Sam Goldwasser wrote:
Eeyore writes:

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.
That would appear to be the case.

This is at least partly true.

Low energy lamps including compact fluorescents and normal fluorescents
on electronic ballasts use a switching circuit to produce the high voltage for
the fluorescent lamp. The input is a bridge rectifier and filter capacitor.
Any source of AC even a small amount of leakage through a defective swtich,
a switch with a neon lamp night light feature (lighted when off), an
electronic timer, a motion sensor-controlled yard light, or
a dimmer that isn't fully off, may cause the voltage to build up
on the filter capacitor until the "startup circuit" kicks in. This usually
has some sort of threshold de
vice like a zener diode or diac that won't
pass current until the voltage across it exceeds a spec'd value. When
that happens, the lamp starts up and strikes but just for an instant since
there isn't enough current available on the input to maintain it.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the explanation with respect to inductive or
capacitive coupling (though possible under just the right - or wrong -
conditions) but it doesn't take that much leakage from some other fault
to do this.

Perhaps we've finally discovered perpetual motion

Take care.

Ken

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.


Is one of the switches illuminated? Those will pass enough current to slowly
charge up the filter capacitor in the fluorescent bulb and cause it to
blink.

"Seán O'Leathlóbhair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris Jones wrote:
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

This has come up before in aus.electronics though I don't recall if there
was a definite cure for it.

Thanks. If there is no danger, I don't need a cure. The flash is not
irritating. The CO detector nearby flashes more brightly. I am just
worried that it is telling me that something nasty is wrong with my
wiring.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair



It'll probably cause the CFL to fail much sooner than it otherwise would.
I'd check the wiring and switches just because it's easy to do, make sure
there isn't any moist gunk between contacts or anything else like that.
Another option is to wire a small incandescent bulb such as a nightlight in
parallel but this is not always practical.

William R. Walsh wrote:
Hi!

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds.

Do you have one of those switches that glows when you turn it off?

No, plain simple switches with no good reason to pass any current when
off.

I have one attached to set a of conventional fluorescent fixtures (one four
tube and one two tube). When the switch is "off" it still passes a tiny
amount of current and this makes for a faint flashing in the two tube
fixture. As far as I can tell this is perfectly safe...it has never caused
any problems for the lamp or myself.

I do, however, have to turn the power off when changing the lamps in the two
tube fixture. Otherwise there is the possibility of getting a small shock.

I noticed the problem when putting the bulb in - it blinked. Of
course, my first reaction was that I had left the switch on but this
was not a likely mistake since the previous incandescent bulb was not
dead.

--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

I noticed the problem when putting the bulb in - it blinked.

There's something very odd going on if it did that.

Have you got a DVM/DMM ?

Graham

On 25 Jun 2007 20:29:58 -0400, Sam Goldwasser
put finger to keyboard and composed:

"William R. Walsh" m writes:

Hi!

I have a few questions:

What is going on?

See my other reply. Do you have a light switch that glows when you turn it
off? This will place a small amount of current flow across the lamp, which
may make it flicker.

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

It may result in a slight amount of wear on the bulb, but I doubt the change
in lifetime would ever be noticed.

This I wouldn't be so sure of. Startup is hard on fluorescent lamps.

I recently had two lamps (EDAPT 20W) fail in a relatively short time.
Curiosity got the better of me so I cracked them open to have a look.

Lamp A lasted about 3 months, lamp B about one week. Lamp A had an
open filament, and both had open "startup" resistors. Lamp B would
start when it was cold (or completely discharged?) but would not
restart just after it had been switched off. Lamp A would flash
briefly if I tapped it, despite the resistor being open. I'm wondering
whether the failure in the resistor caused the premature burnout of
the filament? If so, then this would be in line with your comment re
startup "trauma".

BTW, I repaired lamp B and it has been working ever since. I should
also mention that lamp A was full of dry solder joints which may have
contributed to its early demise.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:47:00 GMT, Eeyore
put finger to keyboard and
composed:

Franc Zabkar wrote:

Eeyore put finger to keyboard and composed:
Sjouke Burry wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Sjouke Burry wrote:

Capacitive leakage from the HOT wire to the switch
wire?

So why doesn't this happen all the time ? Answer, the capacitance is very low,
as is the frequency.

A leak cap has very high impedance, and via
the input rectifier can charge the input cap(slowly).
Then when a threshold is passed, the circuit
produces a flash.
And it only happens, if the input capacity of the
rectifier circuit is low compared to the leak cap.

It flashes every 2 seconds or so.

Clearly a very low leakage current won't do that.


This fellow experimented with a ~1mA leakage current at 240VAC:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.e...5398c8c?hl=en&

"Changed to 270 kohms and now have a 13W CFL flashing at exactly 1
Hz".

