Talk:Compact fluorescent lamp/Archive 1

message: Xyzzyplugh added and JabberWok reverted-out the following text:
:However, virtually all of the energy from light bulbs of any type is converted into heat. During cold months when a building is being heated, the heat produced by a light bulb is helping to heat the building, and this needs to be taken into account when calculating the energy cost of different types of bulbs. In a typical home using electric heat, for example, light bulbs of any type do not produce any electricity cost during cold months, since the heat produced by the bulbs simply offsets heat that would have been produced by the home's heating system.
There's some truth to this but it's still more complicated than that. One, electrically heated houses are pretty rare, and compared  to any other fuel source, even an electric heat pump, the heat produced by any lamp is costly pure-electric heat. Two: It's not entirely clear that all of the heat produced by all household lamps is captured as useful heat into the envelope of the house. In particular, certain ceiling-mounted lights lose heat into the ceiling and roof spaces that would ordinarily not be heated.
Still, in northern climates where the need for heating predominates over the need for cooling there's quite a lot of sense to this argument that you need to at least consider the "electric heat" provided by lighting; it's certainly not the 100% loss that a simple calculation might suggest.
Atlant 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note my answer above. Also, one thing which many people seem to be missing is the issue of luminous efficacy is complicant. The difference is about 2-3x it appears depending on type of CCFL and incandescent bulb.  Some of this is obviously going to heat however some of it to infrared. While the infrared is obviously going to have some effect on heating in the room I would assume (it's been a while since I did physics), most of it will effect on the objects in the room, the floor, ceiling etc. However this will affect the heating in the room I don't know. Or in conclusion it's clearly really complicated as you say and we really have no idea how much of the heat is usefully captured into the envelope of the house... Nil Einne 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency calculation complications 

message: I'm putting the following in place:  "The above calculations are a simplification, as virtually all of the energy from light bulbs of any type is converted into heat. During cold months when a building is being heated, the heat produced by a light bulb is helping to heat the building, and this needs to be taken into account when calculating the energy cost of different types of bulbs.  In addition, during hot times of the year when a building is being air conditioned, CFL bulbs produce extra savings over incandescent bulbs because extra energy is being used by the air conditioning system to remove the waste heat which the bulbs are producing".
I removed the previous final sentence with which there was disagreement.  Anyone still have problems with this new paragraph?  It may not be written as well as it could be. I'd like to see some mention of the fact that the usual calculations given are a simplification, but going into too much detail would probably be tedious and unnecessary.--Xyzzyplugh 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little problem with "The energy that is not used to create light is instead converted into heat energy."  While technically true, it's a bit deceiving because that light will also eventually turn into heat energy.  Visible light produced from a light source (cfd, incandescent, etc.) bounces around the room until it is ABSORBED by a material (thereby increasing the material's internal energy).  In other words, ALL of the energy emitted from a light source will (eventually) heat the room. (except, of course, for the fraction of radiation that escapes through a window). e.g. Even a perfect, 10-Watt light bulb that emitts only visible light would still be a 10-Watt heat gain on the room.   Chrike 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying again with the Comparing CFL's section

message: Turns out some companies now offer CFLs that can be dimmed: http://www.nolico.com/saveenergy/dimmable_lamps.htm Kar98 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimmable energy saver bulbs

message: I trimmed down the last paragraph about heat effects to a more manageable 60 or so words.
Although it is too anecdotal to put in the article, I read that Japanese residents (especially in small apartments that don't have central heating) often use incandescent bulbs in the winter and CFLs in the summer.
Radiant heat sources are comparatively wasteful because they lose more heat through floors, walls and ceilings. This is a seriously important problem. Fan-forced induction heaters (including electric central heating systems) are substaintially more efficient than space heaters with exposed coils or exposed incandescent bulbs for increasing indoor air temperature. Anthony717 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison section

message: It appears the 3.5 million car figure comes straight from the cited "Make the Switch" campaign.  This is at least somewhat in the neighborhood of the one bulb per household being equivilent to one million cars off the road claim made on the Energy Star page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.70.20 (talk • contribs) .
Flickering and buzzing are common problems in older fluorescent light fixtures, but are easily avoided in new fluorescent bulbs.  Older bulbs (and some cheap new bulbs) have magnetic ballasts that hum at 120 cycles per second, which some people can perceive as a flicker, and which may be accompanied by a buzz as the lamp cycles. (An easy way to identify them is the 1-2 second delay when you switch the light on.)  New  electronic (or solid state) ballasts operate at 24,000 cycles or more per second, eliminating the flicker.  The buzz is also gone, since there is no magnetic pulsing happening.
Well, I have been playing with a number of different CFLs from GE I got at Walmart.  All of them emit some type of buzz.  I even recorded the buzz as WAV file.  (If somebody wants me to upload them and link to hear I will).  It is incredibly hard not to notice it, especially when your job has everything to do with perceiving various types of noises. Anatoly larkin 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution citation  

