# CFL light bulbs



## Big_Ed (Jan 1, 2007)

I asked for, and recieved, some CFL light bulbs for Christmas. They seem like an easy way to cut my electric bill. I'm happy with them, and will probably buy more of them, but I have some observations, though. To my eyes, the ones rated to be equivalent to 100 watt incandescent bulbs seem (to my eyes at least) to be equal to the 60 or 75 watt incans instead. Are they overrated?
They seem much brighter after they have been on for a minute or so. Is this normal for them to have to "warm up" before they achieve full brightness?
The color is close to incandescent, but still not quite the same. I noticed this when I was making a peanut butter sandwich under one of these bulbs. The peanut butter looked kind of orange. Maybe I need to find some bulbs with a different tint. The package the bulbs came in list 3 different tints. Soft white (the ones I have), bright white, and day light. I saw a display in Home Depot of these three side by side, and the daylight seemed way too blue.
How many of you guys use CFL bulbs in thier homes? What do you think of them?


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Jan 1, 2007)

Some of them do indeed have a warm-up period. And I also think that they're overrated in terms of equivalent brightness, although the degree of over-rating seems to vary from style to style. I'm pretty happy with them in general and although the color rendition is a little off from incandescent, it's close enough that it works for me. I don't like the cold blue "daylight" CFLs for anything other than workbench use. They're brighter than the warm white versions but the blue tint makes some things look ghastly.


----------



## eluminator (Jan 1, 2007)

I agree with PhotonWrangler. I only use CFL. I haven't bought an incandescent in years, and I don't intend to buy any in the future.


I stick with the well known brands. Lately I've been getting Phillips. I've also had good luck with GE and Honeywell.

I have a Phillips soft white 100. It puts out 1750 lumens and consumes 27 watts of electricity. I don't know the lumen output of a 100 watt incandescent, because I don't have any. On the package it says I'll save $73 dollars. I figure if I buy enough of these I will become rich as Rockefeller. 

I mainly use the 60 watt equivalents. Some draw 13 watts and others draw 15 watts. 

I've never seen orange peanut butter but it sounds okay to me 

I haven't noticed the light increase over the first minute, but I probably wouldn't notice unless it started out quite dim. I bought a GE about 5 years ago that did just that, but that one took 5 minutes to get to full brightness. 

Most of the ones I have now come on instantly, but I have some that take about a half second to light up.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Jan 1, 2007)

eluminator said:


> I agree with PhotonWrangler. I only use CFL. I haven't bought an incandescent in years, and I don't intend to buy any in the future.



The short cycling ability of incandescent is overlooked. Areas like laundry rooms and closets will see a much better power conservation by putting an incandescent on a 3-5 minute motion detector switch and switched on/off frequently on demand. The light stays on as long as there is a motion and shuts off after a programmed duration of no motion.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 1, 2007)

Big_Ed said:


> I asked for, and recieved, some CFL light bulbs for Christmas. They seem like an easy way to cut my electric bill. I'm happy with them, and will probably buy more of them, but I have some observations, though. To my eyes, the ones rated to be equivalent to 100 watt incandescent bulbs seem (to my eyes at least) to be equal to the 60 or 75 watt incans instead. Are they overrated?


60 watt equivalents and under appear close, or even brighter for CFLs. The main reason for this is that efficiency of incandescent goes up with higher power -- a 100 watt bulb will often be brighter than two 60 watt bulbs. However, to match this brightness with a CFL, there must be a longer tube length. Thus, fitting something as bright as a 100 watt bulb into the same shape is difficult.



> They seem much brighter after they have been on for a minute or so. Is this normal for them to have to "warm up" before they achieve full brightness?


I have noticed that the bulbs that take longer to warm up are typically designed to run at a higher operating temperatures. For example, my CFL R30 flood lights do this, because they run in enclosed fixtures where heat will build up, so the phosphor components used are designed to run at a hotter temperature, but need to warm up as a consequence. The alternative would be that the bulb would be bright immediately, but get dimmer as it got too hot, which is what happens if you put a standard CFL into a fully enclosed fixture.



> The color is close to incandescent, but still not quite the same. I noticed this when I was making a peanut butter sandwich under one of these bulbs. The peanut butter looked kind of orange. Maybe I need to find some bulbs with a different tint. The package the bulbs came in list 3 different tints. Soft white (the ones I have), bright white, and day light. I saw a display in Home Depot of these three side by side, and the daylight seemed way too blue.


As for color rendition, that will vary by brand dramatically. You may find that another brand of soft white CFL renders things slightly differently, depending on the mixture of phosphors used. The Sylvania 3000k variety (slightly more white than incandescent, but still very warm) seems pretty good for color rendition. In general though, color rendition appears to be much more accurate for lights of cooler color temperature, such as the 3500k bright white variety.

However, when using cooler color temperature bulbs, you usually need to have brighter illumination levels for them to look good. Running daylight bulbs at a low level of illumination will make things "overcast". 



> How many of you guys use CFL bulbs in thier homes? What do you think of them?


