OT: Wow, compact fluorescent light bulbs already obsolete

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/01/2020 12:42 pm, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-01-18 19:55, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 18/01/2020 11:57 am, John Doe wrote:
I bought CFL lightbulbs once. Now I need some more, I turn around and
they're gone! Replaced by LED light bulbs. That was a short-lived
technology.


They've been around for a lot longer than most people realise. It's
just that they didn't become popular until governments started banning
incandescent lamps.

Because they suck.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was more
due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in their
manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.

Sylvia.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 1:26:22 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 01:46:57 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:


The poster is uninformed.

Not something our Phil gets called much around here! :-D

But John Doe gets called uniformed quite often.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 8:42:25 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-01-18 20:03, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-18 17:43, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 17:30:57 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-18 06:10, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 01:57:45 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-17 20:46, John Doe wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Doe wrote:

I bought CFL lightbulbs once. Now I need some more, I
turn around and they're gone! Replaced by LED light
bulbs. That was a short-lived technology.

Good riddance. CFLs stink on ice.

The poster is uninformed.


They're dim,

not a bit, they're available from 3w to 100s of watts & many
thousand lumens. There was an issue with mfrs claiming
wattage equivalence to nonstandard filament lamps, but that
is not due to any problem with the CFLs obviously.

...just with the ones you could actually buy and use
conveniently. And

I've long been able to buy & use upto a few hundred watts at
least.

CFLs of a few hundred watts? Riiiiiigggghhhhttt. Let's see a few
links.

So do you do your work without researching??? This is just one link
of many. Google is your friend. I searched on 400 watt CFL but the
web site search showed lamps all the way up to this 600 watt bulb.

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/7671/FC200-FEIIIB277.html

We're talking about domestic bulbs, here. That's a mogul-base bulb--I
have zero mogul-base fixtures in my house--do you have any? The last
one I used was in about 1978 in a photo shoot.

I don't have any incandescent bulbs that will fit a standard socket either. Do you???

I forget the larget that fit into ceiling pendant fittings,
somewhere around the 60w real watts mark which is way too much
light for a pendant fitting.

I'm talking about table and standard lamps. The gummint banned the
bulbs they were designed for. 100W incandescent (1690 lumens) is
about right for reading by, if it's within 2-3 feet. Good luck
getting a genuine 1690 lumen CFL to fit in a normal table lamp
harp, even assuming you could find such a thing. Most of the
'100w equivalent' CFLs claimed to be around 1100 lumens, and
actually came in well below that.

That's why I ignore the "equivalent" numbers, they are often
fiction. Again, did you do any looking at all?

https://www.1000bulbs.com/search?breadcrumbs%5B0%5D=light-bulbs&breadcrumbs%5B1%5D=cfl-bulbs&breadcrumbs%5B2%5D=cfl&facet.multiselect=true&page=1&q=%2A&rows=15&son=0&sort=price+asc&start=0&filter=(category:%221870%22)&filter=(a_lumens_d_fq:[1550%20TO%201850])&filter=(a_color_temperature_n_fq:[2500%20TO%202750])



As cheap as $3!!!

A 100-W tungsten lamp was about 75 cents, iirc. Have you ever measured
any of those "100W-equivalent" bulbs? I have. They all sucked.

I was thinking you were just being cranky today. I guess you are having a "old" attack. I gave you links and you don't even read them. You need to give it up old guy. Stop reading wattage "equivalent" and read the damn lumens for Christ's sake. As you have been told there is no such thing as a standard lumen output for an incandescent bulb. For a given wattage a brighter bulb means shorter life. It's a trade off.

Of course the marketeers are going to work that. SO READ THE LUMENS!!! God, no one would mistake you for an educated engineer.

Using the ambient light sensor on my phone (a BlackBerry Classic)
in an apples-to-apples geometry, '100W equivalent' CFLs from the
supermarket produced about a third of what they claimed (assuming
that the 1690 lumens quoted by GE for their incandescent bulbs
wasn't overstated).

There is no standard number for a 100 watt lamp. The vary the
diameter of the filament to give long life vs. brightness at the
same wattage. That's why the manufacturers can get away with the
nonsense numbers they post as "equivalent". I use 1600 lumens for a
100 watt bulb. I've checked my hoard of incandescents and they do
vary.

