N:Vision CFL's

Some very interesting discussion of the very same topics we covered here at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...uorescent_lamp

"Norway, which generates over 99% of its electrical power by hydroelectric
[12]would actually see an increase in mercury emissions if they move to
CFLs."

It seems that the cost equations are still being worked on!

There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
CFL equivalency ratings are overblown. A poster to the discussion at
wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to a
100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer. This is something I mean to
test since I "scored" a number of the N-Vision CFL's at Home Depot tonight:

762148549236.....9R4023 floodlight.....$7.47
762148582328.....23W 2Pk..................$7.97
762148581925.....19W 2Pk..................$7.97
762148581444.....14W Mini 4Pk...........$7.97
762148588429.....42W Bulb.................$9.97

Even though it's bigger than the bulb it's going to replace (and that's an
issue) the 42W does indeed "snap on" to near full brightness much faster
than the older bulb, a Lights of America triaxial bulb. The 42W bulb comes
with two plastic clips that are not mentioned anywhere on the package. The
look like they could be used the way some lampshades have a wire clamp for
the bulb that supports the shade, but it's hard to tell.

The Nvoice in-store display had a staggering variety. Some of the warnings
on the bulbs are new to me (do not use near marine radios or in emergency
exit signs). I'll have to dig out my Gossen Luna Pro lightmeter so I can
make some meaningful measurement if the CHA research committee stipulates it
to be accurate enough for the purpose! (-:

(Some more preliminary results - I guess I am not going to bed tonight, but
playing with lightbulbs instead!)

The N:Vision bulbs work in my porch light, a fixture controlled by a generic
X-10 wall switch. No other CFL has been able to do that without flashing at
about 4 on/off cycles per second. I detect a slight pulsing but it's my
wife, who's TDY, who will decide if that's objectionable.

The Monterey detects no "signal sucker" effects from the bulbs when used in
a table lamp, but I've had to change the way I test due to the strong
signals emitted by the XTB. I locate an outlet that's far enough away from
the lamp and the test transmitter (both plugged into the same outlet strip)
to register under 4 volts. Then I swap out bulbs, looking for any change in
readings. There were none. Noise was reported to be about 10-12 millivolts
in both bands that are tested. That's quite acceptable.

The light from the bulb appears much dimmer than the 60W incandescent it
replaced, but that's understandable because it's 14W and that's equivalent
to a 40W incandescent, IIRC. Hard to describe the difference in lighting
quality but the front door cam view has changed. I'll probably test the 19W
in that fixture next because I want good lighting for the front door cams.

I've found that the bulbs are dimmable - sort of - even though that use is
disclaimed. I'm amazed at how low they will dim - just a ghostly glow - but
there's a dual pronged problem of both flicker and noise. I'm going to run
one for a few hundred hours in a dimmed mode to see if it causes early
failure. I have found that there are dim levels that minimize the buzz and
flicker. I suspect I'm seeing and hearing the beat frequency oscillation
that Jeff discussed earlier at the levels that flicker or hum badly.

I hear a slight buzz on the front door audio that is not present with an
incandescent but I think that will end up being a cable re-routing issue.

The spotlight is an interesting beast as well, and it's very odd shape
actually fits into one of the table lamps that so far has rejected all but
the tiniest of CFL bulbs. That meant that CFL's were unusable because of
the heavy lampshade. The light's not even enough to use as is in that lamp,
but I can see other interesting possibilities since the reflector diffuses
the harsh shadows some other lamps have produced.

On the whole, my impression is that these will be a great asset to X-10
users as they appear to be the most X-10 friendly CFL's I've run across to
date. The price is entirely comparable to Target and War-Mart. Thanks for
the heads up, Marc. CHA at its best!

OK - last report. I started this message at 11PM and now it's 5AM. The
police just stopped by because the neighbors called and said they thought
someone was stealing my porch lightbulb or trying to break in! Now it's
time to get an hour or two of sleep.

Now for the bad news! The new N:Vision bulb will NOT turn off remotely and I
noticed the wall switch was humming loudly, even undimmed. <sigh> The 14W
runs cheaply enough that I could afford to run it 24/7 and it would still
cost less than an incandescent, but that's not what I wanted. I don't want
to go after that switch, either, because it's on an outside wall and it
won't stand any more tugging on the sixty year old wires without serious
risk of breaking. That means digging out the wires, replastering,
repainting, yada, yada, yada and that's not going to be happening,
especially around tax time! I'll bet there's no neutral at that switch.
Back to incandescents or forward to forever-burning CFLs. Or even WORSE,
*manual* control of the light!!!!!!