I make that ~ 11nF !

You won't get that easily.

Graham

Yes, I would think that even 100pF is way too much. The hypothesis
regarding stray wiring capacitance does seem very far fetched.

Maybe this explanation is a better one, a least for the other thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.e...9fbd911?hl=en&

AFAICS, you can *very* roughly calculate the amount of leakage current
required to account for the OP's observations by assuming that all the
current is used in charging the main filter cap, say 4.7uF. Assuming
also that the trigger voltage for the DIAC is around 50V, then ...

i = C . dV/dt
= 4.7 E-06 x 50V / 2s
= 0.12 mA

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On 26 Jun, 00:58, Jamie
t wrote:
Ron(UK) wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

"Ron(UK)" wrote:

If the neutral wire isn't properly grounded enough voltage can be
induced by or leak from other 'live' circuits, maybe enough to cause the
fluorescent fittings to randomly flicker.

Ron, when the switch is off, there is no circuit. The neutral potential
literally doesn't matter.

Graham

It`s a two way switch, there`s plenty of potential for leakage paths.
You can easily get 100v on the neutral if it`s floating above earth
potential.

Ron(UK)

Hmm.
2 way, 3 way , 4 way and any number of ways you want! why would that
matter?, the neutral should not be part of the switching circuit.


I have not examined this particular circuit in detail yet. When I
came to the house, I was surprised to find three switches for this
landing light. I was used to two and knew how they worked but three
was new to me. I checked how it could be done and found this. The
neutral is connected directly to one of the socket terminals. Each of
the switches has two inputs and two outputs. The two inputs are
always connected to the two outputs but when the switch is moved the
connections are swapped. The live goes to one of the inputs to the
first switch. The two outputs from this switch go to the two inputs
of the next and so on through as many switches as you like (three in
my case). Finally one output from the last switch goes to the other
socket terminal. So, it is always possible for any switch to change
the state of the lamp. This will mean that the two possible live
wires run together for a considerable distance, more than the length
of the landing due to detours to the switches but the inductance
theory still surprises me (I am not saying impossible my knowledge of
electromagnetism is too old and rusty to say that). Animal damage or
some other cable damage sounds quite possible, a leakage between these
two lines would not blow a fuse but just allow a small current to
flow. Checking this cable is going to be quite unpleasant since the
loft is very small. The last time that I was up there, a few years
ago, to install aerial cable, the lighting cables appeared to be OK.

I will start by checking out all the switches since this is a
relatively easy job.

I can also use a multimeter and one of those neon screwdrivers to
perform some more tests. Sticking the probes of the multimeter into
the light socket sounds a little scary. This is a UK lamp socket
which may be unfamiliar to US readers and some others. The bulb does
not screw in it is a bayonet mount. You push the bulb in and turn and
a couple or prongs catch the mount and hold the bulb. The contacts
are two sprung pins which press onto contacts at the bottom of the
bulb. The collar is metal. To UK readers and others who know the
system: is the collar connected to anything? If my multimeter probe
touches a contact and the collar, is something nasty going to happen?
Obviously if both probes touch their contacts and the collar,
something nasty may happen.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

On 26 Jun, 00:54, Sam Goldwasser wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?B?U2XhbiBPJ0xlYXRobPNiaGFpcg==?= writes:
On 25 Jun, 15:39, Ken Weitzel wrote:
Se=E1n O'Leathl=F3bhair wrote:
On 25 Jun, 15:21, BH wrote:
On Jun 25, 10:03 am, Se=E1n O'Leathl=F3bhair wrot=
e:

I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.
I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.
When it is switched on, it works as expected.
When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.
I have a few questions:
What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.
Is it safe?
Will it wear out the bulb very fast?
Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).
Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)
--
Se=E1n =D3 Leathl=F3bhair
Try the buld in another location. Give us moe information on the bulb.

Thanks.

Normally, I would immediately try to isolate the cause by moving
things around but, in this case, I dismissed the bulb as the problem
since I thought that if the switch was passing nothing when off (as it
should) then there was no way the bulb could do what it is doing. If
the bulb is at fault then it is not the only fault (or so I assumed at
any rate).

The brand of the bulb is Philips but I cannot tell you more until I
get home and look at it. I will post again later with fuller details
and the result of a test in another location.

Hi...

Can't help wondering - it's not possible that one of those
"switches" is a dimmer, is it?

Take care.

A good question but no.

It is a landing light. There are three switches, one at each end and
a third in the middle where a small corridor from the bathroom joins
the landing. All simple on off switches (well they must be changeover
switches but, from the user's point of view, they are just on off).

And none are lighted switches?

