Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

A 23 watt CFL lamp should put out a great deal
of light. One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period. The colder the ambient
temperature the more time it takes the darn things
to reach full brightness. I've installed them in
the bathroom exhaust fan/light fixtures at several
business because of the long life of the lights and
soon discovered that in the wintertime it's like a
40 watt incandescent until about 10 minutes later
when it's as bright or brighter than a 100 watt
standard bulb. In the summertime, flip the switch
and it as bright as ever. I imagine that the more
expensive CFL lamps will perform better over a wider
temperature range.

TDD

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these
energy- saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are
equivalent to a 100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about
like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Have you let 'em warm up--generally takes a CF a bit to come to full
brightness.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Doc" wrote in message
...
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

I have noticed that some new CFLs will take 5+ minutes to reach proper
brightness on the first run even at room temperature. After this first burn
in, they come up to brightness normally (within 30 seconds or so) after
turning on from a cold start. The first time it happened to me I though the
bulb was bad, but the ones that did that have been fine ever since.

In a cold environment, they will be slower to warm up.

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

It should be very close to a 100w bulb once its had a couple of mins
to reach peak output. Maybe you've got some junk halophosphate ones.


NT

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?
I have tried several different brands and have decided to stick with Sylvania.
In a 72 degree house it takes less then a minute to warm up. For my 100w equal I
use the Sylvania CFL23EL Micromini 3000k. Works great for me.

Chris

"The Daring Dufas" wrote...

I've installed them in
the bathroom exhaust fan/light fixtures at several
business because of the long life of the lights and
soon discovered that in the wintertime it's like a
40 watt incandescent until about 10 minutes later
when it's as bright or brighter than a 100 watt
standard bulb.

I like that "feature" in the bathroom, because the light doesn't blind me as
badly when I turn it on at night...

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?
Hi,
What name brand? They are 99% made in China. For more light output try
daylight kind which has higher color temperature.

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

Dave

Tony Hwang wrote:
Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?
Hi,
What name brand? They are 99% made in China. For more light output try
daylight kind which has higher color temperature.

nasty

In , Doc
wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Philips, GE and Sylvania 23 watt ones as well as those other brands
prevalent in home centers (such as N:Vision) generally achieve 1600 lumens
after warming up for a minute or two. Higher color temperature
versions achieve closer to 1500 lumens. 1600 lumens is close to the
output of a "double life" 100 watt incandescent. A "full blast" 100W 120V
incandescent achieves 1670-1750 lumens.

I like to think of 23 watt CFLs as being about halfway between a 75 watt
and a 100 watt "standard" incandescent (750 hours) in "real-world" light
output.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Tony Hwang wrote:
Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?
Hi,
What name brand? They are 99% made in China. For more light output try
daylight kind which has higher color temperature.

My expereince is that higher color temp. ones produce slightly less
light than ones rated 2700-3500 K.
Higher color temp. ones do work better outdoors at night however,
because their spectrum is more favorable to night vision.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Dave Garland
wrote:
Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

On Nov 29, 7:07*am, The Daring Dufas wrote:
One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.



Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.

Doc wrote:

On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:


One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.





Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.



On the other hand, it has the advantage of not immediately blinding you
when you flip the light on in the dark.

It takes some adjustment, but after a few weeks, you'll probably no
longer even notice.

On Nov 30, 7:24*am, clams_casino wrote:
Doc wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:

One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.

Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.

On the other hand, it has the advantage of not immediately blinding you
when you flip the light on in the dark.

It takes some adjustment, but after a few weeks, you'll probably no
longer even notice.

Indeed. When we built out house my wife had them put in special
switches that slowly raise the light level because she hates being
blinded. When we started switching to CFLs on other lights we hardly
noticed.

Some brands are much quicker than others, too. And some lines within
a brand. Unfortunately no one puts "full brightness in 47 seconds!"
on the packages.

WDS wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:24 am, clams_casino wrote:
Doc wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:
One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.
Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.
On the other hand, it has the advantage of not immediately blinding you
when you flip the light on in the dark.

It takes some adjustment, but after a few weeks, you'll probably no
longer even notice.

Indeed. When we built out house my wife had them put in special
switches that slowly raise the light level because she hates being
blinded. When we started switching to CFLs on other lights we hardly
noticed.

Some brands are much quicker than others, too. And some lines within
a brand. Unfortunately no one puts "full brightness in 47 seconds!"
on the packages.