The ones I have in stock are 1690 lumens.

So?? Why do I care about your light bulb hoard???

they are intrinsically dim--their surface brightness is
dramatically lower than a 100W incandescent's, so very often an
equivalently-bright CFL wouldn't fit the fixture. Lamp harps
especially.

dim no, larger yes

I'm talking about lumens per square metre, not total lumens. Lower
surface brightness -> larger surface for the same output -> larger
physical size for the same luminous output.

So they don't fit. Point made.

???

What lamps are you using that you can't fit a 1600 lumen CFL into
it? They may be a bit taller so the harp won't fit as well. I bought
a couple of table lamps made in China and they had cut the harp wire
so short it would bump the top of the CFL I was fitting into it.
They fit all the older lamps just fine.

Lots.



slow,

There were 2 types of CFL, general purpose & facilities. The
former were not slow.

The facilities ones aren't CFLs, and the domestic ones really
are slow, especially in cold weather. They take seconds to
come up to full brightness, vs. tens of milliseconds for an
incandescent or LED. (The LED is intrinsically a ~100 ns
device, but the power supplies are slower.)

Most CFLs weren't rated for cold service. You could get ones that
were.

Have you got a link for porch light CFLs that work down to 0 F?

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/6781/FC23-801023.html

I'm seeing zero specs for light output at low temperature there. They
say it 'starts' at -20 degrees, but so did the one I used to have on my
porch. It sure didn't make anything like rated output below 50 F,
though--below freezing you couldn't even see to put the key in the lock.
The vapour pressure of mercury is what it is, hype or no hype.

What??? What does the vapor pressure of mercury have to do with it? As long as it is a vapor, it's the same amount mercury no matter what the vapor pressure it.

They are much better than incandescents in many ways. They are much brighter than incandescents when they burn out which they did OFTEN. I got tired of replacing the bulbs in the porch lights. That's why they aren't incandescents at zero lumens.

What supermarket did you buy them from? Ordinary incandescents
work fine over a huge temperature range.

No, they only work at thousands of degrees, but the are self heating
so it works out.

Thousands of degrees? The housing is made of plastic, dude.

Really? Every incandescent bulb I've bought was glass and metal. They have to be air cooled or they will set the house on fire.

It's funny that a ceiling can has to be insulated or have air flow
to prevent an incandescent bulb from starting a fire while a CFL or
LED needs to have air flow to keep it cool.

The latter were very slow to warm up, trading that off for
better efficacy, and were never intended for domestic use. I
think the reason facilities lamps occasionally ended up in
homes was the complete failure of mfrs to explain what they
were on the pack - just stating 'facilities' meant nothing
to the home buyer.


highly temperature-sensitive,

some were intolerant of small enclosed spaces, most weren't.
Depended on the mercury technology & dose.

It's cold I'm talking about. Those of us who actually save
significant amounts of energy generally do it by turning down
the thermostat, which makes the lights go dim.

you got the wrong ones then

So what exactly would the right ones have been? Any old tungsten
or LED bulb from the corner store works fine there.

Maybe you need to actually read in info. Just like many things CFLs
can be made very cheaply and won't work well. Or they can work
great if you buy good ones.

BITD you could get good bulbs at the supermarket. With newer LED bulbs,
that happy state may be returning. Not in the CFL period, however.

What is the obsession with the supermarket??? That was great when you needed to buy light bulbs every few weeks like dog food. With the long lives of most CFLs and LEDs I haven't bought any in something like years.

and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs,
but it was possible to find outliers with excessively high
CCT, and occasional junk products with old halophosphate
phosphors.

You must be colour blind.

no. CFLs used the same phoshors as linear fluorescent, just with
less choice.

As everybody knows, linear fluorescent bulbs also have horrible
CRI. If you don't see that, you must be colour blind as I said.

You are wound up today. Is your underwear riding up on you?

Other than that, they rock.

They do save a bit of money, but the amount I spend on
electric light is pretty trivial.

they were a move forward in technology, saving more than they
cost.

