 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A Better Lightbulb?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: VirginiaTam Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:26 PM CFLs Compact fluorescent light bulbs are possibly not the better light bulb they were purported to be. Particularly interesting is the carbon footprint of its manufacture and shipping. Most distressing is the mercury poisoning of thousands of Chinese factory workers making these energy efficient bulbs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: gnu Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM Mess up with one of these and you could lose your arm... or more. Plus, what about peeps that have migranes brought on by fluorescent light bulbs? Plus, the life cycle energy costs of these is quite suspect. But, the Canuck government has seen fit to ban "regular" bulbs in a few years. Ididots. I have been stocking up on regular bulbs which are selling rather cheaply these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: MarkS Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:13 PM We used to light the barn with 8 regular 100 watt bulbs - that is 800 watts of power, multiply by time and that is used to calculate your electric bill. We now use 8 new bulbs, 24 watts each, for a total of 192 watts, and have seen a reduction in our electric usage as reported by the power company. Illumination is about the same as far as I am concerned, and the animals have not complained a bit. Sure, there can be unintended side effects, but was not that also said about newfangled standard bulbs when they replaced kerosene and coal oil lamps? Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:04 PM I don't care for the compact flourescents one bit...don't like the kind of light they give...and I will continue to use the old style bulbs as long as I possibly can...but I do use a few flourescents in certain locations where I don't have to be under their unpleasant light for very long. The long lifetime they are advertising for the flourescents is highly exaggerated, by the way, if I can go by the ones I've used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bill D Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:51 PM I have a couple which are more then 5 years old...and I have 90 of my fixtures with them so far...including several of the new dimmible ones. I'd really like to KNOW what the trade offs are, because energy savings are clear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: mg Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM The tradeoffs are in health from mercury poisoning supposedly...read the instructions for if you break one. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Amos Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:25 PM Hell, switch to compact LED lights--you get truer light without the buzzy sensation, less watts per candlepower. 'S all good. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: open mike Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:12 AM I posted a link to a report about "dirty electricity" caused by CFL bulbs...and will try to find the link to post here.. An electrician recently installed a reostat (dimmer switch) but cautioned that floursecent bulbs could not be used with it, but that incandescent bulbs were needed in that fixture. the magnetic fields produced by "dirty electricity" can have negative health effects...on diabetics, MS patients , Asthmatics,, and others. "high frequency transients" are what these electrical "spikes" are called http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/08_Havas_Diabetes_EBM.pdf Swiss health officials are recommending that people stay at least 30 centimetres away from energy-saving light bulbs, over electrosmog concerns. *Study warns of green light bulb 'Electrosmog'* http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Study_warns_of_green_light_bulb_electrosmog_.html?cid=8584642 LED bulbs are said to be better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: VirginiaTam Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:46 AM Blast... I ordered a Tin Tube Portable Light Box from Amazon just before reading this report. Desperate attempt to combat the SADS I know I am going to suffer this fall and winter. Now what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:35 AM We stocked up with old 100 watt bulbs - and can still buy them locally! The new ones are useless - carbon footprint my arse!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: mandotim Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:41 AM Gladly, Bonzo. Bend over please, while I fetch my graphite boots... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: AllisonA(Animaterra) Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:42 AM We use candles more and more... