Harry Chickpea wrote:
wrote:
Robert Bunsen (1811-1899) also invented the Bunsen burner. He was known as
an inept experimentalist with radical theories who isolated a
foul-smelling compound which he named cacodyl oxide and a whole series of
related compounds which turned out to be highly explosive. At one point,
Bunsen accidentally blew up his lab and was laid up in bed for a long
time.
This part may not have been vital - but it's the sort of thing I love to
know :-)
so the [23W] CF was 99/(1.27x24) = 3.24 times more efficient,
with 3.24 times more lumens per watt.
After warmup, a "150 W equivalent" 42 W CF ($5.97 from Home Depot) used
35 watts and made the spot disappear 36.2 cm from the 100 W bulb when
it drew 98 watts, so it was (36.2/(80-36.2))^2 = 0.683 times brighter
than the CF, which was 98/(0.683x35) = 4.10 times more efficient.
Nick, this is much more useful than a lot of your pie in the sky
calculations. Well done.
I'm sure many of his calculations are useful to people who want to be
frugal - but I'm stunned that Nick managed this without a line of Basic
code :-)
The numbers are interesting - the 23W CF really was approximately 23W but
the 42W CF was much less. I'm not at all surprised that the 23W bulbs
really aren't 100W-equivalent - typical marketing hype - but those results
are acceptable to me.
Also, did you check the lumen output either by using a standard
candle, or a photometer (perhaps one in a camera?). Incandescent
lamps dim with age, so using an older 100 watt lamp might have
affected the results.
Don't CFs dim with age? Can we then expect the relative efficiency to
improve over time?
--
derek