I've replaced most of the lights in the house that tend to be left on a long time, except for lights that get cycled on and off frequently, and bulbs on dimmer circuits (some 45 watt R30s). One benefit I notice right away is that in smaller rooms, there is a lot less heat buildup that we had with incandescent, which is a nice change. When the Air Conditioner is running, this should be saving us extra money in additions to the power savings. 

I also like the different color temperature choices. For reading lamps, and desk lamps, I find that the "bright white" color temperature is much more pleasant to read under--everything just looks sharper than under incadescent light. The daylight color I find best suited for lighting up work benches or for bright task lighting. However, I still prefer the warm white for ambient light, such as lighting up hallways.



> The short cycling ability of incandescent is overlooked. Areas like laundry rooms and closets will see a much better power conservation by putting an incandescent on a 3-5 minute motion detector switch and switched on/off frequently on demand. The light stays on as long as there is a motion and shuts off after a programmed duration of no motion.


This is a good point. I know that there are a few cold cathode fluorescent bulbs available, those are not sensitive to cycling, and they are fully dimmable, however, there are not many options. If those become more widespread in an R30 form factor for a reasonable price, I'll replace the remaining incandescents, but for the time being, motion sensor lights etc. aren't a lot of good if they require 1 minute warmup.


----------



## Vbeez (Jan 5, 2007)

I only use cfl in my house, most of them are daylight and cooldaylight. I use Philips T5 and T8 tube, according to their specs they produce 90-103 lumen/ watt with CRI range from 80-90, and... they are cheap. Cost me $ 10 for a set of Philips 28 watts T5 Adreno (complete set, just connect the wire). Next I will go for T4 bulb...


----------



## winny (Jan 5, 2007)

Big_Ed said:


> To my eyes, the ones rated to be equivalent to 100 watt incandescent bulbs seem (to my eyes at least) to be equal to the 60 or 75 watt incans instead. Are they overrated?



Yes.




Big_Ed said:


> They seem much brighter after they have been on for a minute or so. Is this normal for them to have to "warm up" before they achieve full brightness?



Yes.




Big_Ed said:


> The peanut butter looked kind of orange. Maybe I need to find some bulbs with a different tint. The package the bulbs came in list 3 different tints.



Changing tint (color temperature) will not fix the color rendering problems or at least change them only to a very small degree. I assume you used tri-phosphor lamps, otherwise changing brand or type would lead to a big difference in color rendering to the better.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Jan 5, 2007)

In the states, you'd have the ATF & DEA agents knocking down your door thinking you're cultivating illegal plants in your home. It's a big problem here.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

I actually did a "runtime graph" of a 26w 5500K CFL spiral that you used to be able to get at Home Depot. I think it's a Conserve Energy brand.







The peak output is right near 2 minutes which is where LSI apparently takes their lumen readings. That would give a somewhat inflated output measurement.


----------



## Eugene (Jan 5, 2007)

I have noticed that different paints reflect the light different too as well as direct/indirect. We painted our small hallway with bright white paint and have a CFL in a frosted glass globe and its very bright compared to ican that was there before. But in our bedroom the safe CF replacing the same wattage ican seems very dim because of a different paint and indirect lighting.


----------



## winny (Jan 6, 2007)

chevrofreak,

Did you measure it base up or base down? Could you do another measurement the other way round? It would be interesting to see if there is any difference in steady state.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 6, 2007)

It was base up, but tilted about 45 degrees. When some of these other runtimes I'm doing are done I could definately try it several different ways using several different CFL bulbs.


----------



## winny (Jan 6, 2007)

chevrofreak,

That would be great! I know that the florescent tube itself is temperature sensitive and the electronics in the ballast should have some temperature dependence as well. I don't know what abilities you have, but measuring the power consumption for different angles could be fun too. I don't expect it to vary much, but perhaps there is measurable difference.


----------



## Phaserburn (Jan 6, 2007)

I was planning on getting some of these for my outdoor fixtures; they'd be in glass enclosures that are open at the bottom, and the CFL would be upside down. Is there a problem in their usage this way, or is there an issue in using them in outdoor temperatures? I live in New England, so the temp can go down to close to zero at the worst times. Ironically, there is expected to be record-setting temps today of almost 70 degrees F. Amazing for January...


----------



## winny (Jan 6, 2007)

Phaserburn,

They do work in any position, but the luminous flux and lifespan might differ.
The fluorescent tube itself want a surrounding temperature of 25 degrees Celsius for maximum efficiency and the electronics is probably rated somewhere there too. The problem running it base up is that the ballast (electronic part) will be far hotter than 25 degrees and this can have some effects. My guess is that running it horizontally will provide the maximum luminous flux and lifespan, but the difference will not be that big.

Regarding running it at low temperatures:
If the temperature creeps down to -25 degrees, you might have difficulties starting it, and if the luminaire is open and it's say -15 degrees and the wind chills it, it will be quite dim. If you have a luminaire which is sealed (glass), the heat will build up inside and it will be brighter.
During the summer, the effect will be the opposite.


