22-watt compact florescent bulbs VS 100 watt incandescent bu

[Robert Blass]

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?

thanks

 

[BobW]

"Robert Blass" <blame@messenger.xcx> wrote in message
news:8h8ie498jmf0giduqt3a61hg0nfncv4jl7@xxx.org...

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?

thanks

The manufacturers' claims include the large amount of gamma radiation that
the CFLs put out, so it is a bit misleading.

Bob
--
== All google group posts are automatically deleted due to spam ==

 

[BobG]

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of
subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both
and see which one is measureably brighter.

 

On Oct 5, 11:27 pm, BobG <bobgard...@aol.com> wrote:

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of
subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both
and see which one is measureably brighter.

yes i too have noticed them dimmer than normal lamps but the cost you
really do save on... they last much longer and i only use now the
11watt (supposed to be 60watt) but here in the UK prices are so high
you really notice the price on the electric bill

but yes use photocells you really need like 3 at vairous distances
like 1,3,9 meters etc ...
you could also draw a chart and as you tripple the distance you can
forsee what you getting...

on the side note i have seen different types, i seen them with a blue
tint warm glow and briliant white

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <8h8ie498jmf0giduqt3a61hg0nfncv4jl7@xxx.org>, 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.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <29b43e66-444d-494a-8fd5-a5f06e8c0d70@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
BobG wrote:

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent.

It is generally the other way around. When line voltage is on the low
side, it is incandescents that to a greater extent appear dim.

Then again, I find it common for line voltage to be high, and that will
generally brighten incandescents more than CFLs.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <8h8ie498jmf0giduqt3a61hg0nfncv4jl7@xxx.org>, 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

 

[pom]

BobW a écrit :

The manufacturers' claims include the large amount of gamma radiation that
the CFLs put out, so it is a bit misleading.

Bob
Hello.

I think that you confound UV radiation and the higher energy
electromagnetic radiation as x-ray or gamma.
With the available voltage (230V or even less) you will get only a very
modest amount of ultraviolet (which is immediately coverted into visible
light by the flUorescent coating of the lamp).
pom

 

[Bob Masta]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:27:38 -0700 (PDT), BobG
<bobgardner@aol.com> wrote:

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of
subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both
and see which one is measureably brighter.

The problem with photocell measurements is that
they don't have the same color sensitivity as the
human eye. So two different light sources that
produce identical photocell outputs can have very
different apparent brightness.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.50
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[John O'Flaherty]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:38:14 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

{snipped}

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

Right. In heating season, there's no gain from using CFLs (or any
other indoor energy conservation) if you have electric heat, and very
little otherwise. That would apply to fully-heated spaces, where any
heat from appliances would just displace heat from the furnace. In
basements or other unheated places conservation is still worthwhile.
--
John

 

[z]

On Oct 5, 4:44 pm, Robert Blass <bl...@messenger.xcx> 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?

thanks

well, given that you are presumably using the bulbs to allow your
vision, if fluorescents seem dimmer to you then they are, and if the
measurements disagree then they are measuring the wrong thing.

for instance, since the human eye is not as sensitive to the ends of
the spectrum, an accurate measurement of light for human use should
also be corrected by wavelength. (those blue-white headlights for
instance; the ones which are bluish by dint of having a blue coating
painted on the bulb will obviously have less total output than an
uncoated bulb of the same wattage; but they look brighter.)

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <9b0120bd-1654-4386-a907-d1ad0b1e3fa6@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, z
wrote:

On Oct 5, 4:44 pm, Robert Blass <bl...@messenger.xcx> 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.

<SNIP>

well, given that you are presumably using the bulbs to allow your
vision, if fluorescents seem dimmer to you then they are, and if the
measurements disagree then they are measuring the wrong thing.

for instance, since the human eye is not as sensitive to the ends of
the spectrum, an accurate measurement of light for human use should
also be corrected by wavelength.

Photometric units already take into account the "photopic response" of
the "standard observer" ("standard human eyeball"). Better light meters
have spectral response closer to that of "standard" human photopic
response.

(those blue-white headlights for
instance; the ones which are bluish by dint of having a blue coating
painted on the bulb will obviously have less total output than an
uncoated bulb of the same wattage; but they look brighter.)

They also are usually of higher wattage and usually have hotter-running
shorter-life filaments. It's pretty hard to make something appear
brighter by removing light.

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

Where the heatsing season is shorter, the air conditioning season is
significant, or where electricity is more expensive (Chicago, NYC and
Philly metro areas and most of the southern half of USA) CFLs still make
plenty of sense.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

On Oct 5, 8:55 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <8h8ie498jmf0giduqt3a61hg0nfncv4...@xxx.org>, 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

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 6, 7:44 am, Robert Blass <bl...@messenger.xcx> 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.