Tomorrow I will trace the circuit to see if putting an XTB as close to the
porchlight as possible on that circuit leg will "blast" through whatever's
blocking the signal, mostly for curiosity's sake. The porchlights are a
really bizarre run that goes up to the attic, across and down at the front
and IIRC, there may be no other outlets or lights on that circuit to easily
tap into.

Nuts! )-:

On the plus side, near-instant on, good cold weather performance, limited
dimming, no X-10 EMI and no X-10 signal sucking are nothing to sneeze at!

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>762148549236.....9R4023 floodlight.....$7.47
>762148582328.....23W 2Pk..................$7.97
>762148581925.....19W 2Pk..................$7.97
>762148581444.....14W Mini 4Pk...........$7.97
>762148588429.....42W Bulb.................$9.97

So they cost 7.5-40 times as much as an incandescent?

> Some of the warnings
>on the bulbs are new to me (do not use near marine radios or in emergency
>exit signs).

I can understand why they might put out EMI that interferes with certain
radio bands. Battery powered emergency exit signs would be a problem.

>On the plus side, near-instant on, good cold weather performance, limited
>dimming, no X-10 EMI and no X-10 signal sucking are nothing to sneeze at!

If there's no X-10 EMI why can't you turn them off?

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:46062422.758879843@nntp.fuse.net...
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> >762148549236.....9R4023 floodlight.....$7.47
> >762148582328.....23W 2Pk..................$7.97
> >762148581925.....19W 2Pk..................$7.97
> >762148581444.....14W Mini 4Pk...........$7.97
> >762148588429.....42W Bulb.................$9.97
>
> So they cost 7.5-40 times as much as an incandescent?

I suppose so. It's clear they're much more expensive to buy, and in a world
where people take out car and payday loans to squeak by, there are a lot of
people who are never going to make the buy-in. Unlike you, the electric
company doesn't charge us a fee for using too little juice. )-: We got the
largest electric bill ever last month.

> > Some of the warnings
> >on the bulbs are new to me (do not use near marine radios or in emergency
> >exit signs).
>
> I can understand why they might put out EMI that interferes with certain
> radio bands. Battery powered emergency exit signs would be a problem.

I didn't think about the battery powered issue but those are usually 12V
bulbs, not 110VAC, true? It still seems an odd warning to me.

> >On the plus side, near-instant on, good cold weather performance, limited
> >dimming, no X-10 EMI and no X-10 signal sucking are nothing to sneeze at!
>
> If there's no X-10 EMI why can't you turn them off?

You tell me. I was as surprised as anyone that it wouldn't turn off except
from the switch pushbutton. Best guess is no neutral wire and some bizarre
interaction with the switch. The very same bulb gave no problems mounted in
a floor lamp controlled by a plain vanilla lamp module. I can't easily
measure the EMI in situ for the porch light unless I use a socket adapter
with a outlet to plug in the Monterey or ESM1. There just aren't any
outlets accessible on that circuit leg. It's just the porch, side and
basement stairwell lights.

I am going to try a few benchtop setups with other types of X-10 switches to
see if there's something peculiar to the switch at the front door but I
suspect it's back to incandescents, at least at that location. Aside from
not turning off remotely, the light slowly pulsates and the wall switch
itself hums like a banshee. There were no remote turn-off problems when the
same bulb was used with a lamp or an appliance module. Just the damn wall
switch!

The bulb that I was running dimmed for longevity tests was pulsing on and
off, very slowly this morning. More accurately it was pulsing from very
dimmed to half dim. I suspect it's temperature-related drift. The big
advantage of these bulbs is that they will operate at full brightness quite
nicely on a lamp module, and that means they will respond to ALL LIGHTS ON,
something that the CFL/appliance module/filter setup I use now will not.

Since they specifically disclaim dimming abililties, I consider it gravy!
One thing that seems interesting is that the pulsing effect is not
consistent from module to module. The bulb that pulses in the porch fixture
does not pulse (or cause the same loud hum) when in the floor lamp connected
to the lamp module.

Don't count on answers this weekend. It belongs to the IRS. )-:

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@rcn.net...


>
> There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
> CFL equivalency ratings are overblown. A poster to the discussion at
> wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to
> a
> 100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer. This is something I mean
> to
> test since I "scored" a number of the N-Vision CFL's at Home Depot
> tonight:
>
> 762148549236.....9R4023 floodlight.....$7.47
> 762148582328.....23W 2Pk..................$7.97
> 762148581925.....19W 2Pk..................$7.97
> 762148581444.....14W Mini 4Pk...........$7.97
> 762148588429.....42W Bulb.................$9.97

Don't know where you are located but here in So Cal SCE is subsidizing bulbs
(N:vision in particular) at out local Home Depot. I can get 4 PAR 30
interior flood for less than 10, 6 60 watt equiv for about that too. If I
get there today I will note the prices and post them.

