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>:

>
>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.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 11:59:47 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <460658e6.837921406@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>The ST paper exagerates. While the PSU may be rated for 280W, actual usage
>is probably much less but it still illustrates the issue. My most power
>hungry PC (300W PSU) uses 75-80W depending on activity. Its PF is 0.63. 3-4
>CFLs will have the same effect as the PC.
>
>I think the utilities are sandbagging us. Once residences exhibit lower PFs
>they will petition for rate increases or PF based surcharges.

I think that assessing the effect of power factor  -- like so many other
topics in the CFL discussion -- is one that is better understood looking at
where the technology is going than where it has been at least.

Projecting based on a projection of a projection of a projection (Mandated
use of CFLs in the future --> Power factors in the future --> "sandbagging"
--> Electrical rates in the future) is trying to push a wet noodle.

In this usenet discussion of N:vision CFLs sold at Home Depot, it has been
concluded that a long list of previous issues with CFLs have been
sufficiently resolved for these CFLs to find widespread acceptance.

I started this extended discussion by introducing  the n:vision lamps rather
than some others because the price was such ($1.70-$2 each) that even the
most persistent critics would probably not cavil about price and warranties
(9 years).

There are of course, higher priced CFLs with even better specifications and
performance -- They just haven't reached the price point of the n:vision
CFLs.

For example, of the  20watt (75-watt equivalent)  2700K Technical Consumer
Products (TCP) SpringLamp I introduced  earlier the  N:Vision CFL's
discussion shows this interesting data:

PF >.90
THD <.33
Dimmable to 20% with a standard dimming switch
10.000 hour average lamp life

The rated power factor of this CFL of >.90 is impressive compared to the old
data  (the very worst to be found anywhere, I 'spect) that Dave chooses to
cite above.

The power factor that I actually measured (using a kilowatt meter) ranged
from 0.94-0.97 (!)

Similarly, the very fact that a distortion figure is listed on the package,
and in TCP's technical data (www.TCPI.com) indicates that at least this
manufacturer is paying attention to that parameter.

Distortion and noise are parameters that is directly related to home
automation because they are important in determining how "friendly" to X-10.
INSTEON and other PLC technologies fluorescent lamps are or are not.

I presume that the 0.33 figure cited is 33% which is substantially less than
the $150 cited for many other TCP CFL products.

I am out of time to do much more with the topic of CFLs until May.

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org