The future looks bright?

[B@rt]

Interesting article about CFL lighting...:green:

Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future

 

[JohnR66]

That's interesting. In the US the 60 watt equivalent spiral CFL is rated 13 or 14 watts so is closer to 60 watt incan. The 11 or 12 watt ones in that article would be a stretch.

The 23 watt 100 watt incan equiv. falls short. CFLs seem to to fall in around 60 lumens per watt, so you have to do the math to figure the true incandescent equivalent output.

 

[VidPro]

do you think we should also tell them that the "watts" ratings is the bulb rating, and that the curcuit also wastes some energy?

i have tested many of the 110v CFLs that we have on our 120V source in the house here (which could make a minor difference), and was surprised to see 15W bulbs taking 17-19W of power. 7W took 9W , 23s at 27, , twin 40x2 four footers 94W , circle 32W 35 , etc
then i went onto Philips site, and looked at the specs, and sure enough they listed the actual power consumption from the whole bulb fixture and it concurred with my testings. the WHOLE power is higher than the power listed on the front of the package.
Plus the power has a big spike on turn on.
and comparing to a soft white bulb, and a 60 watt no less? a nice 45watt Halogen clear will put out more light, and lasts 2-5 times longer.
10 minutes to warm up we must be way ahead of them for power saving , most the lights here are on for a max of 5 minutes or they are LED.

florescent energy savings are well worth it, they dont need to lie about them.

 

[blasterman]

and was surprised to see 15W bulbs taking 17-19W of power

I'm not - those little CFL ballasts are horribly inefficient. I would have loved to have seen bi-pin CFLs used as a reference because I'm also convinced the deviation in light output with screw in CFLs is due to ballast quality as well.

Also would have like to seen lux comparisons done at 800+ hours as well.

A bit ironic that the labeling problem seems more of an issue in Europe than in the U.S.

Good point on the halogen angle.

 

[Illum]

I never expected them to be brighter in the first place, but you really can't find Edison lamps now.

Instead of buying a silly light like that you ought to invest in some xitaniums and CREEs:huh:

 

[Super Tico]

All I know is I like the tone of them. I have 38 in my ceilings alone, plus lamps and 15 ceiling fans, some in the shop, tool rooms and my cabins and Tiki hut below.Even in the chicken and rabbit houses..LOL
My electric went from $220 a month to about $60.
Now, with wind power, I suppose it makes no difference.

 

[broadgage]

The CFLs normally used in the home have a ballast built into the lamp housing in order that they may directly replace incandescent lamps.
In such cases, the losses in the ballast should be included in the stated watts used.
If it says 11 watts on the package then it should use 11 watts (plus or minus manufacruring tolerences)
Remember though that to accuratly measure the power used you will need a true RMS watt meter, not a current meter.
0.25 of an amp at 120 volts does not mean that 30 watts is being used since the power factor may be imperfect.
Domestic useres of power are charged according to the watts used, not the volt amperes used, therefore the true watts used, as measured by a watt meter, are what determines the size of the power bill.

CFLs used industrialy often have a 2 pin or 4 pin base for use with fixtures incorporating a ballast.
In this case the stated watts should be the power used only by the lamp, not including ballast loses.
The ballast losses are not included since they are external to the lamp, and the lamp supplier does not know what ballast will be used.

 

[LEDninja]

A long time go I was at an industrial electrical supplier barbecue.
I was shown a screw base ballast that accepts a 7 watt florescent tube (the U shaped kind that goes into florescent desk lamps. The salesman told me it pulls 5 watts. Total watts 7+5=12W.

When they made a CFL with similar brightness the manufacturer had a problem. If they call it 12 watt then everyone would buy the '7 watt' 2 part bulb. So they called it 7 watt 12VA (volts*amps=watts). Since it is an AC circuit and the load is not resistive VA is the more accurate description of the total power and mandated by regulation.
If you want to know how much power the bulb is actually using look for the VA on the bulb, not the watts on the package.

So in North America for CFL's watt means tube power and VA means total power. To confuse matters most European companies selling over here state the European method of rating. So a 9W Globe or GE is brighter than an 11W Ikea, Osram or Sunbeam.

I wonder if the North American regulators will follow the new European regulation of insisting on Lumens instead of Equivalent to XX watts.

-----

If you think CFLs are bad check out LED bulbs. Bulbs down to as low as 100 lumens are claiming 'as bright as a 40W'. BTW practically all LED bulbs online claim LED power not total power. At least they are fairly consistent:
1W = 350mA into the LED,
2W = 500mA into the LED,
3W = 700mA into the LED,
4W = 1000mA into the LED.

 

[B@rt]

It seems to me the US way of rating at the moment is the better one, but I would like to see both total wattage of tube and ballast as well as the Lumen reading. :thinking:

 

[VidPro]

power factor? that isnt what the meter on the side of the house said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeCqreRMzKM

when i look up power factor. what i found was worse than my measurements.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Compact_Fluorescent_Bulb_(CFL)_Dangers
Efficiencies
power factor
"Most CFLs have a claimed power factor of around 0.52 (where the figure is given at all), so a 15W CFL will actually draw just under 29VA. Because the load is not linear, the current waveform is in phase with the applied voltage, but is discontinuous. This simply means that current is only drawn at the peak of the waveform, and this effect causes a poor power factor just as readily as a phase shift between voltage and current.

