Over-claimed efficiency of CFL energy saving light bulbs

In article , John writes

Failed to add - they are generally bigger than a conventional bulb and hence do not always fit. I have also found that electronic time switches or PIRs sometimes play up when they are connected.

This of course depends on one's definition of suitable.

I suppose that the change from 95% unsuitable to 90% unsuitable could be described as a reduction.

.. and that's still the case

.. no change there then.

Typo here. Early 2007

Come on. Get real. These things are junk and the justification for them is weak at best.

In reality incandescents tend to be affected far more by supply voltage fluctuations that CFLs

Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!wrote: |! |!>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |!>

|!>>>CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |!>> |!>> Incorrect. |!>

|!>No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!>sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |! |! |! |!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback.

IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive*

It really depends on what you want

If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and you don't care about light quality then fine.

However, if you care about light quality and won't accept something that is appropriate for a corporation toilet but not the home and look into the claims in more detail, you would find that these things fall a long way short of acceptability

Thanks John.

That makes sense to me. I was looking for possible excuses for the disparity between the maker's claims and my measurements, but it would make the disparity between the claimed and actual performance comparison between filament bulbs & CFLs @ 240V even worse.

I have just logged a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority.

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest with my first ever posting.

I will try higher powered CFLs, if I can find them. The best I could find the last time I looked at B&Q etc is 20W / "100W". I agree that they would save my electricity bills. However I suspect that they would also increase the much worse pollution in by China more than is saved in the UK. At least we in the UK have the benefit of nuclear power (for the moment...) (whose pollution is containable by good engineering) and of wind power (occasionally, when the wind blows strongly enough at the right time, which is not as often as the hype would have us believe).

Still, who am I to spoil the party. There is a lot of money to be made, rearranging the deckchairs on the green bandwagon. Some of it MIGHT do more good than harm. (ducks for cover) Regards.

(The one exception here is the GE Genura R80, which

Of the several we have, one in particular is squintingly bright to look at which is a Mazda 6L electronic - it has 3 folded tubes or "6 legs" (6L?) and gets brighter after a few minutes. I have looked around casually for more but have not seen them again...

Nick

Homebase. Can't remember the price, not cheap. It was a great disappointment at first switchon but I came back to it about an hour later and it was brighter (and maybe very slightly whiter) than the 100W bulb it replaced.

The 3x 11W folded types are inside frosted glass shades and they are less successful. I don't know why.... perhaps colour temperature, maybe CFL's need matching shades.

|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:21:49 +0000, Dave Fawthrop |! wrote: |! |!>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:10:13 +0000, Andy Hall wrote: |!>

|!>|!On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:15:03 +0000, Steve Firth |!>|!wrote: |!>|! |!>|!>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote: |!>|!>

|!>|!>>>CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs. |!>|!>> |!>|!>> Incorrect. |!>|!>

|!>|!>No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd |!>|!>sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet". |!>|! |!>|! |!>|! |!>|!Quite. This is the biggest example of the king's suit of clothes |!>|!since the msn himself rode naked on horseback. |!>

|!>IME they are just as good as incandescents for the recommended transfers, |!>I started using them when they first came out, and the first ones I fitted |!>are now failing. Worth every penny I spent when they were *expensive* |! |! |!It really depends on what you want

I want light, of a "colour" I like at the minimum cost over the life of the fitting. |! |!If you are attracted by the "eco" argument, the one that suggests that |!by buying a more expensive bulb the outlay over time is reduced and |!you don't care about light quality then fine.

There are several "colours" of lights available.

In message , gmw writes

Interesting but you need to take into account the spectral response of the human eye. As a general measurement it's valid though.

If you check the light output spectrum you'll see they emit significant amounts of UV light (skin cancer and cataracts anyone?) compared to incandescents which emit virtually none.

If you look at the current waveform of a CFL you will also find that they are some of the dirtiest appliances on the market in terms of electrical interference, some can actually stop ADSL from working IME and you can forget listening to MW/LW and SW radio.

You can buy PFC types which are 'nicer' but they are generally not available or cheap.

Efficient they may be but environmentally friendly they aint, the chemicals used to manufacture then are toxic, they contain toxic chemicals (mercury and phosphor plus others metals in the tube, lots of nasty stuff in the electronics) so they need *proper* disposal not just dumping in the bin when they fail.

As for the light output, I tried three CFLs in one fitting without telling the LTLP, each and every time she commented on how dim the light was or how it looked 'murky' in the room. The original incandescent was an Asda 60w pearl BC. I tried an 11w no name CFL, a 17w Phillips CFL and a 20W GE CFL. They all were slow to 'warm up' to full output and the light produced was unpleasant and had noticeable colour bias.

Frankly, not nice. Roll on LED technology. No warm up time, much longer life than CFL, much nicer colour rendition, dimmable and you can manage the colour temperature much more easily than CFL technology.

I *do* have CFLs in two places where a failed bulb would be difficult to change or failure could be dangerous but they are not places where I spend any time so the light quality is not as important but I'm not going to be buying any more until they are much better.

In message , Dave Fawthrop writes

How many do I have to buy to find one I like then? I agree there are lots out there but none that I've seen have the output spectra printed on the box, rather they have meaningless terms like 'warm' or 'natural' on them. If I buy an incandescent I *know* that a pearl is going to perform in a certain way.

Oh indeed rather like the Dulux "shades of white". You can have murky yellow, dingy grey, muddy green...

What's your problem with them? The crap spectrum and colour rendering?

Wrong on both counts.

They have the same current profile as all appliances which feed mains into a bridge rectifier and storage capacitor.

They contain _much_ less mercury than is released by burning fossel fuels to power an incandescent lamp for the same period of time.

They use exactly the same phosphors.

That might be the scientific explanation and it's difficult to characterise appearance to the eye totally in these terms. However, objects illuminated with them simply look wrong and in an unpleasant and cold way.

Secondly, the bulb itself always looks like a collection of tubes or a soft icecream even if enclosed in an opaque glass globe.

Thirdly they are mechanically large unless one goes for certain spotlight replacements.

I don't mind using them for outside lighting in certain applications, but that's about it, certainly not inside the house.

Apart from the aesthetic deficiencies, the promotion of them on an eco basis is completely bogus. My natural reaction to confidence tricks of this nature is to choose any other option.

You're joking, I presume? Or been reading the adverts?

The first applications of new lighting technology tends to be film and TV where costs don't matter much, but small size, efficiency etc might well do for specialist situations. And LED are still virtually nowhere as key lights due to poor colour temperature and spectrum. Whereas fluorescent (dimmable) have been used for some time. They are used as FX background lighting, though.

to state the obvious, anyone can use as much power of CFL lighting as one wants.

The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production cost & energy consumption.

I do wish a BS were written for CFLs so we'd start to see many more realistic output power claims, and lamps marked with their tip to toe dimension. The lamps themselves are fine imho, but the industry surrounding them could do with improving its act a bit.

NT

Totally agree

Nick