The end result being, that I end up buying the higher power rating globes to compensate, which somewhat defeats the purpose of reducing energy consumption overall.
A bit of an over exaggeration. 3x24w (72watts) CFLs for equivalent light of 3x100w (300watts) incandecent bulbs.
I wouldnt want to use less than an 18w CFL. Though I do have a 13w CFL in the toilet which is great for the midnight visit, doesnt blind you out of existance when you first turn it on.
CFLs work best for populated areas like loungerooms, kitchens etc. ,turn them on leave them on.
Halogens work best for bedrooms, bathroom, closets etc turn them on for 5min then off again.
The jury is out on the led's. I haven't used one enough to form an opinion. They look OK but I haven't examined their spectral output yet.
Barry
LED's have a narrow bandwidth. They are not full spectrum like incan lights but then neither are CFL's. It's still possible to get them at different colour temperatures. My personal preference is for warm white 2700K. At that colour temperature they look very much like incandescent. At least it fools my eyes. With SMD LED strips you need 10 metres to equal a 1.2m 36 watt room fluro.
I also have a PWM dimmer on mine. Unfortunately the PWM circuitry emits an audible high frequency squeal at some settings which can be annoying so I've put in a switchable resistor to use instead.
I have a 12V 2700K CFL as well. Don't like it that much. Takes a bit to start and casts shadows. After using looooong LED strips I like the lack of shadows.
Just look for the RoHS compliant type.....no problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Many LED lights currently available, can contain up to eight times the amount of lead considered 'safe' under some present legislations. The high intensity ones contain more than the low intensity ones.
They also contain high levels of Nickel and arsenic which can cause cancer. (Ref: January 2011 issue of Environmental Science & Technology).
The problem I find with the flouro ones, is that the down-rating factors they apply to them, seem to result in way lower amounts of light than the equivalent incandescent ones. The end result being, that I end up buying the higher power rating globes to compensate, which somewhat defeats the purpose of reducing energy consumption overall.
I was happy with turning off incandescent lights when they weren't being used. This reduces power consumption way more than changes in technology.
A bit of an over exaggeration. 3x24w (72watts) CFLs for equivalent light of 3x100w (300watts) incandecent bulbs.
I wouldnt want to use less than an 18w CFL. Though I do have a 13w CFL in the toilet which is great for the midnight visit, doesnt blind you out of existance when you first turn it on.
CFLs work best for populated areas like loungerooms, kitchens etc. ,turn them on leave them on.
Halogens work best for bedrooms, bathroom, closets etc turn them on for 5min then off again.
Yep - fair enough.
I wrote 'flouro' ('twas incorrect … I was thinking of halogens when I wrote it .. don't know why I slipped in the 'flouro' word …)
What I meant was that where before I used a 60W incandescent, rather than replacing it with a 42W halogen (the recommended option), I generally opt for a 53W halogen … which, whilst still resulting in 12% energy saving, the cost of it offsets the benefit (from my individual perspective). The (apparent?) higher failure rate of the halogens then pushes the long-term costs beyond any benefit for me, (over incandescent).
Flouros result in an 80% difference, which provides much more margin to compensate. They also last way longer than halogens. Mind you, I'm not too happy about the disposal procedures of CFLs, and having lots of these around my house, doesn't give me a comfortable feeling.
A little digression on the life of incandescents:-
Back in the 40's (1940's I mean) the county council changed the street lamp globes every couple of years. As younger lads we used to follow the truck and ask for the old globes which were usually given. We still had some in 1970 that had been in operation for over 20 years.
They don't last that long now!
A further digression:- I remember a visit to Jenolan Caves many years ago. The guide pointed to an incandescent bulb that had been in operation since electric light had first been installed in the caves.
Just found a more recent report:-
Chifley Cave
History lives in the Chifley Cave. It is believed to be the first cave anywhere in the world to be lit by electric light, back in 1881. Visitors get to see an example of one of the old light bulbs still in use......
Funny thing about the life of CFLs, I have a 4 left running out of box of 6 that Origin Energy were giving away for free about 5 years ago. 3 out 6 that I bought last year have died already.
Although I cannot understand how can you stand "disgusting" light from these new "savers", just want to say that we almost DO NOT HAVE CHOICE choosing what lighting you want to have in your home.
Anybody bought a stock of normal non-toxic bulbs ??
Cheers all, Neven
Funny thing about the life of CFLs, I have a 4 left running out of box of 6 that Origin Energy were giving away for free about 5 years ago. 3 out 6 that I bought last year have died already.
Mass production also means mass failure.
Not necessary... low MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) is depending on the reliability of the components in the system - more components, lower that time will be.
CFL's is relatively complicated to manufacture so it needs greater care in sourcing high quality components and better controlled production process, compared to just couple of operations needed for traditional bulb.
Problem is not in mass production per se, it is greed, as usual.. cost cutting where ever possible, cheap untrained labour used, cheap components from who knows where.... And no adequate quality regulation.