And making it hard to read my book, all to save two cents an
hour. No thanks.

You got the wrong ones! Freedom isn't usually a bad thing.

You said it. In a free society I'd be able to buy whatever light
bulbs I like, but I can't any more. Freedom here in the US has
been progressively eroded since 9/11. From the relatively trivial
POV of light bulbs it ended in 2012. (Some fraction or our
freedoms remain, but many irreplaceable ones have been lost.)

It is never true that you can buy anything you want.

Except that your team ensured that I haven't been able to go to the
market and just buy normal 75-cent, 1690-lumen incandescents since 2012.

MY team??? You are a strange dude. I'm sorry you have no reason to go to the supermarket anymore. What, you cruise the light bulb aisle looking for babes???

You can't buy things nobody makes.

Well, duh, your guys outlawed them.

Wouldn't matter. They did that to get the ball rolling. Now no one wants them.

That's a problem that has always
existed. I run into it pretty much every year when I want to buy the
same clothes I bought last year and they are out of style.
Incandescents are out of style. It is still legal to make and sell
them.

Except for the ones people wanted to buy, circa 2012. Those ones were
made illegal.

You seem to be batting 100 today.

Sure am. You, not so much.

Maybe you should go to the supermarket and get some Geritol? That is likely the source of your real problem.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Bulbrite-100-Watt-A19-Frost-Tough-Coat-Dimmable-Warm-White-Light-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-12-Pack-860874/305910194

900 lumens for 100W--about half the efficiency of the old supermarket
kind, besides being three or four times the price. You're losing your
touch.

Sorry, I can't force anyone to make something no one else wants. Do you shop for spats and buggy whips too?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:


> CFLs of a few hundred watts? Riiiiiigggghhhhttt. Let's see a few links.

They're called 'neon lights' when they get that big, and they
weren't ever compact. But, definitely could go to a few hundred watts.
White color wasn't required, for the usual signage uses.

 

[John Doe]

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

[CFL] produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it
was possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and
occasional junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

The CFLs being replaced here looked just fine. I have been wearing a
CREE XM-L2 T6 LED headlamp daily for years (LOVE it), I'm very familiar
with LED lighting. Seemed the CFL perfectly mimiced the "Soft White"
incandescent lightbulbs.

I really did not miss replacing light bulbs. That was one obvious
benefit. Hopefully that's not being diminished with LED, but I can
imagine a conspiracy in which they can claim energy savings while they
reinstate the much greater number of unit sales.

 

[piglet]

On 19/01/2020 2:32 am, Sylvia Else wrote:

The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer and
longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this was more
due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors used in their
manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.

Sylvia.

Sometimes the electrolytic is just fine and the problem is mercury vapor
loss due to combining with electrodes or phosphor poisoning. Gas mixture
and phosphor quality varied a lot between manufacturers.

piglet

 

[John Doe]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
John Doe wrote:

I bought CFL lightbulbs once [or twice]. Now I need some more,
I turn around and they're gone! Replaced by LED light bulbs.
That was a short-lived technology.

They've been around for a lot longer than most people realise.
It's just that they didn't become popular until governments
started banning incandescent lamps.

Strange that the first CFLs were grossly inferior.

The main issue I had with them was their tendency to take longer
and longer to reach maximum brightness as they aged. I think this
was more due to excessive economy in the electrolytic capacitors
used in their manufacture rather than an inherent limitation.

That sounds like the first set I bought near when they first were
made available to consumers. They were horrible color and took a
while to brighten up. The last set I bought made by Sylvania aged
just fine. When they stopped working, there was no difference from
the day they were installed. They turned on to full brightness
instantly. The color was the same as incandescent.

Back then, LEDs sucked worse. The first LED flashlights were
horrible. Not sure they are great now unless you get a Cree like the
one in my headlamp (but I haven't shopped for a long time).

I'm a little surprised the 100 W LED light bulb (base) is so hot.
But my headlamp gets hot too.

 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 17:03:47 -0800 (PST), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 6:23:02 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-18 17:43, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 17:30:57 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-18 06:10, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 18 January 2020 01:57:45 UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-01-17 20:46, John Doe wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
John Doe wrote:

I bought CFL lightbulbs once. Now I need some more, I
turn around and they're gone! Replaced by LED light
bulbs. That was a short-lived technology.