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:17 AM Candles? Technology marches backwards? There is all sorts of new technology about the CFCs. There ARE dimmible types...several types, in fact. more info, and Google will get lots more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: open mike Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM hmmm-the dimmable ones sound like they have some improvements Our Compact Fluorescents use Amalgam rather than Liquid Mercury. Our Compact Fluorescent's use amalgam for three very important reasons: 1) This allows all of our Compact Fluorescent's to be used in totally enclosed fixtures. 2) The use of amalgam eliminates the environmental concern regarding disposal of Compact Fluorescent's. The mercury used in the lamps is entirely contained inside the almalgam alloy and does not escape when the lamp is destroyed or disposed of. This makes the lamp safer to handle than conventional Compact Fluorescents. 3) Amalgam technology maintains light output in extreme temperatures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:24 PM Information on LED lightbulbs. Buying guide to LED bulbs. Incandescent bulbs (40W) produce 14 lumens per watt. CFL bulbs produce 61 lumens per watt. LED bulbs produce 57 lumens per watt, but with a life cycle on the order of 50,000 hours. In a recessed fixture in a cieling, a CFL will lose 40% of its light reflecting it back to the cieling, while an LED bulb will deliver all 57 lumens per watt downward. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: VirginiaTam Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:49 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhiZCaI5N50 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Wesley S Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:03 PM We've stayed away from fluorescent bulbs for quite some time. They tend to put a lot of autistic people into a daze. There is even some talk that fluorescent bulbs in a hospital nursery can be one contributing factor toward causing autism in some children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:57 PM Can anyone point to high output low wattace LED bulbs that fit car rear light fittings - they would be very useful in a caravan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:14 PM They can have my incandescent bulbs when they pry them form my cold dead fingers." Just kidding. I use them and I seek out the warmer ones with the lower K number, not the bluish ones with the higher K number. The warmer ones are even warmer than the standard incandescent bulbs. They are selling them up to 100 watts at Wal Mart for $.92, subsidized by BG&E. I have been throwing my old flashlights in the trash and replacing them with LED flashlights. Anything you buy is not going to be made in the US anyway. No matter if you buy it a Target, Sears, Ace Hardware Etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:53 PM Can anyone point to high output low wattace LED bulbs that fit car rear light fittings - they would be very useful in a caravan. LED rear lights are widely used on US autos, but I haven't seen "bulbs" that can be used as direct replacements for original incandescant bulbs. The most common use is for the "high mounted brake light" mandated a few years ago. Typical assemblies use 30 or more individual LED "lenses" and replacement is specified when something like 30% of the individual lens elements burn out. (It appears that nobody ever actually replaces one.) Casual observation (from the number of missing dots on vehicles ahead in traffic) suggests that about half of cars 4 or more years old should have their light units replaced, so the "forever" life claims are unrealistic. On my 1975 Astro, worn out and discarded about a year ago, a replacement "top tail/brake light" had a list price of approximately $198 (US), and the only way to fix one was by replacement of the entire unit. So far as I found, there are no "after market" suppliers, as demand is low, so only OEM units specific to the particular vehicle are generally available. There are a few "LED marker lights" on display at nearby truck stops, and both red and yellow units are to be found. The entire "unit" must be replaced, not just a "bulb," and although the "marker light" mounting is fairly generic, lens/unit shapes do vary some so it may be difficult to exactly match a set installed at a first conversion to LEDs when one or a few need replacement. I haven't noticed any with the dual taillight/brakelight function. Achieving the lumen output mandated for brake lights generally requires a minimum of 20 or more individual LEDs in the unit, and the customary side/rear marker size and form factor limits these units to about 9 elements. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:23 PM For now I will limit my LED use to flashlights and headbands, where they are truly wonderful. I cannot afford to set up any major 'home' system with them. (Maybe one of those hidden under-counter plug-in strips one day) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 Sep 10 - 05:03 PM We have found a specific defect in "headlights" using LEDs. At the Winfield (WVA) Festival, all "vehicles" moving around the campground at night are required to have head and tail lights. Since virtually no "mobility scooters," and relatively few golf carts, are "natively equipped" there is a need for small light units that can be temporarily (but securely) mounted to meet the requirement. Having tried more than a dozen mostly deficient "installations" on our mobility transports, I've noticed that NO LED LIGHT among a dozen I've tried permits distinguishing between wet grass and standing water in a mud puddle. The reflectivity of both, for available LED wavelenghts is identically zero so you can't tell which you're approaching. Since mobility scooters can usually pass through wet grass fairly safely, but are PERMANENTLY DEAD if the controller (invariably mounted beneath the floorplate) gets any liquid water on/in it, this becomes a very important factor in what's an acceptable headlight. Two years ago, I bought an $800 "emergency replacement" for LiK's scooter (used and with broken parts, original list $1280), when she hit an inch of water in a puddle. After two years of searching I think I've found a source for a replacement controller, but some additional research on details is still needed. (It was a better scooter, so repair may be merited. There has also been a recent report on a common hazard from LED devices. In order to produce the "white light" desired, or even some red beams, the usual method involves producing of "invisible IR" or sometimes UV light to "pump" the visible red and/or "white" lasers. Specifications for blocking the UV side emissions from the "output laser" generally have been followed by manufacturers, but a significant number of "low cost" devices have been found in which no IR or far UV filter appropriate to the "pumping laser" was included. The "pump" emissions are at a level that can fry your retina and cause permanent damage to your vision. This latter problem probably wouldn't apply to one of the $150 headlights being seen occasionally now (he says, optimistically believing in the NHTSA), but the adspeak doesn't clearly indicate spectral outputs adequately to assess whether the water/grass (and other features one might want to distinguish) contrast is really satisfactory. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:33 PM JiK Having just acquired some push bikes - one a folding for portability for me and a similar one for a friend, and one a refurbished old 18 speed for more general use, I have been investigating small lighting units. When a kid, you just got a 'dynamo' and a head and tail light set that used incandescents - man, you could FEEL the load... :-) can't find them now - but there are tiny expensive 'hub dynos' that use the newer far more powerful magnets and work well with LED headlights - but the prices are high - not as high as what you quote though... Far more common here are battery led units at $20-30 - I have one that claims "half-watt" (you can get more expensive ones - and even nastier cheaper ones for $5-10) each for headlights (using a couple of AA or even AAA cells) - and $3-5 for tail lights using a tiny watch battery. Both types usually have a steady and flashing setting. From experience, I think they are more intended, even the 'headlights' to let cars know that 'something is there' and perhaps not run you over, rather than the rider actually seeing what is on the road... :-) But perhaps you might like to investigate - the only hassle is that they are mostly all cheap nasty plastic, and they usually tend to fall off or break the cheap nasty plastic mounting brackets if you sneeze.... I wondered if the lack of visual discrimination with LED types is related to the fact that there is no continuous spectrum as per incandescents (hot body radiation) but a 'sampling' of a few wavelengths that the eye pretends is 'white'. Have you tried looking at those expensive headlights from expensive cars that use HID units? Heavy and big drain I think. How about a couple of 'Dolphin torches' - they use a 6V square battery - you can even get those with multiple LED heads now. Would need to work our some way of attaching them though. There used to be a cute little torch that used those batteries that had a high power bulb and a 'grain of wheat' style bulb that ou could switch between - mine broke - and with a bit of clever painting and card positioning, you could use it as a 'boat light' - colored nav lights or a white mooring light. :-) Our Auto Design Regs (ADR) prohibit one from using on the road - packaged labeled 'only showroom use' or similar LEDS - any aftermarket tail or flasher LEDS bulbs unless they have been approved - because the direction of the light output is very different from the original incandescents that the fittings were designed for. Another thought - a wrecker yard may yield the auto headlamp reflectors that take the 55Watt H style lamps that may fit inside a coffee tin or cake tin - perhaps not pretty, but functional, if heavy drain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM With regard to the wet grass reflectivity problem, would having more than one source angled in to focus on the area be any improvement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:41 PM Another thought - have you seen those small neon style tubes - used in 'pimp-mobiles' !!!! that are aftermarket 'improvements' - mount them under your car to impress friends, etc? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:32 AM A problem with the lights for "small vehicles" at the festival is that Winfield Kansas is a small town, with virtually no "resource" other than MalWart, one small hardware, and a lumber yard with "essentials only." Even extended searches in Ark City and Wichita though found little other than the same "bicycle stuff" as at the Winfield Wally, and a slightly extended selection of automotive lights. The golf carts, with 6 automotive size 6 volt batteries can tap off 12 volts to run auto type lights, so it's not too much of a problem to add on sufficient stuff to get by. The mobility scooters generally use two series 12v batteries. They're connected, and charged, in series with no accessible tap point without cutting holes in the battery pack. At 10 to 12 Amp Hour, they're so small that running even a single automotive "parking lamp" bulb would unbalance the batteries to the point of "sudden death" at the next recharge unless you also jury-rigged to parallel them for charging. Gel-Cell batteries are almost universal, with a "form factor" that makes it difficult to replace with something else, and a replacement (list) cost of >$120 US per battery makes it unwise to place any additional burden on them. I've tried adding a separate motorcylce battery in the 12 AH range, but even a single "parking light" bulb drains the battery in a couple of hours - usable; but recharging takes a few hours if you stay within battery ratings. "Bicycle lights" available, e.g. at Wallies, are all made to clip onto specific bicycle parts, none of which are similar to anything on a scooter. There are virtually none with other than self-contained batteries. The tail lights are nearly all LEDs, and those are generally okay if you can figure out a way to mount one. Most of those made to clip onto a headband can be made to clip onto the piece of sewer pipe I attached to LiK's scooter to carry her walkin' cane, or the similar one I put on mine for my quarter-staff; but the scooter modification would be a bit "exotic" for most of those faced with the problem and for most of the lights you have to "break the clip" (called a minor modification) to make it work. At present, for headlights, both of our scooters are equipped with "cop shop" style flashlights (3 D cells with halogen bulbs) attached to the arm rests with mini-bungee cords. The focusable beam allows for a spread beam that doesn't quite blind the pedestrians, although with a tighter focus one can "freeze the Quite a few people just operate without the mandated lights; and few if any appear to have been ticketed by the gendarmarie although a few have been stopped and scolded; but I find compliance with the advertised rules preferable - - even if it's only via a "token observance." As a side note: Walmart has sold only Schwinn accessories for several years. About a year ago they bought the Schwinn name, and existing Schwinn dealers were told to take down their signs, and that they are no longer Schwinn dealers. As yet, Walmart sells no Schwinn bicycles. Since Schwinn has always used different tube/frame dimensions than any other maker, it may safely be said that no bicycle accessory sold by Walmart, will fit properly on any bicycle sold by Walmart. Some can be made to fit if one has a big enough wrench (spanner?) and a fair amount of nuts-n-bolts ingenuity, but ... John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:57 AM That's sad John - we here in Aus are flooded with cheap made in China Junk .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Slag Date: 25 Sep 10 - 03:19 AM I always mark the date of installation of any new light bulb on the base somewhere with a Sharpie pen. I thought the curly lights were a good idea, at first. The lifespan seems to be about one third that of a tungsten filament light. The latest I changed out was a (relatively) new three-way that was supposed to last 6 years by GE (made in China). Installed April 1, 2009: died the death September 2, 2010. Alas, I've replaced it with the old filament type. Cheaper, better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:17 AM When we moved into our prior house, I found that in order to have a spare bulb when one burned out I needed to stock 13 separate kinds of bulbs. That included the 48" fluorescents in the basement that turned out to be "old style" requiring frequent ballast replacements as well. Within about the first year I managed to convert all but one of the screw socket fixtures to standard size. The one exception was a rather ornate "chandelier" in the dining room that was on (and needed) a dimmer. As the older bulbs failed, all (except the dimmable ones) were replaced with compact fluorescents. The earliest of the CF bulbs showed rather poor life, but later ones did show significant improvement in both life and "color quality," although the life of the CF bulbs rarely exceeded what I expected for the filament bulbs they replaced by any noticeable amount. Although I checked the bills carefully during the first few months of the conversion to CFs, I was unable to discern a significant change in consumption; but the modest decrease in lighting power was probably just swamped by the three computers, five printers, and a couple of scanners on 24/7 for business use. We did find that replacing incandescants with "same light rated" CFs was not really satisfactory. For "equal eye strain" we generally found we wanted about a 30 to 50% increase in the "lux rating" due quite probably to the slight actual difference in "color quality" of the CF bulbs. Turning off (permanently) the hot tub made a spectacular improvement in the electric bills, despite rather extensive use of some heavy power equipment to remove the thing. The former owners had installed the tub before enclosing the "porch," so I had to cut the $!