The nasty waveform created by CFLs is another thing that is going to come back and bite us on the bum. Any spike waveform means that significant harmonics are added to the mains waveform, and although CFLs are only a small percentage of 'nasty waveform generators' at present, the situation will get a lot worse.
An anecdote on the power factor issue was sent to me ... Apparently a company in the UK installed a large number of CFLs in a building where the lighting was primarily on one phase. It burnt out the neutral link in the fuse box and caused a small fire! The high peak current of all non-power factor corrected CFLs can cause problems where they are used in large numbers. For example, 25 x 75W (incandescent) lamps will draw 7.8A - just within the 8A rating for lighting circuits in Australia. The power factor is 1 because The power factor is 1 because of the resistive load. If replaced by 25 x 13W CFLs, although the RMS current is lower, the peak current is over 10A (based on the 410mA peak current as shown in Figure 11). . . . continued at link

 

[VidPro]

the EU isnt the only ones being Light legislated, US has federal energy guidlines that will go, and have gone into effect that
get a incan to put out some descent light
have CFLs have CRI
get CFLs to work better for short runs
and might even obsoletes some non-halogen items if they cant get the light out of the reflectors or reduce the total power consumption.
might encourage the existance of LED lights comming out of all the light manufacturers.
and also the efficency increase to gain the "Energy star" rating

http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/Prod.0bbbbb5d-fb92-4ebe-830f-621b9a13306b.pdf
thank god i didnt have to read the actual full legislation this time

 

[B@rt]

Some of the political parties overhere are having regrets already about banning incan lightbulbs. I think they acted too hasy as well, given the current imperfect CFL.

I'm curious what the outcome of research like this will be to improve the traditional incan bulb, and hopefully a better alternative will become available...

 

[blasterman]

The nasty waveform created by CFLs is another thing that is going to come back and bite us

Which goes back to show the problem with CFLs is not the bulb, but the ballast in use.

Question: Does this problem also occur with standard fluorescent ballasts?

LED drivers used in retrofits have been shown to have terrible conversion efficiency as well.

 

[jtr1962]

Which goes back to show the problem with CFLs is not the bulb, but the ballast in use.

Question: Does this problem also occur with standard fluorescent ballasts?

It seems you can readily obtain ballasts for standard linear tubes which have power factors close to unity. For example, look at the site for Advance Ballasts. Here's a general spec sheet for one of their T-8 ballasts. Note the power factor of >0.98. Also note that it says on Advance's site that T-12 magnetic ballasts will be eliminated in less than a year. I didn't even know about this but good news anyway. Frankly, we should have done away with flickering magnetic ballasts a decade ago.

And yes, I've been saying for a long time that the primary problem with CFLs is the ballast. Some years back, the government pushed to make CFLs less expensive in order to increase their market penetration. It turns out you can't make them less expensive with sacrificing quality. And linear fluorescents are a better solution than CFLs anyway, at least until such time as LEDs are up to the task (right now for some applications, 3-5 years for most others).

LED drivers used in retrofits have been shown to have terrible conversion efficiency as well.

Besides that, few LED replacements are dimmable on standard lamp dimmers even though electronically this isn't a difficult feature to add. I feel the same way as you regarding standard triac-based lamp dimmers. I honestly wish we would adopt other ways to dim lights. For now unfortunately that's what we have, and there's little reason why LED ballasts shouldn't be dimmable on triac dimmers. Ditto for their poor efficiency-really no good reason for it, especially given how much is being charged for a lot of these LED retrofits.

 

[VidPro]

those retrofit long tube things, I wouldnt touch them with a 4 foot tube .
they would still have the efficency issues of the original ballast, the driver inefficency, and nasty little 5mm leds probably from china, then cost a mint besides.

but the Cree 3X bulbs are sorta nice, they have handled many things the CLFs around them are dying for here, and although i got ugly bluish ones, they are brighter than both the 11 and the 14 CFL, In the same application the CFL was used. it aint cheap and it aint pretty, but it does the job.

i have a 60-80w fully dimmable LED candelabra with a "driver" if you would call it that , is more than 90% (power) efficent, by just driving 170V dc from rectification.
people fear the 170V dc , even though it is low current, but they are fine with the 1000+V ac going to a florescent tube. so that isnt likly to fly. lit lights up a whole living room to brighter than the 300w of halogen candelabra it replaced, and dims fully and mostly linear looking with a normal (but expencive) wall dimmer.
the 77 (claimed) watts of the candleabra CFLs were way dimmer than the 25W halogen (double frosted didnt help), ticked off everyone, were not dimmable, and died one by one in less than a year, after being on for average 30min a day at most. so i had to do something.

some 55 cheap luxeons wedged end to end driven low, a bit of resistance, and bridge rectifyer and a cap, and ANY configuration of lights we see today could be replaced with leds, i got a bundle of old lux 1W for $1 each.

so there are possibilities that are beyond human consumption for LED, that basically just direct drive the lot (carefully). guess it just doesnt sell drivers though

also there is the ACrichie, which you can just stuff a 110 or a 220 plug right onto the end, and jam it into a wall socket (the plug not the led board), but it has some loss in some of the added resistance to get to the 50+ gate things in a single high powered led package, and the big problem of riding the sinewave.

