Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:02:28 +0000 (UTC)
In article <op.ujo6ixdc4buhsv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:17:38 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4904D5CA.4A605792@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:
The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.
In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !
My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.
Yes, I think you're about right there.
And that it takes 25-26 watts for a CFL to "fully match a 100W
'standard' incandescent", with 28 watts no better and 30 watt CFLs
"slightly brighter".
Now try buying one ?
My experience in USA is that 26 watt spirals CFLs of "full 100 watt
incandescent equivalence" are widely available where CFLs are sold,
including USA's two major drugstore chains as well as home centers of the
two main chains of those.
I do consider those to be prone to overheating in recessed ceiling
fixtures and enclosed fixtures. *Disclaimer* - my personal opinion with
data running low due to low usage rate that I consider advisable for such
light fixtures.
I had nine of a pack of ten spiral CFLs fail within 6 months by
overheating. But they were "biobulbs" - a very pure white light. In
fact one caught fire!!!
Those remind me of the CFLs available from some dollar stores in the
USA.
One even avoids mentioning on its package a brand or name of distributor,
importer, etc. The package even has a copyright notice that lacks mention
of who is claiming the copyright. It appears to me they want to hide!
None of them making claims of light output meets them. Some fall short
of claimed light output by a factor of 3-plus. A few avoid making claims
of light output or "incandescent equivalence" or "incandescent
replacement".
Most are an icy cold "daylight" color. Some of the daylight color ones
come in packages claiming "soft warm white light". Most of the few that
actually have a warm color appear to me to have low color rendering index,
like that of "old tech warm white" - whose CRI is 53.
Most of my spectacular failures of CFLs have been of dollar store ones
that I only purchased so that I can say "in my actual experience" what
sort of stool specimens those are. I had one fill a room with smoke after
3 minutes, and refuse to stop producing an orange "burning" glow until I
shut the power off.
A friend of mine testing just a few of these had one go out with two
bangs and a pop and another fill his room with smoke.
One model of one of the "dollar store brands" has suffered a recall for
having its ballast housing being made of plastic that is not flame
retardant.
It appears to me that "self ballasted lamps" normally get UL listing.
In my experience, most dollar store CFLs are self-ballasted ones lacking
any mention of UL or any other safety testing laboratory.
120V self-ballasted CFLs with electronic ballasts normally have "FCC
ID". In my experience, most dollar store CFLs are 120V self-ballasted
ones with electronic ballasts and without any visible sign of "FCC ID".
In USA, I would stick with CFLs that achieve all of the following:
1. Are either "Big 3" brand" (GE, Philips or Sylvania) or are sold by
*major established* retail chains.
2. If they are screw base or otherwise self-ballasted, they should have
UL listing.
3. If they have electronic ballasts (in my experience all spirals and
most other screw base ones nowadays have electronic ballasts), then they
should have "FCC ID".
4. Ones with the "Energy Star" logo are supposed to have achieved some
level of good performance.
- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Peter Hucker
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- References:
- 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Robert Blass
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Michael Black
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Eeyore
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Eeyore
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Don Klipstein
- Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- From: Peter Hucker
- 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Prev by Date: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Next by Date: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Previous by thread: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Next by thread: Re: 22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|