Florescent light bulbs?

[Don Klipstein]

In article <jlbhn2t1jtcsk6219glt8tqil875bu2mna@4ax.com>, Glen Walpert wrote:

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:51:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

trimmed complaint about unreliable CCFL lights

Please use the correct acronym - we have been talking about CFLs,
compact fluorescent lamps.

CCFL is cold cathode fluorescent lamp, which the usual household use
compacts are not. (One exception - N:Vision's 3-watt candelabra base does
appear to me to be cold cathode. BTW, the nominally 4-watt candelabra
base ones are hot cathode.)

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <3t8gn2th8cr8sle61724lf87lplihhjhvq@4ax.com>, default wrote:

On 6 Dec 2006 16:49:45 -0800, "CoreyWhite" <CoreyWhite@gmail.com
wrote:

Al Gore came on Opera yesterday and said we could save 20% of the
energy our light bulbs use if we switched to more expensive florescent
bulbs. These bulbs last longer you know. But are you aware that the
light bulb companies are conspiring to keep florescent bulbs off the
market? They charge you more for them already, but Tesla invented a
florescent bulb that is still burning in the Tesla Museum 50 years
later. If we all used his bulbs we would never have to worry about
screwing in light bulbs. So the answer to the most important question
of the day: How many scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Really should be none. Because we don't have to ever change our light
bulbs in an ideal world.

But can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of one of these Tesla bulbs?

In 1992 there was an announcement or two about something called the "E
bulb" It was supposed to be an RF excited fluorescent lamp - ala
Tesla style. The idea was to have the electronics in the base with a
glass covered coil extending into the bulb envelope. No electrodes to
wear no filaments to burn out.

Searching on "RF lightbulb" yielded a (very) few hits on it.

The marketed ones are usually called "induction lamps".

Examples:

Philips "QL"
Sylvania's "Icetron"
GE's "Genura"

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1165538685.264851.145160@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
mensanator@aol.compost wrote:

Zak wrote:
mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:

The local Big Lots had a sale once: 4-pack of 25W (roughly equivalent
to 100W incandescent) compact fluorescents for $2. I bought about 10
packages (40 bulbs).

They're white lights, too - not the yellow ones that you commonly find.
Only other brand I know of that gives white light is Sylvania (hard to
find - from Lowe's) - and we've tried a bunch.

That is called 'color temperature'. The yellowish ones try to match the
color of an incandescent lamp. 2700K usually. The nearest tube color is
3000K in the US I'm told, which is more like the color of halogen. 2700K
tubes are more common in europe.

I didn't like the yellowish tint of a pack I bought. Then I noticed at
the
store that that particular brand comes in 3 different color
temperatures
(and they had a live side-by-side display so you could evaluate them).
I don't remember the brand, but if anyone cares I can look it up.

And not all "75W" CFLs have the same lumen rating.

I did notice a slight inverse correlation between color temperature and
efficiency (more properly "luminous efficacy"), especially once color
temperature gets past 4100 K.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1165510662.059970.151110@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:

The local Big Lots had a sale once: 4-pack of 25W (roughly equivalent
to 100W incandescent) compact fluorescents for $2. I bought about 10
packages (40 bulbs).

They're white lights, too - not the yellow ones that you commonly find.
Only other brand I know of that gives white light is Sylvania (hard to
find - from Lowe's) - and we've tried a bunch.

Not sure if there's a Big Lots in your area, but it's worth a shot.

Various color compact fluorescents are available from online sellers
such as bulbs.com.

Also, Home Depot recently started selling N:Vision brand ones that come
in 3 different colors in most wattages:

"Soft White" - the usual 2700K.

"Bright White" - 3500K, a "whiter shade of warm white". That is my
favorite.

"Daylight" - which for these is 5500K, very slightly bluish to sometimes
appearing pure white, not as bluish as 6500K.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

On the other hand, diesel's vapors do not reach a flammable
concentration in ordinary situations - toss a burning match into a bucket
of diesel and it will go out. (Then again, I prefer to not bet my life
or lack of a hospital visit that the forces of Murphy's Law won't find a
way to make something go wrong.)

The Ladbroke Grove rail crash showed how diesel burns very well if the impact is
so serious that an aerosol mist results.

