Halogen screw in bulbs - waste of money

[Generic Male Homosapien]

I just looked at some of the screw in halogen bulbs that should fit any fixture made for common indecesant bulbs.

They claim more light for less energy.

When you read the wattage and lumens rating, it's obvious their claim is a lie.

A standard indecesant bulb actually puts out about 1% to 2% MORE lumens than the halogen of the same wattage. And the bulb uses the SAME wattage.

It's something like a 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts whether it's indecesant or halogen. The ind bulb produces somethingh like 1380 lumens, the hal light produces 1365 lumens.

The ind. bulb costs around 50 cents, the halogen bulb costs about $5. SO, what's the point. There is no energy savings at all, 100 watts is

100 watts. And after you pay 10 times as much for the halogen, you actually get 1% or 2% less light. The only advantage I saw was that the halogen is rated to last 1 1/2 times that of an ind. bulb. BIG DEAL..... First of all, those life expectency numbers are always exaggerated anyhow. And you could buy TEN ind. bulbs for the cost of one halogen.

I just dont see the point of these halogens at all, other than to make money for the seller.

[David W.]

Generic Male Homosapien wrote in news: [e-mail]:

I use the halogen bulbs in fixtures that are difficult to reach, because they last considerably longer than standard bulbs.

[Dick Smyth]

But the quality of the light is great. It's so clean and blue. rps

[Jim Thompson]

[snip]

Eh? I just replaced 6 incandescent kitchen ceiling floods with like-wattage halogens... the improvement in light output is astonishing.

...Jim Thompson

[j j]

the OP has no idea what he's talking about.

11 watt CF bulbs are the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent, and a 25 watt CF is the equivalent of 100 watts, in lumens, not watts. it still consumes about 25% of the original.

the local IKEA store has a wall where half the wall is made of CF bulbs and the other is made of incandescent bulbs, and there's a watt meter showing each half's consumption. obviously they're not equal.

[mark Ransley]

Op is comparing incandesant to halogen, not CF. But he is still wrong Halogen are 20 % more efficent. than incandesant. But there are different styles of halogen.

[Larry C.]

Sometimes it best to read before posting. The OP was comparing Halogen versus standard bulb. He said nothing about CF bulbs.

[Chuckles]

"j j" wrote in news:PdRqb.10983$ [e-mail]:

Do you?

[j j]

oh, halogen...

you mean like those Xenon lights on high end cars? the difference in luminosity is very obvious.

[Generic Male Homosapien]

Thank you! I thought I clearly specified HALOGEN..... (duh)

Compact florescent is a whole different matter, and yes, those are a great energy saver. My whole house has them, even the garage. I work at night quite a bit, and I am not real good about shutting lights off. I now save nearly $10 a month from what my electric bill used to be.

[mark Ransley]

no JJ halogen and zenon gas are different, and HID on cars are a different light altogether. Lights on cars have been standard halogen for years. Think of the little 2" spotlights ,mr16 with a whiter light ,those are halogen, and the burn hot. Most high quality display lighting is halogen. Zenon ,HID on cars is slightly bluer.

[Michael Black]

I wondered about that myself. I've had a halogen desk lamp for about ten years, and it's only a 20W bulb. Previously, I had a regular bulb desk lamp there, and I used either a 40 or 60W bulb, yet I get by fine with the 20W halogen.

I like the enough that I've done repair on the thing to keep it running. It was a gift, but don't think it was bottom of the line. Yet, a few years in I had to replace the on-off switch. Then, my fault, I blew the fuse in the transformer, so I had to hack open the AC adaptor and fix that. Luckily there was a fuse in there separate from the transformer, and it got back in working order, though the case of the adaptor is kind of messy. The lamp is a little shaky in design, since it uses the mechanical parts to convey the low voltage to the bulb. I had to manufacture a bit to replace a bit that just wore out, and it was less then perfect. When the replacement wore out too, I just took the mechanical arm out of the picture, and ran wire from the AC adaptor to the socket. It's working better than it has in some years, since the scheme even before I had to replace the part suffered from less than perfect electrical contact between sections of the arm. Now it's nice and steady, and I can see it lasted for a good many years.

If I wasn't getting something out of it, and not only does the light seem good for the wattage but it's a smaller and easier to manipulate the late, I sure wouldn't have bothered with all this to keep it running.

