Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than store brand?
in [House]
|
Prev: Time to Buy is now – Investing, Financial Planning, Real Estate, and Remedy to the Global Economy Credit Crisis - Northeast Brazil News Update
Next: New Listing
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2008 13:07 In article <ggu7vn02heu(a)news5.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote in part: >WDS wrote: >> On Nov 30, 7:24 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...(a)DrunkinClam.com> 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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2008 13:29 In <2b372011-a3cd-4b62-ac45-fce926ab78a7(a)w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, ransley wrote: >On Nov 29, 5:22�pm, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> In article <7f-dnb85SsunAqzUnZ2dnUVZ_qjin...(a)posted.visi>, 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 (d...(a)misty.com)- 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(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2008 17:20 In <9d18c4b1-b3fa-40a5-b590-24ebc0ec1197(a)l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, meow2222(a)care2.com wrote: >Don Klipstein wrote: >> In article <7f-dnb85SsunAqzUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d(a)posted.visi>, 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 (don(a)misty.com) > >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 (don(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 30 Nov 2008 18:13 In <e748a390-88b8-47f7-87eb-bfcd4a0ccb9d(a)i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, phil scott wrote: >On Nov 29, 3:28�am, Doc <docsavag...(a)yahoo.com> 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 are: 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(a)misty.com)
From: Don Klipstein on 1 Dec 2008 01:56
In <8b76c1c2-c206-4ebd-9d2f-012c10a84e16(a)20g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, meow2222(a)care2.com wrote: >Don Klipstein wrote: >> In <9d18c4b1-b3fa-40a5-b590-24ebc0ec1197(a)l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> meow2222(a)care2.com wrote: >> >>>Don Klipstein wrote: >>>>In <7f-dnb85SsunAqzUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d(a)posted.visi>, 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 (don(a)misty.com) |