%@#! thing into several pieces to get it out. It took about 3 years to get the last piece into the trash. (The fiberglass, 3" thick in some places, would remove all the teeth from an "industrial strength multipurpose DEMOLITION Sawzall blade in about a half hour - about long enough to make a 10" long cut and about long enough to get enough dust in the air that the breathing filter clogged up.) Our current home has what I would call, generously, inadequate lighting, but improvement will probably be deferred for some time since a general re-wiring is badly needed. Capacity is marginal, but ok; but one outlet per room is far below the code even for the 50s when the house was built. The former occupant dabbled in autos, so the garage has a reinforced rafter fully capable of supporting a 5T hoist, but he also had installed 12 ceiling lights with 100W floodlights in each. I immediately replaced each 100W incandescant with a "100W equivalent" 23W CF bulb. While it was obvious that the light quality was degraded, the surprise was that I've been replacing the CF bulbs regularly, with NONE lasting more than about 5 months, some as little as two. Since I'm seldom in the garage for more than about 3 hours at a time (maybe once per month) but may have the lights on for 15 or 20 minutes once or twice per week, I must assume that the CF bulbs just have incredibly poor life when used in on/off mode. The one bulb that the prior owner had wired "always on" has lasted (with a CF) for about 9 months now, so I'm watching it to see if maybe I just need to leave them all on all the time. (But when I have the time, I'll probably replace his 12 flood fixtures with about 4 std "shop light" fluorescent fixtures with std 48" tubes, since my workspace layout is quite a bit different than what he apparently used. His lights are also at about 10.5 ft altitude, and I can put new diffused fixtures at about 8 ft where I need the light.) The bottom line is that with about 10 years experience at replacing as many incandescants with CFs as possible, I'm not particularly impressed with any of the claims made for the "universal suitability" of CF lamps as replacement for all the glow bulbs. I've also tried a few LEDs for a couple of places where there seemed to be an appropriate application, and have found them generally unfit for human use and NOT A GOOD ECONOMIC TRADOFF. In "household" applications, power consumption (measured) has been about 3x advertised rate, and LED element life about 1/10 - or less - of what they claim. Most LED units are multi-element, and apparently the sellers rate them as still alive if one of the original (17 to 30 in my case) lenses is still lit. I consider - by my observation - that the light is degraded if 5% of the elements are gone. Light quality, especially color, for the units I've tried has also been unacceptable for our use. Waiting for the "miracle bulb," but it ain't here yet. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:37 AM Heck, this is weird... I was literally just watching the video below, over on Facebook, where someone had posted it, then I come over here, and here is this thread, sooooo........... Dirty Electricity - Youtube |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 10 - 08:24 AM An Aussie technical mag did a recent article - it seems that the new 'LED Fluoro tube replacement' items - which fit in a standard (like the old 40 watt fluoro) fitting but need the ballast and starter removed - give reasonable usable light if the 'white' one is used, but the warnmer rated ones use different mixtures of the individual leds and also give lower lux output than the 'white' ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Sep 10 - 09:18 AM There is even some talk that fluorescent bulbs in a hospital nursery can be one contributing factor toward causing autism in some children. There's agreat deal more evidence proving that autism is caused by space aliens doing tests on abducted human children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Newport Boy Date: 25 Sep 10 - 12:21 PM My experience of CFL bulbs is that they are worth the initial outlay. I have generally only purchased from sources I trust. IKEA for cheap basic 11w 'sticks' - designed and specified by IKEA, but made in China. I have 2 of these inside, 8 in yard and drive lights and 4 in the workshop (unheated & draughty). I've just replaced the first one in the workshop. All were installed at the end of 2002, and the outside lights are on