Then go to a 28W, 33W, or whatever suits you.
Those silly charts are just a guide for consumers.

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?

Different brands have different output intensities for a given power
consumption.
One brand 22W does not always equal another brand 22W.
Not only that, but they have different "colour" intensities too. Warm
white, cool white, daylight etc.
Some do take soem time time to "warm up" (several minutes typical),
yet some others do not.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

On Oct 6, 10:56 am, porkys...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

On Oct 5, 11:27 pm, BobG <bobgard...@aol.com> wrote:

Whats your tolerance? 'Seems dimmer' isn't something you can measure.
Check you line voltage... CF might be more sensitive to lo line
voltage than the incandescent. Also Color Temperature is sort of
subjective... Get a photocell and stick it the same distance from both
and see which one is measureably brighter.

yes i too have noticed them dimmer than normal lamps but the cost you
really do save on... they last much longer and i only use now the
11watt (supposed to be 60watt) but here in the UK prices are so high
you really notice the price on the electric bill

I'm starting to switch from compact fluros' to the T5 circular type
were possible. I find the light output much more even, and they run
much cooler because of the separate ballast controller. Less heat =
longer life. Compact fluro's don't last very long in enclosed
fittings, often negating their value.

Dave.

 

[z]

On Oct 6, 4:09 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

(those blue-white headlights for

instance; the ones which are bluish by dint of having a blue coating
painted on the bulb will obviously have less total output than an
uncoated bulb of the same wattage; but they look brighter.)

  They also are usually of higher wattage and usually have hotter-running
shorter-life filaments.  It's pretty hard to make something appear
brighter by removing light.

naw, they're the same wattage. I was wondering if they do run hotter
though. would shorten the life, which presumably is OK with the
manufacturers and beyond the conceptual grasp of the purchasers.
anyway, yeah, maybe my mystification over how they look brighter
because they're painted blue is misplaced.

 

[z]

On Oct 6, 2:42 pm, John O'Flaherty <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:38:14 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net
wrote:

{snipped}

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs  to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

Right. In heating season, there's no gain from using CFLs (or any
other indoor energy conservation) if you have electric heat, and very
little otherwise. That would apply to fully-heated spaces, where any
heat from appliances would just displace heat from the furnace. In
basements or other unheated places conservation is still worthwhile.
--
John

but there isn't that much lightbulb use in unheated basements, etc.;
and in human homes, during air conditioning season when bulb heat is a
problem, it doesn't make a difference when the bulbs are off because
of daylight, which is long in the summer; when the bulbs are off
because people are asleep which is the major part of the dark hours in
the summer; and when the AC is off because the sun is down and it's
cooling off, which is relevant for some parts of the country.
basically, the big advantage of fluorescents is in big buildings where
the temp is completely air conditioned because there isn't any natural
ventilation, and the light is all from bulbs because there isn't any
sunlight except around the windows, and people are inside them during
daylight hours. and of course, they've been fluorescent for years.

 

[John O'Flaherty]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

On Oct 6, 2:42 pm, John O'Flaherty <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:38:14 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net
wrote:

{snipped}

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs  to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

Right. In heating season, there's no gain from using CFLs (or any
other indoor energy conservation) if you have electric heat, and very
little otherwise. That would apply to fully-heated spaces, where any
heat from appliances would just displace heat from the furnace. In
basements or other unheated places conservation is still worthwhile.
--
John

but there isn't that much lightbulb use in unheated basements, etc.;
and in human homes, during air conditioning season when bulb heat is a
problem, it doesn't make a difference when the bulbs are off because
of daylight, which is long in the summer; when the bulbs are off
because people are asleep which is the major part of the dark hours in
the summer; and when the AC is off because the sun is down and it's
cooling off, which is relevant for some parts of the country.
basically, the big advantage of fluorescents is in big buildings where
the temp is completely air conditioned because there isn't any natural
ventilation, and the light is all from bulbs because there isn't any
sunlight except around the windows, and people are inside them during
daylight hours. and of course, they've been fluorescent for years.

It's not a question of whether bulb heat is a comfort problem but
that it's expensive, which it is whether or not air conditioning is in
use.
I do think CFLs are worthwhile, because there's plenty of electric
light used during times when a furnace isn't expected to run. Only
specifically during heating season when heat is being used is there no
energy-saving advantage, and even then there still may be an
advantage, in bulb life and trouble saved replacing them. The only
place I don't use CFLs is where I want immediate full light in a space
where I only stay a short time.
On another point, on channel 4 in St. Louis last night, they had a
news feature where they got all exercised about the mercury in CFLs
and the danger of breaking them. There's mercury in flourescent tubes
too, and they've been around a long time. I think it's worth being
careful of them too.
--
John