Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Flourescent or Incadescant?  (Read 24695 times)
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6197




Ignore
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3909




Ignore
« Reply #33 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
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6431




Ignore
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
W9GB
Member

Posts: 2648




Ignore
« Reply #35 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
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 05:15:14 PM by W9GB » Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3909




Ignore
« Reply #36 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
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12979




Ignore
« Reply #37 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.  Grin

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.

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6431




Ignore
« Reply #38 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.  Grin

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.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
K2QB
Member

Posts: 110




Ignore
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6197




Ignore
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12979




Ignore
« Reply #41 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%.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3909




Ignore
« Reply #42 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
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6431




Ignore
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3909




Ignore
« Reply #44 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
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!