Re: Compact Fluorescent Noise

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:33:54 -0500, "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message  <UPmdnWxE76m5mNTYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:4548e504.259797875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Another thing that I've found changes the equation is that none of the
>> CFL's
>> >I've purchased have come anywhere near lasting their rated lifetime.  It
>> >seems that the early "lifetime" guarantees given when CFL's first hit the
>> >market have been slowly replaced by ten and then five year guarantees and
>> >some packages I've seen have no warranty at all.

>It's a real problem for me, despite any chewing out, declamation, diatribe,
>jeremiad, philippic, screed, sermon, spouting, tirade or harangue to the
>contrary.  I write the date of installation and the alleged warranty period
>on each bulb base.  While I don't keep actual "hours used" statistics, I
>know that I've replaced a lot of "ten year" bulbs in less than three years
>of ordinary use.  The worst offenders are the ones mounted base-up that
>allow the bulb's heat to rise into the bulb's electronics.  That's a failure
>mode quite similar to the small lamp socket modules that X-10 sells.

There are now compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) that are designed to be used
base up in recessed fixtures. Using lamps intended to be used base down will
not provide optimum longevity. See my discussion below of just such an
application.

>> I think the economics are marginal but I have to qualify that somewhat
>> because I've recently had a rash of sort-lived incandescents. Either the
>> change in ownership of Cinergy (now Duke) came with a change in power
>> quality or the bulbs I've been getting in the past year are much lower
>> quality than those I got in the previous 8-9 years.

ROTFL. I am on the edge of my chair waiting to learn whether CFLs make sense
globally and universally based on a future assessment of whether the quality
of AC power delivered to Dave's apartment has changed ;-)

But wait! The global economics of CFLs may instead depend on the quality of
the incandescent light bulbs that Dave buys. Thar's shore a whole lot riding
worldwide on the quality of them thar bulbs what Dave gits ...

>I've noticed the same thing and went Googling a while back when you first
>reported premature failures on bulbs connected to an LM14.  We're not the
>only ones to notice lightbulb longevity ain't what it used to be.  Still, an
>incandescent bulb costs me a quarter and most CFL's cost at least 10 times
>that amount.  Whether it's bad voltage spikes, bad manufacturing processes,
>bad QC or just plain ol' bad luck I don't know.

I replaced the seven Philips Halogena (Halogen) 90watt flood lamps ($6 at Home
depot) in our kitchen ceiling cans with Philips R40 CFL Marathon Classic 85
(930 lumens 2700K CRI=82 $12 at Home Depot).

Neglecting entirely the fact  that Philips rates the CFL as lasting four times
longer than the halogen, and even at the low cost of $0.9/kWh, the savings
after the first year (4 hrs/day) is $22.

After 3 years (the bulbs are rated and warranted 100% replacement for six
years by Philips) the savings is $151 assuming that the halogens and the CFL
both last 3 years. (The halogens most definitely will not, and the CFL's are
warranted to last twice that long.)

Assuming that I continue to experience the same burn out rate with the
halogens as in the past eight years, and assuming that the CFL only last 2/3
as long as Philips claims, the savings will comes out to ~$257 after four
years.

The arithmetic seems to speak for itself for the quantitatively inclined, and
the reasons and explanations that Dave gives continue to be the source of
amusement. Keep giving us them hoots!

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org