Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-14-2014, 09:25 AM   #21
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: seattle
Posts: 643
here's an old description about the lamp differences including the ballast requirements. It's from 1993, but most things have not changed. One thing that has changed is the availability of ballasts that will properly supply either lamp type, probably due once again to cheap silicon circuitry.

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPI.../view/LAT8.pdf
__________________

__________________
bld999 is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-14-2014, 09:28 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,328
I am still waiting for a LED this a 100 watt equivalent, fits in my lamps, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
__________________

__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:52 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
As efficient as LEDs are, they still convert only perhaps 10-15% of electric energy to light, vs. the 2% of incandescent. The rest is dissipated as heat.

The physics for heat transfer and passive convection cooling are well understood, and if this problem remains difficult to solve, I wonder what will bring about the future lower cost. Of course one does not want a little fan in there to cool the LED, like the 486 CPU fan of yesteryear. There are LED bulbs with heatsink blades. Maybe these will be cheaper with mass production.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:32 AM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,792
I have a 12Volt 12 watt LED lightbulb with Edison base at my camp. It has a big ribbed heat sink on top. That sucker sure runs hot. One of theses days I'll actually measure the current draw. Also have have some 12 volt 5 watt cfls with Edison base. They have a switching power supply built in. They seem to run a lot cooler than the LED.

BTW, some of the 12 volt CFL Bulbs died. I reused the switching power supply to feed 12 volt fluorescent tubes. A little less light output but does work well enough. The longer bulb makes up for the lower intensity. Lasts longer too. Those 12 volt cfls are pretty expensive.
__________________
There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 12:08 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
I am still waiting for a LED this a 100 watt equivalent, fits in my lamps, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Well I just bought 4 pairs of T12's. Wow, they aren't cheap either. Over $30 for 8 of them. Looks like $100 worth will provide me 3 sets and that should cover my lifetime needs.
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 02:35 PM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Well I just bought 4 pairs of T12's. Wow, they aren't cheap either. Over $30 for 8 of them. Looks like $100 worth will provide me 3 sets and that should cover my lifetime needs.
You'd better stock up on ballasts too. Although the last time I tried to change a T12 ballast, I discovered that a new T8 fixture was cheaper.
__________________
AllDone is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 02:39 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllDone View Post
You'd better stock up on ballasts too. Although the last time I tried to change a T12 ballast, I discovered that a new T8 fixture was cheaper.
You think they will go out? I don't know much about them. In fact I still haven't replaced the original bulbs installed almost 10 years ago. I never have the direct light on overhead when downstairs watching TV. They may be on at most an hour a month.
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 04:41 PM   #28
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
You think they will go out? I don't know much about them. In fact I still haven't replaced the original bulbs installed almost 10 years ago. I never have the direct light on overhead when downstairs watching TV. They may be on at most an hour a month.
i've been changing MIL's bulbs since 1982 and I haven't need a ballast yet. It's weird - I change one of her bulbs about every 6 months. I've never replaced a bulb in my house. I swapped out the original 10 yr old 4' T12's for 8' T12's about 10 yrs ago. Never had a problem with bulbs or ballast
__________________
Ronstar is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 04:49 PM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 700
Eventually the stupid thing will die. That's what causes fluorescent lights to hum and flicker. A T8 fixture will give you almost 50% more light per watt and replacing the fixture just means removing and replacing 3-4 screws and two wire nuts. I would replace the humming T12s in the soffits in my office with LEDs except that I've already been burned once by a 33% drop in the price of LEDs. I'm too lazy to figure out which one is humming and replace just that ballast or fixture.

I'll point out that I'm a girl and can easily hold a fluorescent fixture against the ceiling with one hand and do the necessary with the cordless drill and while doing an absolute minimum of cursing.
__________________
AllDone is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 06:47 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,792
Seems the 100 Watt light generating heater, AKA the edison bulb may have a reprieve.

Shortly after the US Department of Energy helped broker a deal that would see television set-top boxes save their users a billion dollars' worth of electricity, another branch of the government has decided to undercut energy efficiency efforts. As part of the new budget deal announced today, Congress has voted to eliminate standards for light bulb efficiency, standards that would see incandescent bulbs phased out in favor of technologies that convert far more electricity into light.

Bald added by me

At one time I had the bright idea to sell 100 Watt edison base electric heaters. They just happened to emit some light as well. Hey they worked on my 1972 Volkswagen beetle as an engine compartment heater in wintertime.

Edit 2: then someone read the bill:
quietquakeSmack-Fu Master, in training jump to post Technical clarification: according to the Washington Post, "The bill eliminates funding to enforce the new efficiency standards for light bulbs..."
This means the standards are not being repealed; they remain in place. However, the budget resolution includes no money to enforce the standards.
This also means the standards can be enforced in the future if money is appropriated, though.