Graham

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <ng0sn2lor8s9f758ss7g1o0gembq6gsiei@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:59:55 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <el5gn2dbsmnsjfiv02jfovsu8n69rasfhh@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

It's been my limited experience the compact fluorescents do _not_ last
as long. I have a pair of sockets for my living room that are near
each other in the ceiling (20 feet up, yes I have room for two floors
in that room.) When I first bought the place, there were two
incandescents already there. One eventually went out and I replaced
it with a compact fluorescent... twice... before the other one finally
expired (it was also incandescent.) They are on the same circuit and
attached to the same light switch so they are either both on or both
off, always.

Is this a recessed ceiling fixture?

Yes, it is. Those 1970's style swivel things with a brass finish. I
use a very long rod to reach up that high, with a suction cup on the
end of the extention that is moistened to grip.

Those build up heat and are hard on compact fluorescents.

At <20 watts, though? These are 65-watt-equivalent-lumen types, with
the standard shaped bulb outside for gripping correctly.

Yes, heat buildup in recessed ceiling fixtures can be a problem with a
20 watt compact fluorescent.

Keep in mind that a compact fluorescent produces much less infrared in
the 700-2000 nm range than incandescents do, and a higher percentage of
the input energy becomes conducted/convected heat.

In one trial, I had a fixture experience a slightly greater temperature
rise with a 42 watt compact fluorescent than with a 60 watt incandescent.

Also, compact fluorescents do not withstand heat as well as
incandescents do.

The coiled glass envelope, phosphor-rare-earth coated, is in the interior
of that outer glass, flatish surfaced bulb that fits my grip. The
incandescents were 65 watts apiece and must have generated a lot more
heat up there in years gone by (and in my comparison incandescent that
I placed there.)

Yes more heat, but not proportionately more heating of the fixture. The
incandescent produces infrared - much of which escapes the fixture. That
escaping infrared will heat the room and the building, but heat not the
fixture on its way out.

For that matter, some compact fluorescents brag
about being specifically rated to use in recessed ceiling fixtures. Such
includes the 15, 20 and non-dimmable 23 watt ones of Philips SLS series.
Philips did say that the 25 and the dimmable 23 are not rated for use in
recessed ceiling fixtures.

I'll look more closely. This switch I'm using here is a dimmer type,
too. This could be another confounding issue, in my case.

That's only one example case here in the house. I've
been tracking this elsewhere around the home, because of that
experience, and it seems consistent that I cannot get the same life
out of a compact fluorescent as I do a similar-rated (in lumens)
incandescent. Not 4 time, not 2 times, not equal. But decidedly less
and perhaps about half.

I can say where and when compact fluorescents appear to me prone to
short life:

Thanks.

1) When on-time is short. As I hear it, "standard conditions" for life
expectancy include 3 hours per start. So I expect a fair chance of short
life expectancy compared to incandescents in motion sensor lights,
closets, restrooms used mainly for short trips, and refrigerators.

We keep the livingroom lights on, usually with the dimmer set to full
(I don't often dim), for more than 3 hours a day. And usually, most
of it in one sitting (evening.)

2) Higher wattage CFL in small enclosed fixture, due to heat buildup.

These are as described above.

3) If the CFL is a problem-prone one, such as (according to my
experience) 25 watt spirals of GE and LOA brands made around 2001, LOA
45 watt ones, and LOA "Q-Lites" from the early 1990's. Also I have seen
"dollar store" ones have a significant rate of spectacular infant
mortality, as well as never achieving claimed light output (sometimes
low by a factor of 3) and sometimes not achieving stated color.

Getting these bulbs from Costco and they are branded as described in
an earlier post.

4) I hear of a few complaints of the Commercial Electric 42 watt spiral
dying young when operated base-up. I suspect the problem here is heat.

Could be, but I've cracked two from the living room ceiling lights and
looked at the electronics and used my nose. They seem unburned. But
I could do a better post-mortem than I have. Have to wait another
cycle, though.

I suspect most likely a semiconductor failing short (does not always
explode and often does not burn), or the smoothing capacitor shorting
(sometimes leaks or "vents"/pops, sometimes just blows an internal fuse).

I have other situations around the house with a single switch (no
dimmers) and several fixtures, where I can add to the testing process.
Some are one end up, some the opposite. I'll start keeping logs.

