He may have been referring to the waveform of the HF tube current, rather than the mains current. The former tends to be fairly sinusoidal though, since it's fed via a ballast inductor, but (IME) still has enough harmonic content to be capable of interfering with LF and MF radio. Long linear fluorescents operating at 'HF' can be worse though, for obvious reasons. As to interference to ADSL, that seems a bit unlikely, or doesn't say much for the state of your phone wiring if it occurs.
There's plenty of BS written. That's the problem
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:58:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Indeed, especially by some posters to this group.
It is only a problem to those who are taken in by it.
In message , Andy Wade writes
Some interesting oscillograms on alt.binaries.schematics.electronic late last week.
It was a *very* cheap CFL, the 'phone wiring was a new install by BT and it looks fine (not mine BTW), certainly no worse than any other I've seen and the line stats from the router are nice and stable (until you turn the CFL on, the SNR plummets). I think the power for the lighting runs behind the wall, close to the BT socket and wiring though. Changing it out for a standard bulb cured the problem. I may try a better CFL at some point to see the problem re-appears. Point still stands though, CFLs can and do cause interference.
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
Nope, hence the comment 'Roll on LED technology.' It's not really domestic tech yet, however my comments are still valid, warm up time is none existent, it is easily dimmable, colour is adjustable if you use RGB LEDs and life span is much longer than any other lighting tech I can think of. You don't have to worry about draughts with LEDs either, CFLs dim if the glass envelope is cooled so you have to shield them if they are used in draughty environments and most CFLs can't be used in enclosed fixtures, I don't know why.
I found;
I suspect TV and film lighting is a much more exacting application than illuminating my living room. I may not have understood the meaning of 'key' light but lumileds seem to be pushing their products for film and studio use..
Dimmable fluorescents have been around for a long time (70s IIRC, maybe longer?), dimmable CFLs are available too but they're not too easy to find or cheap and AFAIK, cannot be used with conventional dimmers.
LEDs or fluorescents?
In article , Clint Sharp writes
Anecdotal, but when we went from 2M to 8M, the router kept dropping out at regular intervals in the evening - during the day it was OK. We use quite a few CFLs around the house. Re-running the phone cable solved the problem but the problems always used to occur just as it got dark....
That's not necessarily the fault of a CFL. Broadband is modulated on top of a carrier which is roughly the same as Medium Wave, and as you know, when the sun goes down, the level of interference on MW rises. And several km of telephone line makes a cracking MW aerial.
It does but being balanced should cancel out. Otherwise you'd have problems even on an analogue system where a faulty phone or connection provided rectification.
The problems occur within the house wiring, as the BT three wire system isn't truly balanced anymore. Hence for broadband you're best to site the router and filter as close as possible to the incoming line.
For sure.
Of course.
The whole scam depends on the gullibility of the naive.
Its a very strange point of view to suggest that money saving lightbulbs are a scam or that their sales depend on gullibility. Anyone can get the real data and do the maths.
NT
Not really.
The figures often presented are bogus because they are over optimistic about lifetime and light output and ignore the contribution of heat output to the envelope of the house.
If this alters purchasing behaviour it is a scam, pure and simple.
The problem is that the marketing behind almost all of the so called energy saving technologies presents their benefits in a grossly over optimistic way, and this one is no exception.
If there were more honesty,it would be a different matter. As it is, the claims attract the gullible, as I've said
That would be me then as I have had CF lamps for about six years. I have had to replace one of them too.. it didn't survive me dropping it when decorating.
The 5 foot tubes are far less reliable IME although the latest one has been going for three years now.
The two foot tubes in the aquarium do last quite well.
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:32:58 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Incorrect. They are generally pessimistic.
No, they state the lumen output. The comparison to a softone bulb isn't one I'd make though, I would compare them to pearl bulbs.
Still promoting expensive ways of heating the house I see.
Shout as loudly as you like on the matter, but the calculations are easy to do.
In message , "dennis@home" wrote
I find the opposite with aquarium 18inch tubes, irrespective of the brand. The ends blacken within 3 months and they rarely last more than six months..
Really?
What are the measurement criteria that you are using for lifetime?
Do they operate at full output for this "lifetime"?
The marketing material and packaging quotes equivalent figures in watts.
I wouldn't.
Nope. Just a little honesty in taking all contributing factors into account.
Yes they are. The results will be correct as long as all factors are accounted for properly.
Unfortunately for the manufacturers and promoters, the true picture is not as attractive as they would like it to be.
Sounds like a problem with the ballast to me. I don't use the expensive aquarium tubes just plain old 2ft daylight tubes which cost me about £1.20 each.
That could be poor or incorrect control gear. How often are they switched on, and how long are they on for each time? Do you know what type of control gear they have?
I've had only one failure in any of the CFL's I've bought in the last 7 years, and that was an early failure of the electronics. The others have all way outlasted their quoted lives.
Carbon arc lamp is the only lamp invented which does this. For various applications, this is an important feature, and people have been trying to repeat it in something more modern than a carbon arc for decades, without success. In case you're wondering, lumen depreciation of filament lamps is worse than than of fluorescent tubes. One problem with current CFL's is that they carry on working well after their rated lifetimes, and then their lumen depreciation becomes noticable.
Yes, that's been covered here countless times. Ignore it and use a 4:1 ratio for a standard CFL.
I looked ata number of relevant standards applying to CFLs.
It appears that there is not any harmonisation and that in most cases the quoted life is for 50% failure in a sample of >100.
Not very good......
Again there is a variation. Some specifications mention 80% others
85% and others nothing at all.
Seems optimistic. I tried a 25w CFL in comparison with a 100w bulb and it seemed dim in comparison even after being allowed to warm up.
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.