Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than store brand?

Page 3 of 4  


If its not bright as 100w incandesant return it, Popular Mechanics rated them years ago, its still online but hard to find, I think in the Home section, Consumer reports did a test. I use HD soft white, I get a 9w that equals 40w for about 1$. The HD bulbs rated Better than incandesant for color at Pop mech, such as how it colors your skin. I have 60 in use and failure after 1.5 years with many in commercial use is maybe 2. Heat is what kills the ballast, as long as they are not sealed in an enclosure they last.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How do you post links here, I always recomend them but dont know how to post them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cut them off the browser address box and paste them into the post.
That doesnt always work, particularly with sites that have a session id but it does work for many sites.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"ransley"... How do you post links here, I always recomend them but dont know how to post them.
_____________________
First do this bracket: < Then paste in the link copied from the URL area Then do this bracket: > Then hit enter
You now will have a usable link in your post. Hope this helps, Tomes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Picking up on that thread... I recently had to buy two CFLs for a pair of enclosed outdoor fixtures. Most of the general use CFLs that I found were not suitable. Right on the ballast they stated "Not for use in an enclosed fixture". A few even stated that they would not start up at cold temps. I finally found a pair that didn't have the warning, and actually stated the startup temperature on the package.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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'
Phil scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

addendum.... If yiou get a good daily dose of sunlight, or incandescent bulb light, then florescent or LED wont have as much of a detrimental effect on your health... for offices I recommend a small incandescent light on the dest kept lit ..it supplies the full spectrum you need. in a home an incandescent near your tv watching chair would have a similar effect... I dont think the wattage is crucial, 20 watts might be fine.
Phil scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
phil scott wrote:

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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like hell it is.

Fantasy. You do need adequate levels of natural light, but you dont need artificial light to duplicate that.

Just because some fool claims it doesnt make it gospel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For me that is a feature. When I get up in the morning and turn on the bathroom light, I like the idea of it not blasting me until I wake up a little.
BTW I mix traditional and fluorescent lamps. The end result is a very good color mix, somewhere between sunlight and standard lamps. So for the lady of the house who has makeup and clothing color mixing to do, it is great.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So for the lady of the house who has makeup and clothing color mixing to do, it is great.
So far I mix them in the kitchen, where we have recessed floods. I still like the intensity of the halogen right over the workspace of the stove and counter, with CFLs in the other places. Also, the single halogen in each bank lights up instantly, while the CFLs warm up, so I don't have to wait to work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will probably start using CFL's in the kitchen recessed positions after the halogen fail. When i checked last The Home Deopot quit selling dimmer capable CFL's several years ago, so I went with Halogen. I do like the Halogen color but some CFL's are close. Figure $15 each for a dimmable CFL.
On another note, a GREEN label is on some 4 foot 40 Watt lamps GE Ecolux tubes in the room here. They FAR outshine any other flourescent lamp I have seen. They typically look twice as bright as the brightest lamp here. They DO have a certain greenish color, and they don't have them at the Depot.
greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb. Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light I have in the front window.
--
http://cashcuddler.com

"Thrift is sexy."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Throughout my home I have 72 CFL's of various wattages. Mixed brands, most are indies. Color temp varies from 2700K to 2900K, equal to incandescent. Have had 4 failures in 7 years, 2 outdoors and 2 in basement. I think vibration may have got the outdoor ones as they are post lights. The 2 in the basement are on 24/7 for general illumination for cats to find food, water, and litter boxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twice Retired wrote:

I don't think that cats require any more light than a dim glow (equivalent to moonlight/starlight.) They ARE basically nocturnal animals, after all.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Cats have far more sensitive vision than people, they have poor color vision, and lower resolution, but excellent nighttime sensitivity. A single nightlight is more than enough.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Green or blue LED nightlights rated to consume less than 1/2 watt will be plenty. They produce light of wavelengths that night vision is sensitive to. My experience is that even dark-adapted humans can see by those well enough to easily find objects in rooms.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twice Retired wrote:

Lou
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Macuser wrote:

Even the "name brand" ones are made in China, though some are better than others. The spectrum is determined by the color temperature, not by the brand that makes them. 2700K is incandescent lookalike, 3100K is often referred to as soft white, occasionally you see 3500K which are a bit cooler, and then 5500K-6000K is referred to as "daylight". A few companies charge exorbitant prices for daylight fluorescents marketing them as some sort of magical sunlight substitute, they're no different than the daylight cfls you can buy at most hardware stores for a few dollars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.