As the OP herself I think I should come back in to the discussion at this point. Actually, I am *extremely* statistically minded (2 maths A levels, 3 years of maths, stats and econometrics at uni), which is why I was struck completely dumb by the cod calculations offered by NT (obviously qualified in the Roy Meadows School of Statistics). The 850 hours was indeed calculated at 24 x 35-ish, in order to demonstrate the absolute maximum these wretched bulbs *could* have been on. Needless to say their actual usage will have been perhaps a third of this. And indeed, the first one failed after a week. They were obtained by the local electrician via his Spanish supplier and I have no idea for what voltage they are designed, though I assume that a qualified and well recommended tradesman would take the trouble to get the appropriate fittings. Certainly the fluorescent lights in the study, fitted with pairs of 4 pin compact lamps, have performed perfectly.
On a happier note, fitting the soft start dimmers seems to have been rather a success; not a single tungsten or halogen lamp has failed since. I read the theory that soft starts didn't help lamp life, as recommended again by NT. However it seemed to be backed up by no experimental evidence. Going with my own empirical experience, I shall be installing some more soft starts, and will report back to this NG in a year's time with my findings.
ok, so you'll know to go to google and check the facts on soft starting, rather than acting on an uninformed hunch. You'll know it gives you much more chance of a successful solution, and takes less time, effort and money. So I'm puzzled as to why you're choosing to install more soft starting.
Your OP showed ignorance of an assortment of basics, so I offered a very simple constant failure rate model to get a rough ballpark, and now you give me a hard time about it.
Since you're well versed in statistics, no doubt you can tell us what shape the lamp life curve will be, and what the mean life of your lamps is. Then it would be a lot clearer what the possible causes were.
So as well as giving us wrong lamp failure data (850 hours), are you now telling us the problem youre asking us to solve no longer exists?
Unsurprisingly the effect of soft starting on lamp life was studied long ago, and I cant see how your elementarily flawed assessment of soft starting makes more sense than typing a few words into google to find the facts. I find it hard to understand your actions if you've studied stats to degree level. To anyone who has studied even basic stats it would be quite obvious that reporting back in a year wont tell us a single thing about soft starting.
Why do you think it's an uninformed hunch? I have already explained the previous empirical evidence I had for deciding on soft starting in the first place. I quote from my post of 26 Feb: "I know of an 18 lamp chandelier which has not had a bulb change in 4 years since it was given a soft start." This seemed to me a good enough reason. Since dimmers were to be fitted anyway, why not go for soft start? My theory may have been wrong, but I never pretended to be an expert on the physics.
Because I fitted four circuits with soft starts a month ago and they have not suffered any further failures since. These cover a total of
16 GU10s and 6 tungstens. Meanwhile, 4 more tungsten R80s (out of 12 in total) have failed on circuits which aren't controlled by soft starts. My original intention had been to fit these R80 fittings with the appropriate 15w Megaman CF replacement lamps. However given the failure rate for the Megaman GU10 CF replacements, I am not sure now that I want to do this - they are *very* expensive and difficult to source. It would be very simple to convert the existing switches to soft starts, and I am probably going to do this given my previous experience as described.
I can't quite see what irks you so much about my OP; I gave some basic background information and asked a question. As others offered suggestions and asked for further information so I gave it to them. I did feel that all your posts were rather unnecessarily aggressive and unfortunately I succumbed to the temptation to be rude back. Sorry.
I'm sufficiently well versed in statistics to know that I have insufficient data. I asked a question, whether fluctuations in AC frequency could have an effect on lamp life; I have not received an answer but have been told that Gibraltar runs at a rather higher voltage than the UK, and that large voltage fluctuations are not unusual; this may well be sufficient to explain my observations and was a lot easier than contacting Megaman and asking for their lamp life statistics and then comparing my own data for statistically significant variation.
I quote again from my post of 26 February: "The Megaman replacement CFs were also put in in January, about 850 hours ago". I can see that my wording was rather ambiguous, for which I apologise; I didn't intend to imply that they had been run continuously for 850 hours. The soft start dimmers are not being used on the circuits where I have fitted fluorescents - as a rabbit, even I know you don't do that. The problem with halogens and tungstens appears to have been solved, the problem with CFs continues and I may just have to live with it - though I believe a new generating station is planned for Gib which might give us a more consistent supply in 10 years time or so.