timeswitch/photocell, which means they have been switched on and off about 6000 times, and have burnt for almost 12000 hours. They perform OK at -5C - we don't usually get below that. Megaman (German made) for most of the fancier lights inside - no replacements since 2002. I've just replaced some Phillips Softone 18w with a 'curly' 18w no-name (actually 'Helix' but I have no idea where they're made), bought from a good specialist supplier. The Phillips were getting slow to start after 7+ years, and the new ones give a better colour light. I'll let you know if they last the advertised 8000 hours average. I still have about 10 incandescents in the house - mainly bathrooms, with 6 in little-used recessed spots. I installed a couple of LED ceiling lights, but their heat output worried me, so I replaced those with CFLs. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:31 PM We find that the curly fluorescent bulbs, as someone above called them, do poorly in situations where heat collects, lasting a few short months (2-3). Some of our fittings are flush with the ceiling, and CFLs won't fit; and we have returned to the old style incandescents for those. Replacing these fixtures would be expensive. The CFL packages say they have short lives in heated situations, which seems to be the case in many fixtures. I know of no U. S. or Canadian made CFLs. The ones we have are mostly made in China, but I think we did have some made in Mexico. None has lasted over a year, so they are proving expensive. The 5 year claim is nonsense. We find it is troublesome to try to get replacements under the guarantee and have stopped trying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:53 PM Someone in a previous post suggested going back to candles. I remember reading somewhere that the fumes from candles contributed to the poor health of many in the 19th C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: VirginiaTam Date: 25 Sep 10 - 03:55 PM well the stinky smelly fashion candles sold today have a cocktail of fake fragrance chemicals certain to make you ill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Sep 10 - 07:29 PM Then of course many famous tapestries, and paintings were damaged by the soot from candles - just look in any cathedral. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Jack Campin Date: 25 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM CFLs vary a lot in quality. I like them BRIGHT and as close to daylight spectrum as possible. To get what I want I've started stocking up when on visits to Turkey, since the CFLs you can get there are far higher quality (both in the kind of light they put out and in their reliability) than anything you can buy in the UK. I'm not sure if they're actually made in Turkey - it may just be that Turkey imposes tougher requirements on Chinese manufacturers than the UK does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:15 AM Can anyone point to high output low wattace LED bulbs that fit car rear light fittings Here are a few but if you search the site they have tail lights, fog lamps, dome lamps, Everything. Also lots of LED flashlights and head band lamps. http://www.meritline.com/newsearch.aspx?category=LED+Bulb&SearchTerm=12v+bulb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:23 AM Thank you Sawzaw - those are a hell of a lot cheaper than in the UK. Over here I have found 12V sidelight bulbs (supposed to be output equivalent of the standard 12V 5W front or rear single filament sidelight bulb) with the mini-bayonet fitting, but what I am really hunting for is something with less than the 5W current draw, that fitting, and a higher output. But I don't want a bluish light, and most of the car bulbs seem to be 4000K upwards. I don't like bluish headlights either: my eyes seem to see slightly yellower light better. Moreover, direct comparison photographs seem to show the equivalents of the 5W bulbs as considerably dimmer (as well as considerably bluer). So as an improved spotlight/reading light for inside a caravan (="trailer" in US English I think) those are not suitable. I've tried hunting for the 21W equivalents, but again everything I have found seems to be too blue and too costly. Xenons and halogens also seem not to exist with the right fitting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:29 AM Fitted a proper 100 watt bulb in our music room last night, which together with a 20watt 4000k fluorescent allows me to read electronic component values! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:32 AM I just found out that the shoulders on a standard 21W are too large for the reflector in the caravan fitting, so probably most of the LED thingies are going to be unfittable too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: treewind Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:42 AM Interesting comparison here: mitra.biz Scroll down to "Cost Comparison of CFL, Incandescent and LED" (Interesting site generally, the blog of a friend of mine who's into environmentally sensitive commercial activity) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Howard Jones Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:24 PM We have mostly energy-saving fluorescents, but one light is on a dimmer switch. Despite the link above, I have been unable to find anywhere which stocks dimmable fluorescents, what they recommend are halogen filament bulbs. These are less energy-efficient, although they use about 25% less power than old-fashioned bulbs, and are C-rated. The catch is that EU regulations won't allow frosted glass bulbs unless they're A-rated, so these are all in clear glass, which throws horrible shadows. Presumably the idea is to discourage us from using these bulbs in the hope that we'll have our dimmable switches rewired and use fluorescents instead. Instead, I've stocked up on old-fashioned filament bulbs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Sep 10 - 03:36 PM Dimmable fluorescent lamps were used in at least one airplane built by the now deceased Beech Aircraft Co ca 1970, using "conventional" fluorescent tubes but with radio-frequency power in place of the usual 50/60/400 Hz generally available on aircraft. Numerous inquisitive kids back as far as the mid to late 30s learned about the "dimmability" of fluorescent tubes when they built their Tesla Coil generator - from a kit or from scratch. It was probably harder to find a fluorescent tube in the earliest of those times than it was to build the means to excite one. It remains quite simple to light up a fluorescent tube at variable intensity; but lighting the lamp without spurious rf noise that interferes with all the other electronic junk that surrounds us remains much more difficult; and not all the devices offered for sale now actually achieve "emission free operation" - hence (in part) the difficulty of making a particular one available in all markets due to varying concern about "EM noise" on the part of regulators. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 26 Sep 10 - 03:43 PM Just counted, still have 36 proper 100 watt bulbs left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Newport Boy Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:10 PM Howard I've posted before about lamps2udirect. Try this page for dimming CFLs. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM I can sell you some Bonzo - according to the laws of capitalism the price goes up with scarcity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Sep 10 - 10:07 PM I remember a few small theatres had 'hip systems' that used dimmable fluorescent 40W tubes setups - according to the the guy who knew about working them, they were a pain, and did not all extinguish together, especially as they aged. "EU regulations won't allow frosted glass bulbs unless they're A-rated, so these are all in clear glass, which throws horrible shadows" You can try etching the external surface - that's what they do internally, but who wants to muck about with highly toxic fluorine... there are coatings which may help, but if your fitting will take it - you can buy theatrical/photographic lighting plastic 'color film' called generically 'gels' - which come in a large sheet - various colors (including photographic 'color temperature correcting' shades) as well as frosting of several grades. Or you used to be able to get it easily, but the world is changing... One old coating trick was to use a hot saturated solution of Epsom salts - magnesium sulphate - to coat windows - but it may not like the heat of a hot bulb. When it cooled and dried, it would form a thin sheet of white crystals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Sep 10 - 12:22 AM If the socket is in a fixture deep enought to keep it spaced away from the bulb, a sheet of vellum (paper) folded in "accordian pleats" for stiffness and additional scattering, placed between the bulb and the area to be illuminated makes a fairly effective "diffuser" to eliminate the glare from a clear bulb. If the vellum blocks too much light, it can be made "more transparent" without losing the diffusing effect by soaking a bit of almost any clean oil into it before folding - but be sure to drain thoroughly. An ordinary (clothing) iron run over a piece of waxed paper turns it into a similarly effective material, or you can lay the waxed paper over (or under) the vellum and use the iron to transfer some of the wax to the vellum to increase the vellum transparency. The iron can also be used on an "oiled vellum," with a paper towel for backing, to wring out any excess oil. For a fancier installation, your lumber yard probably has a variety of plastic "diffusing glasses" in sheets from which you can cut about any shape needed. Some of the glazing sheets (the acrylics) can even be bent with a little bit of heat, if it's done carefully; although the most common ones (polycarbonates - for scratch and breakage resistance) don't lend themselves to this without exotic (for home use) tooling. There's no good reason to need to see the individual bulb(s) - from the outside - in an interior lighting fixture of reasonable quality. A functional diffuser is a really simple way of cutting the glare from a harsh bulb, and a minor bit of inventiveness usually can provide a way even for fixtures that omitted the feature. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM Actually John I found that scavenging the diffuser from some types of damaged or discarded 40 watt fluoro tube fitting works for this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:22 PM I wonder if those editing sound on the computer are aware that some of the new energy saving light bulbs produce an electronic hum which can show up on the soundfiles - as I learned to my cost some time ago. As an electrician with something like half a century's experience in the trade, I view the forcible introduction of energy-saving bulbs (here in Ireland at least), as little more than a money-spinning gimmick. It is a fact that much of what is gained by the lower consumption of energy is lost in the manufacture of the new bulbs. Were the people who introduced the law phasing out the manufacture of the old GLS bulbs,serious about energy saving, they would also have made it compulsary to fit the highly overpowered halogen exterior lights (all unnecessarily fitted with 500 watt tubes at the point of purchase) with sensors and sold with lower wattage bulbs. It is still possible to drive around here at any hour of night and find houses permenantly lit up like Christmas trees from dusk till dawn. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: GUEST Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:55 PM
Speaking of light bulbs we had a chilling surprise yesterday. The elevator of the apartment building I manage stopped working- actually it went berserk- speeding upward leaving the door open, then dropping precipitously and back up. Several people had exciting rides - one man said he got off with vertigo - before it was reported to me and I closed it down and called Otis. Turns out that the 'leveller' bulb had burnt out, a bulb system that is no longer used and is difficult to find. It is a 250V, 100W bulb- they found one in Florida but it can't get to us before next Wednesday or Thursday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: treewind Date: 28 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM "The elevator...went berserk...the 'leveller' bulb had burnt out" Anybody who designed a system that didn't fail safe when the bulb failed should be taken out and shot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM "my eyes seem to see slightly yellower light better." Exactly. I think the usual bulish light seems weak and cold. I prefer yellowish light. Maybe it is because of my caveman ancestors depending on the light and heat from a wood fire. That's probably why I like fireplaces so much. If you look, you can find warmer CFls. However you are stuck with when it comes to things like LED flashlights and such. There is also a CRI, Color Rendering Index rating on some bulbs that indicate how faithfully it shows colors. The higher the number the better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: pdq Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:09 PM "... before it was reported to me and I closed it down and called Otis." Miss Otis regrets... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 29 Sep 10 - 08:48 AM (In 'Foghorn Leghorn' dialect) Yo haid may be shaped like a latbulb, but you ain't very bri-yat. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:11 AM About the malfunctioning elevator and its bulb system, the elevator man told me that it is an old system and no one uses it anymore. There is a name for it but I didn't take note of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Donuel Date: 29 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM Briefly made in Gaithersburg, a light bulb that used low power microwave to excite sulfer particles made a nearly identical spectrum of light as that from the sun. It was used in the Smithsonian Museum of Aviation and Space.\\ Sadly Phillips Inc bought it out and it has since disappeared. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Mr Red Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:24 PM Plus, what about peeps that have migranes brought on by fluorescent light bulbs? Not sure this relates to compact fluorescent light-bulbs - they run at kHz. Strip lighting - for sure. They have a flicker at 100 Hz (120 in the US) and the eye tries to follow this by tensing the muscles that alter focus and the Iris aperture. Which makes for tension and migraine in some people. Most of the problem is peripheral vision - it is faster if less precise than central vision. We have evolved to notice movement (hence intensity variations) out of the corner of our eyes because that might be food or death. Either way - more peripheral acuity results in better survival for the person and their genes. If the CFL bulb is dying slowly it can flicker noticeably but then you will literally THROW it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A Better Lightbulb? From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM Greg F: "There's agreat deal more evidence proving that autism is caused by space aliens doing tests on abducted human children. " We need your source for this and the date so we will no it is not outdated. made up bullshit. |
