CFLs FYI Notes to myself

[230RN]

Just some notes I collected for filing away.  I've got a big box full of dead ones that I've been saving to either repair or dump on a Legislator's desk if they ever try to make them mandatory.  Or, maybe to make a QRP code rig.  Don't challenge me on anything, these are just notes to myself to store in "My Documents"


-----------------------------------------------------
filename: REPAIRING CFL COMPACT FLOURESCENT LAMP.TXT

http://www.pavouk.org/hw/lamp/en_index.html

^ Awkward translation, though.  Have to translate "his" electronic english into english electronic english.

http://www.thenetguruz.com/electronics/repairing-cfl-lamps/

^ Notes that you can pry them apart with a screwdriver.  I thought they were cemented together and had to be cut apart. He refers to a part two which I cannot find.

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=CFL_repair

^ Hinty, especially on taking them apart, but not detailed.

http://homerepair.about.com/od/electricalrepair/ss/CFL_recycling.htm

Also,
http://homerepair.about.com/od/electricalrepair/ss/cfl_epa_cleanup.htm  (Cleaning up a boken one.)

^ Mostly a preachment on properly disposing of them, but also a discussion of the false advertising:

QUOTE: "You Rarely Get the Rated Life of a CFL

"Get used to frequent recycling. One of the biggest myths in all the CFL hype is the rated life of the bulb. You'll see blog post and article after article repeating the same misleading "fact" that you will get 6,000 or more hours of life from the CFL. Well, both consumer complaints and lab research are showing how untrue this is.
First, studies have proven what consumers have been discovering.

"CFL’s rarely meet their rated life in real world applications. Why? Well they may have been used in the wrong application. But they also depend on being turned on continuously or at least for 4 hours at a time to meet their rated life. If they are on for only 1 hour you get a 20% to 50% reduction in lamp life. If the CFL is used with 5 to 30 minute use cycles like most incandescents, the life is reduced 70% to 85%. That means your 6,000 hour bulb is now lasting 900 hours, less than many incandescent bulbs.

"Second, the lifetime quoted on a CFL is just an average, meaning that 50% of the lamps can and do fail before the stated hours and can still be considered a valid rating."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7QJQBSBRCw

^ This video shows a guy repairing a fluorescent light fixture with a CFL.
____________________________________________________

Respectfully and apologetically submitted,

Terry, 230RN

[Brad Johnson]

CFLs are soooo 2010.

Brad

[bedlamite]

^ Notes that you can pry them apart with a screwdriver.  I thought they were cemented together and had to be cut apart. He refers to a part two which I cannot find.

I have found a .223 takes them apart just fine.

[230RN]

I have found a .223 takes them apart just fine.

But, but, what about the 2-5 mg of mercury polluting 6000 gallons of water?

Actually, my three long-standing comments on "environmentalism" are:

(1)  Re-use constitutes the best solution to pollution.

(2)  Dilution is the next best.

Your solution involves both of these.  Congratulations!  

Also, (3) is: Conservation is too often like a kid's party balloon.  You push it in here, and it comes out there.

Not so respectfully submitted,

Terry, 230RN

[Perd Hapley]

If the CFL is used with 5 to 30 minute use cycles like most incandescents...

Most incandescents are used from 5 to 30 minutes at a time? According to whom? Is this how you use the incandescent (or CFL) lamps at your home/business/school/government building? Even if this turned out to be true, there are plenty of Edison-base lamps being used for a whole lot longer than that, where a CFL would probably last a lot longer than an incandescent.

Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know.

"Second, the lifetime quoted on a CFL is just an average, meaning that 50% of the lamps can and do fail before the stated hours and can still be considered a valid rating."

I'm pretty sure that's how incandescent hour ratings are determined, as well.


Also, CFLs don't have to last longer than incandescents in order to pay off. They use about 75% less energy.

[Perd Hapley]

FWIW, I think CFLs aren't the greatest technology, and I wouldn't be surprised if they became a rarity within twenty years. They still come in handy for some things.

But they aren't the fraud, or the ecological disaster that some seem to think they are. I talked to a customer last week that read on The Internet that twister bulbs give off terrible-awful-make-you-sick rays. Twister bulbs enclosed in some kind of lens/housing (the type that ape the appearance of incandescents) were just fine, according to Internet.

[230RN]

Quote from fistful:

Quote from: 230RN on Today at 03:45:44 PM
If the CFL is used with 5 to 30 minute use cycles like most incandescents...

Most incandescents are used from 5 to 30 minutes at a time? According to whom? Is this how you use the incandescent (or CFL) lamps at your home/business/school/government building? Even if this turned out to be true, there are plenty of Edison-base lamps being used for a whole lot longer than that, where a CFL would probably last a lot longer than an incandescent.

Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know.