Edit add: Hopefully by continuing to sell incandescents, the price of newfangled overpiced ugly white colored lighting devices will drop drastically. I can dream!

As part of budget deal, Congress blocks light bulb efficiency standards | Ars Technica
__________________
There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 07:31 PM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 700
That would be too bad. The improved efficiency standards for lighting are really low hanging fruit in terms of energy conservation. The original bill was bipartisan and really non-controversial when it became law in 2007. We have more stringent standards here in California that were promoted and signed into law by the Govenator.
__________________
AllDone is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 07:53 PM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ls99 View Post
Seems the 100 Watt light generating heater, AKA the edison bulb may have a reprieve.
Good. I can think of a few thousand more important things for Congress to do than to force people to buy a certain type of light bulb. Pretty hard to see why this is a concern of gubmit.
OTOH, if wasting time on this keeps them (and their staffs) from directing more vital parts of our lives, maybe it's a worthwhile distraction
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:06 PM   #33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
powerplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,380
Orchard Supply has 2 40W fluorescent tubes for $3.99 in their ad this week. They are GE brand and probably T12 given they are 40W. Looks like they are still available.
__________________
powerplay is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:35 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
OTOH, if wasting time on this keeps them (and their staffs) from directing more vital parts of our lives, maybe it's a worthwhile distraction
+1000
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:31 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllDone View Post
That would be too bad. The improved efficiency standards for lighting are really low hanging fruit in terms of energy conservation. The original bill was bipartisan and really non-controversial when it became law in 2007. We have more stringent standards here in California that were promoted and signed into law by the Govenator.
Totally, and vehemently disagree. I can decide for myself, and do it better than someone in DC or my State capital which light bulbs are best to put in the sockets in my home. And it is totally insulting to tell me I'm too dumb to do this for myself. It aggravates the heck out of me.

I use a bunch of CFLs where they make sense. I use incandescents where they make sense (seldom used sockets, or where I need instant on, even in -20 degree weather). And I've got a bunch of lights on dimmers (highly touted as an energy conservation measure years ago), and I don't want to pay extra for the dimmable CFLs. When LEDs come down in price a bit more, I'll be looking at them some more (I'm already reading the real life expectancy is being exaggerated - the LED may last, but the power supply capacitors won't).

When my porch light doesn't come on when someone rings my bell on a cold night, will my Congressman come and hold a flashlight for me? No, so stop making decisions like this for me!

If energy conservation is a priority, there are far better ways to do it than to micro-manage my light sockets from a Capital building.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 11:59 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 700
Yikes! Nobody was dictating your choice of light bulb, the 2005 and 2007 laws were just dictating that manufacturers have to produce bulbs that meet certain efficiency standards. Incandescent, straight tube fluorescent, CFL and LED all continue to be available. Since California's more stringent title 24 was passed, there has been an explosion in choices of improved, energy efficient lighting. Anyway, it turns out that yesterday's budget deal doesn't really affect the standards, there's just some language in the bill that was thrown in as a sop to one of the radio ranters.

Next week I go to visit my parents so that my dad and I can do a father-daughter job of lighting revision in their new house. He is equally obsessed with lighting, but at 83 I don't want him climbing ladders. He'll be thrilled by Philips' T12/T8 LED retrofit kit.

Anyway, Ford can sell all the Edsels they want, just as long as they meet efficiency and safety standards.
__________________
AllDone is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 02:27 PM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllDone View Post
Yikes! Nobody was dictating your choice of light bulb, the 2005 and 2007 laws were just dictating that manufacturers have to produce bulbs that meet certain efficiency standards. ...
That is dishonest wording. It's like Henry Ford saying you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

The efficiency standards effectively outlawed the cheap, effective, dim-able, standard bulbs because they can't meet that efficiency standard. So that choice was eliminated- if that isn't dictating my choice, I don't know what is. Yikes! indeed.

I'm in favor of energy conservation - and that is why I want choice. It takes more energy to make a CFL or LED than the old cheap bulbs. And when I need to replace one in a seldom used closet, attic, or basement light - I want to make the choice to use the cheap old style, because over its life it will use less energy than any other bulb. In other cases, I just prefer the old style. But someone can load up on the latest lights, and use more energy than me because they run a pool filter 24/7, and they are the 'heroes' I guess, 'cause they got cool new lights.