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites:http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Further details elsewhere but no they are not lighted.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

On 25 Jun, 19:35, Yukio YANO wrote:
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

On a cold wet miserable winter day in the early 70's. I was
troubleshooting a newish car, that wouldn't start, that had just been
serviced by a car dealership. a few days before. To cut a long story
short, they lubricated the Point Breaker mechanism with a clear Grease
that they probably used for years with no problems ! With 2 to 6 Amps
flowing, the contact mechanism probably cooked off any wet or
conductive grease. With the newer Hybrid Transistor switched points the
DAMP grease appeared as a Dead Short to the few milliamps required to
actuate the Transistor.

I would suspect the switches (All three) are lubricated with a grease
that is conductive enough read (dirty enough)to cause the problems
indicated !

The quick and dirty, to clear the excess grease is to replace the lamp
in question with a 60 - 100 watt bulb and switch On and Off a few
times. in the Off position any conductive grease will be burned away.

I may try that since it is easy. The previous bulb was a 40W
incandescent but we would not normally switch it on and off rapidly.
Would cleaning the contacts with something like WD40 be a good or bad
idea? I have never used this on mains voltage devices.

Any fire Hazard, Not likely, after all these switches were manufactured
and sold for years lubricated just like this, besides we are talking
about a drop or two grease total ! If you are worried, replace the
switches.

If this doesn't clear the problem than you may have exessive
capacitative coupling between the various conductors due to the
three-way switching, under a very light load !

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:A61gi.6303$oo5.5110@trndny09...
When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.


Is one of the switches illuminated? Those will pass enough current to
slowly charge up the filter capacitor in the fluorescent bulb and cause it
to blink.


If it's leakage from anywhere, a bog-standard electricians neon test
screwdriver should show that up. Or try wiring a mains rated neon indicator
straight across the lampholder without the lamp in place. If it glows, you
have leakage either across one of the switches, or between lives. Bear in
mind that with a two way circuit, there are two wires, one or other of which
is always live, running (normally) in a common cable sheath, between the two
switches. Also bear in mind that the poster said in his third reply that not
only is there a two way switch at either end of the landing, there is
actually a third switch at the half way point where a corridor joins the
main hallway. I'm not quite sure how you factor a third switch into a
'standard' two-way circuit, but it occurs to me that it might well be
'stealing' its live either from a second lighting circuit, or from some
considerable distance around the lighting circuit, from where the main live
for the circuit is taken. Either way, that third switch must join into the
actual landing light circuit, via some kind of junction box, which may be
part of the light fixture ceiling rose, if that's nearby, or a separate
entity in the loft. It could be potentially another place for some kind of
leakage taking place.

Did anyone see in the Sunday paper, an article regarding these CFLs causing
pre-fit symptoms to epilepsy sufferers ? Seems it's becoming common, and the
same people don't suffer with ordinary flourescents. Some research suggests
that it might be to do with the (apparently) very uneven spectral response
of the tri-phosphors used to try to get an 'incandescent' colour. Hmmm ...

Arfa

On 26 Jun, 01:35, Ken Weitzel wrote:
Sam Goldwasser wrote:
Eeyore writes:

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.
That would appear to be the case.

This is at least partly true.

Low energy lamps including compact fluorescents and normal fluorescents
on electronic ballasts use a switching circuit to produce the high voltage for
the fluorescent lamp. The input is a bridge rectifier and filter capacitor.
Any source of AC even a small amount of leakage through a defective swtich,
a switch with a neon lamp night light feature (lighted when off), an
electronic timer, a motion sensor-controlled yard light, or
a dimmer that isn't fully off, may cause the voltage to build up
on the filter capacitor until the "startup circuit" kicks in. This usually
has some sort of threshold de
vice like a zener diode or diac that won't
pass current until the voltage across it exceeds a spec'd value. When
that happens, the lamp starts up and strikes but just for an instant since
there isn't enough current available on the input to maintain it.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the explanation with respect to inductive or
capacitive coupling (though possible under just the right - or wrong -
conditions) but it doesn't take that much leakage from some other fault
to do this.

Perhaps we've finally discovered perpetual motion

Take care.


Well this light may be free in the sense it is being powered by energy
that was previously leaking unnoticed but I doubt that is free in the
sense that no energy is being consumed. The waste may even have been
reduced, the incandescent bulb may have drawn more from the leakage.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

On 26 Jun, 10:13, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message

news:A61gi.6303$oo5.5110@trndny09... When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

Is one of the switches illuminated? Those will pass enough current to
slowly charge up the filter capacitor in the fluorescent bulb and cause it
to blink.