Good riddance. CFLs stink on ice.

The poster is uninformed.


They're dim,

not a bit, they're available from 3w to 100s of watts & many
thousand lumens. There was an issue with mfrs claiming wattage
equivalence to nonstandard filament lamps, but that is not due to
any problem with the CFLs obviously.

...just with the ones you could actually buy and use conveniently.
And

I've long been able to buy & use upto a few hundred watts at least.

CFLs of a few hundred watts? Riiiiiigggghhhhttt. Let's see a few links.

So do you do your work without researching??? This is just one link of many. Google is your friend. I searched on 400 watt CFL but the web site search showed lamps all the way up to this 600 watt bulb.

https://www.1000bulbs.com/product/7671/FC200-FEIIIB277.html

Did you look at the specifications ?

Big E39 base, 35 cm long and 11 cm in diameter and requires 277 V, so
in practice it is intended for 277/480 V three phase industrial
systems. No idea what the weight is.

Calling it a CFL is questionable , at least it doesn't fit into a
table lamp.

 

[John Doe]

Nothing wrong with CFL colors in the last Sylvania set I bought. The
brightness was the same as incandescent. They lasted for years. Was
very pleasantly strange not having to change light bulbs.

Likely the poster jumped the gun and got burned by early technology
CFLs. Or for whatever other reason it has a personal axe to grind.

--
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless electrooptical.net> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:57:36 -0600
Subject: Re: OT: Wow, compact fluorescent light bulbs already obsolete
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
References: <qvtl53$4l4$1 dont-email.me> <f86294fc-b940-550a-d8ec-ba51d00208b3 electrooptical.net> <qvto2h$htk$1 dont-email.me
From: Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless electrooptical.net
Message-ID: <624c2713-a44d-9407-1256-e1f9ab15eb89 electrooptical.net
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:57:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <qvto2h$htk$1 dont-email.me
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
X-Trace: sv3-FxOk3ddkHvXgXX0tN83wCTXogmZ8JyuSkwPWipqh5TpI5beQdGRi+WmAGfj8o2YeZpFmPheZtG9gtnj!fKdD08azP3i+e+i9AjoYfNJ3uH+KaJLoh7bEOgMSqm8G2IKeo5egDBz78J4UUPL61Fk+gvW+khhP!PiQ9vPWsvzYX3yRDh8nYU8jx
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2433
X-Received-Bytes: 2627
X-Received-Body-CRC: 561384053
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:580019

On 2020-01-17 20:46, John Doe wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I bought CFL lightbulbs once. Now I need some more, I turn around and
they're gone! Replaced by LED light bulbs. That was a short-lived
technology.

Good riddance. CFLs stink on ice.

The poster is uninformed.


They're dim, slow, highly temperature-sensitive, fragile, not dimmable,
and produce ugly colours. Other than that, they rock.

They do save a bit of money, but the amount I spend on electric light is
pretty trivial. LEDs are dramatically better than CFLs, and almost
competitive with incandescents for appearance, except in Christmas
lights. LED Christmas lights are hideous. (There's no reason you
couldn't make the nice diffused colours the same way as with tungsten,
but apparently nobody does.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Doe]

That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.

--
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill yahoo.com> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn
From: Winfield Hill <winfieldhill yahoo.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Wow, compact fluorescent light bulbs already obsolete
Date: 18 Jan 2020 07:10:25 -0800
Organization: Rowland Institute
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <qvv75101bs4 drn.newsguy.com
References: <qvtl53$4l4$1 dont-email.me
NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3a3b7b383d2f67ce7e5b6485183c61553521c0d2306f897.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Received-Bytes: 1334
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2169793678
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:580051

John Doe wrote...

I bought CFL lightbulbs once. Now ... they're gone!
Replaced by LEDs. That was a short-lived technology.