 

[Abrams.357]

CFL's are a complete waste of time/money. as the article points out they aren't bright, they use more energy than advertised. i do not think they have any impact on global warming, in fact i think they have a negative impact on the environment. what are incan light bulbs? simple glass balls with a wire going thru it and a threading. What are CFLs? complex twisted tubes of glass with mercury and a complex base with all sorts of electrical circuits to regulate things i dont understand even after taking physics haha. and they come in a bullet proof plastic container (while incans come with thin cardboard wrapped around it...) The amount of energy wasted in the production of a CFL must be more than that which is saved by using the CFL itself. yes the CFL uses less energy in the socket, but in the big picture, the incans i think are more environmentally friendly....

my lil tirade lol. and the light is way better than CFLs. they don;t light up half as much as incans.

 

[blasterman]

as the article points out they aren't bright

Being pro-CFL for a second:

All the CFLs I use are 27watts or above. My 35-40watters make a clear 100 watt bulbs look dim, and worse case scenario still use 1/2 the power.

Another issue is how lux is actually measured and referenced between light sources of different color temps. A 4100k CFL or fluorescent for instance likely doesn't have to emit as many lumens to be as perceptually bright as a 2700k lumen Incan (???)

Also, most consumers buy frosted Incans, and the hydrofluoric acid used to frost the inside of the bulbs is deadly toxic. I'm also not giving the incan light bulb industry a 'pass' when their hour lifespan ratings are just as guilty of false advertising as CFL intensity ratings.

Main benfit of icans and halogens seem to be they are the most compatible with native main power and don't require conversion. Looks like Edison got the last laugh over Tesla after all

 

[ponygt65]

Unfortunately I dont have time to respond as specifically as i'd like, but I'd like to say that a lot of manufact. list 'comparible' light output in terms that general society can relate too. IOW If a 13W CFL puts out 55W equivalant (going off of lumens) they will market it as 60W because 60A19s have been around forever and that's what people are used too.

Also, CFL's are perfectly fine. The problem is, A) there are a lot of bad manufact. B) horribly/over spec'd, C) Alot of Myths out there.

As for the 'load' consumption...yes, the ballast consumes energy. The other thing to look at in that link is the Ballast Factor, not just the Power Factor. It's been known that magnetic ballasts were going bye bye, but that is primarily the commercial market. (only a matter of time before residential follows though).

Let's also not forget, CFL manuf. are businesses. They are out to make money. And, I didn't read the entire orig. link, but what I did read, I didn't see any Lumen comparisons; only 'wattage' comparisons.

Blasterman - I agree with alot of what you are saying, but I have to point out one that I don't. That's the 2-pin CFLs. They use magnetic ballasts which in turn uses more energy and are on their way out. More importantly, 2-pin setups do not have EOLP and are a 'safety' issue in 'most' luminaires.

 

[ponygt65]

CFL's are a complete waste of time/money. as the article points out they aren't bright, they use more energy than advertised. i do not think they have any impact on global warming, in fact i think they have a negative impact on the environment. what are incan light bulbs? simple glass balls with a wire going thru it and a threading. What are CFLs? complex twisted tubes of glass with mercury and a complex base with all sorts of electrical circuits to regulate things i dont understand even after taking physics haha. and they come in a bullet proof plastic container (while incans come with thin cardboard wrapped around it...) The amount of energy wasted in the production of a CFL must be more than that which is saved by using the CFL itself. yes the CFL uses less energy in the socket, but in the big picture, the incans i think are more environmentally friendly....

my lil tirade lol. and the light is way better than CFLs. they don;t light up half as much as incans.

I'll jsut say you are sorely mistaken.

Can you tell me what "wire" is in the incand. and how they are made? (I'll give you a hint...coal mining).

I'm curious, do you feel the same way about hybrid vehicles?

 

[UnknownVT]

I like CFL's and use them in high/long usage areas -
but there are places where I still have not replaced the standard incandescent bulb -
eg: places where I may only need to have the light on for a short duration (which I think may be bad for fluorescent in general?).

Instructions say CFL cannot be used with dimmers.

Anyway - the GE CFL sold in the USA have slightly higher wattage ratings for the equivalent to incandescent watts,
for a 60 watt incandescent equivalent the CFL is rated at 13 watts.
As far as I can recall they have always had Lumens rating clearly on the package -
here are two examples - neither are the most current packaging -

older (over about ~2-3 years old?)

and about ~1-2 years old -

Notice the Lumens rating at 825 lumens for a 13 watt CFL -
the typical 60 watt incandescent Soft White (frosted) bulb is rated at about 840 lumens -
so they are close - if the ratings are true.......