CLI bulbs not effcient?

MorningStar

CLI bulbs are effectively florescent tubes bent around and therefore use capacitors. I vaguely remember that in electronics that we worked out how using a florescent tube is fine but the initial switching on consumes more power as the capacitor builds up. Once you switch the light off the capacitor discharges and switching it back on uses a lot of power again.
I think this is where the switching on a light uses an hour of electricity was being said by people.As CLI are basically the same AFAIK maybe the same applies.
CLI have really poor colour rendering so they are not suitbale for many places. The light rating of a bulb and colour rendering are the important things to look at. CLI are really only suitable for places where they are left on (time element of light) and colour rendering is not important.

If anybody can tell me for sure about the switching on and off I would be gratefull.

I asked this in another thread but I think it was overlooked becasue the main subject was reached

Anybody know the rating on halogin lights too?

CJhaughey

I think the old Fluoro lights used to use a lot of power to switch on with the big Cap.
however the new fluoro's have an electronic ballast and starter and use bugger all to start.

Halogens give good bright light but at a fairly high cost, I think that the capsule 20w bulbs are probably the most economical but now that you can get cold cathode and LED versions of GU10 and MR16 bulbs you can make a big difference in power consumption ie 24 led GU10 bulb will consume in the region of 1.2-1.5w and give a lux level comparable to a 20w halogen.

xonencentral

Agree with CJ, CFL's are the bizz and the Philips Softtone ones give off excellent comfortable light.

And you go from 100 watts(old) to 20 watts(CFL), thats a saving of 80% of energy. thats some saving.

Those old flouresent tubes are real heavy on electricity

MorningStar

CJhaughey wrote:

I think the old Fluoro lights used to use a lot of power to switch on with the big Cap.
however the new fluoro's have an electronic ballast and starter and use bugger all to start.

I don't think they are that old the capacitor is seperate from the tube and I have not seen any eco friendly flouresent tubes for sale.

Do you know what electronic ballast is? I am really curious to how it works.

CJhaughey wrote:

Agree with CJ, CFL's are the bizz and the Philips Softtone ones give off excellent comfortable light.

And you go from 100 watts(old) to 20 watts(CFL), thats a saving of 80% of energy. thats some saving.

Those old flouresent tubes are real heavy on electricity

I really dislike the bulbs as they
1) Look Ugly
2) Expensive
3) Poor colour rendering
4) They take a while to light (this is why I think they still use capacitors)

There are eco advantages but it does not make them suitable for many places. I still can't see how good they can be as they look like a recycling nightmare. "old flouresent" aren't hard on electricity at all it is switching them on and off is. They aren't really old either as most office blocks in this Dublin use them

I could be wrong about the capacitor but it certainly is not as simple as replace all your lights with them.

kenmc

MorningStar wrote:

I could be wrong about the capacitor but it certainly is not as simple as replace all your lights with them.

Why not? I did. There is only 3 bulbs in my house which are not CFLs - one is a fluourescent tube in the kitchen, and there are 2 pygmy 15 watts in the bedside lamps in the bedroom. Everything else is CFL, and there's no problems with them.

xonencentral

I don't understand the "ugly" bit.

My CFL's look like any other bulb ? and they start up instantly, its just the brighness which intensifies over 20 seconds or so and I've never blown one yet.

I checked 2 small flouesent tubes at work and they were 68 watt tubes, total 136 watts per light fitting, thats pretty bad and an awful lots of CFL's in equivilant energy and its nothing to do with switching on or off.

MorningStar

kenmc wrote:

Why not? I did. There is only 3 bulbs in my house which are not CFLs - one is a fluourescent tube in the kitchen, and there are 2 pygmy 15 watts in the bedside lamps in the bedroom. Everything else is CFL, and there's no problems with them.

I listed the reasons they are why not. If you can't see the colour problem with then lucky you. It is personal taste and I am willing pay extra on my electric bill for better quality light. They aren't perfect and that should be a fair thing to say
I was just wondering about the true nature of the CFL and "electonic balist" appears to still be capacitors from what I can find out. I think that means switching them on and off therefore makes the inefficient in certain location and efficient in others. I am not sure so I was hoping somebody would know for sure.

CJhaughey

a linky
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs45.htm

Capt'n Midnight

MorningStar wrote:

I think this is where the switching on a light uses an hour of electricity was being said by people.As CLI are basically the same AFAIK maybe the same applies.

I've found the power ratings optomistic when they compare it to the bulb they replace, so get an adaptor and put two in it - 2x15W is bright enough.

The Bulbs have a Watt rating - thats how much power they use so you can compare the energy usage directly ( see above for the light output )


one hour at 15 watt = 15 Watt x 3,600 Seconds = 54,000 Watt Seconds = 27 seconds x 2,000 Watts

I think you'd notice if the Bulb was using more power than a 2 bar heater for half a minute. ( actually it would burn out the wires since lighting circuits aren't designed to supply as much power as sockets )


It might reduce the life of the bulb by an hour each time turned on/off ??
can any one shed light on that.