Problem is not in mass production per se, it is greed, as usual.. cost cutting where ever possible, cheap untrained labour used, cheap components from who knows where.... And no adequate quality regulation.
Why didnt you just say, industry in economically developing countries
I tried making a lamp for my observatory consisting of an 11 watt halogen light and a red Perspex cover,which could fold down, giving me a red or white option. The problem was the heat given off by the lamp, it started to melt the perspex.
At a fair increase, pricewise, I replaced the halogen with a 1 watt LED which had the same fitting. What a change, bright light and cool, and, only 1 watt. That is the way to go!
A further digression:- I remember a visit to Jenolan Caves many years ago. The guide pointed to an incandescent bulb that had been in operation since electric light had first been installed in the caves.
Just found a more recent report:-
Chifley Cave
History lives in the Chifley Cave. It is believed to be the first cave anywhere in the world to be lit by electric light, back in 1881. Visitors get to see an example of one of the old light bulbs still in use......
I remember seeing a story about a firestation that has the worlds longest lasting lightbulb.
I think it has a bamboo filament and has never been turned off.
From memory there is a live webcam on it! LOL
Another problem no one thought of is that they put out a good-deal more U.V light than the old incandescent bulbs. Not a problem for most people unless you have Lupus (like my wife). We can't use them because the Lupus association has done a lot of research that shows that these bulbs contribute significantly to triggering Lupus flares because of the excess U.V.
We have about 25 down-lights at our house -- all 240v. So before the old bulbs became unlawful to sell, I went out and bought a huge stock of incandescent bulbs -- about 70-odd. Problem is that with these last run bulbs (Mirabella), almost half appear to be complete duds or only last 30-40 hrs at most -- I have a feeling they were just getting rid of their seconds. Now down to our last 17 bulbs and the remaining stock is dwindling fast.
Anyone got any bright-ideas to replace them? They are all Edison-screw 240v 60W. At this stage it looks like I'm going to be shelling out a couple of thousand dollars getting the fixtures re-wired for low-voltage down-lights and having the plaster repaired when the old-ones give out.
ngcles,
I'm surprised with the comment about excessive UV from energy saving lamps.
I use them all the time to calibrate spectroscopes and haven't seen any which give a strong UV emission. The Hg line in the blue is strong but not UV?? (see attached spectrum)
Do you have a reference source??
Perhaps this issue may have come originally from the EU Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Report on Light Sensitivity in 2008.
The Abstract reads:
Quote:
SCENIHR did not find suitable direct scientific data on the relationship between energy saving lamps and the symptoms in patients with various conditions (i.e xeroderma pigmentosum, lupus, migraine, epilepsy, myalgic encephalomyelitis, Irlen-Meares syndrome, fibromyalgia, electrosensitivity, AIDS/HIV, dyspraxia, and autism). Therefore, SCENIHR examined whether three lamp characteristics (flicker, electromagnetic fields, and UV/blue light emission) could act as triggers for disease symptoms. Due to lack of data on CFLs, existing data on traditional fluorescent tubes were extrapolated to situations when compact fluorescent lamps may be used. While for some conditions either flicker and/or UV/blue light could exacerbate symptoms, there is no reliable evidence that the use of fluorescent tubes was a significant contributor. Of all compact fluorescent lamps properties, only UV/blue light radiation was identified as a potential risk factor for the aggravation of the light-sensitive symptoms in some patients with such diseases as chronic actinic dermatitis and solar urticaria.
The committee wishes to draw attention of the Commission Services to the fact that it has been observed that some single-envelope CFLs emit UVB and traces of UVC radiation. Under extreme conditions (i.e. prolonged exposures at distances <20 cm) these CFLs may lead to UV exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage.
...
The committee notes that the use of double-envelope energy saving bulbs or similar technology would largely or entirely mitigate both the risk of approaching workplace limits on UV emissions in extreme conditions and the risk of aggravating the symptoms of light-sensitive individuals.
Flourescent lamps usually produce a spectrum with two UVC emission lines (253.7 nm and 185 nm) caused by inelastic scattering/impact ionisation emissions in the mercury plasma. (The rest of the emissions from a bulb are determined by the phosphor coating and the glass envelope. There's probably a reasonable variance amongst different types/brands, because of the variations in the materials used ??).
From the same source:
Quote:
Some single-envelope CFLs emit UV-B and traces of UV-C radiation at wavelength of 254 nm, which is not the case for incandescent lamps (Khazova and O ́Hagan 2008). Experimental data show that CFLs produce more UVA irradiance than a tungsten lamp. Furthermore, the amount of UVB irradiance produced from single-envelope CFLs, from the same distance of 20 cm, was about ten times higher than that irradiated by a tungsten lamp (Moseley and Ferguson 2008).
Mind you, the Moseley & Ferguson source they quote above, is listed as 'Personal Communication' and is very difficult to find on the web.
