Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light
output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h "soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but misleading. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and government ministers. |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
gmw wrote:
I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h "soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but misleading. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and government ministers. I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere near 5 times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I wrote to them pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by their actual output, not their claimed one. My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in getting someone to listen. Tim |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
Tim Downie wrote:
gmw wrote: I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h "soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but misleading. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and government ministers. I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere near 5 times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I wrote to them pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by their actual output, not their claimed one. My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in getting someone to listen. Tim Totally agree that light for light CFL bulbs not only are overstated but won't make a blindest bit of difference to the planet. They do however last long enough to be cost effective. Replacement bulbs add up to a lot of money.. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
gmw wrote:
Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. I would tend to agree... however if you are going to argue this, you ought to be ready for questions about how your light meter responds to the narrower spectra of CFLs Vs incandescents. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote: gmw wrote: I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h "soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but misleading. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Please copy to naive environmentalists, band-wagon jumpers, and government ministers. I've carped about this for years. The claimed outputs are nowhere near 5 times the rated wattage. When Which? did a test on CFLs I wrote to them pointing this out and asking if they could rate bulbs by their actual output, not their claimed one. My pleas fell on deaf ears. Hope you have better luck than me in getting someone to listen. Tim Totally agree that light for light CFL bulbs not only are overstated but won't make a blindest bit of difference to the planet. They do however last long enough to be cost effective. Replacement bulbs add up to a lot of money.. Especially when your electricity supplier has provided them free of charge! :-)) |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw"
wrote this:- I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication. What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some designs take a while to achieve full brightness. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL, measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the age of which you don't state. Fascinating. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs Where were these installed? we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. For what reason(s)? These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate. Why should accurate claims be ruled out? CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb. The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and is being reduced. At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since then. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article .com,
gmw wrote: These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Advertising hype is nothing new. But if you look at it another way, it's going to cost you *at least* three times as much in electricity to get the same light output from a conventional bulb as from a CFL. -- *Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
"David Hansen" wrote in message ... On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw" wrote this:- I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication. What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some designs take a while to achieve full brightness. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL, measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the age of which you don't state. Fascinating. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs Where were these installed? we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. For what reason(s)? These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate. Why should accurate claims be ruled out? CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb. The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and is being reduced. At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since then. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 I have tried a variety of CFLs and I now call them "3D" lamps - Dull, Dismal and Dreary. Experiments done under laboratory conditions with excellent test gear can produce all sorts of reliable and replicable results but the human eyes vary enormously. I'm quite prepared to concede that it's my eyes at fault rather than the CFLs themselves but, for me anyway, I'll not give these wretched things house-room. John. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:20:19 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:- But if you look at it another way, it's going to cost you *at least* three times as much in electricity to get the same light output from a conventional bulb as from a CFL. Not to mention the cost of buying all the GLS bulbs that will be needed to replace the one CFL bulb over its lifetime and install them. The latter cost may be zero in a domestic setting. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
David