Actually last time I was in Lowe's I actually did see some "quick start"
CFLs. I don't remember the brand name though, nor did I buy any, as
most of the fixtures in my house already have CFLs in them and those
that don't are a) rarely used and b) slated for replacement anyway.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Nov 29, 5:28*am, Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

If its not bright as 100w incandesant return it, Popular Mechanics
rated them years ago, its still online but hard to find, I think in
the Home section, Consumer reports did a test. I use HD soft white, I
get a 9w that equals 40w for about 1$. The HD bulbs rated Better than
incandesant for color at Pop mech, such as how it colors your skin. I
have 60 in use and failure after 1.5 years with many in commercial use
is maybe 2. Heat is what kills the ballast, as long as they are not
sealed in an enclosure they last.

On Nov 29, 5:22*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , Dave Garland
wrote:





Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. *Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. *A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. *Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

* My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Popular Mechanics test and maybe CR tested and published Lumen
output.

On Nov 29, 2:01*pm, wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?
Hi,
What name brand? They are 99% made in China. For more light output try
daylight kind which has higher color temperature.

nasty

I thought it was 100% china as of a few months ago

On Nov 30, 9:35*am, ransley wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:28*am, Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

If its not bright as 100w incandesant return it, Popular Mechanics
rated them years ago, its still online but hard to find, I think in
the Home section, Consumer reports did a test. I use HD soft white, I
get a 9w that equals 40w for about 1$. The HD bulbs rated Better than
incandesant for color at Pop mech, such as how it colors your skin. I
have 60 in use and failure after 1.5 years with many in commercial use
is maybe 2. Heat is what kills the ballast, as long as they are not
sealed in an enclosure they last.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...t/4215199.html

"Doc" wrote in message
...
On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:
One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.



Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.

reply:

Doctor to patient, "You need to give up wine, women, and song."

Patient, "Will I live any longer?"

Doctor, "No, but it will seem like one hell of a lot longer."

All this bull**** and hooey to save a few pennies here and there, and so
little kids won't eat used up light bulbs and die.

Steve

WDS wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:24 am, clams_casino wrote:
Doc wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.

Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or
something.

On the other hand, it has the advantage of not immediately blinding
you when you flip the light on in the dark.

It takes some adjustment, but after a few weeks, you'll probably no
longer even notice.

Indeed. When we built out house my wife had them put in special
switches that slowly raise the light level because she hates being
blinded. When we started switching to CFLs on other lights we hardly
noticed.

Some brands are much quicker than others, too. And some lines within a brand.
Unfortunately no one puts "full brightness in 47 seconds!" on the packages.

Because the time varys with the temperature.

In ,
WDS wrote:

On Nov 30, 7:24*am, clams_casino wrote:
Doc wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:07 am, The Daring Dufas wrote:

One thing I have found when dealing
with a number of CFL lights is the fact that the
lamps have a warm up period.

Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this
seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.

On the other hand, it has the advantage of not immediately blinding you
when you flip the light on in the dark.

It takes some adjustment, but after a few weeks, you'll probably no
longer even notice.

Indeed. When we built out house my wife had them put in special
switches that slowly raise the light level because she hates being
blinded. When we started switching to CFLs on other lights we hardly
noticed.

Some brands are much quicker than others, too. And some lines within
a brand. Unfortunately no one puts "full brightness in 47 seconds!"
on the packages.

There is a general trend for ones with outer bulbs to start dimmer and
take more time to warm up than ones with bare tubing. Ones with outer
bulbs have their tubing designed to work best at the higher temperature
that occurs inside the bulb-enclosed ones.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Nate Nagel wrote in part:

WDS wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:24 am, clams_casino wrote:

Indeed. When we built out house my wife had them put in special
switches that slowly raise the light level because she hates being
blinded. When we started switching to CFLs on other lights we hardly
noticed.

Some brands are much quicker than others, too. And some lines within
a brand. Unfortunately no one puts "full brightness in 47 seconds!"
on the packages.

Actually last time I was in Lowe's I actually did see some "quick start"
CFLs. I don't remember the brand name though, nor did I buy any,

They may be referring to starting instantly instead of taking half a
second or a second to preheat their filaments. They almost certainly
still need to warm up.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
ransley wrote:

On Nov 29, 5:22*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , Dave Garland
wrote:

Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. *Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. *A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. *Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

* My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

*- Don Klipstein )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Popular Mechanics test and maybe CR tested and published Lumen
output.