My point is that it is all twisted. You can't micro-manage energy use, you need to look at the big picture (including the embodied energy in the product). I think having published standards to inform consumers of the energy usage of a product is a good idea (if done correctly, it often isn't). Then let them make an informed decision - don't have the govt legislate a 'one size fits all' approach.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 02:31 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllDone View Post
Anyway, Ford can sell all the Edsels they want, just as long as they meet efficiency and safety standards.
Another load of bollocks, particularly with respect to efficiency. Let the automakers respond to consumer demand with appropriate products. Higher MPG vehicles aren't hard to sell in the right product categories, regardless of gubmint interference/coercion.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 03:44 PM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
That is dishonest wording. It's like Henry Ford saying you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

The efficiency standards effectively outlawed the cheap, effective, dim-able, standard bulbs because they can't meet that efficiency standard. So that choice was eliminated- if that isn't dictating my choice, I don't know what is. Yikes! indeed.


-ERD50
Except that I can go to any Home Depot and pick up a cheap, effective, dim-able, standard incandescent bulbs. Granted, they cost $2 instead of $1, but should last at least twice as long while using 72% of the energy. Win-win-win for the consumer, the country and the environment. The radio ranter in question was not bothered by the new standards in 2005 when they were passed into law by his own party. I would say it's "dishonest" to claim that incandescents were "outlawed" when they clearly weren't, except that I think it's really more a question of misinformation.

The other bad news is that China, where the bulbs are made, has just adopted the same standards.
__________________
AllDone is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 08:13 PM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllDone View Post


Except that I can go to any Home Depot and pick up a cheap, effective, dim-able, standard incandescent bulbs. Granted, they cost $2 instead of $1, but should last at least twice as long while using 72% of the energy. Win-win-win for the consumer, the country and the environment. ...
I guess you are referring to halogen bulbs, which are not 'standard' dimable incandescent bulbs. They are a special type of incandescent. And I don't like halagon bulbs. I've bought some fixtures that unfortunately came with them. The bulbs cost me 4x as much at least, and I don't like the color temperature. Does Home Depot carry 2700K 40 and 60 watt equivalents?

I've read up on them, and 'dimable' is questionable. From wiki -
Quote:
Halogen lamps are manufactured with enough halogen to match the rate of tungsten evaporation at their design voltage. Increasing the applied voltage increases the rate of evaporation, so at some point there may be insufficient halogen and the lamp goes black. Over-voltage operation is not generally recommended. With a reduced voltage the evaporation is lower and there may be too much halogen, which can lead to abnormal failure. At much lower voltages, the bulb temperature may be too low to support the halogen cycle, but by this time the evaporation rate is too low for the bulb to blacken significantly. There are many situations where halogen lamps are dimmed successfully. However, lamp life may not be extended as much as predicted. The life span on dimming depends on lamp construction, the halogen additive used and whether dimming is normally expected for this type.
So does 'dimable' just mean that they can be dimmed but may have a much shorter life, or does 'dimable' mean they will last at least as long being dimmed. Dimming a 'standard' incandescent will greatly increase its life (about double with each 10% reduction in power).

And then there is the heat from a halogen -
Quote:
Halogen lamps get hotter than regular incandescent lamps because the heat is concentrated on a smaller envelope surface, and because the surface is closer to the filament. This high temperature is essential to their operation. Because the halogen lamp operates at very high temperatures, it can pose fire and burn hazards. In Australia, numerous house fires each year are attributed to ceiling-mounted halogen downlights.[15][16] The Western Australia Department of Fire and Emergency Services recommends that home owners consider instead using compact fluorescent lamps or light emitting diode lamps because they produce less heat.[17]
So I still have a choice? Sounds like we are back to CFL or LED unless I want to increase the risk of burning down my house (how does that calculate into the ROI, or carbon footprint?). Is it really a win-win-win?

And regarding the win-win-win - if something is a true win-win-win, why the heck would the govt need to legislate it? I'd just use it. I don't recall any govt mandate that I use email, it is a win-win-win so I use it.

Quote:
The radio ranter in question was not bothered by the new standards in 2005 when they were passed into law by his own party. I would say it's "dishonest" to claim that incandescents were "outlawed" when they clearly weren't, except that I think it's really more a question of misinformation.
I have no idea what 'radio ranter' you are talking about in this thread? I don't want to take this into partisan politics. I'm discussing the bill on its (lack of) merits, nothing else.

It's just playing with words to claim that standard incandescent were not 'outlawed' - the law set limits on efficiency, and a standard incandescent can't meet those standards. So therefore, standard incandescents are outlawed, though not by name.

Halogens aren't that much more efficient than standard bulbs (about 17% more efficient - not 'points' but in percentage improved), so 17% hardly seems like a place to draw a line in the sand.

In fact, this legislation has hurt innovation. There were designs for a more efficient 'standard' incandescent, with none of the drawbacks, but since it fell just short of the legislated limits, they never brought it to market.

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:55 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.