Florescent light bulbs?

[RST Engineering (jw)]

Question, what's the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts?

Jim

Women! Can't live with them, pass the beer nuts. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Zak]

krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm
Incandescent Krypton: 100 w, 1420 lm = 18% better
Halogen 100 watt high voltage, 1470 lm = 22% better
(high voltage halogen has mostly whiter light and longer life, no big
efficiency gain though the smaller bulbs make for tiny reflectors)
Halogen 100 watt 24 volt, 2200 lm (needs transformer) = 83% better
Halogen infrared reflecting, 12 volt 65 w, 1700 lm (1700/.65 = 2615) =
118% better
(now we're talking, and if it was a 100 watt bulb it would do even
better, but we have transformer loss)
CFL, open tube model, 24 watt, 1500 lm (6250 lm extrapolated to 100
watt) = 420 % better. But the large size makes reflectors and fixtures
less efficient.
MH HID lamp, HCI-T 70 W, 7000 lm (10000 lm extrapolated to 100 watt,
excludes ballast) The winner, being 480% better. But starts slowly. Wish
they were easily available.

Conclusion: halogen looks nice but doesn't save a lot, unless it is the
low voltage infrared reflecting type.




Thomas

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:18:40 +0100, Zak <jute@zak.invalid> wrote:

krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm
Incandescent Krypton: 100 w, 1420 lm = 18% better
Halogen 100 watt high voltage, 1470 lm = 22% better
(high voltage halogen has mostly whiter light and longer life, no big
efficiency gain though the smaller bulbs make for tiny reflectors)
Halogen 100 watt 24 volt, 2200 lm (needs transformer) = 83% better
Halogen infrared reflecting, 12 volt 65 w, 1700 lm (1700/.65 = 2615) =
118% better
(now we're talking, and if it was a 100 watt bulb it would do even
better, but we have transformer loss)
CFL, open tube model, 24 watt, 1500 lm (6250 lm extrapolated to 100
watt) = 420 % better. But the large size makes reflectors and fixtures
less efficient.
MH HID lamp, HCI-T 70 W, 7000 lm (10000 lm extrapolated to 100 watt,
excludes ballast) The winner, being 480% better. But starts slowly. Wish
they were easily available.

Conclusion: halogen looks nice but doesn't save a lot, unless it is the
low voltage infrared reflecting type.

---
You left out prices.


--
JF

 

[redbelly]

krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Zak wrote:

Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm

They're more like 1600-1750 lm, so the relative efficiency of other
bulb types gets even worse.

http://www.lampsplus.com/products/90306/?sourceid=DFMSNSH90306&cm_mmc=MSN-SH-_-Bulb-_-Light%20Bulbs-_-90306
http://www.lampsplus.com/products/90410/?sourceid=DFMSNSH90410&cm_mmc=MSN-SH-_-Bulb-_-Light%20Bulbs-_-90410

Mark

Incandescent Krypton: 100 w, 1420 lm = 18% better
Halogen 100 watt high voltage, 1470 lm = 22% better
(high voltage halogen has mostly whiter light and longer life, no big
efficiency gain though the smaller bulbs make for tiny reflectors)
Halogen 100 watt 24 volt, 2200 lm (needs transformer) = 83% better
Halogen infrared reflecting, 12 volt 65 w, 1700 lm (1700/.65 = 2615) =
118% better
(now we're talking, and if it was a 100 watt bulb it would do even
better, but we have transformer loss)
CFL, open tube model, 24 watt, 1500 lm (6250 lm extrapolated to 100
watt) = 420 % better. But the large size makes reflectors and fixtures
less efficient.
MH HID lamp, HCI-T 70 W, 7000 lm (10000 lm extrapolated to 100 watt,
excludes ballast) The winner, being 480% better. But starts slowly. Wish
they were easily available.

Conclusion: halogen looks nice but doesn't save a lot, unless it is the
low voltage infrared reflecting type.

 

[Zak]

redbelly wrote:

krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Zak wrote:
Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm

They're more like 1600-1750 lm, so the relative efficiency of other
bulb types gets even worse.

Hmm, I have my data from Osram for 230 volt bulbs. That may make a
difference.


Thomas

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1167576274.931031.124480@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
redbelly wrote:

krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Zak wrote:
Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm

They're more like 1600-1750 lm, so the relative efficiency of other
bulb types gets even worse.

He may be talking about some longlife and/or industrial service ones or
reflectorized ones or 240V ones.

The USA-usual 120V 100W "standard" 100A19 with 750 hour life expectancy
does indeed have rated light output of 1710 lumens or close to that. All
the other 100 watt incandescents of the kinds that I just mentioned do
indeed produce less.

Sylvania's 100W 120V "Capsylite" halogen produces 1800 lumens last time
I checked.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <45986d78$0$21838$2e0edba0@news.tweakdsl.nl>, Zak wrote:

redbelly wrote:
krw wrote:

Halogens are more (about 3x more) efficient than standard tungsten
bulbs, so the room should be cooler. The fixtures can get hot
though. The halogens in standard bulb envelopes aren't hotter than
the standard bulbs.

Zak wrote:
Normal incandescent: 100 w, 1200 lm

They're more like 1600-1750 lm, so the relative efficiency of other
bulb types gets even worse.

Hmm, I have my data from Osram for 230 volt bulbs. That may make a
difference.

Yes that does make a difference, and does so in two ways:

1) The 240V filament is longer and thinner. for same life expectancy,
it has to be operated at a slightly lower temperature.

2) When comparing two gas-filled incandescents of the same wattage but
different filament lengths, the longer filament will be narrower. Also
narrower will be the region of hot gas surrounding the filament. This
increases the temperature gradient within the region of gas surrounding
the filament, and that increases the amount of heat conducted from the
filament per unit filament area. This heat conducted from the filament is
a loss - it does not become thermal radiation from the filament.

For that matter, a 12 volt 100W incandescent is more efficient than a
120 volt 100W incandescent of similar life expectancy. But even lower
voltage 100W incandescents will be less efficient than 12 volt ones - the
temperature gradient in the ends of a short wide filament will cause
significant heat conduction loss through the ends of the filament.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)