Not so short; History from Wikipedia:

1976: GE engineer, Edward E. Hammer, invents spiral CFL.
1980: Philips model SL, screw-in, integral magnetic ballast.
1985: Osram model EL lamp, including an electronic ballast.
next: development of high-efficacy phosphors...
1995: by Shanghai Xiangshan in China, helical CFLs.
2011: China CFLs were the "dominant technology".
2015: LED prices fell well below US$5 for a basic bulb.
2016: GE, announced phase out of CFL production in the US.
2020: 40 years later, John Doe writes, that was short-lived.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in news:r015hs$6hd$2@dont-
email.me:

That history seems strange considering the fact the first consumer
CFLs were inferior technology, resembling early technology LED
flashlights. If the technology had been around so long, they would
have been ready for prime time the day they were first made
available to consumers.

Ya don't need to quote the fuckin' headers. Goddamn boy! how long
you been posting in Usenet, and you are so thick that you cannot shed
retarded bad habits.

 

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news5g62fdgm8pgh950qd0abkr4iadgghqemb@4ax.com:

> so a light sensor is the answer.

Not an old, goes bad with age, '50s technolgy 'switches' they are
STILL putting on them. They fail quite badly. We have mch better
photo sensors now.

No.. It would still easily be able to use a clock, with known local
differences. The day night sensor could still be incorporated as a
second reference or a learning tool for the AI.

 

[piglet]

On 19/01/2020 12:18 pm, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 15:05, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:41:07 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it was
possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and occasional
junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

Most CFL tubes use /7xx or /8xx phosphors. Some manufacturers claim
also /9xx models in their catalogs, but I have not seen any CFLs in
real life in the /9xx range. I use some /965 (CRI=9x 6500 K)
"daylight" tubes but they are full size fluorescent tubes.

Okay, what's the exact significance of that?

You must be colour blind.

Let indirect daylight fall on a white surface. Aim the lamp towards
the same surface to a chive similar illumination. With /965 phosphors
is hard to tell the difference and I have often forgot to switch off
the /965 uplighters in the morning when there are sufficient light
outside . Unfortunately /965 CFLs are extremely rare and
unobtainable as LEDs.

It isn't white surfaces that have the problem, it's coloured ones. The
output of CFLs consists of a weak continuum plus several very bright
emission bands.

True for /7xx and /7xx phosphors, not for /9xx phosphors (full size or
CFL if available).

The problem with white LEDs is that it radiates a very strong blue
spectral line from the chip itself and a continuum of red and
yellowish colors from the phosphors. Unfortunately you would have to
select 2700 K or below models to limit the blue emission and hence get
a more balanced total spectrums. With better fluorescent tubes 4000 K
looks quite balanced and even /965 (6500 K) looks good, but 4000 K or
6500 K LEDs would look awful.

CFLs have better colour rendering than white LEDs?

"White" LEDs have a peak in blue and a continuum in yellow/red but the
output around 475 nm is quite low.

Perhaps tricolor RGB LEDs are better in this respect.


Sez you, against the whole world AFAIK. Any actual data?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Surely tricolor RGB LEDs are three peaks and *no* continuum?

piglet

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 7:18:33 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 15:05, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:41:07 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it was
possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and occasional
junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

Most CFL tubes use /7xx or /8xx phosphors. Some manufacturers claim
also /9xx models in their catalogs, but I have not seen any CFLs in
real life in the /9xx range. I use some /965 (CRI=9x 6500 K)
"daylight" tubes but they are full size fluorescent tubes.

Okay, what's the exact significance of that?

You must be colour blind.

Let indirect daylight fall on a white surface. Aim the lamp towards
the same surface to a chive similar illumination. With /965 phosphors
is hard to tell the difference and I have often forgot to switch off
the /965 uplighters in the morning when there are sufficient light
outside . Unfortunately /965 CFLs are extremely rare and
unobtainable as LEDs.

It isn't white surfaces that have the problem, it's coloured ones. The
output of CFLs consists of a weak continuum plus several very bright
emission bands.

True for /7xx and /7xx phosphors, not for /9xx phosphors (full size or
CFL if available).

