If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Gordon Shumway on November 15, 2009, 1:26 am
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Non-enclosed table lamps with bulbs pointed upward (base-down) can take
>CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.
> As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
>60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
>incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
>incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.
> What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
>infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
>fixture.
> If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
>base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
>rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
>use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
>is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
>watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Thank you for this information. You have been very helpful.
|
|
Posted by JRStern on November 17, 2009, 12:56 pm
Should be fine, subject to Don's excellent posting about enclosure
etc.
I've found some of the mid-sized CFLs put out more light than
expected, a little 55 watt spot bulb equivalent, and a little
candelbra-base 40 watt equivalent, seem much brighter than the
incandescents they replaced.
Perhaps they're down-rated because they're brighter when new but tend
to dim more than incandescents as they age?
I've been having excellent luck replacing all sorts of bulbs with CFLs
from Home Depot.
Tried a cheapo from the 99c store, went dead in three days.
I also have a collection of CFLs from the last ten years, I've been a
fan since before they became fashionable, and the new ones seem much,
much better overall.
However, when the room needs heat, I do miss the several hundred watts
that I used to get from the lighting! I suppose it's cheaper to run
the gas heat for an extra minute or three, but I do see the
difference!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:51:19 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
show/hide quoted text
>>SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
>>This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
>>bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
>>Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
>>enough light for my old eyes.
>>I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
>>was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
>>the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
>>CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
>>bulbs produce?
>>I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
>>watt CFL. Good or bad idea?
> Non-enclosed table lamps with bulbs pointed upward (base-down) can take
>CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.
> As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
>60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
>incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
>incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.
> What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
>infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
>fixture.
> If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
>base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
>rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
>use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
>is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
>watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
|
|
Posted by Don Klipstein on November 17, 2009, 7:22 pm
>Should be fine, subject to Don's excellent posting about enclosure
>etc.
>I've found some of the mid-sized CFLs put out more light than
>expected, a little 55 watt spot bulb equivalent, and a little
>candelbra-base 40 watt equivalent, seem much brighter than the
>incandescents they replaced.
>Perhaps they're down-rated because they're brighter when new but tend
>to dim more than incandescents as they age?
CFLs do fade over their lives more than incandescents do. CFLs, like
fluorescents, also are dimmed by non-optimum temperature.
Maybe the 40 watt candelabra-base incandescent replaced by the CFL was
subpar as far as incandescents go - and incandescents that are subpar as
far as incandescents go are almost as easy to get as subpar whatever-else.
show/hide quoted text
>I've been having excellent luck replacing all sorts of bulbs with CFLs
>from Home Depot.
>Tried a cheapo from the 99c store, went dead in three days.
I have a lot of experience with "dollar store CFLs". I have purchased
quite a few, mostly to gain ability to truthfully say that it is my actual
experience that these tend to be stool specimens. I state my experiences
including test results in:
http://members.misty.com/don/cfdollar.html
My experiences among 70 "models" of 20 "brands" so far here:
* Above-average rate of early failure
* My only experience of a CFL filling a room with smoke
* Above-average rate of visibly malfunctioning early short of failure
* My only experience of a CFL easily coming apart
* My only experience of a CFL having something loose rattling inside
* My only experience of a CFL being DOA
* Color is usually "icy cold daylight bluish white", even for some in
packages saying "soft warm white light"
* Most of the few warm-color ones have lousy color rendering similar to
the lousy "old tech warm white" even worse than "old tech cool white"
* 100% rate of ones making claims of light output falling short of claims,
in a few cases so badly as by factor of about 3
* Accounts for over 97% of integral-electronic-ballast CFL models I have
seen without notation of UL listing or "FCC ID"
show/hide quoted text
>I also have a collection of CFLs from the last ten years, I've been a
>fan since before they became fashionable, and the new ones seem much,
>much better overall.
>However, when the room needs heat, I do miss the several hundred watts
>that I used to get from the lighting! I suppose it's cheaper to run
>the gas heat for an extra minute or three, but I do see the
>difference!
This does sound like an application that took until now for someone to
mention in the bits of Usenet where I look: Need for light and extra heat
in one room of a house. During heating season here, it may make sense to
use incandescents - even ones of subpar efficiency, such as "vibration
resistant industrial duty" which have compromised efficiency and are
among the many exempted by the upcoming USA 2012/2014 "incandescent ban".
http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html
When it is not heating season, use CFLs.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
|
|
Posted by cjt on November 15, 2009, 1:03 am
Gordon Shumway wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
> This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
> bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
> Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
> enough light for my old eyes.
>
> I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
> was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
> the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
> CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
> bulbs produce?
>
> I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
> watt CFL. Good or bad idea?
My guess is the limit specified has more to do with a bright spot
showing through the shade (i.e. an aesthetic consideration) than any
concern about heat.
|
|
Posted by Tony on November 17, 2009, 12:46 pm
Gordon Shumway wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> SWMBO just bought a new table lamp for the desk in our computer room.
> This lamp will be replacing one that uses two (2) 75 watt Incandescent
> bulbs. This new lamp uses only one (1) bulb. The label says "60 watt
> Incandescent or 15 watt CFL maximum." This will probably not be
> enough light for my old eyes.
>
> I was under the impression that maximum wattage for a given fixture
> was because of the fixtures ability to withstand the heat produced by
> the bulb. If that's true wouldn't one be able to use a higher output
> CFL relative to the incandescent because of the lower heat the CFL
> bulbs produce?
>
> I would like to use the equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent, a 23
> watt CFL. Good or bad idea?
CFL's are inductive loads. Many things electrical are rated differently
for resistive vs inductive loads. Return the lamp and find one with
higher ratings.
|
Page 4 of 4 << first < 1 2 3
| Similar Threads | Posted | | breaker AIR rating | March 17, 2007, 11:10 pm |
| R-rating of Bow Window | August 1, 2007, 3:44 pm |
| Rating contractors | September 3, 2007, 9:46 pm |
| PVC Conduit Fill Rating? | June 19, 2006, 4:28 pm |
| Contractor rating site | August 30, 2006, 6:11 pm |
| plywood deflection rating | April 18, 2008, 10:27 am |
| GFCI amperage rating | March 2, 2009, 8:22 am |
| Help picking Seer rating for A/C unit | March 7, 2006, 9:59 am |
| What does BTUH rating mean on water heaters? | July 11, 2006, 1:47 pm |
| Benjamin Moore paint low rating | March 29, 2008, 3:19 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>CFLs up to 42 watts OK if they fit.
> As for heat - a 42 watt CFL makes slightly more non-radiant heat than a
>60 watt incandescent does. Despite being more efficient than
>incandescents at producing light, CFLs are also more efficient than
>incandescents at producing non-radiant heat.
> What CFLs are less efficient than incandescents at producing is
>infrared, which mostly escapes the fixture and heats the room but not the
>fixture.
> If a CFL is enclosed or operated base-up, especially both or operated
>base-up in a downlight, it can easily cook itself. If the fixture is
>rated for 60 watt incandescents, then CFLs up to 23 watts and rated for
>use in recessed ceiling fixtures should be OK. One such CFL product line
>is Philips "triple arch style" Marathon, non-dimmable versions up to 23
>watts (and not the 25 watt one and not the dimmable ones).
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)