I'm pretty sure that's how incandescent hour ratings are determined, as well.

Also, CFLs don't have to last longer than incandescents in order to pay off. They use about 75% less energy.

HEY!  Don't quote me, I was only inserting a quote from one of the links.  Quote the link, please.

Where's the "not really mad, but my left eyebrow went up" emoticon?

Terry

[Firethorn]

where a CFL would probably last a lot longer than an incandescent.

http://www.centennialbulb.org/

They've got a long wait in that case...

On the other hand, life per lumen-watt is probably a lot easier.

Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know.]Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know.

That's a problem if, for example, it's a bathroom light and flipped on mostly for a few minutes at a time or you're an old fogey like a lot of us and actually turn lights off, and the bulb is more sensitive to starts than operation.

Also, CFLs don't have to last longer than incandescents in order to pay off. They use about 75% less energy.

That gets to be a lot more complicated and depends on how much you're paying per kWh.

A 60 watt bulb vs a 15 watt CFL = 45 watts difference.  If the incandescent costs $.25 and the CFL $2.75, that's $2.50 you need to save to 'break even'.  At 10 cents a kWh, that's 25 kWh you need to save, or 556 hours of operation.

If it's on for 40 hours/week, that's 14 weeks to break even.

[HankB]

. . .  You push it in here, and it comes out there . . .

I had a quick mental image of someone introducing a CFL to a legislator . . .

[bedlamite]

Quote from fistful:

HEY!  Don't quote me, I was only inserting a quote from one of the links.  Quote the link, please.

Where's the "not really mad, but my left eyebrow went up" emoticon?

Terry

[Perd Hapley]

where a CFL would probably last a lot longer than an incandescent.

http://www.centennialbulb.org/

They've got a long wait in that case...

Can't tell if serious. I was pointing out that it's pretty common for folks to leave incandescent lights on for several hours at a time, and that a lot of those applications would probably do better with a CFL. The handful of incandescent lamps (out of the many, many multiple millions upon millions of incandescent lamps that have been manufactured over the past hundred-odd years) that have lasted far longer than usual doesn't have any bearing on that.

Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know. Also, the two most common testing standards involve 3-hour and 12-hour burn-times, respectively. CFLs are tested to the same standards, so far as I know.

That's a problem if, for example, it's a bathroom light and flipped on mostly for a few minutes at a time or you're an old fogey like a lot of us and actually turn lights off.

OK, but it's not a CFL problem. The tests are the same for incandescents and for CFLs. Sure, the CFLs may or may not live a long, full life if you just use them for a few minutes at a time, but that's a known issue. I have a twister lamp on either side of my bathroom vanity mirror that are used that way. They've lasted for a couple of years now. The pair before them lasted a few years, I think.

Wait, it's actually not OK. Are you saying that incandescents aren't used (not left on wastefully, but actually used) for hours at a time? 'Cuz in what world is that true?   (Especially if we're counting halogens/xenons, which are also an incandescent light source.)

That gets to be a lot more complicated and depends on how much you're paying per kWh.

A 60 watt bulb vs a 15 watt CFL = 45 watts difference.  If the incandescent costs $.25 and the CFL $2.75, that's $2.50 you need to save to 'break even'.  At 10 cents a kWh, that's 25 kWh you need to save, or 556 hours of operation.

If it's on for 40 hours/week, that's 14 weeks to break even.

I'm too lazy to check your math, but yeah, that would be a pretty fast pay-back. And a lot of 60-watt equivalents are using 13 or 14 watts these days. And I don't know if anyone is seeing 60W lamps at prices that low anymore.

Well of course it depends on what you're paying for juice. It also depends on how many fewer watts are being used, and how long you're using the lights per day/week. Our salesmen tell people every other day that they won't see much of an advantage in upgrading conventional sources, if the lights are only on for, say, 3 hours a day. Nor does it help much to replace a twister bulb with an equivalent LED. Not enough energy savings there.

[K Frame]

I left one on my patio on for, IIRC, over 5 years before it finally crapped out.

But, I'm phasing CFLs out and replacing them with LEDs.

I have maybe 4 CFLs left in the house.

[dogmush]

I left one on my patio on for, IIRC, over 5 years before it finally crapped out.

But, I'm phasing CFLs out and replacing them with LEDs.

I have maybe 4 CFLs left in the house.

This.  I don't really care about how CFL's work, because LED's work so much better.  My prediction is in 20 years pretty much all residential lighting will be LED, and CFL's will be remembered as a weird transition thing we tried before we found what works. Like steam powered cars.

[Firethorn]

Can't tell if serious. I was pointing out that it's pretty common for folks to leave incandescent lights on for several hours at a time, and that a lot of those applications would probably do better with a CFL.