The problem with white LEDs is that it radiates a very strong blue
spectral line from the chip itself and a continuum of red and
yellowish colors from the phosphors. Unfortunately you would have to
select 2700 K or below models to limit the blue emission and hence get
a more balanced total spectrums. With better fluorescent tubes 4000 K
looks quite balanced and even /965 (6500 K) looks good, but 4000 K or
6500 K LEDs would look awful.

CFLs have better colour rendering than white LEDs?

"White" LEDs have a peak in blue and a continuum in yellow/red but the
output around 475 nm is quite low.

Perhaps tricolor RGB LEDs are better in this respect.

Then you get three peaks, still not the same as a white LED. At least with a white LED it can be made with a variety of phosphors so as to provide numerous colors and not just three sharp peaks like the RGB type of LED. It's the many missing wavelengths that provides poor color rendition.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 15:05, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:41:07 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it was
possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and occasional
junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

Most CFL tubes use /7xx or /8xx phosphors. Some manufacturers claim
also /9xx models in their catalogs, but I have not seen any CFLs in
real life in the /9xx range. I use some /965 (CRI=9x 6500 K)
"daylight" tubes but they are full size fluorescent tubes.

Okay, what's the exact significance of that?

You must be colour blind.

Let indirect daylight fall on a white surface. Aim the lamp towards
the same surface to a chive similar illumination. With /965 phosphors
is hard to tell the difference and I have often forgot to switch off
the /965 uplighters in the morning when there are sufficient light
outside . Unfortunately /965 CFLs are extremely rare and
unobtainable as LEDs.

It isn't white surfaces that have the problem, it's coloured ones. The
output of CFLs consists of a weak continuum plus several very bright
emission bands.

True for /7xx and /7xx phosphors, not for /9xx phosphors (full size or
CFL if available).

The problem with white LEDs is that it radiates a very strong blue
spectral line from the chip itself and a continuum of red and
yellowish colors from the phosphors. Unfortunately you would have to
select 2700 K or below models to limit the blue emission and hence get
a more balanced total spectrums. With better fluorescent tubes 4000 K
looks quite balanced and even /965 (6500 K) looks good, but 4000 K or
6500 K LEDs would look awful.

CFLs have better colour rendering than white LEDs?

"White" LEDs have a peak in blue and a continuum in yellow/red but the
output around 475 nm is quite low.

Perhaps tricolor RGB LEDs are better in this respect.

Sez you, against the whole world AFAIK. Any actual data?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:43:01 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 7:18:33 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 15:05, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:41:07 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it was
possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and occasional
junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

Most CFL tubes use /7xx or /8xx phosphors. Some manufacturers claim
also /9xx models in their catalogs, but I have not seen any CFLs in
real life in the /9xx range. I use some /965 (CRI=9x 6500 K)
"daylight" tubes but they are full size fluorescent tubes.

Okay, what's the exact significance of that?

You must be colour blind.

Let indirect daylight fall on a white surface. Aim the lamp towards
the same surface to a chive similar illumination. With /965 phosphors
is hard to tell the difference and I have often forgot to switch off
the /965 uplighters in the morning when there are sufficient light
outside . Unfortunately /965 CFLs are extremely rare and
unobtainable as LEDs.

It isn't white surfaces that have the problem, it's coloured ones. The
output of CFLs consists of a weak continuum plus several very bright
emission bands.

True for /7xx and /7xx phosphors, not for /9xx phosphors (full size or
CFL if available).

The problem with white LEDs is that it radiates a very strong blue
spectral line from the chip itself and a continuum of red and
yellowish colors from the phosphors. Unfortunately you would have to
select 2700 K or below models to limit the blue emission and hence get
a more balanced total spectrums. With better fluorescent tubes 4000 K
looks quite balanced and even /965 (6500 K) looks good, but 4000 K or
6500 K LEDs would look awful.

CFLs have better colour rendering than white LEDs?

"White" LEDs have a peak in blue and a continuum in yellow/red but the
output around 475 nm is quite low.

Perhaps tricolor RGB LEDs are better in this respect.

Then you get three peaks, still not the same as a white LED. At least with a white LED it can be made with a variety of phosphors so as to provide numerous colors and not just three sharp peaks like the RGB type of LED. It's the many missing wavelengths that provides poor color rendition.