I would not take lumen claims on the package as gospel truth. I have
had some fall significantly short, notably many Lights of America and
MaxLite models that I tested, and in my experience every dollar store unit
of a "dollar store brand" whose package made a claim of light output in
lumens.

Ones of "Big 3" brands (Philips, GE and Sylvania) and ones with the
Energy Star logo are more likely to be truthful with claims of light
output in lumens. I have also found N:Vision (a brand pushed by Home
Depot) to be truthful with light output claims in lumens. My experience
is similarly good with the brand available in CVS stores. I would expect
the brand pushed by Lowes to be similarly good in meeting claims of light
output in lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Dave Garland
wrote:
Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

Lumen output drops quite a bit throughout a CFL's life, whereas
filament lamp fall in output is much less. Consequently to get a real
equivalent one needs to start with higher lumen levels than the
equivalent filament lamp.


NT

On Nov 29, 3:28*am, Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

full spectrum light is crucial to good health... the body evolved
needing all spectums of light (natural light) or incandescent... to be
healthy.

cool white florescent etc..and others have that problem.

a good google search....' full spectrum light, heatlh, Ott'

Phil scott

In ,
wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Dave Garland
wrote:
Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

Lumen output drops quite a bit throughout a CFL's life, whereas
filament lamp fall in output is much less. Consequently to get a real
equivalent one needs to start with higher lumen levels than the
equivalent filament lamp.

CFLs when aged to 3,000 operating hours have about 10% (maybe a bit
more) loss of light output compared to that at 100 hours (industry-
standard break-in period, immediately after which their light output
is "officially" determined).

So the 1600 lumen "100 watt equivalents" can fade to about 1400-1450
lumens at 3,000 hours, and fade a little more to maybe about 1300 lumens
if and when they get to 6,000-8,000 hours or so. Even that is still a
bit brighter than "standard" 75W incandescents.

If your home is one of those where the line voltage is on the high side,
then incandescents will have much-enhanced photometric performance. Light
output from a CFL may be merely roughly proportionate to line voltage,
while incandescents have light output typically proportionate to line
voltage to the 3.4 or so power.
So if you hit a 1190 lumen 75W 120V incandescent with 124V, then you get
about 1330 lumens from that incandescent. In homes with higher line
voltage, incandescents get a "disproportionate boost" in performance - if
you are not bothered by them not lasting as long as they should.

- Don Klipstein )

On Nov 30, 11:17*am, phil scott wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:28*am, Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

full spectrum light is crucial to good health... the body evolved
needing all spectums of light (natural light) or incandescent... to be
healthy.

cool white florescent etc..and others have that problem.

a good google search....' full spectrum light, heatlh, Ott'

Phil scott

addendum.... If yiou get a good daily dose of sunlight, or
incandescent bulb light, then florescent or LED wont have as much of a
detrimental effect on your health... for offices I recommend a small
incandescent light on the dest kept lit ..it supplies the full
spectrum you need. in a home an incandescent near your tv watching
chair would have a similar effect... I dont think the wattage is
crucial, 20 watts might be fine.


Phil scott

In ,
phil scott wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:28*am, Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

full spectrum light is crucial to good health... the body evolved
needing all spectums of light (natural light) or incandescent... to be
healthy.

cool white florescent etc..and others have that problem.

a good google search....' full spectrum light, heatlh, Ott'

I've been there done that. My sensation is hype.

I have studied this area enough to be in a good position to know every
known and reasonably-theorized photoreceptor and significant photochemical
mechanism in the human body.

They a

1. The red, green and blue cones in the retina of the eye:
Having 2 different light sources matching each other in color and
visually-apparent brightness is sufficient to achieve matching stimulation
of all 3 of those different photoreceptors by such 2 different light
sources in question. Even if one is an incandescent and the other is a
CFL with the usual spiky spectrum.

2. Rods in the retina of the eye: If 2 light sources have the same
apparent brightness and same "s/p ratio" (scotopic/photopic), then they
stimulate the rods of the eye equally.

CFLs of incandescent-like color tend to have s/p ratio about 10% less
than incandescents of same color. I don't think that is all that bad.

3. There is highly suspected to be a "cirtopic receptor" in the human
eye, influencing circadian rhythms. I hear various figures for peak
wavelength of sensitivity of that one and no figures for bandwidth.
Figures for peak wavelength tend to be in the greenish-blue to
very-bluish-green range. I suspect, in part from wide variation in
determinations in peak wavelength for sensitivity, that the bandwidth is
on the wide side - as in maybe similar to that of rods.