I was making a funny.    Sorry.  That's why I followed up with a more serious comment - if you factor in energy efficiency(IE light/watt), the old bulb in the firehouse is beaten rather rapidly, it's not very bright at all, producing mostly heat.

OK, but it's not a CFL problem. The tests are the same for incandescents and for CFLs. Sure, the CFLs may or may not live a long, full life if you just use them for a few minutes at a time, but that's a known issue. I have a twister lamp on either side of my bathroom vanity mirror that are used that way. They've lasted for a couple of years now. The pair before them lasted a few years, I think.

That's the thing.  We're educated, we know about it.  Lots of people were sold that CFL was a direct replacements for incandescent.  It's not.  They're more vulnerable to heat, and starting and stopping is far more stressful to them.  Incandescent life will be cut with sufficient cycling, but not by much.

Somebody quoted that the life of a CFL used in a 'worst case' cycling scenario might last an order of magnitude less.  We've seen it here on this site.

So take a step back and consider psychological - people don't notice that they haven't replaced the kitchen or living room lights in the last 5 years.  They notice they're changing out the lights in the bathroom every 3 months.  Then complain that CFLs don't last as long as incandescent, much less what they're supposed to.

LEDs should work better though.

I'm too lazy to check your math, but yeah, that would be a pretty fast pay-back. And a lot of 60-watt equivalents are using 13 or 14 watts these days. And I don't know if anyone is seeing 60W lamps at prices that low anymore.

Amazon.com, GE 8 pack 13 watt 60W equivalents, $14.95 = $1.87 each.

Or did you mean the filament bulbs?  Yeah, not seeing them for under $1.  At adjusted prices, IE me not being fairly pessimistic, 87 cents = 8.7 kWh, or 185 hours, going by 47 watts saved.  193 at 45 watts saved.

I normally round up some because the 60W filament is 855 lumens and the 13watt replacement is only 825.  And 825 is a more honest equivalence than many I've seen.  For example, the LED bulb I checked is only 800 - but uses only 8.5 watts.

Nor does it help much to replace a twister bulb with an equivalent LED. Not enough energy savings there.

I'm 'upgrading' to LED bulbs strictly through attrition because of this, and not so much because of mercury or power savings, but because they last so long that 'life of the fixture' is achievable.  

13 watts vs 9.5, At a price difference of $1.87 to $5 per bulb?  Call it a $3 price difference(though the LED is rated for double the life of the CFL), meaning you need to save 30kWh, at 3.5 watts saved.  8,571 hours.  An electrical payback 46 times that of replacing a filament bulb with a CFL.  

Heck, I've started, rather than buying replacement bulbs, buying replacement light fixtures with the LED lights built in.  That way they're not hemmed in and having trouble disburse heat, so construction is cheaper.  It's like the price difference between a laptop and a desktop - the space makes fitting things easier, and thus construction is cheaper.  As a result I can often put in LED lighting for less than simply buying bulbs.

Though I did swap out the filament bulbs - I'm saving them for spots like right over the oven.

[Brad Johnson]

This.  I don't really care about how CFL's work, because LED's work so much better.  My prediction is in 20 years pretty much all residential lighting will be LED, and CFL's will be remembered as a weird transition thing we tried before we found what works. Like steam powered cars.

This, except I think you're off by ten years. At the rate the technology is advancing, and price falling, I think both incandescents and CFLs will be fond memories in less than a decade. Some may remain for specialty applications but I see mainstream residential illumination being strictly LED or electrolumenescent by the early 2020s.

Brad

[Firethorn]

This, except I think you're off by ten years. At the rate the technology is advancing, and price falling, I think both incandescents and CFLs will be fond memories in less than a decade. Some may remain for specialty applications but I see mainstream residential illumination being strictly LED or electrolumenescent by the early 2020s.

Brad

Indeed.  Fluorescent isn't really suitable for hot/cold locations, but LEDs don't care about the cold(relatively speaking).  It also doesn't like cycling, but again, LED doesn't care about cycling.  I can't think of a use situation where you'd use FL(compact or not) where LED wouldn't be equally suitable. 

Incandescent you still have a few use cases - where the heat is actually desired, but then you can just install a heating element as well as a light, or where heat is already present - oven lights. 

[zxcvbob]

How many watts does a 13W CFL really consume?  Has anyone measured it?  I assume they ignore any ballast inefficiencies, plus the Chinese are rather... optimistic with their ratings.  (I'll guess 20W total)

[Firethorn]

How many watts does a 13W CFL really consume?  Has anyone measured it?  I assume they ignore any ballast inefficiencies, plus the Chinese are rather... optimistic with their ratings.  (I'll guess 20W total)

It would be illegal for a device marked 13W to consume more.  Maybe 13.5W, but 20W would get them sued.

