Below are a couple of references on the proposed ban on incandescent bulbs. But first find an artcle on the good the bad and the dangers of CFLs. I am a happy user of CFLs, but I will make a few changes with info from this article. ( I have improper fixtures and dimmers)
Ban incandescents articles.
Early in the article I see the big "alarm bells" being enclosed fixtures and dimmers.
My experience in the USA, which has a ban mainly on "regular shape and size" ("A19") 75 and 10 watt incandescents scheduled to take effect in
2012, and to extend to affect 60 and 40 watt ones in 2014.I am seeing dimmable CFLs beginning to make an uptick in presence and availability. GE makes them, and I see them at Target. Sadly, they cost more than non-dimmable ones - but still less than nondimmable ones cost about 10 years ago (inflation-adjusted) or 15 years ago (not inflation-adjusted).
There are ones that can take the heat of enclosed fixtures and even the heat-hellhole recessed ceiling fixtures. I have in mind ones that have been around since late 1999 - Philips SLS non-dimmable models of 15, 20 and 23 watts. I suspect that others are already available, and that the upcoming incandescent ban will create a market for more of them still.
Incandescents having no major modifications in the past 125 years? How about filaments being carbon 125 years ago and tungsten now? How about inert gas fill to slow filament evaporation to allow higher filament temperature? (Only increases efficiency for a given wattage/voltage/life-expectancy when *roughly* wattage is around or over 1 watt per millimeter of overall filament length (before uncoiling), meaning current around .2 amp, somewhat less with premium fill gases [krypton or xenon]). How about halogen lamps? The small bulb/"capsule" size and tougher bulb/capsule material permit higher fill gas pressure to slow filament evaporation more, and reduce the cost of premium fill gases. Would you believe this makes more difference than the halogen does - the halogen is not that good at returning evaporated tungsten to whetre the filament suffered evaporation the most - what it does more is keep the inner surface of the bulb clean!
How about "HIR" - halogen lamps with a coating to reflect infrared back to the filament! That in practice increases efficiency about 35-40% compared to halogens without this technology. I see use of this infrared-retroreflection technology being expanded because as far as I heard the USA's upcoming "incandescent ban" does not ban technologies but requires efficiency standards that HIR can meet.
This is still an incandescent technology! Then again, the cited article talks about California, with some really loony leftwingers from LA county and some really loony rightwingers from Orange County, and brain-scrambled voters in these counties willing to elect nutcases to office. The "statehouse" in Sacramento should be "known to the State of California" to cause cancer, brain damage, birth defects and reproductive harm, and power shortages and excessive taxes and individual freedom being lower than in the other 49 US states!
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5% of the energy they receive into light."
Probably close to true on average - if by "light" one means electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths 400-700 nm, the most common definition of "visible light".
The "USA-usual" 100 watt 120V "A19" with doubly coiled filament and design life expectancy of 750 hours achieves about 6.7% efficiency in this area. Most other incandescents achieve a little to somewhat less.
Sadly, the competition that produces better numbers still generates ones small enough to disappoint many:
Fluorescents: CFLs are in this area about 16-20% efficient. 4-foot T8 lamps powered by high frequency electronic ballasts are about or hardly over 30% efficient. Gain in overall luminous efficacy is greater than the gain in conversion efficiency because the spectrum of these fluorescents is concentrated to wavelengths more favorable for higher luminous efficacy. For example, most fluorescents (and many other artificial white light sources) have a "shortage" of deep red wavelengths, which the human eye has lower sensitivity to.
LEDs: None on the market now significantly outperform 4-foot T8 fluorescents powered by high frequency electronic ballasts, either in efficiency or overall luminous efficacy. (Exception - slight outperformance when significantly underpowered.) The most efficient latest laboratory prototype white ones that I heard of achieve 150 lumens/watt. Extrapolation from the most recent datapoint that I have on both overall luminous efficacy and conversion efficiency of one of these (27.7% efficiency, 91.7 lumens per watt) leads me to think the best efficiency so far in announced laboratory prototype white LEDs is somewhare around 45%.
I am sure they are working on advancing this!
Low pressure sodium: Best I heard so far for a commercial product is
180 lumens/watt, and for 589 nm that is about 34% efficient. 1 watt of this wavelength is about 525 lumens. I suspect that high frequency electronic ballasts can improve LPS efficiency somewhat - maybe to about 38-40%, or about 200-210 lumens/watt.- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
I'm stockpiling 130V versions ;-)
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |
"Don Klipstein"
** Yes - in both cases they are serious traps for users.Both situations lead to fire hazards - as well as very short life spans.
