Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:48:30 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <4605c4e1.800029906@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>What will the power factor tell us?  I tested the 23W floodlight and the
>14W bulbs and their PF is .61.  The old GE helical CFL comes in at .65.  A
>new 60 watt incandescent reads .99 "pee effs" (-:
>
>Wikipedia's article on Power Factor Correction gives a pretty good
>explanation.
>
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor_correction
>
>If incandescents are banned, this may become more important. I believe
>Europe already requires power factor correction for switch mode power
>supplies although I do not know whether this extends to those used with
>CFLs. I also do not know whether California (which has effectively banned
>linear power supplies) requires PFC for switch mode supplies.
>
>I think there were some reports on Don Klipstein's page (or maybe to one
>linked to his) of CFL PFs as low as .35.

Hmmm ...

Isn't "as low as" (i.e., the worst) is the very *least* useful number to cite
when objectively assessing the future of _improving_ technology ?

Aren't we more interested in where the technology might go, than where it has
been?

The 20-watt (75-watt equivalent) Technical Consumer Products (TCP) SpringLamp
I introduced  earlier this evening in a different thread in the  N:Vision
CFL's discussion has a _rated_  (shown on the box) power factor of " >.90 ".

The power factor that I actually measured on two different CFLs (using a Kill
O Watt meter) ranged from 0.94-0.97 (!)

Bout the worst I can think up to say bout them specs is thet there ain't much
room left for improvement ...

Yet another Emily Litella "Never-Mind" CFL moment in the making ...

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECONtrol.org