What first got me onto this whole thing was that I bought this place
and moved in, early 2002. When we took over, there were two
incandescents in the livingroom ceiling. I replaced it with a new
CFL, fresh bought because I had to look for those funny ones that I
could mount at such a height via this pole contraption. Later, that
very CFL went dead on me. The incandescent was still working. And it
was the one the prior owners had placed there. So I replaced it,
again. The next CFL burned out, too, before the incandescent finally
went. With two CFLs dead in the same socket, an incandescent still
running for some time yet, I began to have my very first questions
about it. (This period of time was, perhaps, a calendar period of two
years.)

Since then, I've found this experience in a few other places around
the house, as well. Not as clear, to me. But definitely where I have
replaced a CFL a 2nd time (meaning that I am _positive_ that the
incandescent nearby is lasting longer) before having to replace the
incandescent. Some of these are older incandescents (from the earlier
owner, some are ones I've had in boxes and used recently.) I don't
think I've purchased _any_ incandescents since moving here, so all of
them are made prior to 2002.

They may be super long life incandescents. If so, their light output
is less than those of "standard life".

That was my motivation and my experience leading me to begin, for the
first time, to wonder about whether or not these things actually do
last as long as they say or if perhaps the incandescents last a lot
longer than they say.

I hear enough complaints about incandescents falling short of claimed
life expectancy also, although more from compact fluorescents. There have
been a few bad runs of CFLs, some get used in thermally hostile
environments, and plenty have average on-time per start a lot less than
the "standard test condition" of 3 hours.

Thinking backwards on this, I have to say that
the CFLs I've had 'go bad' on me must have failed to meet their hours,
rather than the incandescents lasting so much longer than rated.

I do expect CFLs will on average fall short of claimed life expectancy
due to common usage with average ontime per start a lot less than 3 hours,
and thermally less-favorable environments. I would favor a different
standard for screw-base retail-package CFLs to have life expectancy
testing at 1 hour per start and in an ambient temperature maybe 40 degrees
C rather than the 25 C currently used for testing.
However, I expect CFLs to still mostly last long enough to be
economically favorable over incandescents for most household lighting.

The CFLs are, looking at the packaging, rated for 8,000 hours. So that's
almost a full year of _ON_ time. And I _know_ for certain that they
failed in less operational hours than that.

I think I average about half to 2/3 of claimed life expectancy from my
CFLs. Sorry, not enough written logs...

The incandescent in the living room lasted perhaps two years of use after
we moved it and I don't know how long, before that. That _may_ be just
about its rated life, given our use. Or perhaps a little better, though
I'm guessing. But it is way below the CFL's rating.

It is turning out, I think, that perhaps CFLs are more limited in the
areas they can be effectively used, as rated. If you are saying that
some are rated for my ceiling use, and some aren't, this is something
I've never needed to worry about before regarding incandescents -- so
this is new information to me. And it complicates the buying process
for CFLs, while not complicating it for incandescents.

Interesting, though.

Thanks,
Jon

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <457E0E12.79DB5D5E@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

On the other hand, diesel's vapors do not reach a flammable
concentration in ordinary situations - toss a burning match into a bucket
of diesel and it will go out. (Then again, I prefer to not bet my life
or lack of a hospital visit that the forces of Murphy's Law won't find a
way to make something go wrong.)

The Ladbroke Grove rail crash showed how diesel burns very well if the
impact is so serious that an aerosol mist results.

Graham

Yes, forgot to consider that one... Concentrated aerosols of just about
anything combustible are flammable.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[NightMist]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:17:56 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <jlbhn2t1jtcsk6219glt8tqil875bu2mna@4ax.com>, Glen Walpert wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:51:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

trimmed complaint about unreliable CCFL lights

Please use the correct acronym - we have been talking about CFLs,
compact fluorescent lamps.

CCFL is cold cathode fluorescent lamp, which the usual household use
compacts are not. (One exception - N:Vision's 3-watt candelabra base does
appear to me to be cold cathode. BTW, the nominally 4-watt candelabra
base ones are hot cathode.)

What's an Ott?

Besides $25 for a 13 watt bulb.

NightMist
wondering if she has both

--
Come to the dark side.
We have cookies.

 

[jasen]

On 2006-12-11, jmfbahciv@aol.com <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:

Reread the comment that got me wondering. The implication was
that the phone was used as a dildo. So...either the female
knows when the male is calling and never answers to use it
or ...??? IOW, how does the male know that the female is
using the vibration and keeps ringing long enough until
climax? hmmm...I suppose those cameras are getting used already..