Of course the test of colour rendition is the human, which has three different colour sensitive pigments in the cone cells in the retina, and rhodopsin in the rod cells, which is only active at very low light levels.

There's not a lot of point in getting too fussy about the spectral content of your light source, when the detectors in your eyes are sensitive over relatively wide spectral intervals, with a lot of overlap in their ranges.

They evolved to cope with the continuous gaussian spectral distribution emitted by the sun, but this isn't something we need to copy all that closely.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:46:14 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 14:38, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:19:52 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 11:16, Winfield Hill wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote...

On 18 Jan 2020 07:10:25 -0800, Winfield Hill wrote:

Not so short; History from Wikipedia:

1976: GE engineer, Edward E. Hammer, invents spiral CFL.
1980: Philips model SL, screw-in, integral magnetic ballast.
1985: Osram model EL lamp, including an electronic ballast.
next: development of high-efficacy phosphors...
1995: by Shanghai Xiangshan in China, helical CFLs.
2011: China CFLs were the "dominant technology".
2015: LED prices fell well below US$5 for a basic bulb.
2016: GE, announced phase out of CFL production in the US.
2020: 40 years later, John Doe writes, that was short-lived.

Osram. Now there was a company that knew how to make bulbs.

They still make superior LED light sources. Yesterday I
pushed our 120W green Osram theatre LED to a peak pulse
current of 360 amps, up from its continuous 20 amp rating.
The competing 100W Luminous theatre LEDs failed at 200A.
Also, it's forward voltage increase was modest; I only had
to raise the RIS-796 pulser's voltage up to 30V, from 24V.



I'd be interested in how the lifetime is affected. Overcurrent causes
dislocations to grow, so that the nonradiative recombination becomes
more and more of a problem.

LEDs run at DC are fairly intolerant of overcurrent.

The problem with "white" LEDs is the lifetime of the phosphor.
Stressing it too much and the conversion efficiency drops quite fast.
To achieve usable life times of tens of thousand hours, you need to
run the LED at Imax/2 or even Imax/3.


Not so. The phosphor is mostly inorganic salts, and so is very stable.
See e.g.
https://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/wtr/wtr09/wtr09_p032-036.pdf> or
https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/new-glass-based-phosphors-for-white-light-emitting-diodes

You could get some yellowing of the organic binder, of course--that's
mostly what causes optocouplers to degrade at high drive currents.

For some reason, reputable LED manufacturer list the LED
characteristics for currents well below the maximum current. Here is
one example
https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/ds-XD16.pdf

The maximum current is 2000 mA, but except for forward voltage all
other characteristics are given for 350 mA, 700 mA and 1000 mA only.

Unfortunately that data sheet doesn't list the L570 (or L50) lifetimes
is, i.e. how many hours it takes until the light output has dropped to
70 % (resp. 50%) of original value..

However, if some data sheet claims some L50/L70 lifetimes, look
carefully for what junction temperatures and forward currents it is
specified and compare it to the maximum allowed continuous current.

From thermal design point of view, running at maximum current becomes
very hard when trying to keep junction temperatures within limits and
having free air or heatsink temperatures at 25 C .

Running LEDs at Imax/2 or Imax/3, the thermal design is simplified,
higher ambient temperatures are allowed and/or allowing operating at
lower junction temperatures and at dropped radiation levels, extending
the phosphor lifetime.

It should be noted that the phosphors in LEDs are subjected to
radiation densities tens of times larger compared to sunlight and we
all know what exposing some materials to sunlight for a few years will
do to some materials.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/01/2020 09:01, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:56d2b61b-d473-d2fe-9dc8-d74adb4f2e78@electrooptical.net:

LED street lights could use some diffusers too.

They're hell on astromomers, too.

Amateurs and professionals have learnt a few tricks to help ameliorate
the situation. The switch from HPS and mercury is generally slightly
advantageous to astronomers in that the LED units can be totally off for
part of the night and are generally in full cutoff fixtures with no
light going above the horizontal. Low pressure sodium is still the thing
to beat in terms of efficacy at over 200 lumens/W.

