Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:42:51 -0400, Marc_F_Hult
<MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<53rk0396b85cgciad9a9vqqogmcdtr2d0u@xxxxxxx>:

>On 26 Mar 2007 20:34:11 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote in
>message  <1338593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>>In article <q9kf0317i3cdn5u055493d09lrmoth12jc@xxxxxxx>,
>MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Marc_F_Hult) writes:
>
>>| Some locations still have X10 WS467s that I never pulled. I'll check
to
>>|see if the n:vision 60-watts work there. If I use them in on-off mode
>>|(which was all the control I had locally anyway) I may be satisfied
with
>>| reliability and performance.
>>
>>I would be interested in the results.  I'm particularly interested in
>>a solution that works outside; I don't really care how long it takes
>>to come up to full brightness.
>
>I don't see any obstacle to using a single 60 watt n:vision outside with
a
>WS467 based on my previous confirmation that the lamps will start at 0F.
>They are rated to -20F , presumably with some loss of output at that
>temperature. How much loss will depend in part on the lamp enclosure and
>how well it helps to retain the heat of the lamp. Note that the lamps I
>report on are not actually rated for outdoor use, but IIRC, some n:vision
>CFLs  are.
>
>Here are some results of testing the 60, 100, and 150 watt 2700K spiral
>n:vision CFL with 2-wire X-10 wall switches used in ON-OFF mode.
>
>The test room has two ceiling cans  and two wall sconces. I added the
>sconces this winter to improve the overall quality and mood of the room
>lighting. Testing and using CFLs in this room is just part of meeting
>sometimes competing objectives of making the lighting in our home
smarter,
>more efficient, more functional and more aesthetically pleasing.
>
>I used a X10 brand  WS467 (date sticker missing but probably ~2001) and a
>Stanley 360-059 (Oct 1998 date code) 3-wire ("Master") used in two-wire
>mode.
>
>Lamps used (in incandescent equivalents) and number tried simultaneous:
>
>n:Vision 60 watt 2700K  (up to 4 lamps simultaneously)
>n:Vision 100 watt 2700K (up to 2 lamps used simultaneously)
>n:Vision 150 watt 2700K  (1 only)
>Philips PAR incandescent 120 watt (1 only)
>Sylvania incandescent 60 watt (1 only)
>Philips PAR incandescent 75 watt (1 only)
>
>Two of the fixtures are open-top wall sconces in which the lamps are
>horizontal which is almost as good as base down with respect to heat
>distribution.  The insulated ceiling cans are close to worst case with
>respect to heat damaging the electronics in the base.
>
>1) With either incandescent in one of the sockets, every combination of
>fluorescents worked fine (maximum 3 fluorescents with total of 350 watts)
>
>2) With: Four  60 watt fluorescents   Loud buzz from switch
>      Three 60 watt fluorescents    Distinct buzz
>      Two   60 watt fluorescents    Faint  buzz
>      One   60 watt fluorescent     almost inaudible
>
>3) adding 1.0 millihenry  choke (measured at 120 and 1000hz) wound with
> 	15AWG on core of unknown composition to the  four CFL
> 	setup caused the lamps to strobe (seeming close to full ON-OFF
> 	(This toroidal inductor is smaller than a cake donut but larger
> 	than a Tom Thumb.)
>
>I don't have any convenient way of dimming X-10 at this time, but my
>experience dimming mixed incandescent + fluorescent (CFL and
conventional)
>is that they dim with very different curves and so only coincidentally
>work well in an actual home lighting settings. (It is possible that one
>might want one area dimmed faster than another.)
>
>I was going to try a smaller debuzzing coil, find a smaller incandescent
>and rig up an X-10 dimmer but ran out of time.
>
>I know from other setups that I could use INSTEON dimmers or switches on
>all four n:vision 60 Watt CFLs, but as explained elsewhere, the switch
>wiring in this room only has two wires (missing  hot) so INSTEON cannot
be
>installed without rewiring.
>
>I left the room set up with three 60 watt 2700K fluorescents and one 60
>watt incandescent. The light color and distribution blend perfectly. If
>priorites allow me to rewire the switch to INSTEON or hard-wired, I'll be
>able to replace the fourth lamp with CFL. Till then I'll live with the
one
>incandescent knowing that I reduced power consumption by substituting
CFLs
>in three out of four incandescents with absolutely no negatives that I
can
>see or hear.
>
>The ~$5.50 total cost for the three CFLs will pay for itself quickly.
They
>have a nine year warranty as used in this room and the 800-number is on
>the base.
>
>So I have met three out of four improvement goals and will advance the
>fourth goal by making them even smarter as time permits.


To clarify: and extend:

1) The results for three, two and one CFLs in parallel shown above are
with no incandescent and none cause  noticeable flicker (in my eyes).

2) A single 60 watt works fine. A single 100 watt is not entirely
symptomatic (some slight flicker?). Without an incandescent load, the 150
watt flickers badly. This implies different electronics in the various
wattage lamps because the 180 and 249 "watt-equivalents" of three and four
60-watt lamps used in parallel circuit do not flicker. I won't have time
to get a scope on this or do much more till May.

3) All tests were with a 2-wire X-10 WS467 or equivalent. The fix of
adding an incandescent to make these switches work with conventional
fluorescents has been known and practiced for years. This is simply an
extension of that conventional trick to CFLs.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org