They could be in the same room at the time...

Bye.
Jasen

 

In article <elllso$95b$9@jasen.is-a-geek.org>,
jasen <jasen@free.net.nz> wrote:

On 2006-12-11, jmfbahciv@aol.com <jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:


Reread the comment that got me wondering. The implication was
that the phone was used as a dildo. So...either the female
knows when the male is calling and never answers to use it
or ...??? IOW, how does the male know that the female is
using the vibration and keeps ringing long enough until
climax? hmmm...I suppose those cameras are getting used already..

They could be in the same room at the time...

I suppose they could but that's no fun. When you
have the real thing, why settle for a substitute?

That was my basis when I tried to figure out how
these phone matters could be arranged.

/BAH

 

In article <slrnenrd59.shg.don@manx.misty.com>,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article <jX4eh.3190$QD3.2643@trndny01>, ehsjr wrote:
CoreyWhite wrote:



20%, is what Al Gore said. He would know better than me. What do you
think the electric power needs of the florescents would be? And where
can I buy a Tesla Bulb?


Maybe from that paragon of honesty who claimed he
invented the internet...

What Gore actually said was that he "took the initiative in creating the
internet".

I say not as bad as an exaggeration as that of his opponents, since he
was the main force in the Senate for expanding it from the Aarpanet back
in the days when it was often called the "Information Superhighway".

nitpick...ARPA was not "expanded". Back then commercial netwoks
and defense networks existed. However, they could not use
each other's gear for traffic. The bill that Gore co-authored,
among other things like introducing new fees, also removed
the national security restriction that kept the two networks
separate.

It was a Very Bad Thing to allow comm data packets from a
commercial site to stray onto the ARPA network. We were
in the cold war and were still learning about how many
layers of protocol and their specifications were necessary.

/BAH

 

In article <slrnenrdgk.shg.don@manx.misty.com>,
don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In article <QqKdnYmXOfKvDOrYnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@web-ster.com>, Tim Wescott
wrote:
OG wrote:

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:Sbidnf-vF-0A7erYnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@web-ster.com...

CoreyWhite wrote:

Al Gore came on Opera yesterday and said we could save 20% of the
energy our light bulbs use if we switched to more expensive florescent
bulbs. These bulbs last longer you know. But are you aware that the
light bulb companies are conspiring to keep florescent bulbs off the
market? They charge you more for them already, but Tesla invented a
florescent bulb that is still burning in the Tesla Museum 50 years
later. If we all used his bulbs we would never have to worry about
screwing in light bulbs. So the answer to the most important question
of the day: How many scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Really should be none. Because we don't have to ever change our light
bulbs in an ideal world.

But can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of one of these Tesla bulbs?


If you live out in the boonies where the power fluctuates the florescent
bulbs only last twice as long as 'regulars'. Given how much extra they
cost that's not too good of a deal. Given that they seem to embody more
energy used to produce I suspect that it's not a good deal in terms of
total energy used, either.



If a standard 100W incandescent bulb has a rated lifetime of 1000 hours
it'll use 100Kwh over its life,
The fluorescent equivalent uses 20W and (according to your claim) lasts
just
2000 hours, so it uses 40Kwh over its life, which represents at least a
60%
saving.

Right. A florescent bulb costs $9.99, 40kWh costs diddly, and so does
an incandescent bulb.

How about $5 or less for compact fluorescents?

Wow! I don't pay that.

Although in my experience it takes at least 25, usually at least 26
watts of compact fluorescent wattage to match a 1710 lumen "standard" 100
watt 120V incandescent.

The lumen specs may be equivalent but my aging eyes can't see as
well with the compacts. I still have a 60W to fill in the
spectra gap. (and I think I just spelled spectra wrong.)

/BAH

 

In article <ng0sn2lor8s9f758ss7g1o0gembq6gsiei@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:59:55 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In <el5gn2dbsmnsjfiv02jfovsu8n69rasfhh@4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
snip

Is this a recessed ceiling fixture?

Yes, it is. Those 1970's style swivel things with a brass finish. I
use a very long rod to reach up that high, with a suction cup on the
end of the extention that is moistened to grip.

Now I'm confused. The directions on the bulbs I buy say to not
use them in recessed fixtures. I never understood why and I wish
instructions would say why.