** Shame how that look exactly like the non dimmer safe kind.Shame how the non dimmable kind APPEAR to work OK in a (triac) dimmed socket set near to maximum on the dial - but in fact are operating under enormous stress with 5 times the rated rms current draw.
More disasters just waiting to happen.
** That sounds like utter BOLLOCKS to me.Testing revealed that the internal temp ( where the electronics are located) of a 23 watt CFL reached 100C very easily in a sealed fitting - while the room ambient was only 22 C.
CFLs are a long way from being a direct replacements for the common light bulb - those who say otherwise are criminal liars or dangerous fools.
The lighting industry is pulling it biggest ever scam on the public, while the greenie lunatics all help.
...... Phil
indeed. the greenies mean well, but it'd help if they understood things like, say, PF & mercury content.
OTOH, check out
Cheers Terry
No one wants the old 90 volt Edison bulbs. :(
-- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
Might be useful in CA during the summer. ;-)
-- Keith
In , Phil Allison wrote in part:
Please state what brand/mfr and what model/part-number. I know of a 23 watt CFL that claims to be good in recessed ceiling fixtures, another 23 watt model by the same manufacturer that disclaims this, and plenty of 23 watt ones that avoid saying anything in this area.
Keep in mind that we now have plenty of components that can be used in a
125 C ambient, and there are electrolytic capacitors (a major CFL weak link) rated for 105 degrees C.- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
"Don Klipstein"
** Philips "Genie" with quad looped tube.But totally irrelevant as the heat dissipation is similar across a whole variety of such lamps.
** Recessed ceiling fixtures normally have through ventilation - the one for halogen downlights all do.Nothing to do with the MILLIONS of fully sealed fittings - eg "oyster" and spherical ball types.
CFL makers specifically WARN AGAINST using their lamps in such fittings.
** Err - with what expected life spans ??Certainly the 10 to 15 thousand hours being claimed.
Plus you failed to see the significance of the low ambient temp during the test.
...... Phil
In article , Terry Given wrote in part:
PF means little for home use, and I see all too many "greenies" opposing CFLs because they have mercury. I did calculations for on-USA-national-average-basis net change in mercury pollution from replacing incandescents with CFLs, and I found a decrease by reduction of coal burning.
Keep in mind that "The Usual Standard" for PF is .8 for commercial/ industrial electricity customers (for total load as opposed to individual load items or individual "branch circuits"), and there is none yet for most homes.
The main good impressions that I have of the LLF products are lumens/w, warm color temperature, and CRI around 90. I have yet to actually see these products.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
My experience is more of warnings against recessed ceiling fixtures and operation in a base-up position in general. And that many CFLs, especially of lower wattages, lack these warnings.
I can find a 100 uF 200V one that at 105 degrees C and maximum ripple current of .5 amp RMs 120 Hz rated to reliably not even go out of spec at 3,000 hours. Took me only a couple minutes.
Panasonic ECC62DA101BL
I have high expectations of lasting a lot longer before completely failing, and that CFL manufacturers get electrolytic capacitors better than ones that I can find in a couple of minutes.
I am aware that CFLs have to work at ambients a lot warmer than your test conditions. I am also aware that it is not too hard to find plenty of components that have a failure rate a lot less than 50% at 10,000 hours at 125 degrees C. Plenty of silicon semiconductors have a reasonably low failure rate at 150 C junction temperature and 10,000 hours. - Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
nice!
Although PF means little for home use, it means a lot when powering, say, a nation that just replaced all household incandescents with evil PF CFLs. There's gold in them thar VARs.....
I supect once incandescents are gone, PFC will soon be made compulsory for CFLs as the distribution authorities will not like bouncing that many VARs about.
not only is the colour temperature nice, its constant over the life of the product - a very good trick. Mechanically they are very, very nice. All the luminaires I have seen in NZ are complete shit - cheap or expensive, they are all crappy; the LLF unit is downright sexy, with its
3-piece cast aluminium housing. I have several of them, and when I demonstrate them, people are suitably impressed.Cheers Terry
several manufacturers also make 125V rated electrolytics, although the ripple current is lower than 105V parts - I recently did the calcs for an 85C SMPS, and the 125C parts ended up with almost the same lifetime as the 105C parts - perhaps 5% lower. If my ripple current were a bit smaller, the 125V parts would have won.
