Home Page link

Compact Fluorescent and Bathroom Mirror?

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 4 of 4       << first < 1 2 3 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Compact Fluorescent and Bathroom Mirror? Edward 06-23-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Don Klipstein on June 24, 2007, 12:57 pm
<edited for space>

>> Another option is to simply replace the fixture with a two tube 4 ft.
>> T8 fluorescent strip (approximate cost, $25.00) and build a valance
>> that is open at the top and bottom so that more light can be
>> distributed throughout the room.
>>
>> A fluorescent strip would consume just 60-watts and two good quality
>> T8 fluorescent tubes would provide upwards of 6,300 lumens of light --
>> roughly the same amount of light as fifteen or more 40-watt G25
>> incandescents. For residential bathrooms, I might recommend a T8 lamp
>> with a 3,000K colour temperature and a CRI (colour rendering index) of
>> 85 or higher (e.g., a GE SPX30). The Philips 32T8/ADV830 is another
>> excellent choice.

>T 12 flourescent and electronic ballast would be the most efficient.

Do you have any figures to support that?

According to my Philips lamp catalog, F40/30U (Ultralume 3000K F40T12)
has initial lumens of 3300, which is 82.5 lumens/watt.

The 34 watt version has rated initial lumens of 2950, which works out to
86.8 lumens/watt.

The F40T12 "Advantage" 3000K (a premium one) has rated initial lumens of
3600, which works out to 90 lumens per watt.

I cannot find any more efficacious T12 4-footers.

The same catalog says initial lumens of 2950 for most F32T8 models, 3100
for the "Advantage" premium one. Those work out to 92.2 and 96.9
lumens/watt respectively.

The industry standard is for T12 and for 17, 25, and 32 watt T8
fluorescents to have their performance specified with a magnetic ballast
(and newer T5 ones specified with an electronic ballast).
T12 and T8 should both improve in efficacy by roughly equal margins over
the efficacies that the catalog lumen and watt specifications indicate
when electronic ballasts are used.

I am aware that T12 is supposed to be more efficient than T8 according
to books by Elenbaas or Waymouth. However, it appears to me that T8
permits higher quality phosphor at a given cost because less phosphor is
needed. Also, for equal length, T8 has a lower percentage of input power
going into electrode losses due to higher lamp voltage.

Furthermore, I expect better prices and quality for T8 electronic
ballasts than for T12 ones because T8 electronic ballasts are extremely
common and T12 ones are far from that.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

AppliancePartsPros.com, Inc.
Posted by Paul M. Eldridge on June 24, 2007, 5:50 pm
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:57:13 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

><edited for space>
>
>>T 12 flourescent and electronic ballast would be the most efficient.
>
> Do you have any figures to support that?
>
> According to my Philips lamp catalog, F40/30U (Ultralume 3000K F40T12)
>has initial lumens of 3300, which is 82.5 lumens/watt.
>
> The 34 watt version has rated initial lumens of 2950, which works out to
>86.8 lumens/watt.
>
> The F40T12 "Advantage" 3000K (a premium one) has rated initial lumens of
>3600, which works out to 90 lumens per watt.
>
> I cannot find any more efficacious T12 4-footers.
>
> The same catalog says initial lumens of 2950 for most F32T8 models, 3100
>for the "Advantage" premium one. Those work out to 92.2 and 96.9
>lumens/watt respectively.
>
> The industry standard is for T12 and for 17, 25, and 32 watt T8
>fluorescents to have their performance specified with a magnetic ballast
>(and newer T5 ones specified with an electronic ballast).
> T12 and T8 should both improve in efficacy by roughly equal margins over
>the efficacies that the catalog lumen and watt specifications indicate
>when electronic ballasts are used.
>
> I am aware that T12 is supposed to be more efficient than T8 according
>to books by Elenbaas or Waymouth. However, it appears to me that T8
>permits higher quality phosphor at a given cost because less phosphor is
>needed. Also, for equal length, T8 has a lower percentage of input power
>going into electrode losses due to higher lamp voltage.
>
> Furthermore, I expect better prices and quality for T8 electronic
>ballasts than for T12 ones because T8 electronic ballasts are extremely
>common and T12 ones are far from that.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Hi Don,

That's certainly my overall impression as well. As you noted, the
32-watt Philips Advantage has an initial lumen rating of 3,100, which
pegs lamp efficacy at 96.9 lumens/watt (not including ballast losses).

Source:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5369.pdf

The T12 equivalent of this Advantage lamp produces 3,100 initial
lumens as well, but consumes 34-watts; lamp efficacy in this case is
91.2 lumens/watt. This is just slightly better than the 40-watt
version you referenced above which, as you indicated, comes in at 90
lumens/watt.