The only way you'd get away with NOT counting ballast inefficiency is if the ballast is a separate device.

Anyways, test setup: 14 gauge outdoor extension cord(it was handy).  'Kill A Watt' energy meter.  Desk lamp with Edison plug. 
House electric, no load: 120.1V
Feit Electric CFL(came with the lamp), 13W, soft white, 2700K, 900 Lumens:  Starts at 11W, climbs to 13W in about a minute, then declines to 12W.  What the electric company won't be happy about: Power Factor of .67 (1 is ideal)
Cree 9W LED(Says 9W on light, 9.5W on box), daylight, 5000K, 800 lumens.  This is the type with the radiator type base, the model before the 4Flow.  Meter reads:8W.  looks brighter than the CFL.  Note:  I don't have a meter for light levels.  Another note:  Still 'warmer' after being lit for a while, but not as hot as the CFL. PF of .99, which the power company will be happy about.
Ecosmart 14W, 5000K, 800 lumens(had to search internet for), dating from September, 2012(sharpied).  Some browning at the base of the bulb.  Meter reads 13W, PF 0.65
Philips LED, daylight, 11W, 830 Lumens, dimmable.  Made in China.  10W, .95 PF.

[MechAg94]

Who is going to prosecute over a few watts higher power use?  How would you go about testing and proving that? 

[Brad Johnson]

Before this degrades into a shouting match...

There are several vids on the YoonerWebs showing major-brand LED lamps do indeed operate at their rated power consumption.

Brad

[Firethorn]

Who is going to prosecute over a few watts higher power use?  How would you go about testing and proving that? 

1.  OSHA apparently.  Other than that, class action lawsuit.  Honda was sued for their hybrids not achieving advertised mileage, and those suing got at least some relief from it.
2.  Anybody with an appropriate electric meter can do it.  Hell, I just did it. 

Remember, using more power than marked on the device is considered a safety issue.  It must be marked with the highest possible power usage.  IE I could create a bulb, mark it as 120W(or 120V@1A) even if it only uses 12W.  Some devices will have much higher markings than their general usage.  Consider a heater - It might max out at 1.5kW, but on 'medium' only use 650W.  Or a refrigerator - Some have capacitors to make them 'easy start', but even then it'll generally draw much more power for a few seconds as the compressor starts up. 

[birdman]

It would be illegal for a device marked 13W to consume more.  Maybe 13.5W, but 20W would get them sued.

The only way you'd get away with NOT counting ballast inefficiency is if the ballast is a separate device.

Anyways, test setup: 14 gauge outdoor extension cord(it was handy).  'Kill A Watt' energy meter.  Desk lamp with Edison plug. 
House electric, no load: 120.1V
Feit Electric CFL(came with the lamp), 13W, soft white, 2700K, 900 Lumens:  Starts at 11W, climbs to 13W in about a minute, then declines to 12W.  What the electric company won't be happy about: Power Factor of .67 (1 is ideal)
Cree 9W LED(Says 9W on light, 9.5W on box), daylight, 5000K, 800 lumens.  This is the type with the radiator type base, the model before the 4Flow.  Meter reads:8W.  looks brighter than the CFL.  Note:  I don't have a meter for light levels.  Another note:  Still 'warmer' after being lit for a while, but not as hot as the CFL. PF of .99, which the power company will be happy about.
Ecosmart 14W, 5000K, 800 lumens(had to search internet for), dating from September, 2012(sharpied).  Some browning at the base of the bulb.  Meter reads 13W, PF 0.65
Philips LED, daylight, 11W, 830 Lumens, dimmable.  Made in China.  10W, .95 PF.

Not surprising on the power factor, they -are- switching power supplies and "the source has zero impedance" is common, but stupid design practice.  Rarely are things like lights designed to present purely real loads...

[Firethorn]

Not surprising on the power factor, they -are- switching power supplies and "the source has zero impedance" is common, but stupid design practice.  Rarely are things like lights designed to present purely real loads...

For any who might not realize what we're talking about, 'Power Factor' is a measurement not of 'extra power taken'*, but the net effect is much the same on electric company equipment.  It's more of 'how close to a constant resister does this load appear to be'.  1 is the mark of an incandescent bulb or plain resistance heater. 

What surprised me is that both the LEDs I checked, which should have rectifiers in them, were so high.  At .99 and .95, the power company isn't going to complain.  If you're a business and install all CFLs at .65, the power company is going to be very upset at you, and probably looking to charge you more money.  At that power factor, a 13W device is still only consuming 13W, but it's putting a strain on the system equal to a 20W device.

Let's say that the power company 'wastes' 1W to get 10W to you.  Resistance on the wires and all that.  With a 13W@1PF, that's 1.3watts 'wasted'.  With 13W@.65PF, that's 2W wasted, or .7 more.