Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

On Oct 5, 8:55 pm, Michael Black <et...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <8h8ie498jmf0giduqt3a61hg0nfncv4...@xxxxxxx>, Robert Blass wrote:
I have a running debate with someone who claims those 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs which are rated as equal to regular 100 watt
incandescent bulbs.

Just by looking in the room where a new 22-watt compact florescent
bulb is located I can tell a dramatic decrease in lighting. I am being
told the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are the SAME as the old
rounded 100 watt incandescent bulbs in lumens.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I do not see them as being the same in
lighting power. The new 22-watt compact florescent bulbs seem to be
10-20% dimmer than the older 100 watt incandescent bulbs that were in
the same room.

According to the charts, a 22-watt compact florescent bulb is suppose
to be the replacement for a 100 watt incandescent bulb.

What am talking about 22-watt compact florescent bulbs versus those
100 watt incandescent bulbs that have been around for 100+ years.

I realize that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs are suppose to
last longer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs but it seems you take
a decrease in lighting.

And the cost of 100 watt incandescent bulbs are very cheap, so it's
hard for me to switch over. I also read where if you replaced ALL your
old 100 watt incandescent bulbs with the new 22-watt compact
florescent bulbs you might save about $80 per year, making the savings
taking more than 3-4 years to realize.

My friend says that the reason those 22-watt compact florescent bulbs
seem dimmer is because they take longer to heat up than those 100 watt
incandescent bulbs. If this is true then how long does this take. I've
noticed even after 5 minutes that the 22-watt compact florescent bulbs
still seems dimmer than the 100 watt incandescent bulbs.

So aren't those 22-watt compact florescent bulb dimmer than the 100
watt incandescent bulbs?

 A "standard" 120V 100W 750-hour A19 incandescent of one of the "Big 3"
brands is usually arted to produce 1710-1750 lumens.

 My experience is that a *good* CFL rated to produce 1750 lumens is
usually a 26 watt one, or the 25 watt Philips triple-arch one.

 I have seen 23 watt CFLs rated to produce 1600 lumens - which I *think*
is the minimum for "claiming to be equivalent to 100W incandescent" (my
words) and achieving the Energy Star logo.

 There are dimmer 100W incandescents - such as 3500 hour ones and cheaper
ones from China.  Sunbeam brand 100W 120V incandescents are rated to
produce 1100, maybe 1150 lumens (going from memory from a couple months
ago).  A "Big-3" name brand 75 watt 750 hour incandescent (including
ones marked with supermarket private label brands) can top that.

 Also not helping is scotopic/photopic ratio - which is a little less
with CFLs rated 2700-3000K than with incandescents in that color temp.
range.  This can have a slight effect on "sensation of illumination" in
low and lower-moderate indoor home illumination levels.

 So, I would think that a 22 watt CFL is going to be a little dimmer than
most decent 100W incandescents.

Of course, the real issue is that for whatever reasons, they have
settled on certain wattage CFLs, rather than trying to give "equivalent
light" and landing at whatever wattage is required for that light.

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.  Otherwise, you can't get anything from the
wattage about the light it gives off.  If the boxes weren't marked
"equivalent to..." then people might assume they would get
really dim bulbs, worse than a 25watt incandescent.  Or even if
they gathered that CFLs require less power for the same amount of
light, they'd still be puzzling over which is the equivalent.

But they do.  So that ceiling light I just changed, which I knew
from experience should be a 100 watt incandescent (because a lesser
bulb didn't provide enough light there), should be a 23watt rather
than a 13w CFL.

As it was, that particular CFL seems brighter than the others of
the same brand and wattage I bought, and is definitely giving out
more light than the 100W bulb I had in there.  (I'm not certain
about the other 23w CFL bulbs I put in while I was in the mood,
they are either somewhat weaker than the 100w incandescents (but
still brighter than a 60watt incandescent) or at least the same
brightness as the 100w.

   Michael- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The weasle word is "equivalent," that allows them to get close but not
be exactly the same. How far different and in what ways are why CFLs
get such bad comments.

The lack of information on the packaging doesn't help.
------------------
RickR
.

Relevant Pages