If it's leakage from anywhere, a bog-standard electricians neon test
screwdriver should show that up. Or try wiring a mains rated neon indicator
straight across the lampholder without the lamp in place. If it glows, you
have leakage either across one of the switches, or between lives. Bear in
mind that with a two way circuit, there are two wires, one or other of which
is always live, running (normally) in a common cable sheath, between the two
switches. Also bear in mind that the poster said in his third reply that not
only is there a two way switch at either end of the landing, there is
actually a third switch at the half way point where a corridor joins the
main hallway. I'm not quite sure how you factor a third switch into a
'standard' two-way circuit, but it occurs to me that it might well be
'stealing' its live either from a second lighting circuit, or from some
considerable distance around the lighting circuit, from where the main live
for the circuit is taken. Either way, that third switch must join into the
actual landing light circuit, via some kind of junction box, which may be
part of the light fixture ceiling rose, if that's nearby, or a separate
entity in the loft. It could be potentially another place for some kind of
leakage taking place.

I do have a mains rated neon screwdriver so that will be one of my
first tests.

The third switch puzzled me when I moved to the house. I researched
how it could be done and I have posted a description elsewhere in the
thread. The system is rare in the UK but I read that it is common in
Spain and some other places. I have not yet checked whether my house
is wired as described but flicking any switch at any time will change
the state of the light so the switches are not simply in series or
parallel. If the wiring is as expected, there will be two alternative
live wires (always one live and one dead) running together for a
considerable distance, rather more than the length of the landing . A
leak between these two would explain the problem but not cause a fuse
to blow or an RCCB to trip.

Did anyone see in the Sunday paper, an article regarding these CFLs causing
pre-fit symptoms to epilepsy sufferers ? Seems it's becoming common, and the
same people don't suffer with ordinary flourescents. Some research suggests
that it might be to do with the (apparently) very uneven spectral response
of the tri-phosphors used to try to get an 'incandescent' colour. Hmmm ...


--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

On 26 Jun, 08:41, Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:47:00 GMT, Eeyore
put finger to keyboard and
composed:





Franc Zabkar wrote:

Eeyore put finger to keyboard and composed:
Sjouke Burry wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Sjouke Burry wrote:

Capacitive leakage from the HOT wire to the switch
wire?

So why doesn't this happen all the time ? Answer, the capacitance is very low,
as is the frequency.

A leak cap has very high impedance, and via
the input rectifier can charge the input cap(slowly).
Then when a threshold is passed, the circuit
produces a flash.
And it only happens, if the input capacity of the
rectifier circuit is low compared to the leak cap.

It flashes every 2 seconds or so.

Clearly a very low leakage current won't do that.

This fellow experimented with a ~1mA leakage current at 240VAC:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.e...41abb5398c8c?h...

"Changed to 270 kohms and now have a 13W CFL flashing at exactly 1
Hz".

I make that ~ 11nF !

You won't get that easily.

Graham

Yes, I would think that even 100pF is way too much. The hypothesis
regarding stray wiring capacitance does seem very far fetched.

Maybe this explanation is a better one, a least for the other thread:http://groups.google.com/group/aus.e...f4e439fbd911?h...

AFAICS, you can *very* roughly calculate the amount of leakage current
required to account for the OP's observations by assuming that all the
current is used in charging the main filter cap, say 4.7uF. Assuming
also that the trigger voltage for the DIAC is around 50V, then ...

i = C . dV/dt
= 4.7 E-06 x 50V / 2s
= 0.12 mA


That's reassuring, 0.12mA does not sound too frightening. So, if your
assumptions and calculations are correct, the capacitor holds 235uC
just before the flash and just under 12mJ will be released. This
sounds plausible for the faint flash. It is easily seen in the dark
but could not be described as bright. It is almost impossible to see
in daylight.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

Would cleaning the contacts with something like WD40 be a good or bad
idea? I have never used this on mains voltage devices.

WD40 = Bad idea. Save it for the rusty gate hinges.

Ron(UK)

Jamie wrote:
Ron(UK) wrote:

It`s a two way switch, there`s plenty of potential for leakage paths.
You can easily get 100v on the neutral if it`s floating above earth
potential.


Hmm.
2 way, 3 way , 4 way and any number of ways you want! why would that
matter?, the neutral should not be part of the switching circuit.


It will if any of the switches are wired up wrong.

Ron(UK)

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"JANA" wrote in message
...
If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not
turn
off.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost
no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save
some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from
its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.

--

JANA
_____



These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our
lives. All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up
as a response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands.
At the moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment'
or 'global warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to
its 'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new
bits of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to
justify what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of
scientists getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to
promote the government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one
form of alleged pollution, for another definite one ...