So it appears to me that the cirtopic receptors don't get shortchanged
much more than the rods do by an incandescent-like CFL in comparison to an
incandescent of same color and same photometrics.

4. A somewhat-suspected separate "violet cone" that has its neural output
being channeled into something like 80% blue 20% red neural channels:
I suspect that such *may be true* since I have foveal tritanopia, and I
find that defect in my vision to affect spectral pure deep blues but not
spectral violets (such as the 404.7 nm wavelength of mercury).

Should the "violet cone" actually exist, CFLs of incandescent-like color
do stimulate that one as well as incandescents do - via the 404.7 nm
wavelength of mercury vapor.

5. Suntanning/erythemic ultraviolet: Both incandescents and CFLs are
similarly lacking in production of such. Erythemic UV found in daylight
is mainly the longer wavelength 35% or so of UVB and the shorter
wavelength 25-30% or so of UVA.

6. UVA of wavelengths absorbed by tryptophan and related compounds: I
have yet to hear of anything good from that and I am aware of a harmful
mechanism from that ("nuclear cataracts" ["permanent suntanning of the
core of the lens of the eye], as well as contribution to the more-common
foggy "regular" cataracts).
Most of the trouble from this is "superlinear" with intensity of
exposure. As in if exposure intensity is cut in half but imposed for
twice as much time, you are better-off.

The main offender here for a very large majority of the population is
natural daylight. Both incandescents and incandescent-like CFLs run
low in such wavelengths and do so similarly. Non-dollar-store CFLs and
other triphosphor fluorescents of higher color temps. produce even less,
due to the blue phosphor component used in these lamps utilizing the
365-366 nm mercury spectral feature - which other fluorescent lamp
phosphors usually do not absorb. (2700K CFLs generally lack the usual
blue phosphor of "triphosphor fluorescents".)

7. There is some notation to a wound-healing mechanism using deep red
light of wavelengths around 660-670 nm.

CFLs lack that. However, the study I saw noting a proposed actual
photochemical mechanism also noted requirement of intensity of exposure to
such wavelengths, easily fallen short from by direct sunlight, let alone
home indoor lighting of any kind.

8. Acne treatment - the main acne bacterium does produce a waste product
that is converted into something toxic to that bacterium by "mid-violet"
wavelengths. Direct midday sunlight usually has enough of that to make a
difference. Indoor home lighting, regardless of type, does not.
Artificial lighting to blast acne bacteria is typically "03
super-actinic" fluorescent lamps, available from pet/aquarium shops among
some other sources. Exposure requirement is high enough to require a lot
of this - or preferably twice-daily or whatever 15 minutes or whatever
amount of time blasting acne-befallen parts of your body by such a lamp
mere inches away.

9. Photoreceptor in animals other than humans - live coral has a
requirement for deep blue to bluish-violet wavelengths.

10. Photoreceptor in animals other than vertebrates - arthropods have a
UV (probably UVA) photoreceptor in their eyes, occaisionally noted as
having peak sensitivity around 350 nm.

There are some other photochemical processes and photochemicals known to
be in the plant kingdom, and notably found absent in anything that is into
the animal kingdom enough to lack chloroplasts. (Euglenas are protozoa
with both mitochondria and chloroplasts, and were considered to be within
the "animal kingdom" until the kingdoms were redefined to make protozoa
and slime molds [masses of amoebas - prorozoa] to be not considered
animals.

Bottom line: I see "preponderance of evidence" to a great extent that
incandescent-like CFLs are not much more unhealthful to humans than
incandescents of same photometric performance are, despite the spiky
spectrum of CFLs.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Dave Garland
wrote:
Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

- Don Klipstein )

Lumen output drops quite a bit throughout a CFL's life, whereas
filament lamp fall in output is much less. Consequently to get a real
equivalent one needs to start with higher lumen levels than the
equivalent filament lamp.

CFLs when aged to 3,000 operating hours have about 10% (maybe a bit
more) loss of light output compared to that at 100 hours (industry-
standard break-in period, immediately after which their light output
is "officially" determined).

So the 1600 lumen "100 watt equivalents" can fade to about 1400-1450
lumens at 3,000 hours, and fade a little more to maybe about 1300 lumens
if and when they get to 6,000-8,000 hours or so. Even that is still a
bit brighter than "standard" 75W incandescents.

