|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > February 2008 > Fluorescents and migraines??
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Fluorescents and migraines??
|
|
| Dean Hoffman 2008-01-06, 9:25 pm |
| http://tinyurl.com/296h8p
Is there any truth to this article?
I read another article claiming some of the old American house
wiring won't handle CFLs. How can that be if CFLs take less amperage
than incandescents?
Dean
| |
|
| "Dean Hoffman" <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote in message
news:1199674232_347@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> http://tinyurl.com/296h8p
>
> Is there any truth to this article?
That's more a medical question than an electrical one, but adjustments to
how CFL's are manufactured could solve that problem.
> I read another article claiming some of the old American house wiring
> won't handle CFLs. How can that be if CFLs take less amperage than
> incandescents?
That's just silly.
CS
| |
|
| CS wrote:
> "Dean Hoffman" <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote in message
> news:1199674232_347@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> That's more a medical question than an electrical one, but adjustments
> to how CFL's are manufactured could solve that problem.
Crossposted to sci.engr.lighting
Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
>
>
> That's just silly.
>
I agree
--
bud--
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2008-01-07, 1:25 pm |
| In article <8f793$47826555$4213ea4e$25271@dialupusa.net>,
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> writes:
> CS wrote:
>
>
> Crossposted to sci.engr.lighting
> Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
> migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
I think these might have started from a couple of BBC articles
last week accompanying short news features on radio/TV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is an article
with an alarmist headline and nothing credible to back it up,
and an explanation near the bottom of how the misunderstanding
has come about. Basically an alarmist piece of crappy jornalism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is the other
article. It's been discussed on the radio and the people
affected are affected by any bright light including sunlight.
These are remarkably poor articles, particularly for the BBC,
which are being picked up and propapated by other parts of the
media. It's been accompanied radio/TV coverage giving time to
those who just want to moan about filament lamps being phased
out.
There are actually real issues presented by the phasing out
of filament lamps, but those aren't getting any coverage at
all, of course.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
|
| Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <8f793$47826555$4213ea4e$25271@dialupusa.net>,
> bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> writes:
>
> I think these might have started from a couple of BBC articles
> last week accompanying short news features on radio/TV.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is an article
> with an alarmist headline and nothing credible to back it up,
> and an explanation near the bottom of how the misunderstanding
> has come about. Basically an alarmist piece of crappy jornalism.
>
CFLs run at high frequency giving high frequency (probably totally
invisible) flicker. Is the high frequency flicker modulated at 50Hz
giving a visible flicker? (Just curious.)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is the other
> article. It's been discussed on the radio and the people
> affected are affected by any bright light including sunlight.
>
(This is the same link.)
CFLs shouldn't be brighter than incandescents???
So you can get migraines from "low intensity of the light" (1st article)
and other problems from the bright light. And both problems are caused
by CFLs.
Does the spectrum of fluorescents cause skin problems as the original
link claimed?
> These are remarkably poor articles, particularly for the BBC,
> which are being picked up and propapated by other parts of the
> media. It's been accompanied radio/TV coverage giving time to
> those who just want to moan about filament lamps being phased
> out.
>
It is comforting to know that bad news reporting is not unique to the US.
> There are actually real issues presented by the phasing out
> of filament lamps, but those aren't getting any coverage at
> all, of course.
>
Thanks for the further information.
--
bud--
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2008-01-08, 1:25 pm |
| In article <b8c78$4783b70b$4213eb3c$32485@dialupusa.net>,
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> writes:
> CFLs run at high frequency giving high frequency (probably totally
> invisible) flicker. Is the high frequency flicker modulated at 50Hz
> giving a visible flicker? (Just curious.)
No. There could be 100Hz modulation. There is with some
filament lamps, but no one claims they give migranes.
You get 50Hz flicker from tubes on old magnetic control
gear if they are partially rectifying the discharge.
This can happen with badly manufactured tubes where one
of the electrodes isn't working well, and tubes in the
last couple of hours of life when the last bit of emissive
material is just wearing off one end immediately prior to
the tube going out. 50Hz flicker is certainly uncomfortable
to many people, resulting in stress and headaches, and
I suspect is a trigger for migraines in some people.
I think it's this effect which has got mixed up with the
issue of compact fluorescents, although it's impossible
with electronically ballasted fluorescents used in
compact fluorescent retrofit lamps.
> (This is the same link.)
Oops, should have been http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7170246.stm
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-08, 1:25 pm |
| bud-- wrote:
[snip]
> Does the spectrum of fluorescents cause skin problems as the original
> link claimed?
If any, certainly not more severe than old style tubular fluorescents. There was
a discussion in s.e.l. long time ago, where it was mentioned that the glass used
on old style tubular fluorescents allows wavelengths down to 370-380nm.
