If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by David Nebenzahl on June 30, 2009, 2:30 pm
Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
about half brightness.
Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
closets where lights are only on for short times.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
|
|
Posted by Frank on June 30, 2009, 2:39 pm
David Nebenzahl wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
> discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
>
> One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
> to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
> CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
> the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
> and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
> about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
> seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
> about half brightness.
>
> Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
> a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
> flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
> brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
> of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
> a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
> now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
> closets where lights are only on for short times.)
>
>
I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. I have not been putting
them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this. One of my powder
rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35 years old.
|
|
Posted by DerbyDad03 on June 30, 2009, 4:16 pm
show/hide quoted text
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> > Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
> > discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
> > One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long tim=
> > to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
> > CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
> > the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
> > and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
> > about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
> > seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
> > about half brightness.
> > Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that use=
> > a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
> > flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
> > brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
> > of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
> > a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
> > now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
> > closets where lights are only on for short times.)
> I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. =A0I have not been puttin=
> them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this. =A0One of my powder
> rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35 years old.- Hide qu=
oted text -
show/hide quoted text
> - Show quoted text -
re: I have not been putting them in bathrooms or powder rooms because
of this.
My bathrooms and powder rooms have *always* had dimmers in them.
There's nothing worse than 200 watts during a 3AM pee trip.
I love the slow-start CFL spots in my kitchen for the same reason -
no, I don't pee in the kitchen! - It's worth the wait in the evenings
as a trade-off for having nice soft, slowly increasing light on dark
winter mornings.
If I need more light faster, I have other lights I can flip on. I
would hate to experience the full brightness of my 3 spots all at once.
|
|
Posted by Percival P. Cassidy on July 1, 2009, 10:33 am
DerbyDad03 wrote:
show/hide quoted text
>>> Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
>>> discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
>>> One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
>>> to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
>>> CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
>>> the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
>>> and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
>>> about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
>>> seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
>>> about half brightness.
<snip>
> re: I have not been putting them in bathrooms or powder rooms because
> of this.
>
> My bathrooms and powder rooms have *always* had dimmers in them.
>
> There's nothing worse than 200 watts during a 3AM pee trip.
We have LED night lights in our bathrooms. No need to turn a light on at
all for those night-time gotta-go moments.
show/hide quoted text
> I love the slow-start CFL spots in my kitchen for the same reason -
> no, I don't pee in the kitchen! - It's worth the wait in the evenings
> as a trade-off for having nice soft, slowly increasing light on dark
> winter mornings.
We have CFLs in the kitchen, but I'm thinking of replacing them by LEDs
because I don't want to have to wait a few minutes before I can see the
coffee pot.
Perce
|
|
Posted by Don Klipstein on June 30, 2009, 6:15 pm
show/hide quoted text
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> Just a small data point to throw into the ongoing
>> discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
>>
>> One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
>> to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
>> CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
>> the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
>> and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
>> about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
>> seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
>> about half brightness.
>>
>> Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
>> a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
>> flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
>> brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
>> of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
>> a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright.
I have noticed four trends in indicators of how badly a CFL starts dim
and needs time to warm up:
1. Ones with outer bulbs tend to start dimmer and need more time to warm
up than ones with bare tubing.
2. Ones with wider tubing slightly-to-somewhat tend to start brighter
than ones with narrower tubing.
3. Ones that are more compact for their wattage have a slight tendency
in my experience to start dimmer than ones that are of larger physical
size for their wattage.
4. CFLs start dimmer and need more time to warm up where it is cooler.
If you air-condition your home to a lesser extent, your CFLs will be
slightly more warmed-up when you start them.
show/hide quoted text
>> (Up to now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places
>> like closets where lights are only on for short times.)
That still makes sense to me.
show/hide quoted text
>I have not noticed this but I have older CFL's. I have not been putting
>them in bathrooms or powder rooms because of this.
> One of my powder rooms has original "super bulbs" with krypton over 35
>years old.
What wattage? If they lasted so long, they probably produce about as
much light as "standard" incandescents of 30% lower wattage, or Philips
"Halogena Energy Saver" of 50% lower wattage, or CFLs of 80-85% lower
wattage. I would consider the Philips Halogena "Energy Saver" in
bathrooms where lights are usually on too briefly for CFLs to be suitable.
- Don Klipstein (dklipste@rcn.com)
|
Page 1 of 2 1 2 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | A bright note... | November 11, 2006, 1:55 pm |
| Neighbor with bright light | June 1, 2006, 4:39 am |
| CFL bulbs -- how bright for how long. | January 17, 2009, 5:08 pm |
| 12V under cabinet halogens way too bright | March 20, 2009, 10:22 pm |
| Bright LED Christmas Candle | December 15, 2009, 9:50 pm |
| Bright nails instead of galvanized on siding | July 26, 2005, 12:26 pm |
| Which uses more electricity, a 75 watt light bulb or a 150 with a dimmer so that it is as bright as the 75? | May 19, 2006, 10:41 pm |
| Light dimmer switch; can failure just cause lack of bright lights? | November 6, 2007, 6:33 pm |
| CFLs | January 14, 2007, 3:09 pm |
| CFLs....again | May 7, 2009, 2:39 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> discussion/argument/fight over CFLs here.
>
> One of the oft-heard complaints about them is that they take a long time
> to achieve full brightness. I remember this when I first starting using
> CFLs; at that time (ca. 2002), the best/cheapest ones 'round heah' were
> the ones Ikea sold (20 watters @ ~ $5). They were basically good bulbs,
> and put out lots of good light when warm, but the most annoying thing
> about them was the extremely long startup time: they took a full 5
> seconds to emit *any* light when first turned on, and then were only
> about half brightness.
>
> Anyhow, I just installed a new light fixture for a client, one that uses
> a CFL with the bi-pin arrangement, and was surprised the first time I
> flipped on the switch that it came on instantly at nearly full
> brightness. Unfortunately, I failed to get the brand of bulb (it's one
> of the "twisty" types). But it shows that it is indeed possible to make
> a CFL that doesn't take an ungodly amount of time to get bright. (Up to
> now I've been advising clients not to bother with CFLs in places like
> closets where lights are only on for short times.)
>
>