Again, I draw your attention to the difference between experimental evidence, and finding a theory to explain the evidence. Just because the theory which had been given to me when I encountered the maintenance-free chandelier, and which I had no reason to disbelieve, may have been wrong, it doesn't mean that soft starts don't extend lamp life in some other way. And indeed, upon googling, I discovered that current theory accepts that soft starts will protect GU10s. What I didn't find was any experimental work comparing lamp life on identical lighting circuits fitted with and without soft start dimmers. Perhaps you can give me a pointer to some? Meanwhile, my own experience, and that of the chandelier owner, is good. So I shall make a relatively small investment in new switches and see what happens - the worst case scenario is that I have to replace them with the original on/offs and get the Megaman bulbs.
There may be the odd uk.d-i-y-er contemplating new dimmers who would be interested. A year-long trial in a real-life situation seems to me to be the basis of quite a useful set of data. Why do you think it would be useless?
"dis=B7so=B7nant......adj. "1. Harsh and inharmonious in sound; discordant. "2. Being at variance; disagreeing. "3. (Music) Constituting or producing a dissonance."
I honestly have no desire to be anything other than pleasant and courteous. However you seem to have been rather unpleasant to me from the start. It's a shame, because you obviously know a lot about many things and like to educate those of us who don't. But when I asked for advice on a matter on which I wasn't an expert, you treated me with a fair degree of contempt, which you then compounded. I admit to having been roused to impoliteness in my last post, which I regret, but I don't think I started it.=20
Well I accept some of the things you say. To be honest I thought you were trolling, but I guess not.
Soft starting extends lamp life by a few percent:
formatting link
has no effect on lamp life for filament or cfl, assuming we're not talking about the early big heavy low frequency ballast cfls.
And a cfl that dies in 1 week is imho not fit for its purpose. Infant mortailty is the supplier's problem, not yours. In UK a refund can be demanded, and usually successfully, but I know nothing of the law in your territory.
The most probable explanation, given that mean life now appears be very much below expected for the cfls, is a bad batch of bulbs. Fitting soft start and reporting back in a year makes no distincton between a batch of bad bulbs and soft starter effect, so wont tell you what you want to know. And the data on soft start is already known.
If I were in your shoes I'd monitor line voltage and check its within limits. If it is, you've almost certainly got bad bulbs. And theres probably nothing you can do about it bar buy elsewhere.
Please let me know how I gave you that impression so I don't inadvertently climb up someone else's nose in future.
stuck onto lamp caps, rather than the electronic gizmos built into the circuitry of my dimmers. Do they work in the same way? Also, whilst he doesn't rate them highly for dimmers, he does note that they can double or treble halogen life, and, as my more inaccessible downlighters are all GU10s, that cheers me up a great deal.
Well, as I said, the cfls aren't working off soft starts, and I think that my supplier bought them from the same place that I went to get replacements, the big Leroy Merlin shed in Los Barrios. But the replacements haven't blown yet so your theory of the bad batch may well be correct. My Spanish isn't up to demanding a refund.
As for the tungstens and halogens which are, or will be, controlled by soft starts, they were acquired at various different times from various different places, so I hope that any manufacturing effect will be well diluted. And if I manage a full year without a bulb change, that'll be an excuse for a bottle of (almost) duty-free champagne!
Cap type soft starts work differently to electronic soft starting. Their main effect on lamp life is their slight reduction in operating voltage of the lamps, not their soft starting effect. The same is true of electronic soft starting, with the exception of with halogens. The reduction in operating voltage reduces lamp efficiency, increasing the total cost per annum of x lumens.
Soft start has no effect on cfl lifetimes, lamp failure mechanisms are different..
Halogen downlighters are horrid things to have in summer, when its hot enough already. Theyre one of the most energy hogging types of lighting around. But you takes your choices.
Hey, read my posts, I'd specified something quite different, the f***ing electrician and project manager put them in when I was away. "But we thought that's what you wanted." B*****ks, I'd given them my standard 2 hour anti-halogen rant; as you say, they're energy hogging; they fail catastrophically; they're a b**ch to change when they fail; and they make all the grey hairs that were missed in the last excruciatingly expensive visit to the hairdresser twinkle away shouting "Look at me! Look at me!"
But, in the context of all the other stuff that was done wrong......sometimes, you just have to accept 70% of what you wanted, give up and move on. Which I am trying to do - psychologically wearying for a perfectionist such as moi. But it would be nice to get the bits which were screwed up working as well as they can in the circumstances.
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.