Those build up heat and are hard on compact fluorescents.

At <20 watts, though?

Do an experiement. Those things get hot. I was surprised.

I think what Don was talking about is that the bulb cannot
stand its own heat.

For that matter, some compact fluorescents brag
about being specifically rated to use in recessed ceiling fixtures. Such
includes the 15, 20 and non-dimmable 23 watt ones of Philips SLS series.
Philips did say that the 25 and the dimmable 23 are not rated for use in
recessed ceiling fixtures.

I'll look more closely. This switch I'm using here is a dimmer type,
too. This could be another confounding issue, in my case.

The instructions on the packaging say to not use them on dimmers.
Perhaps that's the bug in your system that shortens the life.
Although I also have no idea why this is a restriction.

One of these days, I'll figure out what causes mine to zap
the radio with static. So far, I haven't been able to
reproduce it but havent' spent serious time on the problem.

<snip>

/BAH

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:

Right. A florescent bulb costs $9.99, 40kWh costs diddly, and so does
an incandescent bulb.

How about $5 or less for compact fluorescents?

Wow! I don't pay that.

Me neither. The equivalent of ~ $1 for the last few and they're proper Philips
brand too.

Although in my experience it takes at least 25, usually at least 26
watts of compact fluorescent wattage to match a 1710 lumen "standard" 100
watt 120V incandescent.

The lumen specs may be equivalent but my aging eyes can't see as
well with the compacts. I still have a 60W to fill in the
spectra gap. (and I think I just spelled spectra wrong.)

You can get them with a colour temperature of ~ 6000K ( bright white )

These are supposed to be more like daylight. I'm just about to buy one or two of
these - in higher wattage too ( 30W @ 45W ) to see what they're like.

Graham

 

In article <457EB2CB.B6AD9D9C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:

Right. A florescent bulb costs $9.99, 40kWh costs diddly, and so does
an incandescent bulb.

How about $5 or less for compact fluorescents?

Wow! I don't pay that.

Me neither. The equivalent of ~ $1 for the last few and they're proper
Philips
brand too.


Although in my experience it takes at least 25, usually at least 26
watts of compact fluorescent wattage to match a 1710 lumen "standard" 100
watt 120V incandescent.

The lumen specs may be equivalent but my aging eyes can't see as
well with the compacts. I still have a 60W to fill in the
spectra gap. (and I think I just spelled spectra wrong.)

You can get them with a colour temperature of ~ 6000K ( bright white )

These are supposed to be more like daylight. I'm just about to buy one or two
of
these - in higher wattage too ( 30W @ 45W ) to see what they're like.

Will you report back with your results? It would nice if your
tests included somebody with aged eyes.

/BAH

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <457e4612.8952380@news.madbbs.com>, NightMist wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:17:56 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <jlbhn2t1jtcsk6219glt8tqil875bu2mna@4ax.com>, Glen Walpert wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:51:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

trimmed complaint about unreliable CCFL lights

Please use the correct acronym - we have been talking about CFLs,
compact fluorescent lamps.

CCFL is cold cathode fluorescent lamp, which the usual household use
compacts are not. (One exception - N:Vision's 3-watt candelabra base does
appear to me to be cold cathode. BTW, the nominally 4-watt candelabra
base ones are hot cathode.)

What's an Ott?
Besides $25 for a 13 watt bulb.

A higher price brand with what I consider marketing hype.

Several years ago one of the then-regulars in sci.engr.lighting
published a spectrometer plot of one of those. It appeared to me typical
of a high color temperature triphosphor.

Just a couple months ago I got an Ott 13 watt twintube/"PL-style" at
Home Depot for about $10. That was a version for growing plants, and
supposedly has its spectrum as best as possible resembling that of
sunlight which Ott claimed was good for plants. My diffraction grating
tells me that this is indeed a "full spectrum" one, probably with color
rendering index probably in the low 90's, and the color temp. is about
5000K. However, other brands of fluorescents for growing plants have
their spectra running low in the green since plants reflect green
light and don't make much use of it, but best utilize red and blue.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[erithromycin]

Uh, guys -

if saving energy is this important to you, could you maybe trim the
newsgroups a little? I mean, alt.gothic doesn't really need this much light.

