Re: Compact Fluorescent Noise

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:454b0689.268378609@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<stuff snipped>

> Since replacing the LM14A with a Smarthome 2000STW, I've had two more
> failures. Both came after the lamp had been on for a few hours. Most of my
> other failures came when a lamp was first turned. It may be that the LM14A
> going loco was not a factor in the premature lamp failure but was merely
> coincidental.

That seems like a reasonable analysis.  I suspect the standard manufacturing
mantra of "how can we make it a little bit cheaper" is coming into play.

Reducing costs by using cheaper materials (and often less of them) coupled
with "innovative" ways of assembling them results in parts that often have
correspondingly higher and higher failure rates until market feedback forces
the manufacturer to backpedal a little.  A glass envelope a few microns
thinner doesn't seem to be a big change, but as you well know from your
industrial days, even very fractional costs add up when you're making 10's
of thousands of something.  I've had a number of bulbs that have cracked at
the base recently so I assume something's been "economized" in the
manufacturing process.

Of course, there are always plain old manufacturing defects, which I expect
to be rising as fewer workers are expected to do more and more as companies
strive to satisfy investors first and customers last.

Even if a CFL has a good warranty, there's a cost associated with having a
manufacturer make good on it.  A defective incandescent bulb costs a quarter
and goes into the trash if it fails.  A defective CFL that has to be
returned involves postage costs, time costs, etc.  Usually it means the bulb
gets dumped because it costs just as much to screw around with warranty
replacement as it does to go out and buy a new one.  As you pointed out
earlier, X-10 users of CFL's have to factor in the cost of filters so the
equations have lots of hidden inputs.

The most serious defect in relatively simplistic equations like Wikipedia's
for predicting bulb costs is neglecting the spill heat produced by
incandescents and the effect that has on heating and cooling bills.  In many
cases, it could be a wash, but that's not guaranteed, especially in my case
where I use more CFL's in the summer than the winter.  We're more willing to
deal with the problems of CFL's in the summer where they keep the house
cooler and the electrical bill down during peak rate hours.

In addition, it's hard to put a dollar value on things like:

the nuisance of slow warm ups,
shifting color temperatures,
inability to work properly outdoors in very cold weather,
buzzing,
flickering,
interference with HA devices,
bulbs too big to fit in standard reflectors,
bulbs that extend beyond standard reflectors

and some of the other issues involved with replacing incandescent bulbs with
CFL.  They all factor into the decision of whether to use a CFL bulb or a
incandescent.  So does something as simple as how many times a day a bulb is
cycled.  We still use incandescents in places like the bathroom where lights
can be turned on and off 20 or more times a day.  CFL's positively wither
under such usage while long-life bulbs seem to take it in stride.

--
Bobby G.