Arfa

Arfa

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.
Putting in a low-energy lamp mean that there is less heat being put into the
room, and consequently, more heat has to be supplied externally. The only
way that Low Energy lighting makes a positive difference is if people change
their lamps when they stop using external heating. As in Northern Europe we
usually have to have our heating on for at least 7 months of the year,
typically 8 months, low energy lighting doesn't make a lot of sense. Also,
how much energy does it take to make a low-energy lamp compared with a
conventional one? When this is factored in, together with the extra energy
required to dispose of it safely, I doubt very much whether low-energy
lighting helps at all.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room, and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

"Eeyore"

wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of
disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If
you have a conventional bulb, much of
the energy output is in the form of
heat, which will help heat the room,
and
consequently will reduce the need for
other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra
heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is
that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large
amount).

No, that's no excuse for low
efficiency lighting.

Graham

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country. If it was not subsidized
by the taxpayers, no one would use it.
The 3% number is higher if you only
consider the energy from oil, but we are
looking for solutions for the CO2
problem and you have to count all fossil
fuels including natural gas and coal.
Where are we going to get the holy grail
of hydrogen for our cars? Yes, it takes
energy to create it. Solar cells for
home use are another myth. It takes more
energy to produce the solar panels,
batteries, and all of the auxiliary
equipment than the system will ever
generate. Large scale applications in
areas with high solar illumination have
a much better equation. I could go on,
but you get the idea.

The switch to more efficient lighting is
a good conversation measure, but the
energy production area is where the hype
sets in. In general energy use is
directly proportional to population and
standard of living. The best way to save
energy to reduce one or both of those.
Alternatively we could create the
necessary energy form nuclear power
which has essentially zero carbon
emissions.

David

On 26 Jun, 14:17, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"JANA" wrote in message

...





If the switch that is series with the light bulb has a night light in it,
the current pass of the night light will cause the CFL to flicker.

If the CFL is connected to a switch that is electronic, the small leakage
of
the electronics will cause the CFL to flicker or in some cases to not turn
off.

Regular CFL's cannot be used on standard light dimmers and many of the
electronic timers. This is a big inconvenience for many people.

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from
their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that
are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as
used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are
eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

It looks very strong that the government is pushing the CFL's to save some
electricity to sell to large industry. This is the only answer that is
logical. There are NO green house gasses from using regular light bulbs.
When more electricity is sold to industry, the pollution problems from its
generation will actually increase, unless the generation is from water
power, or nuclear power.

--

JANA
_____

These are my (well known) views also, but I fear we are squeaking like
little lost mice in the dark ...

The general public are not told - and would not understand anyway - the
wider implications of these knee-jerk government interventions in our lives.
All too often, they are poorly thought through, and are dreamed up as a
response to the latest bit of pseudo science to hit the news stands. At the
moment, anything with the words 'green' or 'eco' or 'environment' or 'global
warming' are fair game for this sort of nonsense, and to add to its
'validity' in the public's eyes, they've already started inventing new bits
of techno-babble like 'carbon footprint' and 'carbon offsetting' to justify
what amounts to little more than opinions by a vociferous band of scientists
getting paid large amounts of money and credibility ratings, to promote the
government line. As you say, these CFLs are just trading one form of alleged
pollution, for another definite one ...


I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

David wrote:

While I generally agree with your
comment above, there is still a lot of
hype on this topic because people (an
especially politicians) fail to consider
the total energy equation. This is
especially true here in the U.S. where
ethanol is a big topic. The public does
not realize that the savings are
relatively small. The BTU content/unit
volume is about 70% of gasoline (lower
miles/gallon), it takes a lot of energy
to make it (fertilizer, fuel for
planting, cultivating, harvesting,
distilling), the diversion of corn to
ethanol is driving up prices for animal
feed and therefore milk and meat, and if
all corn was turned into ethanol you may
divert 3% of the total energy use in
this country.

The idea of making ethanol fuel from corn is unique to the USA. I hear ADM
regularly named as the culprit here.

Far better to use feedstock that doesn't require intensive agriculture.

Is your newsreader set to a line length of about 30 chars or so btw ?

Graham

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

The low energy bulbs cost considerably more.

I can buy 11 and 18W Philips CFLs for 39p (78 cents US) in the local supermarket.
I think they're subsidised by the local electricity company in some 'green'
initiative.

A traditional incandescent costs about the same or more.

Graham

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:

from other sources. However, even here in the UK

You're in the UK !

Go to Morrisons for the cheap Philips CFLs.

Graham

On 26 Jun, 17:03, Eeyore
wrote:
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
from other sources. However, even here in the UK

You're in the UK !

Go to Morrisons for the cheap Philips CFLs.

