eHam

eHam Forums => Station Building => Topic started by: K2QB on September 18, 2012, 08:21:00 AM



Title: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K2QB on September 18, 2012, 08:21:00 AM
OK....so currently I have overhead flourescent lighting in my shack and sitting back the other morning I thought...maybe it is a bit too harsh. So, I'm thinking of replacing it with some overhead track lighting to give the shack more of a comfy-cozy feeling. Now, first queston is what is your preference and secondly, what if I were to install track lighting but used the new flourescent flood lights? They come in at least three different temps, natural, soft white and daylight and each gives different color renditions. Although a bit expensive yet, how about the LED lights? I guess I am looking for a little softer lighting but yet enough to be able to still see all te knobs and stuff. I could always add a desk top flourescent light as an add-in for for when I do the QSL chores.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on September 18, 2012, 08:38:51 AM
I like the flourescent bulbs/lamps that have the same color-temperature as an incandescent lamp. Looks the same to me, saves energy, keeps the shack cooler, and doesn't need replacing as often.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K3AN on September 18, 2012, 09:59:33 AM
As long as the fluorescent tubes are behind a suitable diffuser panel I don't think their light is "harsh" at all. I wouldn't want them in a living room or bedroom but I like a lot of light in my ham shack.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 18, 2012, 11:04:58 AM
The tubes can be had in warm white and cool. By default they tend to be cool. Just get correct color temp of around 2700k. Same with LED's


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N0SOY on September 18, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Hate flourescent lights including the curly q bulbs.  The UV bothers my eyes as well as the flicker rates.  Not to mention the has mat issue if one breaks.  I only use incandecent, halogen, or LED.  LED are coming down in price.  Full spectrum incadescant are nice but expensive and run hot.  I do not know if the LED full spectrum are out yet. 

73


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K4JJL on September 19, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
I, too, run all incandescent in my house.  I got enough of fluorescents in a cube farm while staring at a CRT monitor.  Didn't want to drag that home.

Everybody squawks energy conservation and cost savings.  When I drink scotch, I don't pick a cheap swill.  I could ride around on a cheap Japanese crotch-rocket, but I opted for a Beemer motorrad.  Why would I torture myself with bad lighting?  Sometimes the better things in life are worth the money.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on September 19, 2012, 09:53:55 PM
If you prefer incandescent bulbs now is the time to stock up. 100 watt bulbs (in the US) on store shelves will no longer be restocked starting next month. 60 and 40 bulbs will follow.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 20, 2012, 08:37:35 AM
I, too, run all incandescent in my house. 

The only incandescent bulbs in my house including the garage, barn or outside lighting is in fridges. I have been using the "twist" florescent replacement bulbs since they came out with no complaints or flicker issue. A nice thing about the twists is that light fixtures are wattage rated due to heat dissipation with incandescent bulbs. You can use a brighter twist bulb if need be. I also use Daylight colored ones in some rooms. I use a few LED bulbs too. Also consider during air-conditioning season that a few thousand watts of incandescent lights produce about 6000 BTU's of extra heat to remove. And, the twists make it a lot easier to fully light house on emergency power during outages.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on September 20, 2012, 09:06:00 AM
Yes indeed. With air conditioners consuming 1/3 watt to move 1 watt outside the home, every 100 watt incandescent bulb that is changed to a 25 watt flourescent bulb saves 75 watts power directly and 25 watts of AC power for a savings of 100 watts of electrical energy.

Of course in the winter it works the other way round and the heating system must supply the 75 watts of power (plus an efficiency factor) that the 100 watt bulb is no longer adding to the house. If the house is heated electrically there is no electrical power savings. If powered by another source of energy we have traded electrical energy (and the source of energy that is converted into electricity) for the other source of energy.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KF5JOT on September 20, 2012, 11:02:50 AM
We've been replacing all of our Cool White CFL's with Daylight spectrum CFL's as they quit. Makes a heck of a difference for us, as my wife is a graphic artist. We put the high blockage solar screens on all the windows and with the CFL's it has dropped our power bill. In the bathrooms, we were using the frosted globe CFL's beause they took about a minute to come up to full brightness. Worked great for nighttime trips to the room as you didn't get full light level if you were pretty quick. Since then, we have been changing to the LED bulbs in the bath and they do the dame thing, but wtih less time. Not quite as bright when at full power, but by going up one equivalent size, they work fine.

I'd suggest just buying  two bulbs of different color temps and try them out before commiting to a complete changeover. You might find that it works better for your shack to add a couple of fixtures and switches to allow independant control rather than go with a central light that is bright enough for most things but may be too bright for other activities.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on September 20, 2012, 12:57:41 PM
The flood lights in my kitchen come up slowly, especially in the winter. So four of the six are incandescent for instant light.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K1WJ on September 25, 2012, 02:05:13 PM
15w Flouresent light bulbs in shack had to be removed - causing noise - removed - noise gone - hate them. 73 K1WJ 8)


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KB5ZSM on September 25, 2012, 11:03:06 PM
I agree with K1WJ. You have to be careful about your selection of fluorescent or LED. Many of the LED use small switching suppies that will generate hash on the HF bands. Some of the newer fluorescent fixtures use switching supplies also as they have found using higher frequencies gives better efficiency and longer bulb life. The old ballast transformers are now switching supplies.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KC0KEK on September 28, 2012, 06:50:55 PM
I've been using CFLs for about 10 years but am in the process of switching back to incandescents. No matter what brand they are, I rarely have a CFL that lasts anywhere near its advertised life. Apparently this is a common complaint because many vendors offer a refund.

Hopefully LED bulbs are better quality. But after the CFL experiment, it's going to be a while before I'll consider them. On the plus side, I've never had RFI problems with CFLs.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 29, 2012, 08:16:25 AM
I've been using CFLs for about 10 years but am in the process of switching back to incandescents. No matter what brand they are, I rarely have a CFL that lasts anywhere near its advertised life. Apparently this is a common complaint because many vendors offer a refund.

Like going back to tube radios. Incandescent bulbs will be getting pretty scarce soon too. I never had any bulb life problems here and have a few that are 5+ years old now. I even have some in barn that I installed when they first came out that still work. They are inside inclosed clear glass covers/guards that keep dust out and prevent damage to them. Only problem with them is when it is really cold out they can take a several minutes to reach full brightness but they have worked at 15 below. 

Hopefully LED bulbs are better quality. But after the CFL experiment, it's going to be a while before I'll consider them. On the plus side, I've never had RFI problems with CFLs.

CFL's are getting better all the time. (smaller and more efficient) LED's have a way to go on price sheet.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KC0KEK on September 29, 2012, 08:47:34 AM
I never had any bulb life problems here and have a few that are 5+ years old now.

That's impressive. I've had quite a few that based on the date of manufacture, could have run 24/7/365 and still failed before their advertised lifespan.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 29, 2012, 04:39:38 PM
I never had any bulb life problems here and have a few that are 5+ years old now.

That's impressive. I've had quite a few that based on the date of manufacture, could have run 24/7/365 and still failed before their advertised lifespan.

Whats your line voltage and is it stable?


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KC0KEK on September 29, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
Whats your line voltage and is it stable?

I don't know, but CFL lifespans have been a problem in both of my homes.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 29, 2012, 07:02:50 PM
Whats your line voltage and is it stable?

I don't know, but CFL lifespans have been a problem in both of my homes.

Curious. I antenna close to house and running power?  I have ha only a few actually burn out but I have had several show signs of weakness after extended usage.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KC0KEK on September 29, 2012, 07:09:28 PM
Curious. I antenna close to house and running power?  I have ha only a few actually burn out but I have had several show signs of weakness after extended usage.

I didn't have an antenna at my previous house. I currently have an OCF dipole about 30 feet away. I never run more than 95 W.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KC0KEK on September 29, 2012, 07:17:49 PM
Here are some of the reasons for, and extent of, the premature-failure problem: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/why-efficient-light-bulbs-fail-to-thrive


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K1CJS on September 30, 2012, 08:27:09 AM
All that has to be known about CFL bulbs is this--those bulbs are offered in quantities at outlet and resale stores, sometimes as low as 50 cents each, and they're the same ones that were offered at most department stores for near ten times that price.  Nuff said. 


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 30, 2012, 10:19:04 AM
All that has to be known about CFL bulbs is this--those bulbs are offered in quantities at outlet and resale stores, sometimes as low as 50 cents each, and they're the same ones that were offered at most department stores for near ten times that price.  Nuff said. 

