22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be

10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in the same room.

According to the charts, a 22-watt compact florescent bulb is suppose to be the replacement for a 100 watt incandescent bulb.

What am talking about 22-watt compact florescent bulbs versus those

100 watt incandescent bulbs that have been around for 100+ years.

I realize that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are suppose to last longer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs but it seems you take a decrease in lighting.

And the cost of 100 watt incandescent bulbs are very cheap, so it's hard for me to switch over. I also read where if you replaced ALL your old 100 watt incandescent bulbs with the new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs you might save about $80 per year, making the savings taking more than 3-4 years to realize.

My friend says that the reason those 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem dimmer is because they take longer to heat up than those 100 watt incandescent bulbs. If this is true then how long does this take. I've noticed even after 5 minutes that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs still seems dimmer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs.

So aren't those 22-watt compact florescent bulb dimmer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

thanks

Reply to
Robert Blass
Loading thread data ...

The manufacturers' claims include the large amount of gamma radiation that the CFLs put out, so it is a bit misleading.

Bob

--
== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==
Reply to
BobW

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure. Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both and see which one is measureably brighter.

Reply to
BobG

yes i too have noticed them dimmer than normal lamps but the cost you really do save on... they last much longer and i only use now the

11watt (supposed to be 60watt) but here in the UK prices are so high you really notice the price on the electric bill

but yes use photocells you really need like 3 at vairous distances like 1,3,9 meters etc ... you could also draw a chart and as you tripple the distance you can forsee what you getting...

on the side note i have seen different types, i seen them with a blue tint warm glow and briliant white

Reply to
porkysh1t

A "standard" 120V 100W 750-hour A19 incandescent of one of the "Big 3" brands is usually arted to produce 1710-1750 lumens.

My experience is that a *good* CFL rated to produce 1750 lumens is usually a 26 watt one, or the 25 watt Philips triple-arch one.

I have seen 23 watt CFLs rated to produce 1600 lumens - which I *think* is the minimum for "claiming to be equivalent to 100W incandescent" (my words) and achieving the Energy Star logo.

There are dimmer 100W incandescents - such as 3500 hour ones and cheaper ones from China. Sunbeam brand 100W 120V incandescents are rated to produce 1100, maybe 1150 lumens (going from memory from a couple months ago). A "Big-3" name brand 75 watt 750 hour incandescent (including ones marked with supermarket private label brands) can top that.

Also not helping is scotopic/photopic ratio - which is a little less with CFLs rated 2700-3000K than with incandescents in that color temp. range. This can have a slight effect on "sensation of illumination" in low and lower-moderate indoor home illumination levels.

So, I would think that a 22 watt CFL is going to be a little dimmer than most decent 100W incandescents.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

It is generally the other way around. When line voltage is on the low side, it is incandescents that to a greater extent appear dim.

Then again, I find it common for line voltage to be high, and that will generally brighten incandescents more than CFLs.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Of course, the real issue is that for whatever reasons, they have settled on certain wattage CFLs, rather than trying to give "equivalent light" and landing at whatever wattage is required for that light.

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the same as a 100W bulb. Otherwise, you can't get anything from the wattage about the light it gives off. If the boxes weren't marked "equivalent to..." then people might assume they would get really dim bulbs, worse than a 25watt incandescent. Or even if they gathered that CFLs require less power for the same amount of light, they'd still be puzzling over which is the equivalent.

But they do. So that ceiling light I just changed, which I knew from experience should be a 100 watt incandescent (because a lesser bulb didn't provide enough light there), should be a 23watt rather than a 13w CFL.

As it was, that particular CFL seems brighter than the others of the same brand and wattage I bought, and is definitely giving out more light than the 100W bulb I had in there. (I'm not certain about the other 23w CFL bulbs I put in while I was in the mood, they are either somewhat weaker than the 100w incandescents (but still brighter than a 60watt incandescent) or at least the same brightness as the 100w.

Michael

Reply to
Michael Black

BobW a écrit :

Hello. I think that you confound UV radiation and the higher energy electromagnetic radiation as x-ray or gamma. With the available voltage (230V or even less) you will get only a very modest amount of ultraviolet (which is immediately coverted into visible light by the flUorescent coating of the lamp). pom

Reply to
pom

The problem with photocell measurements is that they don't have the same color sensitivity as the human eye. So two different light sources that produce identical photocell outputs can have very different apparent brightness.