Graham

Thanks for the tip.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole
principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb, much
of
the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room,
and
consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly than
other
heat sources (often by a large amount).

Agreed , but cost isn't part of my argument, energy usage is. The end to end
energy costs of low energy lighting, that is, the energy to make them, use
them and dispose of them compared with conventional filament lighting isn't
at all clear. I have not seen any such figures published, only for the
energy consumption in use, which is clearly lower, but again, the energy
re-use as heat doesn't seem to be taken into account in any calculation I've
seen..

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.

Graham

It's not an excuse, but to me the case isn't completely made. In my own
home, any light that is on for more than an hour a day is a low energy
light, but that's more an act of faith on my part rather than a soundly
calculated decision.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Eeyore wrote in
:



Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a
conventional bulb, much of the energy output is in the form of heat,
which will help heat the room, and consequently will reduce the need
for other heating, central or otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

The other downside of your idea is that electricity is more costly
than other heat sources (often by a large amount).

No, that's no excuse for low efficiency lighting.


It wasn't an excuse, it was a reason, and a good one, there was more to his
point than you quoted. Most times light is used, heat is also wanted. Where
it isn't, you use a light source that doesn't add heat, and there are
several choices. LED's in outdoor and tunnel and other places where people
don't need to spend time keeping warm, or any of the other types already in
use, but that's not where people spend most of their time.

The current availability of CFL's is no excuse to risk vast pollution and
ebergy use in manufacture for all the general domestic uses that also need
heat, and this is true before you begin to consider all the dimmers that
must be replaced and thrown away.

If you're looking for excuses, at least look in the right place. Trying to
force an end to the incandescent lamp to satify a political expedient is
not engineering, but an excuse. No matter how people heat their homes, the
important thing is not to let it all out of the roofs, doors and windows,
it's less important where it comes from.

Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote in
oups.com:

snip


I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair



I think CFL's just don't wash..

I have bought several in various price ranges...

The really cheep ones only last about 3 months...

The medium priced ones last about 1 year to 18 months.

The one I paid the most for has been going for about 5 years.

Based on this it only makes sense to buy the longest lasting ones...

At $22.00 US I could buy aproximately 88, 60W 120V lamps.

Which gives me 88,000 hours of light.

The life of the lamp that has lated five years was promoted at

30,000 hours...

So that makes the inital cost about 1.5 times as much as the standard
bulb.

I also use 2, 100w 120 lamps as a heat source to keep the water pipes
from freezing in really cold weather...

I haven't figured out a safer or more economical way to heat a 5' x 5'
pump house.

R!

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated. The mercury issue can be
solved as suerage is now. This could be fixed overnight.
Almost all of the CFLs will be made in Asia. Not many are made in the US
now. Asia competes with Europe. The US is not in the running. The best CFL
is now Philips.
Ray

On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow...

Ray King wrote:

I think our polititions are afraid to tell the American public how
fast/serious the worlds energy is being depleated.

How about you tell me ?

I'm all ears.

Graham

On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, webpa wrote:
On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:





I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow.

More complicated than the common two switch set-up but not necessarily
that complicated. I have not traced the wiring to be sure how this
particular installation works but I am reasonably sure that it does
not involve a relay. I have researched how it may work and I have
described that elsewhere in the thread. The switches need to be more
complicated than typical. They need two inputs and two outputs. Each
input is always connected to one of the outputs but the connections
are reversed when the switch is changed. The live goes to one input
of the first switch. The two outputs of the first switch are
connected to the two inputs of the second. This continues through as
many switches as you wish. Finally one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb. The neutral is connected normally. So, if any
switch is changed, the live will go down the other wire through the
rest of the system. Since only one output of the last switch is
connected to the bulb, if it was on, it goes off but of it was off it
goes on. This set-up is rare in the UK but the necessary switches are
available, I have seen them in my local hardware shop. They can be
used for the more typical two switch set-up by simply ignoring one of
the terminals. I have read that this set-up is more commonly used in
some other countries such as Spain.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair

Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat (or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Graham

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:06:02 -0700, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
put finger to keyboard and composed:

I can also use a multimeter and one of those neon screwdrivers to
perform some more tests. Sticking the probes of the multimeter into
the light socket sounds a little scary. This is a UK lamp socket
which may be unfamiliar to US readers and some others. The bulb does
not screw in it is a bayonet mount. You push the bulb in and turn and
a couple or prongs catch the mount and hold the bulb. The contacts
are two sprung pins which press onto contacts at the bottom of the
bulb. The collar is metal. To UK readers and others who know the
system: is the collar connected to anything? If my multimeter probe
touches a contact and the collar, is something nasty going to happen?
Obviously if both probes touch their contacts and the collar,
something nasty may happen.

