Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)


I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. I have not been putting
them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this. One of my powder
rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35 years old.

On Jun 30, 2:39*pm, Frank wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)

I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. *I have not been putting
them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this. *One of my powder
rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35 years old.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have not been putting them in bathrooms or powder rooms because
of this.

My bathrooms and powder rooms have *always* had dimmers in them.

There's nothing worse than 200 watts during a 3AM pee trip.

I love the slow-start CFL spots in my kitchen for the same reason -
no, I don't pee in the kitchen! - It's worth the wait in the evenings
as a trade-off for having nice soft, slowly increasing light on dark
winter mornings.

If I need more light faster, I have other lights I can flip on. I
would hate to experience the full brightness of my 3 spots all at once.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:30:42 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness....


Personally I like the lower start up brightness. In the
middle of the night when I turn the light on, it is nice not to be
blinded.

I do mix lamp types, 50% CFL and 50% tungsten. The color mix
is very good.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

I've not noticed CFLs with long startup periods or long warm up periods
in any I've used in the past 5 years or so. I do remember those issues
with the early ones, but all I have purchased in recent years are
probably 250ms startup and start at probably 90% brightness or better.
I do notice that there is a burn in period for the first perhaps 10hr of
use where the color temperature and startup brightness stabilizes. I've
bee using nearly all CFLs except for some infrequently used locations
like closets for 4+ years with no complaints.

In article , Frank wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright.

I have noticed four trends in indicators of how badly a CFL starts dim
and needs time to warm up:

1. Ones with outer bulbs tend to start dimmer and need more time to warm
up than ones with bare tubing.

2. Ones with wider tubing slightly-to-somewhat tend to start brighter
than ones with narrower tubing.

3. Ones that are more compact for their wattage have a slight tendency
in my experience to start dimmer than ones that are of larger physical
size for their wattage.

4. CFLs start dimmer and need more time to warm up where it is cooler.
If you air-condition your home to a lesser extent, your CFLs will be
slightly more warmed-up when you start them.

(Up to now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places
like closets where lights are only on for short times.)

That still makes sense to me.

I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. I have not been putting
them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this.

One of my powder rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35
years old.

What wattage? If they lasted so long, they probably produce about as
much light as "standard" incandescents of 30% lower wattage, or Philips
"Halogena Energy Saver" of 50% lower wattage, or CFLs of 80-85% lower
wattage. I would consider the Philips Halogena "Energy Saver" in
bathrooms where lights are usually on too briefly for CFLs to be suitable.

- Don Klipstein )

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.

One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)



I remember back in the 20th century when we had insecticides
that actually killed insects and lights that came on instantly.
Now the lights come on so slow that the roaches don't scatter.

TDD

DerbyDad03 wrote:

Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.

snip

I have not been putting them in bathrooms or powder rooms because
of this.

My bathrooms and powder rooms have *always* had dimmers in them.

There's nothing worse than 200 watts during a 3AM pee trip.

We have LED night lights in our bathrooms. No need to turn a light on at
all for those night-time gotta-go moments.

I love the slow-start CFL spots in my kitchen for the same reason -
no, I don't pee in the kitchen! - It's worth the wait in the evenings
as a trade-off for having nice soft, slowly increasing light on dark
winter mornings.

We have CFLs in the kitchen, but I'm thinking of replacing them by LEDs
because I don't want to have to wait a few minutes before I can see the
coffee pot.

Perce