Thanks for your input. On Feb 26, 1:08 pm, David Hansen wrote: On 26 Feb 2007 03:36:31 -0800 someone who may be "gmw" wrote this:- I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. A camera light meter. Not quite the right thing to measure the output of light bulbs, though it will give some indication. The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in incident light mode. As you say, it gives some indication. To check that my results were not too wildly out, I also made an extinction photometer that I placed between pairs of bulbs, which gives similar results. What sort of CFL were you measuring with the camera meter? Some designs take a while to achieve full brightness. The CFL is a Philips B22 BC 15000h 1200 lumen 140mA 230-240V order code 544742xx Our mains voltage is 230V nominal, during the test I measured 228V on a basic DMM early evening. The afternoon voltage is 232V. The voltage variations obviously affect the light outputs of both types of lamp. I took readings with the Sixtar set to 100ASA (so that EV = LV) at 5 minute intervals at the same distance of ~1.5m. At switch on from room temp the LV was ~3.0. After 5 minutes the LV was ~3.5 After 30 minutes the LV was ~3.7 A new 240V 60W 2000h pearl bulb (555 lumen) gave an EV of 3.9 and was subjectively as bright as the CFL A new 240V 100W 2000h pearl bulb (gave an EV of 4.9 and was subjectively much brighter than the CFL A new 240V 100W 1000h pearl bulb gave an EV of 5.0 The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumens, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. I note with interest the different conditions. From what you have typed it appears that you compared the output of a one year old CFL, measured with your meter, to the claimed output of two bulbs, the age of which you don't state. Fascinating. The pearl bulbs were fairly new. Pearl bulb outputs are less susceptible to aging than CFLs, and pearls are statistically likely to be younger than CFLs for most of their lives, if CFLs last as long as claimed. I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs Where were these installed? All the bulbs were for general illumination, fitted to ceiling light fittings, mostly with open lampshades above them. we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. For what reason(s)? In living rooms a single "100W" CFL room light was too dim to read comfortably by etc even after fully warmed up, giving similar light to a 60W bulb. A single 100W pearl was adequate. In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem. CFLs would be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. Though earlier you typed that these claims were presumably accurate. Why should accurate claims be ruled out? The claims are no doubt accurate in the technical terms defined in the small print. Those compare the CFL light output with "soft colour" (low efficiency) type of bulb that is not used for general illumination. I suspect that they are both measured at 240V, but that CFLs may produce much less light at 230V than do pearl bulbs. Is this so? I presume that this is why the actual output of the bulbs in service is way below the "headline" equivalent output, which is why I say the claim is misleading. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb. The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and is being reduced. I would be delighted to fit CFL bulbs that, at 230V, give similar light levels to 100W 2000h (long-life) pearl lightbulbs at the same voltage, for most of their lives, and do not suffer infant mortality or DOA. At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. This was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the starting mechanism. However, that was in the early 1980s. The engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since then. Re lack of robustness, I recently purchased 3 CFLs (in much heavier packaging than pearl bulbs). One had broken glass, one failed quickly, the third is still going strong. Filament bulbs are much more robust. I have no financial interest except as a consumer. I want CFLs to work. They have never yet worked as advertised for me, or many others. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 Giles Whittaker, Kirkliston. BAe Systems (Retired) |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article ,
John wrote: I have tried a variety of CFLs and I now call them "3D" lamps - Dull, Dismal and Dreary. Experiments done under laboratory conditions with excellent test gear can produce all sorts of reliable and replicable results but the human eyes vary enormously. I'm quite prepared to concede that it's my eyes at fault rather than the CFLs themselves but, for me anyway, I'll not give these wretched things house-room. I agreed with you about 5 years ago, but have just retried CCFL. A single 24W globe replacing a 100W incandescent far outshines it, and 3x 11W bent tubes easily replace 3x 40W bulbs. In both cases though they take some 5 minutes, (or more), to creep up to full brightness, so I can see a case for retaining incandescents where the lamp is on for only brief periods. -- Tony Williams. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
I want CFLs to work. They have never yet worked as advertised for me, or many others. I agree and have commented on this group before. Having seen lots of cfls at very reduced prices and then discovered they were not as bright as the previously used 100W pearl I went to TLC and bought a 25W CFL, having failed to find anything at Tesco, Morrisons, Wilkinsons and B&Q. Even this bulb is barely the same as a 100W and unfortunately was not the same colour temp as the cheaper CFLs or Pearl bulbs. At least they haven't banned Pearls like they have in Australia. If anyone can provide a link to reasonably priced CFLS of 25 or 30W I would be grateful. |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
I agreed with you about 5 years ago, but have just retried CCFL. A single 24W globe replacing a 100W incandescent far outshines it, and 3x 11W bent tubes easily replace 3x 40W bulbs. Tony, where did you get the 24W globes from? Are they the same colour temp as normal bulbs. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
|
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On 26 Feb, 15:38, "gmw" wrote:
CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Entirely illogical. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Yes, so you need to pick a higher power bulb than the packaging says. None too challenging. The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in which does not have the same chracteristics as the human eye. Also CFLs do not have the same light distribution as filaments, due to their different shape. The CFL is a Philips no wonder. Try a decent one. and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. which is not a standard GLS bulb. we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. why not put a higher power CFL in? In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem. Unlikely CFLs would be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving. only if you choose to negate them by leaving them on all the time... which would be an odd thing to do. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. they already are. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. A perfect description of your post. They have never yet worked as advertised for me, or many others. advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions. NT |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
|
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On 26 Feb 2007 07:38:50 -0800, "gmw" wrote:
The CFL is a Philips B22 BC 15000h 1200 lumen 140mA 230-240V order code 544742xx Hi Does it look like a typical CFL with folded tube? I've had best results with Philips Softone CFLs which look more like a normal light bulb. The 'stick' CFLs might be a bit directional too. I now use a mix of CFL and a few well placed low wattage halogens. cheers, Pete. |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On 26 Feb, 15:38, "gmw" wrote:
CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Simply illogical. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. Yes, so you need to pick a higher power bulb than the packaging says. None too challenging. The light meter was a Gossen Sixtar hand held CdS meter, used in which does not have the same chracteristics as the human eye. Also CFLs do not have the same light distribution as filaments, due to their different shape. The CFL is a Philips no wonder. Try a decent one. and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. which is not a standard GLS bulb. we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. why not put a higher power CFL in? In rooms where lights are normally off, the CFL's slow warm up and alleged reduced life caused by cycling could be a problem. Unlikely CFLs would be left on much longer than pearls, negating energy saving. only if you choose to negate them by leaving them on all the time... which would be an odd thing to do. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. they already are. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. no comment! They have never yet worked as advertised for me, or many others. advertising is usually bs, thats nothing new. You seem to be confusing the hype with the bulb, and reaching illogical conclusions. NT |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article .com,
"gmw" writes: I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. The small print on the CFL package says it is equivalent to a 1000h "soft colour" bulb. This is presumably much lower efficiency than normal pearl bulbs. This claim is therefore presumably accurate but misleading. This is a well-known problem here, and unfortunately, it makes many peoples' first experience of a CFL a poor one which they choose not to repeat. Softone lamps do indeed have a lower light output, so this is marketing bull**** at its worse, particularly as rather few people use Softone lamps. My normal advice, often repeated here, is to use a factor of 4 between a filament lamp and a CFL, and that would be a CFL with exposed tube (an outer bulb loses some more light). Reflector CFL's do much worse, because a folded tube is a really bad light source to try and reflect in any direction without significant light loss. (The one exception here is the GE Genura R80, which at 23W produces more light than a 100W flood lamp, but it uses a significantly different technology from standard CFLs.) The other problem you can find is that the different size/shape of the CFL may mean it's light source is not in exactly the position the luminare expected, if it was designed for a filament lamp. Having replaced several 100W pearl light bulbs with "100W" CFLs, we have reverted to pearl in all but one room. Look for 25W CFLs. These misleading claims must be understood and ruled out. CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. The calculated efficiency gains are greatly exaggerated. They are, but you fell into the marketing trap which most CFL first-timers fall into. Try to move on without dismissing the whole technology. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article , Steve Firth
writes On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". I have used CFLs for some time - they do last longer than most ordinary bulbs (in my experience), they do sometimes take time to come up to full brightness (some makes more so than others), they do dim a bit as they age (which at least means you know when to buy a new one) and they can't be dimmed (pain!) I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals, etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know? -- John Alexander, Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article , John
writes In article , Steve Firth writes On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". I have used CFLs for some time - they do last longer than most ordinary bulbs (in my experience), they do sometimes take time to come up to full brightness (some makes more so than others), they do dim a bit as they age (which at least means you know when to buy a new one) and they can't be dimmed (pain!) I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals, etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know? Failed to add - they are generally bigger than a conventional bulb and hence do not always fit. I have also found that electronic time switches or PIRs sometimes play up when they are connected. -- John Alexander, Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen
wrote: Incorrect. In most cases there is now a suitable energy saving bulb. The number of cases where such bulbs are not suitable has been and is being reduced. This of course depends on one's definition of suitable. I suppose that the change from 95% unsuitable to 90% unsuitable could be described as a reduction. At one time such bulbs were really only suitable for relatively large fittings with lamps that were left on for long periods. ... and that's still the case This was because of the size/weight of the bulbs, the length of time they took to reach full output and a relative lack of robustness of the starting mechanism. ... no change there then. However, that was in the early 1980s. Typo here. Early 2007 The engineering of energy saving bulbs has progressed a long way since then. In 2 weeks? Come on. Get real. These things are junk and the justification for them is weak at best. -- ..andy |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
gmw wrote:
I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output. In reality incandescents tend to be affected far more by supply voltage fluctuations that CFLs -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth
wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. -- ..andy |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!wrote: |! |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |! |!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |! |! Incorrect. |! |!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |! |! |! |!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive* -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Compare and contrast Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia European Convention on Human Rights http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html Then sign this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sharia |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop
wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote: |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!wrote: |! |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |! |!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |! |! Incorrect. |! |!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |! |! |! |!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive* It really depends on what you want If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and you don't care about light quality then fine. However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall a long way short of acceptability -- ..andy |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Feb 26, 9:09 pm, John Rumm wrote:
gmw wrote: I think the problem could be due to supply voltages. I suspect that CFL output is more sensitive to supply voltage than pearls, in which case we need 230V rated CFLs if we are to get the claimed output. In reality incandescents tend to be affected far more by supply voltage fluctuations that CFLs Thanks John. That makes sense to me. I was looking for possible excuses for the disparity between the maker's claims and my measurements, but it would make the disparity between the claimed and actual performance comparison between filament bulbs & CFLs @ 240V even worse. I have just logged a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority. I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest with my first ever posting. I will try higher powered CFLs, if I can find them. The best I could find the last time I looked at B&Q etc is 20W / "100W". I agree that they would save my electricity bills. However I suspect that they would also increase the much worse pollution in by China more than is saved in the UK. At least we in the UK have the benefit of nuclear power (for the moment...) (whose pollution is containable by good engineering) and of wind power (occasionally, when the wind blows strongly enough at the right time, which is not as often as the hype would have us believe). Still, who am I to spoil the party. There is a lot of money to be made, rearranging the deckchairs on the green bandwagon. Some of it MIGHT do more good than harm. (ducks for cover) Regards. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
(The one exception here is the GE Genura R80, which
at 23W produces more light than a 100W flood lamp, but it uses a significantly different technology from standard CFLs.) Andrew Gabriel Of the several we have, one in particular is squintingly bright to look at which is a Mazda 6L electronic - it has 3 folded tubes or "6 legs" (6L?) and gets brighter after a few minutes. I have looked around casually for more but have not seen them again... Nick |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article .com,
wrote: Tony, where did you get the 24W globes from? Are they the same colour temp as normal bulbs. Homebase. Can't remember the price, not cheap. It was a great disappointment at first switchon but I came back to it about an hour later and it was brighter (and maybe very slightly whiter) than the 100W bulb it replaced. The 3x 11W folded types are inside frosted glass shades and they are less successful. I don't know why.... perhaps colour temperature, maybe CFL's need matching shades. -- Tony Williams. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:46:38 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:
|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote: |! |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote: |! |!|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!|!wrote: |!|! |!|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |!|! |!|!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |!|! |!|! Incorrect. |!|! |!|!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!|!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |!|! |!|! |!|! |!|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. |! |!IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, |!I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted |!are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive* |! |! |!It really depends on what you want I want light, of a "colour" I like at the minimum cost over the life of the fitting. |! |!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that |!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and |!you don't care about light quality then fine. There are several "colours" of lights available. -- Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Compare and contrast Sharia Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia European Convention on Human Rights http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html Then sign this petition http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ban-Sharia |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In message .com, gmw
writes I have just used a photographic exposure meter to compare the light output of a CFL bulb with various pearl light bulbs. The CFL is a 20W bulb claimed to be equivalent to a 100W bulb. It has had about 1 year of evening use. Its measured light output is a little LESS than a 60W 2000h pearl bulb rated at 555 lumerns, and ~40% of a 100W 2000hr bulb. Interesting but you need to take into account the spectral response of the human eye. As a general measurement it's valid though. Power ratio for the same light output is thus 1/3 not 1/5. This is a 66% over claim in this case. If you check the light output spectrum you'll see they emit significant amounts of UV light (skin cancer and cataracts anyone?) compared to incandescents which emit virtually none. If you look at the current waveform of a CFL you will also find that they are some of the dirtiest appliances on the market in terms of electrical interference, some can actually stop ADSL from working IME and you can forget listening to MW/LW and SW radio. You can buy PFC types which are 'nicer' but they are generally not available or cheap. Efficient they may be but environmentally friendly they aint, the chemicals used to manufacture then are toxic, they contain toxic chemicals (mercury and phosphor plus others metals in the tube, lots of nasty stuff in the electronics) so they need *proper* disposal not just dumping in the bin when they fail. As for the light output, I tried three CFLs in one fitting without telling the LTLP, each and every time she commented on how dim the light was or how it looked 'murky' in the room. The original incandescent was an Asda 60w pearl BC. I tried an 11w no name CFL, a 17w Phillips CFL and a 20W GE CFL. They all were slow to 'warm up' to full output and the light produced was unpleasant and had noticeable colour bias. Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition, dimmable and you can manage the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology. I *do* have CFLs in two places where a failed bulb would be difficult to change or failure could be dangerous but they are not places where I spend any time so the light quality is not as important but I'm not going to be buying any more until they are much better. -- Clint Sharp |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes I want light, of a "colour" I like at the minimum cost over the life of the fitting. |! |!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that |!