Source:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-2497.pdf

Likewise, Osram Sylvania's FO32/830/XPS/ECO is rated at 3,100 lumens.
The closest match in their T12 lineup is the Designer 800 and it
produces 3,300 and 2,900 lumens in its 40 and 32-watt versions,
respectively.

It's pretty much the same story over at GE. The F32T8XLSPX30HLEC is
rated at 3,100 lumens and their equivalent T12 numbers comes in at
3,400 and 2,900 lumens respectively.

Assuming T8 and T12 electronic ballasts are equally efficient in
operation (and I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise), lumen
for lumen, a T12 lamp would consume 5 to 10 per cent more energy than
its T8 counterpart.

T12 is obsolete, dead-end technology and I would expect the major lamp
manufacturers to focus the bulk of their attention on their T5 and T8
lines going forward.

Best regards,
Paul

Posted by Edward on June 26, 2007, 10:44 pm
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >We have a set of lights that basically heat the place up like a
> >toaster oven. So I was thinking abotu putting a bunch of CFLs in
> >there.
> >Can I do that with a fixture like this? Or can't one have too many
> >CFLs on the same circuit?
>
> >http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/19508/2002465564101867842_rs.jpg
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> Another option is to simply replace the fixture with a two tube 4 ft.
> T8 fluorescent strip (approximate cost, $25.00) and build a valance
> that is open at the top and bottom so that more light can be
> distributed throughout the room.
>
> A fluorescent strip would consume just 60-watts and two good quality
> T8 fluorescent tubes would provide upwards of 6,300 lumens of light --
> roughly the same amount of light as fifteen or more 40-watt G25
> incandescents. For residential bathrooms, I might recommend a T8 lamp
> with a 3,000K colour temperature and a CRI (colour rendering index) of
> 85 or higher (e.g., a GE SPX30). The Philips 32T8/ADV830 is another
> excellent choice.
>
> Not only are linear fluorescents less costly to replace, they produce
> 1.5 to 2.0 times more light, watt for watt, last two to three times
> longer than a standard CFL and the quality of the light they provide
> is generally superior. They also produce more light at startup and
> reach full brightness more quickly.
>
> Best regards,
> Paul

That would be my ideal solution.
But, I'm not Bob Villa, and we're not down there all the time. How
hard would it be just to replace that monstrosity with a T8
fluorescent strip? I can replace electrical outlets, change tires...
but generally speaking I fix computers.
So when your hard drive goes bad let me know.


Posted by Paul M. Eldridge on June 27, 2007, 12:03 pm
wrote:

>That would be my ideal solution.
>But, I'm not Bob Villa, and we're not down there all the time. How
>hard would it be just to replace that monstrosity with a T8
>fluorescent strip? I can replace electrical outlets, change tires...
>but generally speaking I fix computers.
>So when your hard drive goes bad let me know.

Hi Edward,

If you're not comfortable tackling this type of work, it's probably
best to let someone else take it on. That said, if you can work on
computers, this should be pretty straightforward.

Obvious safety precautions apply; i.e., as a first step, turn off the
circuit breaker that powers this fixture. Removal of the old fixture
probably requires popping off the front faceplate, disconnecting the
feed wires and removal of the mounting hardware. A set of
installation instructions should accompany the new fixture. When
reconnecting the feed wires, make sure the ground (green wire) is
properly attached to the metal frame -- there is a metal screw that
holds this wire firmly in place.

A second set of hands will make the job a lot easier, so a couple of
(root)beers and perhaps a few burgers on the 'Q might help move things
along nicely. And if you don't want to build a valance to shield the
fixture, you might opt for one with an internal diffuser/lense cover.

Best regards,
Paul

Page 4 of 4       << first < 1 2 3
Similar ThreadsPosted
Need help with Compact Fluorescent April 20, 2008, 12:40 pm
compact fluorescent bulbs July 6, 2005, 10:47 pm
Compact Fluorescent light bulbs? October 27, 2005, 5:04 pm
"flaky" maxlite compact fluorescent January 27, 2006, 12:29 am
Compact Fluorescent 13 not equal to a normal 60 February 26, 2007, 7:48 pm
Compact fluorescent lights on rheostats April 30, 2007, 6:32 pm
Dimmable compact fluorescent bulbs October 17, 2007, 7:40 pm
bathroom mirror -- where to order? April 19, 2006, 3:35 pm
offer various bathroom mirror August 12, 2006, 2:38 am
offer various bathroom mirror August 13, 2006, 8:26 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap