BS: Replacements for incandescent lights

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Gurney
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 10:32 PM

I started work in a factory that was 5 years old. From 6 to 8 years from new we had to replace many of the strip lighting tubes.
Looked like a bell-shaped curve to me. I wonder how the new mini floros will last. They are not doing too well for me so far, some crapped out quite early, possibly because, like strip lighting, they don't much like being switched on and off too much.

Foolstroupe may have the best idea in uplighting, because distance seems to make a difference to me. I get headaches in my workshop, with strip-lighting just above my head, but not in a factory, where it is several metres up.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Grab
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 09:36 PM

Since LED lights aren't generally available yet, the dimmer manufacturers are mostly justified in that statement! :-)

LEDs are low voltage devices, sure. So they'll use multiple LEDs in series to make the voltage up, or use a transformer to drop the voltage.

The behaviour of a LED-plus-resistor combination is that it does nothing at lower voltages, then it starts conducting and lighting. With the resistor in there, as the voltage rises above that break-point, the light level increases. That means there'll always be a portion of the sine-wave where the LEDs do nothing. When the steps in your dimmer coincide with this region, the dimmer won't have any effect, because the LEDs won't light anyway. But the steps in the dimmer which *do* coincide with the LED being on will dim the LED as normal. So as I said, the worst-case is that the dimmer steps aren't the same as before.

This is assuming they don't try anything fancy with the LEDs. It would be easily possible to make up a circuit which compensates for voltage fluctuations and so on by converting the AC to DC and regulating it- in that case, a dimmer wouldn't work. This circuit would be less efficient though and for no real gain, so I can't see this happening when LEDs get into mainstream use.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:11 PM

Dimmable fluorescent lights were used beginning ca. 1970 in some places, most notably in a couple of airplanes for area lighting in the passenger compartment. These required a completely different kind of tube, however, and an external high frequency and high voltage power supply for each bulb. The high frequency was to make it easier to get the high voltage, and the essentially RF frequency could be modulated (PWM?) to change the current through the tubes/bulbs.

I haven't seen specs on how they're being built, but the guess is that the "modern" low energy bulbs use the same principles. The base contains a small frequency/voltage converter that's actually applying a couple of hundred(?) volts inside the tube, probably at some higher frequency like perhaps 400 Hz(?). The absence of a separate "starter" - required with old-fashioned long tube fluorescents - implies at least that something inside the bulb is working in much different manner.

When we moved into our current home, we found that the previous owners had "decorated with lighting" so that we needed 11 different kinds of bulbs to keep all the installed fixtures working. In two cases I've actually replaced fixtures to get rid of the more exotic kinds, and in most of the rest of the place I've just "uglified" things by using less fancy bulbs. With the exception of a set of yard lights, a couple of halogen floor lamps, and about four desk lamps (that will eventually get converted) I've been using the plug-in low power lamps everywhere that incandescent bulbs were installed for at least the last 4 or 5 years.

I could brag that replacing all the light bulbs saved us tremendous amounts on our electric bills, but I'd have to figure out how much of that was due to the hot tub breakdown. I had already calculated that the tub was costing us "more than $150/month" if we turned it on, so I wasn't too sorry when it became "unfixable."

We have found that the new bulbs do not give the impression of lighting things as well as the "equivalent" incandescent bulb, but since a "100W-equivalent" bulb only uses 47W actual, I've considered it safe to replace in 60W rated fixtures with "100W-equivalent" bulbs and with that conversion the apparent lighting is much the same, perhaps a little "softer," still with some reduction in power usage.

The new-style bulbs do last somewhat longer than incandescents, but the claims on the package are somewhat optimistic. I'm not sure that the savings on energy consumed and on bulb replacements would be much better than "break-even" if the new bulbs are bought singly at common retail outlets, but there is a definite $aving$ if bought in small bulk quantities at the bulk outlets (Sams/Costco) or in bulk packages at the lumber yard (Home Depot/Lowes).

Some of the replacement bulbs carry a warning that they should be used only in "base down" applications, although this warning doesn't appear on most newer kinds. There does seem to be a slight reduction in bulb life, at least for some, if used in "odd angle locations." This might be something to watch for on the packaging if buying a large bunch of them for general replacement.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Greg B
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 02:13 PM

McGrath, the 'standard' CFs won't work with dimmers.

Apparently LED bulbs will though I'm a bit dubious given
that LEDs are low-voltage devices and not real linear in their
response.

Here in the US the dimmable CF bulbs are still not available
readily at retail outlets.

I use 4 CF 60-watt equivalents in each of my bathrooms. I rather
like the fact they don't come up to full brightness for about
30 seconds. Less shock factor at night or first thing in the
morning. Lots of saving in those high-wattage rooms, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:50 PM

here are dimmers and bulbs that can cope together - that's what I'd heard. But "Any dimmer switch will work with LEDs" is a bit different.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Mr Red
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:37 PM

Flourescent strip lights have more than 50% modulation at 100 (120) Hz and fairly peaky. Tungsten is nearer 20 and pretty sinusoidal at that (the square of sine wave is "1+cos" which is still a sinewave).

The energy saving bulbs have their own higher frequency circuit but I am not sure what kind of electronics they use. As far as I can tell there is no hint of flicker in peripheral vision. Peripheral vision evolved to be fast and vague to watch for danger hence you see flicker more out of the corner of your eye.

Another factor that can have an effect (and effect by association) is the colour or more specifically the spectrum. Tungsten looks more yellow because the spectrum is biased in the red and infra-red region. Flouresents have specific lines at the colours of phosphor mix. And nature and cost dictate a lot of that.

There are dimmers and bulbs that can cope together but we are back to cost again.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:26 PM

"Any dimmer switch will work with LEDs "

All the low energy bulbs I've seen have a notice on the box saying not suitable for using with dimmer switches, and I keep on finding stuff on teh web saying stuff like "Low energy lamps cannot normally be used with dimmer switches" - so I've never tried using them, in case something drastic happens.

So what's the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Kaleea
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 01:07 PM

Um, this may seem like a dumb question, but here goes: If the original Edison light bulbs are still working in museums, is it possible for someone to make light bubls in their own home/workshop & use them?
Nest dumb question: do the little light bulbs in the solar garden/yard type lights bother people, too? They seem to all use reflective stuff around them to increase the output of light, but very low watt bulbs.
Irony of life: the local power company is recommending that everybody run right out & buy the new powersaving bulbs (which made me immediately become suspicious), but the local gov't. is threatening to ban them. Funny thing is, the tv station I was watching tell about this (some months back) said nothing about the mercury.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Peace
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:54 PM

Here's hopin' . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Grab
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:25 PM

Greg, LEDs are the easiest thing in the world to dim. Any dimmer switch will work with LEDs - the worst that can happen is that the dimming "steps" aren't quite the same.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: maeve
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:01 AM

Just as a matter of interest:

Electromagnetic radiation/ Full spectrum lighting    (Scroll down about 2/3 )

Kids & fluorescent lighting


maeve

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Bee
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:00 AM

I've never liked halogen indoor lights - too hot, too many fires started by them. I also found they don't make good task lighting if you are trying to do very delicate handwork that requires close eye work and concentration. They seem to cast innumerable minute shadows.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 07:59 AM

We're using a mix of both types of bulb right now. I've put the low energy bulbs where we use the lighting most of the time and where the light stays on for a while once it's switched on. The incandescents that we have left are used where the light might be on for just a minute or two as I have heard (true or not) that you can drastically shorten the life of the low energies by switching them on and off too fast and too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 06:52 AM

"dim a bulb down to about half its usual brightness you
end up using less than half the power"

Actually the square law applies...



"I have rather assumed that cheaper dimmer switch versions will have to come out before the old style bulbs can be eliminated. What's happened in Australia in that direction?"

Dimmable CFLs are now available in the Supermarkets - not much more so that undimmable ones. Only in the standard BC/ES fittings though.

You can get a 'PAR38' equivalent CFL.

Trying to find odd shaped lights for fitting that depend on the bulb shape, or small size ones is difficult, and the very small physical sizes cannot be found at all.

~~~~~~
"Considering that lighting is a small part of the average household's energy use, I believe the ban on incandescent light bulbs is a typical move by the Envionmentalists who feel they have the right to tell others what to do."

Actually I can tell you EXACTLY what happened - and I'm NOT making this up - Little Fascist Johnny and his Mad Mates here in Oz started the stupidity - World First! Intended as a distraction from the refusal to ratify Kyoto! As well as pretending to have an 'environmental policy'!

A local Electronics Magazine did a big expose on all the serious flaws in the scheme - including the fact that CFLs take more energy and greenhouse gas to manufacture! A list of applications for which CFLs cannot work, include Theatre Lighting, hot and cold places - fridges, stoves etc, vibration, such as cars, etc. In 'industrial lighting situations' huge discharge lamps (2KW to 5KW each) are used. 500 watt halogen strips are used in a lot of 'domestic spotlight' type outdoor lighting - as well as small carparks! no CFL equivalents exist for these application - total replacement of fittings is needed.

Actually you can get LED plugins that fit into standard halogen downlight fittings - but they are still pricey - the do have the advantage of less heat as well - many house fires are caused by halogen downlight fittings - beside which you can't seal the room - you have to have ventilation thru many of these type fittings up to the ceiling!

Interesting the comments about migraines - must forward that to them!

Actually I have used them since the first Phillips huge sized ones appeared - about AUD$20 ea! When expired, the outer glass cases made wonderful tea light holders!

You CAN find different 'temperature ratings' - but one of the 'cheap chains' here brought in a massive quantity of 'blue' ones - didn't sell many! :-)

Actually halogens are normally very wasteful energy wise. for a single '50Watt' - you need about 62 watts - each light has a separate transformer (or switchmode converter) hidden in the ceiling!

I personally prefer reflected light rather than harsh downlighting - I have white ceilings.

But I do have 2 10W halogen 'garden fittings' that are positioned in my 'computer desk' - which is a 3 ft square cubicle built from bolt together shelves with some sheet metal. Directional and not too bright.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: open mike
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 09:00 PM

here are some sites for the lava lamp or lava lite
http://www.syddware.com/lavalamps/
http://www.lavaworld.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: sneeble
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:32 PM

Ironically I have two 6 ft fluorescent tubes hanging over a large fish tank. One is 8500 kelvin and the other is 4500 kelvin, the two are shielded because of the glare. The ambient light bouncing off the tank is enough to light up a large open plan lounge. All other lighting is pretty much redundant. We do have fluorescent tubing accent lighting throughout the house and I now fully understand the usefulness of pelmets. I too are irritated by CF bulbs and refuse to install them in my office, the refresh rate of my monitor and the refresh rate of the bulbs constantly clash, creating havoc on the brain and eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:31 PM

I have rather assumed that cheaper dimmer switch versions will have to come out before the old style bulbs can be eliminated.

What's happened in Australia in that direction?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:12 PM

Was living in a place where electricity was outrageously expensive. Tried a few 'energy saver' bulbs. They did save energy. Also couldn't see a fu#kin' thing, but they saved energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: GUEST,The black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 06:44 PM

Well as far as we can tell the latest low energy bulbs are much better from the migraine point of view, but the "colour temperature" of them is such that they are unpleasant until they have warmed up for a few minutes.

I still don't think there will be a low energy option for my Astra lamp (later marketed as laval lamps):)

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: pdq
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:56 PM

Yep. Watt's a mother to do?

BTW, some posts seem to imply that compact flourescent bulbs contain mercury and regular ones do not. This is not true. The basic principle of the flourescent light is that mercury will vaporize at low temperatures and conduct electricity through that vapor (to arc).

Considering that lighting is a small part of the average household's energy use, I believe the ban on incandescent light bulbs is a typical move by the Envionmentalists who feel they have the right to tell others what to do. A properly designed modern house can use electricity to power pumps, fan, lights and various appliances. The trick is to have heating (including water) and cooling done by solar and various heat exchange methods, not by gas. Certainly not by electricity.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Greg B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:30 PM

You also have to consider the waste in the switchover. I have
a cupboard full of disused incandescent bulbs. If I throw them
away, then I'm wasting the remaining life and the energy it
took to make them. If I give them to someone else, then that
person will burn up watts with them.

Watts to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:14 PM

Mark Jaccard, a Professor of Environmental studies and energy economist,
here in Canada, did a study on cf bulbs - and being keen on doing his bit- switched over all his lights.

At the time the cf bulbs were quite a bit more pricey so he worked out that he would just about break even in several years. But he managed to break one getting out of the car (so much for breaking even)- then the kids knocked over a couple of lights, and then he found they gradually disappeared and his wife admitted she hated the lights from the bulbs and they ended up being mostly filed away in drawers.

The only problem with energy efficient appliances is that they are effective if people dont end up using more energy. ie. get a new fridge but put the old one in the basement and get a wine cooler or a water cooler. Big Screen tvs, more track lighting etc..

But they are planning to implement this in AUstralia and Canada too.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:09 PM

When the oil runs out we'll all be watching TV by candlelight anyway....

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Greg B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:21 PM

One issue with compact fluorescents, and probably LEDs of the future,
is that they can't be dimmed in the conventional manner, at least
not run-of-the-mill ones, with the inexpensive dimmers that
mount in the walls.

There do exist dim-able CFs, but they are many times more expensive
than standard ones, and not readily available in shops.

If you dim a bulb down to about half its usual brightness you
end up using less than half the power and also extend the life
of the bulb greatly.

So while energy-saving bulbs are great in many applications, it
is short-sighted to forcibly 'ban' incandescents. They have their
uses.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: EBarnacle
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:57 AM

I have been having discussions with my local sanitation department about disposing of flourescent bulbs of all sizes. The recycling people wont take it and the regular trash people just take anything that is in the bin. The answer I have been getting is that they are not equipped to deal with toxic waste and that the people in our area should take their flourescents to the once every three months recycling days. Somehow, I do not see that happening. As a result, mercury is getting into the waste stream. Also batteries of all descriptions.

Those of you suffering from headaches and similar problems from the bulbs should consider getting a complete neurological examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Metchosin
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:53 AM

I'm a fan of LEDs too Grab. I made myself a white LED headlamp about five years ago, using the housing from an incandescent headlamp that I picked up in a thrift store. We also use LED lights to illuminate the countertops in the kitchen as a backup during power outages.

They have really come down in price in the past couple of years and a 5 LED puck light with batteries can now be purchased in Canada for under $5.00, but the white LED bulbs that can be retrofitted into incandescent circuits are still way too pricey to make any economic sense and they are still better suited to task lighting because they are so directional. If the price comes down, the first place I'd consider using them would be in the halogen track lighting in the office here. The halogens really pump out the heat in the summer.

I'm prone to migraines, but but like Bee, I have not found that the CF bulbs have caused me any problems. I rather like the light they produce. A far cry from the old overhead flickering flourescent lighting of bygone years. The light from the computer monitor probably bothers me more than CFs do.

What I do note though is that the compact CFs are less useful in situations where you only need the light briefly, such as storage rooms. They take a few minutes to come up to full brightness, by which time I've turned it off again. So I'll keep the incandescents in those situations until I'm no longer allowed to purchase and use them. Also the mini CFs won't fit into the overhead fixtures in our kitchen either, so when they ban incandescents here, we're going to have to spring for new fixtures and all the energy saving that that will entail.

Because we use electric heat, I'm not convinced CFs save us any money, particularly in the winter. Whether the heat for a room is coming from an incandescent bulb or a baseboard heater, makes no difference, its all cumulative. I probably could save more in power consumption by unplugging the cell phone charger and other charging devices, when not in use or turning off the computers at night.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Grab
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 09:45 AM

What do you replace them with if you get migraine headaches from flourescent light bulbs/strips?

Hopefully LEDs, although they've yet to come into serious use in house lighting. Only a matter of time though, and maybe the idea of announcing this phase-out in advance is to try and kickstart that. Or there's halogens, which are not as good as LEDs/fluorescents but are still an improvement over regular incandescents.

As far as vehicles go, LEDs are already used in practically all new cars. Upper brakelights have been LED since they were first introduced, main brakelights are now mostly LED, and indicators are often LED too. The only thing yet to be LED-ised are headlights, and those are available now if you want them - or you can use halogen headlights. (Or gas-discharge if you're a Pimp-My-Ride type. ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Bee
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 09:44 AM

The compact fluorescent bulbs do heat up, just not as much as incandescents. The savings for me are in the long life of the bulbs. I was replacing my kitchen bulbs as often as once a month (dark kitchen, plus frequent power fluctuations, I think). The CF bulbs have been in place for two years.

Most lights have shades of some sort. Fluorescent tube lighting has bothered me in the past, but the CF bulbs don't seem to have any effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 09:08 AM

I think that this is something that hasn't yet been thought through.

How is the government going to dispose of the mercury? Each CF bulb contain a minute amount, and you can't just toss them into a landfill (a/k/a dump or tip). After they extract the mercury, how do they plan to dispose of THAT? You can't just dump it into the ocean.

We use CF bulbs here at home, and take them to the hazmat disposal site when they burn out.

Regular tubular fluorscent bulbs, by the way, do not contain mercury. At least the newer ones don't.

Now if we were all to be irradiated we wouldn't need lights....

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: maeve
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:46 AM

All fluorescent lights give me violent migraines, as do strobe or very bright incandescent lights (glare). I have less trouble when my eyes are shielded from direct exposure; wearing sunglasses, or a hat with a brim, but have found nothing of the sort to completely forstall the migraine reaction.

The spiral compact bulbs are often shielded by a lamp shade, which may be helpful for most sufferers. There are some filters that are helpful for some people; none so far do me much good. Full spectrum/natural light types are usually less of a problem.

Fluorescents have been known to trigger headaches and behavioral problems for children, too, and many schools have replaced the lights with natural sunlight, area (incandescent) lighting, etc.

I would suggest that anyone who has trouble with the fluorescent lights may wish to experiment, and keep records as to your personal reaction to different kinds of lighting.

Regards,

maeve

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:43 AM

In UK, we usually have heating on when lights are in use.
The thermostat will simply replace all the heat expensively saved by the low energy lamp.

Subject: RE: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:28 AM

Do low energy bulbs trouble her in the same way? The reason I ask is that ordinary mains-driven fluorescent tubes flicker 100 times per second (120 in America), fast enough not to be visible but still discomforting to the few who unfortunately are sensitive to it. Compact fluorescents on the other hand flicker several thousand times a second, if at all, so shouldn't have the same effect.

I shall stock up with tungsten filament bulbs myself though, as my home is copiously equipped with dimmer switches, and present-day low energy bulbs aren't compatible with them. My lounge is also lit by a set of rather fancy globes, which look at their best with clear rather than frosted bulbs.

Subject: BS: Replacements for incandescent lights
From: GUEST,The black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:29 AM

The Government(UK) has stated that incandescent light bulbs will be phased out in the next four years. What do you replace them with if you get migraine headaches from flourescent light bulbs/strips?
My wife does, so I expect that we will have to stock pile a lifetime's supply of filament bulbs before they disappear.

Also, can you get low energy bulbs in all the different sizes and shapes that are needed to fit in some of these odd light fittings?

And what about my 1970s "Astra lamp" that needs the heat as well as the light, also coal effect electric fires that do the same etc.?

I presume that this does not apply to vehicles?