Michael

[j j]

is the only difference between these lights the gas used inside? do all of them have a filament inside (unlike fluorescent) ?

[Joseph Meehan]

I will only point out a couple of things. First all else being equal halogen is slightly more efficient, but not a lot. All else is never equal.

Most halogen lamps are designed to last longer, that good, but it also means they loose some efficiency.

Many halogen lamps make better use of the light they make (those with reflectors) so the total output is no more, but you get more light where you need it.

I like the long life and the color of the light.

[El Senor]

In theory, an incandescent bulb should be about as efficient as an equivalent halogen bulb. But all is not equivalent. Most incandescents produce omnidirectional lighting, while virtually all halogens are directional and have well-designed reflectors to ensure that most of their output is not wasted.

In this case, the lumens per watt rating is deceiving since it is a measure of the bulb's total light output, not its intensity of light in the direction you need.. A directional halogen will definitely produce much brighter light at the same wattage as an ordinary incandescent.

Hallogens are a lot smaller and therefore tend to have more attractive, trendy fixtures. They also produce whiter light.

-Mike

[mark Ransley]

JJ , im no lighting expert , But Hid have high voltage balasts and systems. Lighting is an ever changing science , technology. More will come ..

[Alan Beagley]

Halogen bulbs are still incandescent. HID are gas discharge lamps (Xenon arc) -- same general principle (I am guessing) as neon advertising signs.

-=- Alan

On 11/07/03 04:03 pm j j put fingers to keyboard and launched the following message into cyberspace:

[Don Klipstein]

Usually, a halogen lasts about 3 times as long as "standard" incandescents. And Sylvania appears better than Philips, according to numbers that I see on some of their packages and an article that I saw in Consumer Reports, I believe in October 1992. Philips "Halogena" hardly to not at all outshines plain incandescents, while Sylvania "Capsylite" of usual wattages (as opposed to oddball wattages) outsines plain incandescents by 5% or more. Compared to longer life incandescents with life expectancy similar to that of halogens, halogens usually produce

10-20% more light. Halogens produce a slightly whiter light than regular incandescents, especially the longer life ones, do.

Then again, compact fluorescents typically consume about 30% of the electricity of incandescents of the same light output, and they usually outlast halogens - often by a factor of 2, sometimes 3. Compact fluorescents do not work well everywhere. Only some are good outdoors, only some are good in small enclosed fixtures and recessed ceiling fixtures, and life is compromised if they are used where they do not stay on for long when they are turned on. See:

(General info, mostly by Sam G.) (mostly brand/model-specific data)

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail],

[Don Klipstein]

I think you are talking about compact fluorescents while the OP is talking about halogens, which are different (usually only 10-20% more efficient than incandescents of similar life expectancy, and usually anywhere from no brighter at all to 10% brighter than shorter life standard incandescents of the same wattage and voltage).

Meanwhile, in my experience it takes 13-15, sometimes as much as 18 watts of compact fluorescent to equal a 60 watt "standard incandescent". And some 28 watt ones barely match a 100 watt standard incandescent (I have seen a 27 watt one by Lights of America that I bought new barely outshine a 75 watt standard incandescent), while the best 25 and 26 watt ones roughly match a 100 watt "standard incandescent". I do advise that some counting on 75% energy savings as opposed to 70 or

65% may be disappointed.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail],

[Don Klipstein]

A 20W 12 volt halogen (probably consuming about 25-26 watts including losses in the transformer) of better brand produces 350 lumens, which is more than the 180-230 lumens produced by a "standard" 120V 25 watt bulb but less than the 440-505 lumens produced by a 120V 40 watt "standard" bulb. The lower voltage bulb has a shorter, thicker filament that can be operated at a higher temperature for a given life expectancy, and this explains some of the extra efficiency of low voltage halogens. Low voltage halogens are only slightly more efficient than non-halogen bulbs of the same voltage, wattage and life expectancy. For a given wattage near or below 150 watts, a 12 volt bulb will usually produce noticeably more light (often a good 20% more) and slightly noticeably whiter light than a 120V one of the same wattage and life expectancy (especially when comparing halogen to halogen and non-halogen to non-halogen).

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])