MorningStar

OK guys I know it is cheaper to run a CFLs my point is switching them on and off is not. THat means if you put the light in certain areas and keep switching it off I think you will find it uses more electricity.
As far as I remember working out a double office light flouresent being switch on uses the same as 3 hours of its running.
If that is true if you put CFL in the WRONG location you would use more energy than a a traditional bulb.
AS many people automatically assume switch a light off saves electricity they may in fact be wrong.
I knew that the flouresent bulbs were effecient but only when used correctly. Some people here have said they were ineffcient which is fair enough but that article says it is the most effcient. I didn't know that and I also would not expect many people to realise switching off flouresent light on and off on each entry to a room is actually more costly than leaving it on.
I am wondering if the CFLs are prone to the same issue and so far I am hearing they both use capacitors therfore they have the same problem. I am not sure either way does anybody else

Capt'n Midnight

Switching them on/off does NOT use more power than leaving them on.

It may shorten the life of the bulb so it may be cheaper to leave the bulb on than have to replace it earlier.

Re: It turning it on using N hours of running electricity - please provide a link, because a bulb could not adsorb that amount of energy.

MorningStar

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Switching them on/off does NOT use more power than leaving them on.

It may shorten the life of the bulb so it may be cheaper to leave the bulb on than have to replace it earlier.

Re: It turning it on using N hours of running electricity - please provide a link, because a bulb could not adsorb that amount of energy.

A capacitor restricts current but needs to be charged and that takes energy. I have worked it out before and it does use hours of electricity that could power the lights for hours. Do you know for sure that CFL do not use a capacitor? If they use capacitors there is a waste of electricity. Technolgy changes but can you say how this issue is addressed?

What are you basing your view on?

Keeks

MorningStar wrote:

I am wondering if the CFLs are prone to the same issue and so far I am hearing they both use capacitors therfore they have the same problem. I am not sure either way does anybody else

To the best of my knowledge CFL bulbs do not have the same issuse as ordinary florescent bulbs. Otherwise they wouldn't get an "A" energy rating.I'd like where you are actually hearing this as wella as the calculations you keep mentioning without actually stating.

Capt'n Midnight

MorningStar wrote:

A capacitor restricts current but needs to be charged and that takes energy. I have worked it out before and it does use hours of electricity that could power the lights for hours. Do you know for sure that CFL do not use a capacitor? If they use capacitors there is a waste of electricity. Technolgy changes but can you say how this issue is addressed?

What are you basing your view on?

Please describe how you worked it out.

CFL invariably uses several capacitors - might have a old CFL at home - if I find it will post values.

MorningStar

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Please describe how you worked it out.

CFL invariably uses several capacitors - might have a old CFL at home - if I find it will post values.

It was a long time I don't remember how to do it. I did say I "vaguely" remember and wanted confirmation. If you can't confirm it one way or the other I don't know why you seem to be attacking the question or even the possibility this could be true.
Have you ever heard people say it is wasteful to switch on and off a light? THis could be an old wives tale or true. I think that the truth is half way there that the capacitors are the key.
The energy rating of bulbs is to do with "runnung" costs nothing more. It is like people talking about how bright a light is by wattage when the measure of light is the candel or lux AFAIK.

xonencentral

Just 2 things:

My Philips softtones CFL's are fantastic from a light/bright and effect point of view, any incandesent bulb wouldn't touch them for sheer quality of light.

Secondly, all mine are run by renewables and the bulbs are mean on energy which is what I would expect from an "A rated" bulb.

Rock on CFL's but only the Philips Softtones ones, I can't stand those stringy jobs.

CJhaughey

OK just had a quick look at some NOS Philips SL 18 CFL Prismatic bulbs the quoted Lumen output for the 18w is 900 Lumen.
I do not know what the no-name bulbs put out but safe to say probably less than the Philips.
The output is cool white and in the link that I posted above the recommendation is to use a mix of cool and warm white to achieve a balanced light.

MorningStar

CJhaughey wrote:

OK just had a quick look at some NOS Philips SL 18 CFL Prismatic bulbs the quoted Lumen output for the 18w is 900 Lumen.
I do not know what the no-name bulbs put out but safe to say probably less than the Philips.
The output is cool white and in the link that I posted above the recommendation is to use a mix of cool and warm white to achieve a balanced light.

Very helpful except it is off point and as I studied lighting design I am aware of different light types . CFL only cover a certain colour range so putting them everywhere is not great. They do have to be on for a longish periods of time to truely reach their effciencey and it takes a long time to make the savings. I really dislike the various problems with CFL but it is personal taste. The lighting in my house is mostly form the 60's and 70's and uses loads of specific bulbs so it isn't really an option in my place so electricity will have to go up a lot before I would change. Lighting should be seen as furnture on the ceiling and as important.

I found a website saying that the capacitor thing is not true and it was partially to do with the original cost of bulbs in the 50s and electricity at the time.

http://www.vcu.edu/energychallenge/archives_003fa.htm

Thanks for the help everyone