> Even though it's bigger than the bulb it's going to replace (and that's an
> issue) the 42W does indeed "snap on" to near full brightness much faster
> than the older bulb, a Lights of America triaxial bulb. The 42W bulb
> comes
> with two plastic clips that are not mentioned anywhere on the package.
> The
> look like they could be used the way some lampshades have a wire clamp for
> the bulb that supports the shade, but it's hard to tell.
>
> The Nvoice in-store display had a staggering variety. Some of the
> warnings
> on the bulbs are new to me (do not use near marine radios or in emergency
> exit signs). I'll have to dig out my Gossen Luna Pro lightmeter so I can
> make some meaningful measurement if the CHA research committee stipulates
> it
> to be accurate enough for the purpose! (-:

Indeed, we have high standards here ;-)

> The N:Vision bulbs work in my porch light, a fixture controlled by a
> generic
> X-10 wall switch. No other CFL has been able to do that without flashing
> at
> about 4 on/off cycles per second. I detect a slight pulsing but it's my
> wife, who's TDY, who will decide if that's objectionable.

Is it dimmer? Relay switches all have a snubber circuit around the
contacts which can cause flickering. The answer is a change in components
value. N:vision and other newer bulbs are more prone to this that older
ones. I have seen the flickering only on single bulb circuts and not on
multiple bulb ones. A voltemeter accross the load/neutral lines should show
it as well.

I also have one 60 watt equivalent in an exterior light that does not seem
to like the cold. However, it looks to be more of a fixture issue.

> The light from the bulb appears much dimmer than the 60W incandescent it
> replaced, but that's understandable because it's 14W and that's equivalent
> to a 40W incandescent, IIRC. Hard to describe the difference in lighting
> quality but the front door cam view has changed. I'll probably test the
> 19W
> in that fixture next because I want good lighting for the front door cams.

We have found that the 60 and 75 watt equivalent N:visions are bright enough
immediately that any warm up time for full brightness is quite tolerable.
However it is much more obvious with the PAR 30 replacements. Not sure as
to why, one would think they are the same internally.

The other point with CFLs is heat. We have a Halo recessed shower fixture
that has a low heat protection threshold. Even a 40 watt incandescent would
trip it even though it is rated for 60 watt continuous. Electrician said
that it happens a lot with the shower kit, and said that changing it may not
fix it. I put in a 60 watt equivalent N:vision. More light and no more
heat issues.


Dan Wright

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>Don't count on answers this weekend. It belongs to the IRS. )-:

I'm interested in your light meter numbers. Don Klipstein (Great Internet
Lightbulb Page) says most CFLs he has measured put out significantly less
light than claimed. He doesn't say that about the n:vision ones but he did
note that they buzzed.

It would also be of interest to know what your Kill A Watt says for Power
Factor.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@rcn.net>:

[Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted]

>There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
>CFL equivalency ratings are overblown. A poster to the discussion at
>wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to a
>100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer. This is something I mean to
>test since I "scored" a number of the N-Vision CFL's at Home Depot tonight:

How many watts does your refrigerator use? We were treated to hundreds and
hundreds of lines of posts on this topic with lottsa discussion. Follow-up?
Summary? Results?

>I'll have to dig out my Gossen Luna Pro lightmeter so I can
>make some meaningful measurement if the CHA research committee stipulates it
>to be accurate enough for the purpose! (-:

Spectral response of the meter is important esp wrt fluorescents. The spectra
of 5500K and 3500K n:vision compact fluorescents are here:

http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/spectra7.htm

Using a Zone VI-modified Pentax spotmeter, in a windowless bathroom with
off-white walls, in 1/3 stop increments relative to incandescent, I
measured:
Incident Reflected Reflected
on axis, off wall, off wall,
1 minute ~5 seconds 1 minute warmup
GE 60 watt 820(?) lumen incand. 0 0 0
n:vision Soft White ~2700K +1 0 +1
n:vision Bright White ~3500K +1 0 +1
n:vision Day Light ~5500K +2 -2 +2


Each of the CFLs puts out more light than the reference 60 watt incandescent
when warm.

The warmup period for the 2700K and 3500K is completely negligible starting
from room temperature (I previously posted data showing rapid warm-up
starting at 0F (-18C)).

As the physics would suggest, the 5500K takes longer to warm up. But it is
both perceived and measured as brighter. Both of these "higher" measurements
might be the results of the spectra and meter and eye sensitivities.


HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@rcn.net>:

>The Monterey detects no "signal sucker" effects from the bulbs when used in
>a table lamp, but I've had to change the way I test due to the strong
>signals emitted by the XTB. I locate an outlet that's far enough away from
>the lamp and the test transmitter (both plugged into the same outlet strip)
>to register under 4 volts. Then I swap out bulbs, looking for any change in
>readings. There were none. Noise was reported to be about 10-12 millivolts
>in both bands that are tested. That's quite acceptable.