I've just checked the Australian fittings. Our new batten holders have
bakelite collars, but the old ones were metal. There is no continuity
between the collar and any other terminal, including the earth
terminal (which doesn't exist on some fittings).

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:50:35 -0400, "JANA"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

When regular lamps become unavailable, I can see a lot of problems with
these new types of lamps. The biggest one will be the pollution from their
disposal. They use mercury, phosphors, and many types of materials that are
very harmful for the environment. There is also the electronics circuit
board, which contain components that have the same recycling problem as used
in most electronics. Even though they last longer, when they are eventually
put out in to the garbage, they will eventually end up in the land fills.
They are going to be a very big problem compared to the simple light bulb
that was made of simple glass and metals.

Regular light bulb materials are about 85% recyclable. There are almost no
materials in these that are bad for the environment. Most CFL's materials
are not recyclable, and their materials are very polluting.

I'm also cynical about the "green" benefits of CFLs, but I found this
interesting document that claims that incandescent bulbs are
responsible for more mercury than CFLs.

US Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

CFLs Responsible for Less Mercury than Incandescent Light Bulbs

"Ironically, CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury from
entering our air, where it most affects our health. The highest source
of mercury in our air comes from burning fossil fuels such as coal,
the most common fuel used in the U.S. to produce electricity. A CFL
uses 75% less energy than an incandescent light bulb and lasts at
least 6 times longer. A power plant will emit 10mg of mercury to
produce the electricity to run an incandescent bulb compared to only
2.4mg of mercury to run a CFL for the same time."

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:32:17 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

I've just checked the Australian fittings. Our new batten holders have
bakelite collars, but the old ones were metal. There is no continuity
between the collar and any other terminal, including the earth
terminal (which doesn't exist on some fittings).

- Franc Zabkar

That is true Frank, but often the ring is earthed which effectively
connects it to the neutral pin of the socket.

Easiest way is to make a lead which plugs into the socket, and then
you have access to the test leads in a more controllable situation
than probing into the socket itself.

Peter Dettmann

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional
bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the
room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat
(or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to
warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light! :-)

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional
bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the
room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat
(or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all to
warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Graham

I'm not so sure about that. Go to downtown Vegas and walk under the entrance
awnings of some of the 'legacy' casinos that still have incandescent
lighting rather than LEDs, and then tell me that it doesn't feel like having
an electric fire a few feet over your head ...

Arfa

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Serge Auckland wrote:

Quite apart from the problems of disposing of old CFLs, I question
the
whole principle of Low Energy lighting. If you have a conventional
bulb,
much
of the energy output is in the form of heat, which will help heat the
room,

and consequently will reduce the need for other heating, central or
otherwise.

That's sort of fine if you want extra heat. Often as not you don't.

If the central heating is on, then you are, by definition, needing extra
heat. The heat output from lighting will mean that the room thermostat
(or
radiator valves) will turn off that bit sooner.

Not really.

The heat from most lamps hangs around at ceiling level. It does sod all
to warm
a room.

I suggest you compare sitting in front of a 1kw bar electric fire to
switching
on ten 100w light bulbs to see how true that is.

Look at all the energy that is wasted producing light! :-)


What happens to all the 'waste' heat produced in vacuum "filled" bulbs that
used to be, if not still are, produced for garden use ? It can't be radiated
into the atmosphere, as the envelope is substantially cold to the touch.
Does the fact that it must be hanging around in the vicinity of the
filament, modify the power consumption of the lamp compared to its light
output ? Does this make it a low(er) energy lamp? Why does the heat from the
anode of a power tube readily radiate across the vacuum, but the heat from
the filament of a vacuum light bulb seems not to? d;~}

Arfa

webpa writes:

On Jun 25, 8:03 am, Se=E1n O'Leathl=F3bhair wrote:
I am not sure if this is an appropriate group for this question. If
not, please suggest a better one.

I have a light in the house which I have wanted to switch to a low
energy bulb for a long time. The hold up was that I needed a very
small bulb. At last, I have found a small enough bulb but something
odd occurred as soon as I put it in.

When it is switched on, it works as expected.

When it is switched off, it blinks every few seconds. So, I guess
that there must be a problem with the switch If it is passing nothing
then it would seem impossible for the bulb to do anything. I did not
notice any problem with the previous incandescent bulb but I guess
that if the switch is leaking a tiny amount, the filament would glow
too little to be seen.

I have a few questions:

What is going on? Is a tiny current leaking, building up a charge in
a capacitor somewhere until a sufficient voltage builds up to spark in
the bulb and discharge the capacitor, and then the cycle repeats.

Is it safe?

Will it wear out the bulb very fast?