Given how many extra messages are being bandied about as a result, if the
difference between bulbs is an issue for you I'd have thought the needless
propogation of this many posts would be a concern too.
--
erith - .sig

 

[NightMist]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:50:22 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <457e4612.8952380@news.madbbs.com>, NightMist wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:17:56 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <jlbhn2t1jtcsk6219glt8tqil875bu2mna@4ax.com>, Glen Walpert wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:51:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

trimmed complaint about unreliable CCFL lights

Please use the correct acronym - we have been talking about CFLs,
compact fluorescent lamps.

CCFL is cold cathode fluorescent lamp, which the usual household use
compacts are not. (One exception - N:Vision's 3-watt candelabra base does
appear to me to be cold cathode. BTW, the nominally 4-watt candelabra
base ones are hot cathode.)

What's an Ott?
Besides $25 for a 13 watt bulb.

A higher price brand with what I consider marketing hype.

Several years ago one of the then-regulars in sci.engr.lighting
published a spectrometer plot of one of those. It appeared to me typical
of a high color temperature triphosphor.

Just a couple months ago I got an Ott 13 watt twintube/"PL-style" at
Home Depot for about $10. That was a version for growing plants, and
supposedly has its spectrum as best as possible resembling that of
sunlight which Ott claimed was good for plants. My diffraction grating
tells me that this is indeed a "full spectrum" one, probably with color
rendering index probably in the low 90's, and the color temp. is about
5000K. However, other brands of fluorescents for growing plants have
their spectra running low in the green since plants reflect green
light and don't make much use of it, but best utilize red and blue.

OK, I am taking notes here.

Including one to myself to remind me that Otts have spread out from
the art and sewing markets. I am so not buying one at the art supply
store again! though at the time it was the least expensive source I
could find. I will mention that mine at least seems destined to live
forever. The bulb is now about 5 years old and still works fine.

Oddly, though Otts are supposed to be in the range of noontime
sunlight, they look cold to me. They work for color matching, but I
am not comfortable around them. They make my mastoids shiver and my
teeth wiggle, wish I could be more precise...

My interest lies primarily in accurate color reproduction.
Most often I do not know what the lighting in the area in which a
painting will be displayed is, or if it will change. Thus
approximating natural light is wise when creating it.
Something other than an Ott that will not bankrupt me to try would be
good. So I have been following along in this thread and gleaning.

NightMist
--
Come to the dark side.
We have cookies.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <qbd154-mfp.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:03:25 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

A more interesting comparison might be how efficiently you can light a
room with gas!

BOOM! Quite efficiently, but all the light shines at the same time.

Light and heat and improved ventilation

grin> Yep.

Nah - if you learn to light one properly, the deflagration front is
contained within millimeters of the mantle. ;-)

I have watched people fill the auto gas tank. Despite all warnings
I've seen men and women hanging onto a cigarette while doing so.

Americans ! They probably use cellphones while refuelling too.

Graham

And why not, since the cellphone/gas thing is an urban legend?

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

Yes and no. Cellular telephones do not cause
explosions. Sitting in your car then getting out will
build a static electric charge in you. Grabbing the
filling nozzle can discharge the electricity, generate
a spark at the filling port, and ignite gasoline fumes.
This scenario has been recorded on video surveillance
tapes at gas stations.

People do get into their car and talk on the cellular
telephone as the gasoline tank fills.

--
Michael Press

 

In sci.physics Michael Press <jack@fake.net> wrote:

In article <qbd154-mfp.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:03:25 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

A more interesting comparison might be how efficiently you can light a
room with gas!

BOOM! Quite efficiently, but all the light shines at the same time.

Light and heat and improved ventilation

grin> Yep.

Nah - if you learn to light one properly, the deflagration front is
contained within millimeters of the mantle. ;-)

I have watched people fill the auto gas tank. Despite all warnings
I've seen men and women hanging onto a cigarette while doing so.

Americans ! They probably use cellphones while refuelling too.

Graham

And why not, since the cellphone/gas thing is an urban legend?

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

Yes and no. Cellular telephones do not cause
explosions. Sitting in your car then getting out will
build a static electric charge in you. Grabbing the
filling nozzle can discharge the electricity, generate
a spark at the filling port, and ignite gasoline fumes.
This scenario has been recorded on video surveillance
tapes at gas stations.

People do get into their car and talk on the cellular
telephone as the gasoline tank fills.

If you had bothered to read the URL first, you would have known that
there was extensive data there about the effects of static electricity
and fires.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.