I thought it was 100% china as of a few months ago
I thought it was 100% china as of a few months ago
Okay, I see it gets considerably brighter with time. However, this seems like something of an annoyance if I want there to be light
*now*. Sort of like revisting TV's that need warming up or something.reply:
Doctor to patient, "You need to give up wine, women, and song."
Patient, "Will I live any longer?"
Doctor, "No, but it will seem like one hell of a lot longer."
All this bullshit and hooey to save a few pennies here and there, and so little kids won't eat used up light bulbs and die.
Steve
Because the time varys with the temperature.
There is a general trend for ones with outer bulbs to start dimmer and take more time to warm up than ones with bare tubing. Ones with outer bulbs have their tubing designed to work best at the higher temperature that occurs inside the bulb-enclosed ones.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
In article , Nate Nagel wrote in part:
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@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.
NT
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
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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".)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.
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)
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.
NT
Oddly the ones we have the get to full brightness the fastest and the slowest are the ones in "more traditional" packaging (i.e., with an outer shell around the twisty one).
BTW, one more thing to do is in a multi-bulb fixture put in one incandescent bulb to provide immediate brightness.
Oddly the ones we have the get to full brightness the fastest and the slowest are the ones in "more traditional" packaging (i.e., with an outer shell around the twisty one).
BTW, one more thing to do is in a multi-bulb fixture put in one incandescent bulb to provide immediate brightness.
_____________________
I tried this in a multi-bulb fixture that has a ceiling fan when I first went towards CFLs. It did make a good transition for me at the time, but after a while I just swapped out that bulb for the CFL too. I just got used to the lighting timing all over the house now. Tomes
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 ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
How do you post links here, I always recomend them but dont know how to post them.
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.
Like hell it is.
incandescent... to be healthy.
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.
ransley wrote in news:d561851d-4d86-414b-8cba- snipped-for-privacy@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
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.
HomeOwnersHub 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.