A big part of the reason is because they are constantly updating design to make it small and more efficient. When that happens then dump older designs on wholesale market. The size and efficiency of the CFL has changed a lot since they can out. Many CFL's are not instant on at full brightness and take a minute (give or take) to reach it. The trade off for greater efficiency. Those are one you usually see cheap.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: AA4PB on September 30, 2012, 01:34:51 PM
I have a bunch of recessed cans in the ceiling over the counters in the kitchen. With incandescent 60W bulbs they run so hot you can feel the heat when you stand under them. It seems like I replace about one per month. I replaced them with CFL bulbs and things cooled down but the wife complained about the color and made me put back the incandescent. I found some "soft white" CFL bulbs at Home Depot and replaced them again while she was out of town. She has never noticed the new CFL bulbs. The cans run so cool now that I can put my hand directly on them and I have not had to replace one in the past year.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on September 30, 2012, 07:11:31 PM
I have a bunch of recessed cans in the ceiling over the counters in the kitchen. With incandescent 60W bulbs they run so hot you can feel the heat when you stand under them. It seems like I replace about one per month. I replaced them with CFL bulbs and things cooled down but the wife complained about the color and made me put back the incandescent. I found some "soft white" CFL bulbs at Home Depot and replaced them again while she was out of town. She has never noticed the new CFL bulbs. The cans run so cool now that I can put my hand directly on them and I have not had to replace one in the past year.


I typical incandescent bulb is about 5% efficient so a 60 watt bulb is basically a 57 watt heater.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: LA9XSA on October 02, 2012, 03:38:07 AM
Except for the height of summer here in Norway, and outdoor lights, replacing incandescents with CFLs is actually causing more emissions. For those with only electrical heating, the electricity usage savings is zero. The place I'm at right now is heated with fossil fuel, while the electricity is mostly hydro power (and some nuclear from Sweden), which means CFLs cause more emissions both by replacing hydro power heating with fossil fuel heating, and more emissions caused by production and hazmat handling.

In winter, the only houses that might be causing less climate effects without incandescents might be those heated by wood burning, high efficiency ground-to-water heat pumps, or municipal waste heat.

And then there's the spurious radio emissions. (For those in the UK, don't look to the government for regulation of this either - Ofcom is completely useless as a government agency, as unless the manufacturer has defined their product as a radio, it could be used to hold DX QSOs on public service frequencies without Ofcom caring about it.)


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: AB9TX on October 02, 2012, 08:18:47 AM
I would keep flourescent, LED and and dimmers out of the shack- they produce lots of "hash" from poor design or cheap components made in China.
 I have directional halogen spots in cans mounted in the ceiling, 40 watts per lamp is more than enough and produces a warm and easy look.

Good luck!

Earl
AB9TX


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: AA4PB on October 02, 2012, 10:16:21 AM
I would keep fluorescent, LED and and dimmers out of the shack- they produce lots of "hash" from poor design or cheap components made in China.

I have plenty of fluorescent and CFL around the house, including the shack. I haven't noticed any "hash". However, none of my antennas are located directly over or close to the house. I did use a portable AM broadcast radio to test for RF hash from the fluorescent lights in the shack. I had to be less than a foot away from the fixture in order to hear any hash.

Dimmers are a different issue. Unless you get a "high end" dimmer with RFI filtering they can generate a lot of RF hash which generally gets less as you increase the brightness.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N9WW on October 03, 2012, 06:53:14 PM
I started buying a few CFL's and used them in the family room and the shack.  I have noticed some hash/RFI from a couple I installed in the shack.  Other than that, not too bad.  I did have a couple of CFL's go bad so I threw them in the trash.
73,
Jim N9WW


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N0YXB on October 03, 2012, 09:20:35 PM
I have plenty of fluorescent and CFL around the house, including the shack. I haven't noticed any "hash". However, none of my antennas are located directly over or close to the house. I did use a portable AM broadcast radio to test for RF hash from the fluorescent lights in the shack. I had to be less than a foot away from the fixture in order to hear any hash.


Same here.  And my CFL bulbs have been working just fine for years.  No problems with reliability whatsoever. 


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: LA9XSA on October 04, 2012, 06:22:56 AM
I did have a couple of CFL's go bad so I threw them in the trash.
Please don't throw them in the trash. CFLs require hazmat handling, so deliver them to a recycling point for CFLs.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 04, 2012, 02:42:54 PM
In the US many municipalities have a place to dispose of CFL lamps. And the Home Depot stores will take them.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: LA9XSA on October 05, 2012, 07:54:20 AM
I think in most countries in Europe, all stores which sell CFLs are required by law to take used ones back, and there are municipal recycling points as well.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 07, 2012, 03:50:58 AM
A conventional 100 watt incandescent is less than 3% efficient. If you must use incandescents, try the Philips EcoVantage. More efficient, just an improved incandescent.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 07, 2012, 04:07:10 PM
A conventional 100 watt incandescent is less than 3% efficient. If you must use incandescents, try the Philips EcoVantage. More efficient, just an improved incandescent.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Not much of a improvement at all and not really worth noting.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W9GB on October 07, 2012, 04:15:19 PM
Quote
Although a bit expensive yet, how about the LED lights? I guess I am looking for a little softer lighting but yet enough to be able to still see all te knobs and stuff. I could always add a desk top flourescent light as an add-in for for when I do the QSL chores.
Good question !
LEDs are expanding, much faster than you may be aware of.

Look at LED Wholesalers
Hayward, CA
http://www.ledwholesalers.com/store/

IF you can acquire a DEAD florescent fixture using tubes, that needs new ballast.  
Independence LED (Eagle LED Tube) sells retrofit kits for LEDs (US Mfg. - Boyertown, PA)
http://www.independenceled.com/

You can convert to LED ... and you may qualify for CASH for CLUNKERS
http://www.independenceled.com/t12_to_led_tube_white_paper


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 08, 2012, 04:30:26 PM
A conventional 100 watt incandescent is less than 3% efficient. If you must use incandescents, try the Philips EcoVantage. More efficient, just an improved incandescent.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Not much of a improvement at all and not really worth noting.

Why do you say that?

Let's look at some numbers:

I've used Philips EcoVantage 72 watters to replace conventional 100 watt incandescent.bulbs. To me the EcoVantage gives the same or more light, and it's a "whiter" light - not harsh, but more like daylight. I haven't had an EcoVantage burn out yet, but let's say it gets the advertised 1000 hours.

In 1000 hours the conventional bulb will use 100 kilowatt-hours (kWH) and the EcoVantage will use 72 kWH. That's a saving of 28 kWH. At ten cents per kWH, that's a savings of $2.80 in electricity. The EcoVantage bulbs cost about $1.60 in a two-pack, so even if you get conventional incandescents for free you save $1.20 per bulb per 1000 hours.

The EcoVantage bulbs have no electronics, no mercury, generate no hash, are dimmable, are not sensitive to cold, are instant-on and look just like conventional bulbs. They can be used in any fixture that is meant for a conventional incandescent bulb.

Of course they don't save as much as CFLs or LEDs. But they more than pay for themselves, and they meet the new efficiency regulations.

What's not to like?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: AA4PB on October 08, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
In either case, more than 95% of the power consumed is turned into heat and less than 5% into light. That's my primary complaint with any incadescant bulb. I want to use lights to light up the room, not to heat it.  ;D

In the summer most of our electric power used for "lighting" actually generates heat then we use more electric power to run the air conditioner to remove the heat.



Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 08, 2012, 06:32:38 PM
In either case, more than 95% of the power consumed is turned into heat and less than 5% into light. That's my primary complaint with any incadescant bulb. I want to use lights to light up the room, not to heat it.  ;D

In the summer most of our electric power used for "lighting" actually generates heat then we use more electric power to run the air conditioner to remove the heat.



Very true. If you look closely with eco incandescent bulbs they also produce less lumes too.  A incandescent bulb is basically a electrical dummy load that is 95% efficient at making heat.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: K2QB on October 09, 2012, 07:11:03 AM
Well for what its worth, I installed a track light sytem with 4 flourescent daylight floods.......which is going to be taken down and replaced with something else. First and maybe my mistake, but thinking that daylight bulbs would provide the most light, the color rendition in the shack is awful. Sort of a blueish tint and they take a minute or so to reach full brightness.....which isnt' all that bright in my opinion. Maybe switching back to an incadescent flood would be better? I'm thinking that I may go back to flourescent tubes but in a soft white color. Originally when I described the light as being harsh, I was using tubes but with no no diffuser in place and I believe they were bright white color. After reading all the responses about pros and cons...I'm not really concerned wiht the costs or impact on the environment. Whatever it is is exremely minimal and like one poster said....if I am going to be spending hours playing radio under the lighting then it better be something I like.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 09, 2012, 07:33:08 AM
More on N2EY's recommendation of the Philips Eco Advantage:

As of this month US stores cannot restock 100 watt incandescent lamps. However, I think the Philip Eco Advantage at 72 watts can be reordered because it exceeds the 25% efficiency improvement required by law.