If your home is one of those where the line voltage is on the high side,
then incandescents will have much-enhanced photometric performance. Light
output from a CFL may be merely roughly proportionate to line voltage,
while incandescents have light output typically proportionate to line
voltage to the 3.4 or so power.
So if you hit a 1190 lumen 75W 120V incandescent with 124V, then you get
about 1330 lumens from that incandescent. In homes with higher line
voltage, incandescents get a "disproportionate boost" in performance - if
you are not bothered by them not lasting as long as they should.

- Don Klipstein )

Many of us now use CFLs rated at 10k hrs mean life, so many of them
will go on to well over 10k. Using your figures and extrapolating
wildly, at 15k hrs they will have lost somewhere vaguely in the region
of 50% output. Not that bad in most cases, but yes big drop.


NT

On Nov 30, 12:04*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
* There is a general trend for ones with outer bulbs to start dimmer and
take more time to warm up than ones with bare tubing. *Ones with outer
bulbs have their tubing designed to work best at the higher temperature
that occurs inside the bulb-enclosed ones.

Oddly the ones we have the get to full brightness the fastest and the
slowest are the ones in "more traditional" packaging (i.e., with an
outer shell around the twisty one).

BTW, one more thing to do is in a multi-bulb fixture put in one
incandescent bulb to provide immediate brightness.

"WDS" wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 12:04 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
There is a general trend for ones with outer bulbs to start dimmer and
take more time to warm up than ones with bare tubing. Ones with outer
bulbs have their tubing designed to work best at the higher temperature
that occurs inside the bulb-enclosed ones.

Oddly the ones we have the get to full brightness the fastest and the
slowest are the ones in "more traditional" packaging (i.e., with an
outer shell around the twisty one).

BTW, one more thing to do is in a multi-bulb fixture put in one
incandescent bulb to provide immediate brightness.

_____________________

I tried this in a multi-bulb fixture that has a ceiling fan when I first
went towards CFLs. It did make a good transition for me at the time, but
after a while I just swapped out that bulb for the CFL too. I just got used
to the lighting timing all over the house now.
Tomes

In ,
wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In , Dave Garland wrote:
Well, they should be brighter than a 40W incandescent. Check the lumens
rating, that gives you a number to compare. A typical 100W incandescent
is around 1600-1700 lumens. Walmart doesn't seem to give the lumen
ratings on theirs but a Sylvania CF23EL is indeed rated for 1600 lumens.

It may take it a few minutes to reach full brightness.

But it seems like all the companies cheat on the "equivalent to" rating,
if they say "equivalent to 100W" I figure it should be a bit brighter
than a 60W.

My experience is that non-dollar-store CFLs marketed as equivalent to
100W significantly outperform 75W "standard" 750 hour incandescents rated
1190-1210 lumens.

Lumen output drops quite a bit throughout a CFL's life, whereas
filament lamp fall in output is much less. Consequently to get a real
equivalent one needs to start with higher lumen levels than the
equivalent filament lamp.

CFLs when aged to 3,000 operating hours have about 10% (maybe a bit
more) loss of light output compared to that at 100 hours (industry-
standard break-in period, immediately after which their light output
is "officially" determined).

So the 1600 lumen "100 watt equivalents" can fade to about 1400-1450
lumens at 3,000 hours, and fade a little more to maybe about 1300 lumens
if and when they get to 6,000-8,000 hours or so. Even that is still a
bit brighter than "standard" 75W incandescents.

If your home is one of those where the line voltage is on the high side,
then incandescents will have much-enhanced photometric performance. Light
output from a CFL may be merely roughly proportionate to line voltage,
while incandescents have light output typically proportionate to line
voltage to the 3.4 or so power.
So if you hit a 1190 lumen 75W 120V incandescent with 124V, then you get
about 1330 lumens from that incandescent. In homes with higher line
voltage, incandescents get a "disproportionate boost" in performance - if
you are not bothered by them not lasting as long as they should.

Many of us now use CFLs rated at 10k hrs mean life, so many of them
will go on to well over 10k. Using your figures and extrapolating
wildly, at 15k hrs they will have lost somewhere vaguely in the region
of 50% output. Not that bad in most cases, but yes big drop.