Best regards,

Bob Masta DAQARTA v4.50 Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

formatting link
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter FREE Signal Generator Science with your sound card!

Reply to
Bob Masta

well, given that you are presumably using the bulbs to allow your vision, if fluorescents seem dimmer to you then they are, and if the measurements disagree then they are measuring the wrong thing.

for instance, since the human eye is not as sensitive to the ends of the spectrum, an accurate measurement of light for human use should also be corrected by wavelength. (those blue-white headlights for instance; the ones which are bluish by dint of having a blue coating painted on the bulb will obviously have less total output than an uncoated bulb of the same wattage; but they look brighter.)

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs to fluorescents, there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of electricity these days.

Reply to
z

{snipped}

Right. In heating season, there's no gain from using CFLs (or any other indoor energy conservation) if you have electric heat, and very little otherwise. That would apply to fully-heated spaces, where any heat from appliances would just displace heat from the furnace. In basements or other unheated places conservation is still worthwhile.

--
John
Reply to
John O'Flaherty

Photometric units already take into account the "photopic response" of the "standard observer" ("standard human eyeball"). Better light meters have spectral response closer to that of "standard" human photopic response.

They also are usually of higher wattage and usually have hotter-running shorter-life filaments. It's pretty hard to make something appear brighter by removing light.

Where the heatsing season is shorter, the air conditioning season is significant, or where electricity is more expensive (Chicago, NYC and Philly metro areas and most of the southern half of USA) CFLs still make plenty of sense.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

rote:

3"

nk*

aper

in

than

The weasle word is "equivalent," that allows them to get close but not be exactly the same. How far different and in what ways are why CFLs get such bad comments.

The lack of information on the packaging doesn't help.

------------------ RickR

Reply to
rick

Then go to a 28W, 33W, or whatever suits you. Those silly charts are just a guide for consumers.

Different brands have different output intensities for a given power consumption. One brand 22W does not always equal another brand 22W. Not only that, but they have different "colour" intensities too. Warm white, cool white, daylight etc. Some do take soem time time to "warm up" (several minutes typical), yet some others do not.

Dave.

Reply to
David L. Jones

I'm starting to switch from compact fluros' to the T5 circular type were possible. I find the light output much more even, and they run much cooler because of the separate ballast controller. Less heat = longer life. Compact fluro's don't last very long in enclosed fittings, often negating their value.

Dave.

Reply to
David L. Jones

(those blue-white headlights for

ng

naw, they're the same wattage. I was wondering if they do run hotter though. would shorten the life, which presumably is OK with the manufacturers and beyond the conceptual grasp of the purchasers. anyway, yeah, maybe my mystification over how they look brighter because they're painted blue is misplaced.

Reply to
z

but there isn't that much lightbulb use in unheated basements, etc.; and in human homes, during air conditioning season when bulb heat is a problem, it doesn't make a difference when the bulbs are off because of daylight, which is long in the summer; when the bulbs are off because people are asleep which is the major part of the dark hours in the summer; and when the AC is off because the sun is down and it's cooling off, which is relevant for some parts of the country. basically, the big advantage of fluorescents is in big buildings where the temp is completely air conditioned because there isn't any natural ventilation, and the light is all from bulbs because there isn't any sunlight except around the windows, and people are inside them during daylight hours. and of course, they've been fluorescent for years.

Reply to
z

It's not a question of whether bulb heat is a comfort problem but that it's expensive, which it is whether or not air conditioning is in use. I do think CFLs are worthwhile, because there's plenty of electric light used during times when a furnace isn't expected to run. Only specifically during heating season when heat is being used is there no energy-saving advantage, and even then there still may be an advantage, in bulb life and trouble saved replacing them. The only place I don't use CFLs is where I want immediate full light in a space where I only stay a short time. On another point, on channel 4 in St. Louis last night, they had a news feature where they got all exercised about the mercury in CFLs and the danger of breaking them. There's mercury in flourescent tubes too, and they've been around a long time. I think it's worth being careful of them too.

--
John
Reply to
John O'Flaherty

Yes, that's because they cheat and compare them to a lower efficiency 100W incandescent bulb that was once popular in various hues for 'mood lighting'. There were several trade name for them but I don't recall them now. It used to be in the small print on the boxes but I bet it's gone now.

Also CFLs do lose brightness over their 6000-15000 hor lifetime.

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

I once found a Siemens photocell that claimed to have 'eye' sensitivity.

Graham

Reply to
Eeyore

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.