The Eco Advantage halogen has a claimed life of 1250 hours and a light output of 1200 lumens. A 1500 hour incandescent has a claimed life of 1500 hours and a light output of 1150 lumens.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: AA4PB on October 09, 2012, 10:45:40 AM
The EcoVantage bulb represents a 25% reduction in energy usage over a 100W incandescent because it is only 72W. It is not 25% more efficient.

A 100W incandescent bulb puts out 1500 Lumens for an efficiency of 15 Lumens per watt.
A 72W EcoVantage bulb puts out 1250 Lumens for an efficiency of 17 Lumens per watt.

That's only an efficiency increase of about 13%.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 09, 2012, 12:10:26 PM
A 75 watt conventional incandescent puts out about 830 lumens. 11 lumens per watt
A 72 watt EcoVantage incandescent puts out about 1290 lumens. 17.9 lumens per watt.

I think that's how the 25% efficiency improvement is calculated.

(btw, if a bulb were 100% efficient in converting electricity to light, it would produce 683 lumens per watt).

The important point remains: If you don't like CFLs, and don't want to pay the price of LEDs, improved incandescents like the Philips EcoVantage are available. One more tool in the toolbox.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 09, 2012, 01:20:33 PM
The EcoVantage bulb represents a 25% reduction in energy usage over a 100W incandescent because it is only 72W. It is not 25% more efficient.

A 100W incandescent bulb puts out 1500 Lumens for an efficiency of 15 Lumens per watt.
A 72W EcoVantage bulb puts out 1250 Lumens for an efficiency of 17 Lumens per watt.

That's only an efficiency increase of about 13%.


Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens. Any real increase in efficiency is very little and just a marketing ploy.  I have some 15 watt CFL's that are rated at 1100 lumens. Five of them would use 75 watts and make 5500 lumens. How they can twist rules and call a 72 watt 1200 lumen bulb efficient is beyond me.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 09, 2012, 01:28:40 PM
Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens.

What brand and type were they?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 09, 2012, 02:39:56 PM
Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens.

What brand and type were they?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As I recall they were GE 750 hr bulbs. It has been some time ago.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 09, 2012, 05:58:48 PM
The EcoVantage bulb represents a 25% reduction in energy usage over a 100W incandescent because it is only 72W. It is not 25% more efficient.

A 100W incandescent bulb puts out 1500 Lumens for an efficiency of 15 Lumens per watt.
A 72W EcoVantage bulb puts out 1250 Lumens for an efficiency of 17 Lumens per watt.

That's only an efficiency increase of about 13%.


Here are the correct numbers:

100 W incandescent bulb at 1150 lumens outputs 11.5 L/W.
72W EcoVantage bult at 1250 luments output 17.4 L/W.

The efficiency increase is 51%.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 09, 2012, 06:46:46 PM
Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens.

What brand and type were they?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As I recall they were GE 750 hr bulbs. It has been some time ago.

With all due respect, I'd like to see packaging or a spec sheet. 1700 lumens from a 100 watt conventional incandescent doesn't jive with physics.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 09, 2012, 07:50:09 PM
Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens.

What brand and type were they?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As I recall they were GE 750 hr bulbs. It has been some time ago.

With all due respect, I'd like to see packaging or a spec sheet. 1700 lumens from a 100 watt conventional incandescent doesn't jive with physics.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Well it does jive completely. I have not bought any for years and used to used 150 watt bulbs in a barn and they were rated around 2400 lumens. I even had some 300 watt ones at one time.  Biggest bulbs of that type i have now still in package are some GE 60 watt lights rated at 880 lumens and 40 watt rated at 485 lumes. I know 100's were around 1650 to 1700.