As it turns out, the "halflife" increases a little as the lamps age.
So ones that make it to 15K hours have more like 70%, maybe 75% of the
light output that they had at 100 hours. I have actual experience in an
apartment building that had CFL hallway lights and some of them lasted
that long.

I have seen a few CFLs faded to about 60% or 2/3 or so of their original
light output, after over 2 years of continuous operation. Most don't last
that long.
If one makes it in home use past the 6,000-7,500 operating hours that
they used to be rated for, then I think its owner will be quite happy with
it in terms of actually achieving the long life that they are supposed to
have. My experience seems to support a figure more like 4,000-5,000
hours, due to average ontime less than the "industry standard test
condition" of 3 hours, and average ambient temperature around the lamp and
ballast housing hotter than the "industry standard test condition" of 25 C.

- Don Klipstein )

On Nov 30, 10:43*am, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Nov 30, 9:35*am, ransley wrote:





On Nov 29, 5:28*am, Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these energy-
saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are equivalent to a
100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

If its not bright as 100w incandesant return it, Popular Mechanics
rated them years ago, its still online but hard to find, I think in
the Home section, Consumer reports did a test. I use HD soft white, I
get a 9w that equals 40w for about 1$. The HD bulbs rated Better than
incandesant for color at Pop mech, such as how it colors your skin. I
have 60 in use and failure after 1.5 years with many in commercial use
is maybe 2. Heat is what kills the ballast, as long as they are not
sealed in an enclosure they last.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...nt/4215199...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How do you post links here, I always recomend them but dont know how
to post them.

ransley wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:43 am, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Nov 30, 9:35 am, ransley wrote:





On Nov 29, 5:28 am, Doc wrote:

Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these
energy- saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are
equivalent to a 100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about
like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

If its not bright as 100w incandesant return it, Popular Mechanics
rated them years ago, its still online but hard to find, I think in
the Home section, Consumer reports did a test. I use HD soft white,
I get a 9w that equals 40w for about 1$. The HD bulbs rated Better
than incandesant for color at Pop mech, such as how it colors your
skin. I have 60 in use and failure after 1.5 years with many in
commercial use is maybe 2. Heat is what kills the ballast, as long
as they are not sealed in an enclosure they last.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home...t/4215199.html

How do you post links here, I always recomend them but dont know how to post them.

Cut them off the browser address box and paste them into the post.

That doesnt always work, particularly with sites that have a session id but it does work for many sites.

phil scott wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:28 am, Doc wrote:
Just got a 4-pack of the Walmart "Great Value" version of these
energy- saver style fluorescent 23w bulbs which they claim are
equivalent to a 100w incandescent bulb. Not even close. It's about
like a 40w bulb.

Are the name brand bulbs of this type any better?

full spectrum light is crucial to good health...

Like hell it is.

the body evolved needing all spectums of light (natural light) or incandescent... to be healthy.

Fantasy. You do need adequate levels of natural light, but you dont need artificial light to duplicate that.

cool white florescent etc..and others have that problem.

a good google search....' full spectrum light, heatlh, Ott'

Just because some fool claims it doesnt make it gospel.

ransley wrote in news:d561851d-4d86-414b-8cba-
:

Heat is what kills the ballast, as long as they are not
sealed in an enclosure they last.


Picking up on that thread...
I recently had to buy two CFLs for a pair of enclosed outdoor
fixtures. Most of the general use CFLs that I found were
not suitable. Right on the ballast they stated "Not for
use in an enclosed fixture". A few even stated that they
would not start up at cold temps. I finally found a pair
that didn't have the warning, and actually stated the
startup temperature on the package.

In article ,
Don Klipstein wrote:
[ ... ]
Many of us now use CFLs rated at 10k hrs mean life, so many of them
will go on to well over 10k. Using your figures and extrapolating
wildly, at 15k hrs they will have lost somewhere vaguely in the region
of 50% output. Not that bad in most cases, but yes big drop.
[ ... ]

FYI, within the last 5-6 weeks I noticed one of my porch lights was
blinking on and off--a GE FLB17 16w CF with external envelope--and
had to swap it out.

That light had been in near-continuous operation since about 1993 or
1994. It was out on Halloween nights and during a few power failures.

Calculator tells me that's over 120,000 hours. It's output had faded
quite a bit (the 75W incandescent I replaced it with was _much_
brighter--and lasted less than a month) but it was still adequate.

I'll be looking for some more of those...


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody