lights 6 hours a night. That's 24x6, or 144 lamp-hours per night. On average you'll need to replace one lamp every 8000/144, or 56 days. That's about 7 lamps annually. Do the same numbers with 7 2-tube fixtures (assume 24,000 hour lamp life), and on average you replace one lamp every 286 days (1/5 as often). And the lamps are cheaper. There's lots of reasons why most of my house has been linear tubes for over 2 decades. Any pain replacing fixtures has long been paid for in terms of energy saving, savings on lamp replacement, and just the plain aggravation of not having to worry if a CFL is going to live up to its rated life or not.

Finally, I'll add a major disclaimer here. I'll readily admit I've long been biased against can lights. Even though I've tried to be impartial in my analysis, I'm sure some of that bias crept through. And strangely enough, so far I've had only good luck with CFLs. I have one in my bedroom desk lamp which has lasted at least 7 or 8 years (forgot exactly when I bought it). And it's often on all night. Nevertheless, I'm keenly aware of the quality issues others have with CFLs, which is why I always bring it up.