----------



## Eugene (Jan 6, 2007)

I have two outdoors, I just leave them on all the time in the winter.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Jan 6, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> This is a good point. I know that there are a few cold cathode fluorescent bulbs available, those are not sensitive to cycling, and they are fully dimmable, however, there are not many options. If those become more widespread in an R30 form factor for a reasonable price, I'll replace the remaining incandescents, but for the time being, motion sensor lights etc. aren't a lot of good if they require 1 minute warmup.



In my opinion, it is rather pointless. The laundry room is actively occupied how long a week no the average? Let's say one hour including the three minute of on time before inactivity shuts it off. 

Say you're using a 100W bulb. In that case, the power usage is 0.4kWh/month or 4.8kWh/year

Even if you're paying an outrageous 25cents/kWh, the annual difference in power cost between a 100W incandescent and an equiv. output 25W CCFL is $1.20 vs $0.30, all of 70 cents per fixture.

I think motion detector + 100W incandescent offers superior saving over a CFL, because the light is bound to get left on with a regular switch. One incident of 27W CFL being left on for 12 hours = 0.324kWh.

Incandescent 100W on three minute auto shut off... you won't use 0.324kWh unless you frequent the laundry room very often or you occupy the room often.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 6, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> In my opinion, it is rather pointless. The laundry room is actively occupied how long a week no the average? Let's say one hour including the three minute of on time before inactivity shuts it off.
> 
> Say you're using a 100W bulb. In that case, the power usage is 0.4kWh/month or 4.8kWh/year
> 
> ...


We pay about $0.16 per kilowatt hour. That is a good point about timers. I was mainly referring to cold cathode as being useful for the dimmed lights. The other situation where that would be nice is for situtaions where lights _are_ often used for hours at a time, but may also be switched on momentarily, such as the kitchen -- we're running 45W R30s in there now, and they are often left on for a long time (cooking) or switched on momentarily (just to retrieve something). It would be nice not to have reduced output due to warmup, like the CFL recessed floods often have, but the lights are on enough to benefit from savings.

I'd agree that for things like closets (those we have automatic switched built into the doors -- when the door is opened, the light goes on) we just use incan. We also have a 100W halogen flood on a motion sensor in the garage for unloading vehicles etc.


----------



## yuandrew (Jan 6, 2007)

Using CFLs mostly in table lamps and in some of the hall lights that get left on for a while as well as the dining room ceiling fan. The living room track has 50 watt halogen floods; I tried CFLs there but they didn't have enough "throw" to get light where I want in the living room.
I changed one of the fluorecent lamps in my kitchen to use T8 tubes and that one T8 tube seems to light the kitchen up a lot more than the two remaining T12 tubes. I think I could even disconnect those two lights and still have enough to go by with the one T8.

As for my room; a 13 watt CFL in my desk lamp, another desk lamp with a 20 watt MR-16 for when I'm working on small projects or soldering, and a 17 watt T8 fluorescent lamp on the ceiling that lights the entire room up very good by itself.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 6, 2007)

I've got CFL in every fixture that I can put them in.

In two ceiling fans that take 4 bulbs each, One 15W spiral does FINE!

In the living room lamp is a 17W spiral. Bathrooms, kitchen etc.

Also the front and back porch lights. 

I've tried CFL spots and floods in the outside lights, but they don't last any longer than incans due to the naure of the light sensing fixtures.

Can't imagine NOT using them!


----------



## hizzo3 (Jan 6, 2007)

i stick to the major brands as well.... the cheapos although save initially, arent up to spec. I've also found that there are 2 major keys here i didnt see anyone mention. 
1) color in the room -keep in mind if converting from incan's to CFL's you may want to change wall colors and so on. because of the reason listed below, the walls and other interiors may appear different. In some cases they may even seem darker then before because of the certain wavelenths emmited.
2) color temp output -This is the other major key. daylight colored CFL's will be more sensitive to the eyes. since this is the case, it may appear bright then what it is. Some of the soft white cheapies, i've even seen almost into a pink color which they human eye isnt as responsive to.

side note.... when using daylight colored CFL's, you may notice that your body reacts slightly different to incan's. there is debate on this, but from taking poultry sci at texas a&m for 2 years, i know that the color of the lights can make a big difference in attitude and growth.


----------



## hizzo3 (Jan 6, 2007)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Also the front and back porch lights.
> 
> I've tried CFL spots and floods in the outside lights, but they don't last any longer than incans due to the naure of the light sensing fixtures.
> 
> Can't imagine NOT using them!



just wait untill a few more advances in leds are done, they you will have no issue


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 7, 2007)

We are using CFLs in all of our regular lighting fixtures,
and have an assortment of Ottlites and fluorescent torchieres.

We removed a couple of cheap fluorescent torchieres from service because they generate too much radio interference.

We still have a little incan track lighting. Thinking of changing that to LEDs.

Maybe replacing a bunch of the CFs with LEDs too.


----------