This is consistent with what I previously reported, also qualitatively.

>I've found that the bulbs are dimmable - sort of - even though that use is
>disclaimed. I'm amazed at how low they will dim - just a ghostly glow - but
>there's a dual pronged problem of both flicker and noise. I'm going to run
>one for a few hundred hours in a dimmed mode to see if it causes early
>failure. I have found that there are dim levels that minimize the buzz and
>flicker.

This is consistent with what I previously reported. With a dimmer that can be
accurately set every time (not, eg X-10 WS-467's ) the dimming function
would/will be completely useable if dimming doesn't damage the lamp and noise
is still in check.

One useful task would be to compare light output vs power (watts) consumed
for incandescents Vs the n:vision CFLs. The resulting efficacy curve should
significantly favor CFL's .

>On the whole, my impression is that these will be a great asset to X-10
>users as they appear to be the most X-10 friendly CFL's I've run across to
>date. The price is entirely comparable to Target and War-Mart. Thanks for
>the heads up, Marc. CHA at its best!

What I have done, if anything, is counter-balance obsolete, bad advice with a
few facts. The vast majority of folks don't have to do anything more
complicated than "Just Do It".

Factoid reported by Lutron: The average number of light dimmers in US
households is 1.5. Think about that in the context of how very little any of
the discussion in CHA means to most folks, and why CFLs make sense for the
vast majority of folks.

....Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@rcn.net>:

>It seems that the cost equations are still being worked on!

Not really. The _data_ used in the equations is changing to reflect changes
in the actual characteristics of actual CFLs in use. The form of the
equation, by and large, stays the same.

The complete absence of meaning _data_ and subsequent numerical analysis
("equations") in CHA is what has changed through several actual analyses of
actual costs and benefits of actual CFLs in actual use in an actual home
(like mine).

The CHA CFL naysayers (as in "CFLS are a really bad idea") post vague, false
information because up-to-date, real data does not support the conclusions
they want to promote. Here's an analogy they would understand: "They bet
against the winning horse and are trying to sell you their losing tickets
after the race is over".

>There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
>CFL equivalency ratings are overblown. A poster to the discussion at
>wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to a
>100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer.

There is lotsa junk out there. Buy junk; get taken.

The major manufacturers' data is generally accurate to within the measurement
techniques and the comparative assumptions used.

Stuff posted on wikipedia is stuff posted on wikipedia.

....Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@rcn.net>:

>On the whole, my impression is that these will be a great asset to X-10
>users as they appear to be the most X-10 friendly CFL's I've run across to
>date. The price is entirely comparable to Target and War-Mart. Thanks for
>the heads up, Marc. CHA at its best!

[snip]

>On the plus side,

>near-instant on,

>good cold weather performance,

>limited dimming,

>no X-10 EMI and

> no X-10 signal sucking are nothing to sneeze at!


To which you might add:

-- Even greater efficacy than incandescents when dimmed

-- Lower overall mercury discharge than the additional mercury from
coal-fired power plants from additional energy consumed by incandescents

-- Large cost savings owing to reduced electrical consumption

-- Positive carbon balance environmental benefits

-- Reduced environmental impacts from mining

(Incrementally; not a panacea.)


....Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:28:02 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
message <46062422.758879843@nntp.fuse.net>:

>"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
>>762148549236.....9R4023 floodlight.....$7.47
>>762148582328.....23W 2Pk..................$7.97
>>762148581925.....19W 2Pk..................$7.97
>>762148581444.....14W Mini 4Pk...........$7.97
>>762148588429.....42W Bulb.................$9.97
>
>So they cost 7.5-40 times as much as an incandescent?

No. Of course not. More purposeful misinformation

When was the last time you priced a halogen floodlamp?

At my Home Depot, the 6 packs of 60-watt equivalents came out to $1.70 each.

>
>> Some of the warnings
>>on the bulbs are new to me (do not use near marine radios or in emergency
>>exit signs).
>
>I can understand why they might put out EMI that interferes with certain
>radio bands. Battery powered emergency exit signs would be a problem.

Would? Or might? How many marine radios and battery-powered emergency exit
signs is there in the typical home?

>>>On the plus side, near-instant on, good cold weather performance, limited
>>dimming, no X-10 EMI and no X-10 signal sucking are nothing to sneeze at!
>
>If there's no X-10 EMI why can't you turn them off?

I have found that the built-in electronics go wacky when the AC voltage to
them goes below a certain threshold when dimmed. There is hysteresis in the
effect. This occurs even with hard-wired, 20-amp dimmers with toroidal
chokes the size of donuts and with no X-10 anywhere in the house.

....Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org