Of course if my internal ambient had been 115C, the 125C caps would have won by a country mile :)
I have also seen lifetimes as hig as 15,000 hours. I use a lot of (low voltage) ZLH caps, which are 10,000hrs @ 105C.
or these:
- Rubycon 47uF 450V 1.2A @ 100kHz, 0.48A @ 120Hz, 10,000hrs 105C
- Rubycon 47uF 450V 0.72A @ 100kHz, 0.36A @ 120Hz, 12,000hrs 105C
it would be trivial to go on and on.....
the first comment: oh yes. When I used to work for a company that spent $1,500,000 p.a. with Hitachi AIC, they gave us ALL of their technical data. the mean lifetime is actually 2x the spec'd lifetime, which is -3 sigma
the second comment? Yeah Right! many products are made in China, for the lowest possible cost. expect the cheapest, shittiest caps money can buy. I've gutted a few dead CFLs (typically died at first turn-on), and found some appalling workmanship, and shitty brand caps.
A few years back I did some consulting for a Chinese company that makes LED lamps (50W halogen downlight replacements) for Philips, who were very strict on the optical performance, but didnt seem to pay much attention to construction or lifetime. One design I debugged had a 100% failure rate - but hey, they only built 40,000 of them ;)
Cheers Terry
I wonder if xenon arc lamps can be good for home interior lighting... It's like the sun! :)
D from BC British Columbia Canada.
What if the total VA is reduced despite reduction of PF?
(For that matter, most "non-real" portion of VA by integral-electronic-ballast CFLs are not reactive, but harmonic.)
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
[snip]
Just tell all those image conscious morons that they'll look hideous under fluorescent light and the whole deal will be off.
;-)
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ What if no one ever asked a hypothetical question?
Short arc xenon lamps have cost generally around $100 and up, lifetimes generally around 1,000 hours (similar to incandescent), and overall luminous efficacy generally 30-50 lumens/watt. Lower wattages even have overall luminous efficacy in the 20's! They also have hazards worse than those of halogen and HID, and require expensive ballasts that deliver starting pulses of something like 30 KV. They have more severe current waveform requirements than fluorescent and HID lamps in order to achieve the life expectancy figures that I mentioned.
Short arc xenon is used mainly when the main requirement is an especially small and intense light source size. For example, a short arc lamp of a kilowatt or two has an arc about the size of a pea.
There are "long arc" xenon lamps, with longer lifetimes and milder requirements and milder hazards, though still requiring bigtime high voltage starting pulses. They also have efficiency lower in the xenon arc range and appear to me to be available only in wattages over 100 watts with cost of hundreds of $$$.
Keep in mind that xenon arc lamps tend to have color temperature generally around 4800-5500 K or so, as in bluish side to roughly extreme blue end of the range of direct sunlight at low altitude on Earth. A more-typical figure for color temperature of "direct sunlight" in the more-populated areas of North America and Europe is 4100 K, which is a common rated color temperature for fluorescent and metal halide lamps.
Color temperatures around or over 4,000 K tend to have a "dreary gray effect" when illumination level is around or less than roughly 500 lux (45 footcandles). Most illumination that succeeds with such color temperature is around or over 1000 lux (90 footcandles). Most home lighting is at a lower illumination level than this.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Well there goes my evil marketing idea to switch people to interior xenon arc lamps. Bummer... :( So much for 'Exotic Xenon Blue Ray Decor lighting' :P
Great for blue furniture! :P
D from BC British Columbia Canada.
that'll be OK then. unless, of course, the harmonics create havoc with line traps, xfmr losse & suchlike.
indeed, but its still VARs sloshing around heating up the wires.
it just seems silly to me that various governments arent requiring high PF at the same time as making the relevant legislative changes. high PF doesnt cost that much more, but without the relevant legislation, manufacturers will do whatever costs the least.
Cheers Terry
My experience is that 60 Hz transformers have less losses at a few hundred Hz than at 60 Hz. Meanwhile, there is very little actual power at harmonic frequencies anywhere along the way, since the line voltage is close enough to a sine wave to have RMS voltage at all harmonic frequencies combined to be low.
I see total amps by CFLs being less than that of the incandescents that they are replacing. I even see lack of increase in total amps when CFLs are "one wattage up" - as in 18W to replace 60W incandescent, or 26W to replace 75W incandescent. So the wires aren't getting heated any more.
Somehow it appears to me that high PF from an electronic ballast does cost a lot more. How do you propose getting an electronic ballast to draw close to a sine wave? Especially with the reduction of flicker/strobing that is so desirable of electronic ballasts?
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.