message: The chart, as currently displayed, substantially under-reports the typical light output (in lumens) of incandescent bulbs of various wattages. For instance, a 100w conventional bulb is said to generate 1200 lumens of light output. However, many 100w conventional bulbs put out something on the order of 1500-1600 lumens of light -- prehaps 33% higher than the original figure. Similarly, 60w bulbs are represented as generating 600-700 lumens, while they are often actually rated at 750-850 lumens -- again, possibly 33% higher than the original figure. This shading of the data as to disfavor conventional bulbs is evidence of either dishonesty or negligence.
I refer the reader to the Sylvania lighting products company webpage for further information on the light output of incandescent bulbs, as an example: http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/LightingForHome/Products/GeneralPurpose/. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.225.163 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFL to incandescent comparison chart 

message: In the section "Efforts to Encourage Adoption" the first sentence of the second paragraph reads:
"Some governments have attempted to encourage CFL usage by distributing them for free and by appealing to people's moral beliefs."  However, presently there is no citation for this information.  This article () mentions Hugo Chavez' government initiative to distribute free "incandescent bulbs" to neighborhoods across Venezuela.  If these "incandescent bulbs" are the same as CFLs then this source could be cited for some of the information in the sentence ("Some governments have attempted to encourage CFL usage by distributing them for free...").  I'm just not positive if the incandescent bulbs mentioned are the same as the CFLs this article is about.  The same goes for Castro's initiative, also mentioned in the news piece, where he "launched a ...program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching out regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle electrical blackouts around the island."  Does anyone know if these initiatives used CFLs or some other kind of energy saving light bulb?
2headedboy 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Efforts to Encourage Adoption section 

message: The appropriate use of CFLs can undoubtedly reduce the end-user’s electricity bills. However I understand that a mix of conventional and CFL bulbs is recommended by responsible authorities.
In my experience there are numerous problems with energy saving bulbs:
#Their claimed light output is misleading. It is compared with "soft colour" (low-efficiency) bulbs not normally used for illumination. This could be why CFLs seem dimmer than the bulbs they are bought to replace. 
#Using a photographic light meter, I have compared the light output of a CFL and various pearl bulbs. 
#The output of a one-year-old 20 Watt CFL (claimed equivalent 100Watt) rated at 230V-240V was JUST LESS than that of a normal 60W 2000hr 240V pearl bulb, and around 40% of a 100W 240V bulb.
#CFLs start off dim and the light meter shows that they take more than five minutes to reach full output, so where they are only switched on briefly, they are less suitable than conventional bulbs.
#Their brightness is temperature sensitive, so they may be unsuitable for outdoor use in cold weather.
#They sometimes do not last anything like the claimed hours. 
#They are more fragile, and are more often broken on arrival.
#They are complex and are more often dead on arrival, or suffer infant mortality.
It has also been said that
#Their brightness reduces over their life.
#They are not compatible with most existing dimmers, though compatible dimmers are available.
#They consume more energy to manufacture, polluting the country of manufacture if clean energy is not used.
#Their manufacture would be uneconomic if not subsidised.
#Their use is promoted by the Government backed Energy Saving Trust.
#The technology is not yet mature. 
#It could be that we should be using another type of low energy light source such as  LEDs.
I hear the clatter of deckchairs being frantically rearranged on the ecology bandwagon. The Australians will discover this to their cost, if conventional bulbs are phased out in the short term as planned.
GilesW 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reformatted your post to make your points stand out a bit more - I hope you don't mind.  A couple of days ago, someone edited the article to include many of the disadvantages of CFLs.  About half were established facts.  The remainder, though having an obvious basis in fact were not necessarily directly citeable, at least quanitavely.  It was interesting to note, that some obvious environmentalist completely removed any and all references to any possible disadvantage, restoring much that was inaccurate (see below for discussion on those points!).  Unfortunately such people will not allow anyone to critisise their holy grail. 20.133.0.14 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look for reliable sources which satisfy the nrew WP:ATT to examine the light output, safety, compatibility, and environental variables related to CFL vs incandescent. I note that many present incandescent bulbs are in enclosed fixtures which CFL manufacturers warn against, or are on dimmer circuits. Do the CFLs catch fire, fail prematurely, or just not light in enclosed fixtures or on dimmers? Or are people supposed to throw  away the glass enclosure and have ugly exposed spiral CFLs in place of former enclosed fixtures with incandescents? Or must they have an electrician replace the light fixtures or do do-it yourself rewiring? I have some antique incandescents over 100 years old which still work when I try them, so I suggest stocking up on incandescent bulbs for applications with dimmers or where the bulbs are in enclosed fixtures or where they are used only occasionally or when they are outdoors. That would be about 3/4 of the light bulbs at present. Can anyone find published sources which address these concerns to include in the article? Most of the sources so far seem to be the manufacturers of CFLs or POV environmentalist groups or those with a like agenda. There need to be links to and discussion of the enclosed fixtures which can be used with CFLs and the special dimmers and CFLs to be used with them. Edison 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Claims 

message: I removed (not blanked) a lot from the "CFL energy consumption compared to incandescent bulbs".  The only information it was trying to convey there was that CFLs use a certain amount less.  You don't need flashy pictures or dollar values to say this.  Just say it uses 25%, and move on.  You've made the point.  Dollars don't mean anything to those outside the US, while percent electricity cost saved, does.  Wikipedia is not an advertisement, and it doesn't belabor simple arithmetic. MrVoluntarist 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I shortened the energy consumption section