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and |!you don't care about light quality then fine. There are several "colours" of lights available. How many do I have to buy to find one I like then? I agree there are lots out there but none that I've seen have the output spectra printed on the box, rather they have meaningless terms like 'warm' or 'natural' on them. If I buy an incandescent I *know* that a pearl is going to perform in a certain way. -- Clint Sharp |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:06:41 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that |!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and |!you don't care about light quality then fine. There are several "colours" of lights available. Oh indeed rather like the Dulux "shades of white". You can have murky yellow, dingy grey, muddy green... |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop wrote: On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote: |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!wrote: |! |!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |! |!CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |! |! Incorrect. |! |!No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |! |! |! |!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive* It really depends on what you want If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and you don't care about light quality then fine. However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall a long way short of acceptability What's your problem with them? The crap spectrum and colour rendering? |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article ,
Clint Sharp writes: If you check the light output spectrum you'll see they emit significant amounts of UV light (skin cancer and cataracts anyone?) compared to incandescents which emit virtually none. Wrong on both counts. If you look at the current waveform of a CFL you will also find that they are some of the dirtiest appliances on the market in terms of They have the same current profile as all appliances which feed mains into a bridge rectifier and storage capacitor. electrical interference, some can actually stop ADSL from working IME and you can forget listening to MW/LW and SW radio. You can buy PFC types which are 'nicer' but they are generally not available or cheap. Efficient they may be but environmentally friendly they aint, the chemicals used to manufacture then are toxic, they contain toxic chemicals (mercury and phosphor plus others metals in the tube, lots of nasty stuff in the electronics) so they need *proper* disposal not just dumping in the bin when they fail. They contain _much_ less mercury than is released by burning fossel fuels to power an incandescent lamp for the same period of time. As for the light output, I tried three CFLs in one fitting without telling the LTLP, each and every time she commented on how dim the light was or how it looked 'murky' in the room. The original incandescent was an Asda 60w pearl BC. I tried an 11w no name CFL, a 17w Phillips CFL and a 20W GE CFL. They all were slow to 'warm up' to full output and the light produced was unpleasant and had noticeable colour bias. Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition, They use exactly the same phosphors. dimmable and you can manage the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology. I *do* have CFLs in two places where a failed bulb would be difficult to change or failure could be dangerous but they are not places where I spend any time so the light quality is not as important but I'm not going to be buying any more until they are much better. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:35:58 -0000, "Doki" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message It really depends on what you want If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and you don't care about light quality then fine. However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall a long way short of acceptability What's your problem with them? The crap spectrum and colour rendering? That might be the scientific explanation and it's difficult to characterise appearance to the eye totally in these terms. However, objects illuminated with them simply look wrong and in an unpleasant and cold way. Secondly, the bulb itself always looks like a collection of tubes or a soft icecream even if enclosed in an opaque glass globe. Thirdly they are mechanically large unless one goes for certain spotlight replacements. I don't mind using them for outside lighting in certain applications, but that's about it, certainly not inside the house. Apart from the aesthetic deficiencies, the promotion of them on an eco basis is completely bogus. My natural reaction to confidence tricks of this nature is to choose any other option. -- ..andy |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote: Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition, dimmable and you can manage the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology. You're joking, I presume? Or been reading the adverts? The first applications of new lighting technology tends to be film and TV where costs don't matter much, but small size, efficiency etc might well do for specialist situations. And LED are still virtually nowhere as key lights due to poor colour temperature and spectrum. Whereas fluorescent (dimmable) have been used for some time. They are used as FX background lighting, though. -- *Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
On 26 Feb, 20:24, John wrote:
In article , Steve Firth writes On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. Incorrect. No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". to state the obvious, anyone can use as much power of CFL lighting as one wants. I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals, etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know? The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production cost & energy consumption. I do wish a BS were written for CFLs so we'd start to see many more realistic output power claims, and lamps marked with their tip to toe dimension. The lamps themselves are fine imho, but the industry surrounding them could do with improving its act a bit. NT |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs
The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production cost & energy consumption. I do wish a BS were written for CFLs so we'd start to see many more realistic output power claims, and lamps marked with their tip to toe dimension. The lamps themselves are fine imho, but the industry surrounding them could do with improving its act a bit. NT Totally agree Nick |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Energy Saving Light Bulbs ? | UK diy | |||
How to Choose Energy Saving Light Bulbs..?? | UK diy | |||
Energy Saving Bulbs | UK diy | |||
Energy Saving bulbs / Stylish light fittings | UK diy | |||
GE Energy Saving Light Bulbs | UK diy |