Also even if you increased the efficiency of a incandescent 50%, going from 3 to 4.5% is nothing to brag about. (going from a 97 watt to a 95.5 watt heat big deal) High efficent replacement are dimmer than one they replaced.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 10, 2012, 05:33:19 AM
http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/100-watt-standard-shape-light-bulbs/

1000bulbs.com stocks 100 watt incandescent bulbs with life hours of 750 to 20,000. The light output varies from 950 to 1600 lumens.

Factoid: The life of a 100 watt bulb is inversely proportional to the 12th power of the RMS voltage.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 10, 2012, 10:29:45 AM
And visible light output is proportional to the 3.4 power of voltage.

To make a 120 volt, 750 hour bulb last 20,000 hours it needs to be run at 91 volts. The output will drop from 1600 to 630 Lumens.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 10, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
How do we procure a 100 watt, 91 volt bulb having a 20,000 hour life?  We use a 150 watt, 120 volt bulb having a 750 hour life.




Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 10, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
How do we procure a 100 watt, 91 volt bulb having a 20,000 hour life?  We use a 150 watt, 120 volt bulb having a 750 hour life.

I can remember many years ago buying some cheap long life 60w bulbs for drop lights. They were marked 130v not 120.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 11, 2012, 07:33:18 AM
Last 100 watt incandescent bulbs I had were about 1700 lumens not 1500 and a 75 watt was around 1200+ lumens.

What brand and type were they?

73 de Jim, N2EY

As I recall they were GE 750 hr bulbs. It has been some time ago.

With all due respect, I'd like to see packaging or a spec sheet. 1700 lumens from a 100 watt conventional incandescent doesn't jive with physics.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Well it does jive completely. I have not bought any for years and used to used 150 watt bulbs in a barn and they were rated around 2400 lumens. I even had some 300 watt ones at one time.  Biggest bulbs of that type i have now still in package are some GE 60 watt lights rated at 880 lumens and 40 watt rated at 485 lumes. I know 100's were around 1650 to 1700.

Let's do the math!

2400 lumens from 150 watts is 16 lumens per watt.

1700 lumens from 100 watts is 17 lumens per watt.

880 lumens from 60 watts is 14.66 lumens per watt

485 lumens from 40 watts is 12.125 lumens per watt

All else being equal, the efficiency of a conventional incandescent increases with wattage. It does not
 make sense that a 100 watter is more efficient than a 150 watter unless something else is going on.

One BIG difference is whether or not the bulb is frosted. Clear bulbs give more light - a clear-bulb
72 watt EcoVantage gives 1520 lumens, which is significantly more than the frosted version. Same for
conventional incandescents.


Also even if you increased the efficiency of a incandescent 50%, going from 3 to 4.5% is nothing to brag about. (going from a 97 watt to a 95.5 watt heat big deal) High efficent replacement are dimmer than one they replaced.

In my experience the replacements are not significantly dimmer.

The efficiency increase may not seem like much the way you present it, but when it comes to kilowatt-hours
it is very significant. Particularly if a bulb is used a lot.

And here's the bottom line:

You may remember 100 watters that gave 1650-1700 lumens and lasted 750 hours. Maybe they even existed.

But can you buy them now?

I stopped by Home Depot yesterday and the best I could find were 100 watters that gave 1530 lumens.
A 72 watt clear EcoVantage gives 1520 lumens. 28% savings in electricity for the same light. These
numbers are right off the packaging, not from memory.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 11, 2012, 08:51:34 AM
A frosted bulb is no less efficient than a clear bulb. The frosted material disperses rather than attenuates the light.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/standard-shape-light-bulbs/

100 watt, frosted, 5000 hour life, 950 Lumens
100 watt, clear, 5000 hour life, 950 lumens

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the EcoAdvantage more efficient than a conventional incandescent? It is a halogen bulb and the filament runs at a hotter temperature. The gas in the bulb causes the evaporated filament material to condense back onto the filament thereby extending the life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also that because the EcoAdvantage is classified as a 75 watt bulb, rather than a 100 watt bulb, under law it has one more year before it must exit the U.S. market.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 11, 2012, 11:40:38 AM
A frosted bulb is no less efficient than a clear bulb. The frosted material disperses rather than attenuates the light.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/standard-shape-light-bulbs/

100 watt, frosted, 5000 hour life, 950 Lumens
100 watt, clear, 5000 hour life, 950 lumens

For those particular bulbs, maybe.