Is it likely to be enough to replace the switch? (Actually three
switches can turn this bulb on and off).

Might I have to replace the wiring? (Much harder than just replacing
the switches)

--
Se=E1n =D3 Leathl=F3bhair

You have a more complicated circuit than you think. If you have 3
switches, each capable of turning the lamp on and off irrespective of
the positions of the other two switches, then the switches are not
directly connected to the lamp. The switches are connected to a (-n
electromechanical) relay or a solid-state relay. The relay provides
power to the lamp...the switches control the relay. I suspect leakage
somewhere in wiring between the switch(s) and the relay...which, if
solid-state, may require only a few milliamps to trip the relay.
Could also be that the control relay is defective somehow...

No, they only need be mechanical switches.

Google "3-way switch" and "4-way switch".

Or see the info at:

http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/appfaq.htm#afconfofm

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/
Repair | Main Table of Contents: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/
+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm
| Mirror Sites: http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/F_mirror.html

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

"R!" wrote in message
...
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote in
oups.com:

snip


I also have qualms about the overall value of these bulbs. They are
complex devices and I have not heard of any schemes for recycling or
safe disposal. It is very hard, as an end user, to judge the pros and
cons. From a selfish point of view, I can look at the cost to me.
The low energy bulbs cost considerably more. The hope is that the
longer lifetime and lower energy use compensate for this. The longer
lifetime seems to be linked to the physical size. The larger ones do
indeed seem to have a long life. The first ever ones I bought, about
15 years ago, are still working but they are huge by modern
standards. The larger of the newer ones have a good life time but I
have had a few failures. The small new ones, which are required for
some applications, seem to have a noticeably shorter life time. In
this case, is not so obvious that I am spending less on the bulbs than
on incandescent ones. Also, I find the energy saving not as great as
claimed. I usually don't find them as bright as the claimed
equivalents. I guess that the equivalence claims are true in some
sense but not in my subjective judgment. If I replace an incandescent
bulb with a low energy with the same claimed equivalent power, it
usually looks dimmer. I often have to buy one step up from the
claimed equivalent power and hence make a smaller saving. An
exception to this last point is the one that inspired this thread. It
actually seems brighter than the incandescent that it replaced despite
having the same claimed equivalent power. Of course, I have no idea
of the life time yet.

On the heating point that same raise. I am aware that the heat from
the incandescent bulbs will be slightly reducing the heat required
from other sources. However, even here in the UK, I am not running
the heating all the time, and electricity costs me more per joule than
gas. Even when using the heating, I like the cooler running of the
low energy bulbs, I hope that it reduces the fire risk in some of the
cramped places that bulbs are used. I have seen lamp shades scorched
quite worryingly by incandescent bulbs (even when within the stated
limits of the shade). I have never seen this with a low energy bulb.
Finally, not everyone lives in a cold country. I have a house in the
Philippines, there heating is unknown but air conditioning is
desirable. The stray heat from incandescent bulbs is a double waste
since it is increasing the load on the air conditioning.

I have dropped the long list of apparently irrelevant groups.

--
Seán Ó Leathlóbhair



I think CFL's just don't wash..

I have bought several in various price ranges...

The really cheep ones only last about 3 months...

The medium priced ones last about 1 year to 18 months.

The one I paid the most for has been going for about 5 years.

Based on this it only makes sense to buy the longest lasting ones...

At $22.00 US I could buy aproximately 88, 60W 120V lamps.

Which gives me 88,000 hours of light.

The life of the lamp that has lated five years was promoted at

30,000 hours...

So that makes the inital cost about 1.5 times as much as the standard
bulb.

I also use 2, 100w 120 lamps as a heat source to keep the water pipes
from freezing in really cold weather...

I haven't figured out a safer or more economical way to heat a 5' x 5'
pump house.

R!

Remember also that incandescent lamp lifetime is a cost / commercial thing.
Extra long life lamps for critical locations are available.

Just another little spanner in the works. When the governments try to
actually introduce the ban on incandescents, will it just be on
'conventional' spheres, or will they try to do it for halogen and spot
decorative lamps as well? I would think that there is a huge useage of these
lamps now, since all the big DIY warehouses started selling both fancy light
fittings with multiple halogens in them, and cheap ceiling downlighter kits,
with 3 or 5 halogens in them. I have two light fittings in my lounge with
five 20 watt halogens in each, plus two 60 watt spots. Over my stairs, I
have five ceiling downlighters, and then another five along the upstairs
corridor. There are another three in the main bedroom, and four in the
shower room. If these lamps get banned as well, then I'm either going to
have a lot of useless holes in the ceiling, or going to have to replace them
with poor colourmatch LED fixtures ...

Arfa