The lights cast downward. They do not have any spherical radiation
like old light diffusers on old lighting tech does. They created
huge amounts of light using huge amounts of power and kind of pointed
it downward but a lot glares upwards. With LED lighting, I have only
seen purely downward casting arrays. How does that tick off the
astronomy guys other than lighting the ground so well that is glares
against the atmosphere more. Diffusion will not likely help if that
is the case because the goal IS lighting the ground.

The problem is that tarmac reflects about 12% of the incident light and
that is more than enough to blind major optical observatories. Low
pressure sodium lights with full cutoff are mandated in the vicinity of
major observatories often with a shutdown period after midnight.

In the UK a lot of new LED lights do power down from midnight to 4am on
roads outside of town centres.

One misguided manufacturer of LED fittings offered to fit amber LEDs -
failing to realise that the yellow light of the sodium D-lines is almost
monochromatic and so can be filtered out in images and simply ignored
in spectrographs. Broadband yellow or white light cannot and it
seriously affects the ability to see faint detail in long exposures.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/01/2020 14:22, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 03:09:14 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

They're hell on astromomers, too.

That's *very* surprising. I was under the impression they're highly
directional. For example in car headlights now they require next to
nothing in the way of reflector bowls. That's why all the newest cars
only have mean lookin' slits where headlamps used to be.

The problem is that tarmac reflects 12% and grass 33% of the incident
white light. That is more than enough to be a nuisance. It is really bad
when there is fresh snow on the ground and 90+% goes skywards.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 20/1/20 12:35 am, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:43:01 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 7:18:33 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 15:12:10 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2020-01-18 15:05, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:41:07 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:


and produce ugly colours.

nonsense. The vast majority were triphosphor in sane CCTs, but it was
possible to find outliers with excessively high CCT, and occasional
junk products with old halophosphate phosphors.

Most CFL tubes use /7xx or /8xx phosphors. Some manufacturers claim
also /9xx models in their catalogs, but I have not seen any CFLs in
real life in the /9xx range. I use some /965 (CRI=9x 6500 K)
"daylight" tubes but they are full size fluorescent tubes.

Okay, what's the exact significance of that?

You must be colour blind.

Let indirect daylight fall on a white surface. Aim the lamp towards
the same surface to a chive similar illumination. With /965 phosphors
is hard to tell the difference and I have often forgot to switch off
the /965 uplighters in the morning when there are sufficient light
outside . Unfortunately /965 CFLs are extremely rare and
unobtainable as LEDs.

It isn't white surfaces that have the problem, it's coloured ones. The
output of CFLs consists of a weak continuum plus several very bright
emission bands.

True for /7xx and /7xx phosphors, not for /9xx phosphors (full size or
CFL if available).

The problem with white LEDs is that it radiates a very strong blue
spectral line from the chip itself and a continuum of red and
yellowish colors from the phosphors. Unfortunately you would have to
select 2700 K or below models to limit the blue emission and hence get
a more balanced total spectrums. With better fluorescent tubes 4000 K
looks quite balanced and even /965 (6500 K) looks good, but 4000 K or
6500 K LEDs would look awful.

CFLs have better colour rendering than white LEDs?

"White" LEDs have a peak in blue and a continuum in yellow/red but the
output around 475 nm is quite low.

Perhaps tricolor RGB LEDs are better in this respect.

Then you get three peaks, still not the same as a white LED. At least with a white LED it can be made with a variety of phosphors so as to provide numerous colors and not just three sharp peaks like the RGB type of LED. It's the many missing wavelengths that provides poor color rendition.

Of course the test of colour rendition is the human, which has three different colour sensitive pigments in the cone cells in the retina, and rhodopsin in the rod cells, which is only active at very low light levels.

There's not a lot of point in getting too fussy about the spectral content of your light source, when the detectors in your eyes are sensitive over relatively wide spectral intervals, with a lot of overlap in their ranges.

They evolved to cope with the continuous gaussian spectral distribution emitted by the sun, but this isn't something we need to copy all that closely.

Eyes might be sensitive over three broad ranges, but reflective
materials do not reflect that way. So while direct RGB LED light can
span the colour gamut, reflected light doesn't appear the same colour as
if it was reflecting white light.