But check some other types and you'll see that the rated lumens of the clear versions are considerably higher.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is the EcoAdvantage more efficient than a conventional incandescent? It is a halogen bulb and the filament runs at a hotter temperature. The gas in the bulb causes the evaporated filament material to condense back onto the filament thereby extending the life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also that because the EcoAdvantage is classified as a 75 watt bulb, rather than a 100 watt bulb, under law it has one more year before it must exit the U.S. market.

I don't think that's true.

The law does not outlaw incandescents. What it does is set standards for efficiency for certain size bulbs which conventional incandescents can't meet = but halogens like EcoVantage can.

They will not be outlawed unless a new law is passed.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: KH6AQ on October 11, 2012, 11:55:24 AM
N2EY, you are correct on the bulb law. It is efficiency that the new rules dictate. Here is a link to the California rules:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lightbulbs/lightbulb_faqs.html

Here's a pamphlet from G.E. Lighting:

http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/emea/images/Guide_to_changing_to_energy_efficient_lamps_Brochure_EN_tcm181-12666.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is something on frosted bulbs. It turns out frosted bulbs have the same efficiency as clear bulbs. Perhaps you're thinking of "soft white" bulbs that do have an absorptive coating.

http://askville.amazon.com/difference-Frosted-Clear-Incandescent-Light-Bulbs-color/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=36446112

"There is no difference between the two types of bulbs other than the interior surface of the globe.  The construction of the filament and base are identical.

Some frosted bulbs use a white pigmented coating on the inside to change the color of the light and give it a more uniform dispersion.  In doing so, they reduce the effective light output somewhat, depending on the type of coating used.  These are usually called "Soft White" as opposed to "Standard."  The standard frosted bulb uses a ground-glass surface on the bulb's interior, which scatters the light, but does not absorb it and re-radiate it as heat.  As such, standard bulbs are a little better suited to completely enclosed fixtures, while soft white bulbs give a more pleasing light in recessed fixtures or in lamps where the bulb is exposed."




Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 11, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
To WX7G,

I don't doubt your reference.

But, next time you're in Home Depot, Lowes, or someplace similar that has lots of lightbulb choices, check out the different lumen ratings on clear vs. frosted bulbs. Or check online.

Maybe it's the "soft white" thing. If one compares a clear bulb of one technology with the soft-white of a different one, the results can be skewed.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 11, 2012, 08:04:41 PM
I was at Walmart and they have 100 watt replacement bulbs that use 72 watts and make 1490 lumens. They look like standard bulbs but they are halogen inside.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 12, 2012, 06:38:14 AM
I was at Walmart and they have 100 watt replacement bulbs that use 72 watts and make 1490 lumens. They look like standard bulbs but they are halogen inside.

That's what Philips EcoVantage are. Of course other manufacturers use the same idea. I notice that the price has come down.

By putting the halogen capsule inside a regular A19 bulb, you get a bulb that looks and behaves like a conventional incandescent, but is efficient enough to meet the new regulations. Pays for itself in electricity saved - and then some.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 12, 2012, 09:06:37 AM
I was at Walmart and they have 100 watt replacement bulbs that use 72 watts and make 1490 lumens. They look like standard bulbs but they are halogen inside.

That's what Philips EcoVantage are. Of course other manufacturers use the same idea. I notice that the price has come down.

By putting the halogen capsule inside a regular A19 bulb, you get a bulb that looks and behaves like a conventional incandescent, but is efficient enough to meet the new regulations. Pays for itself in electricity saved - and then some.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Still pails compared to a CFL that will beat it in lumens using 26 watts.


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: N2EY on October 12, 2012, 10:21:48 AM
Still pails compared to a CFL that will beat it in lumens using 26 watts.

I agree 100%! And the CFL pales compared to an LED that will do it using 5 watts.

The only reason I brought it up is that there are applications where a CFL or LED isn't a good choice. And there are folks who, for various reasons, can't/won't use CFLs or LEDs.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Title: RE: Flourescent or Incadescant?
Post by: W8JX on October 12, 2012, 10:33:47 AM
Still pails compared to a CFL that will beat it in lumens using 26 watts.

I agree 100%! And the CFL pales compared to an LED that will do it using 5 watts.

The only reason I brought it up is that there are applications where a CFL or LED isn't a good choice. And there are folks who, for various reasons, can't/won't use CFLs or LEDs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually LED has no big efficiency edge on a modern CFL today, maybe some day though.