Mercury at low pressure emits a triplet at 365nm, but it is strongly absorbed by
the various phosphors used in fluorescent lamps, to the point where its
existence can barely be detected on high precision spectroscopes.
There is no question for wavelengths below 365nm, because the soda lime glass
used on fluorescents strongly absorbs such radiation.
I've measured many CFLs with my spectroscopes, and I cannot detect any
appreciable radiation below 390-400nm.
There are lamps which emit radiation all the way down to 365nm, most notably
high pressure mercury and metal halides. I've never heard any claims that these
give rashes or skin problems. If the claim for CFLs was true, it certainly would
be true for these lamps as well.
For example, black light mercury vapor lamps used in discos which emit most of
their radiation at 365nm, would be the first obvious culprits for skin problems,
but again, I've never heard such claims.
On the other hand if there are people who are skin-sensitive to the region
between 370-400nm, then one could possibly make a case, but as with all things,
this would be an exception.
Lighting is not designed with such rare population samples in mind.
[snip]
> Thanks for the further information.
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-08, 5:25 pm |
| In article <1199819942.608286@athprx03>, I.N. Galidakis wrote:
>bud-- wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>If any, certainly not more severe than old style tubular fluorescents.
>There was a discussion in s.e.l. long time ago, where it was mentioned
>that the glass used on old style tubular fluorescents allows wavelengths
>down to 370-380nm.
>
>Mercury at low pressure emits a triplet at 365nm, but it is strongly
>absorbed by the various phosphors used in fluorescent lamps, to the point
>where its existence can barely be detected on high precision
>spectroscopes.
>
>There is no question for wavelengths below 365nm, because the soda lime glass
>used on fluorescents strongly absorbs such radiation.
>
>I've measured many CFLs with my spectroscopes, and I cannot detect any
>appreciable radiation below 390-400nm.
The 365 nm triplet is actually a weak feature of the low pressure
mercury vapor discharge. It is related to the 577-579 nm yellow triplet,
which is also a strong feature of a high pressure mercery vapor discharge
but a weak feature of the low pressure one.
Most fluorescent lamp phosphors do not utilize 365 nm, though the
usual mid-blue component of triphosphors 3500K and higher does utilize it.
Also, soda lime glass is nearly enough transparent at least down to 340
nm. However, not much 310 nm gets through, and I think that is the next
shorter wavelength significant spectral feature of mercury vapor (another
triplet in the same series as the 577-579 and 365-366 nm ones).
Try exposing various fluorescents to a BLB blacklight. My experience is
that triphosphor ones 3500K and higher glow bright blue, meaning the glass
passes the UV. Most other fluorescents give little or no reaction,
indicating that the phosphor does not utilize that wavelength.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-08, 8:25 pm |
| Don Klipstein wrote:
[snip]
> The 365 nm triplet is actually a weak feature of the low pressure
> mercury vapor discharge. It is related to the 577-579 nm yellow
> triplet, which is also a strong feature of a high pressure mercery
> vapor discharge but a weak feature of the low pressure one.
>
> Most fluorescent lamp phosphors do not utilize 365 nm, though the
> usual mid-blue component of triphosphors 3500K and higher does
> utilize it.
>
> Also, soda lime glass is nearly enough transparent at least down to
> 340 nm.
My Optics reference (K.D. Alexopoulos, General Physics, Optics, Athens, 1966),
seems to agree with Don's 340nm for regular glass.
However, as much as I would hate to disagree with Don and with the above
reference, in my experience the above is a tad low. I have in front of me the
OSRAM catalog which gives the peak for UVA sun-tanning indium-amalgam
fluorescents, L40W/79 K In, as 350nm.
If the 340nm lower bound for regular glass was correct, suntanning would be
possible behind regular glass windows. But it's not. Hence the 340nm figure for
soda lime glass cannot be correct.
[snip]
> Try exposing various fluorescents to a BLB blacklight. My
> experience is that triphosphor ones 3500K and higher glow bright
> blue, meaning the glass passes the UV. Most other fluorescents give
> little or no reaction, indicating that the phosphor does not utilize
> that wavelength.
Note however that the direction of radiation with respect to the glass envelope
and phosphor may be crucial to the transmissivity of UV. Whereas *outcoming*
365nm radiation may pass through the glass envelope and hit the phosphor and
excite it, this *DOES NOT* mean that there is *incoming* 365nm radiation which
manages to survive both the phosphor AND the CFL glass envelope and radiate
outwards.
As I said, spectroscopic analysis does not show any appreciable amounts of
radiation below 390nm, except traces in regular 2700K CFLs.
I will gladly stand corrected if anybody shows a specific spectrogram from a
calibrated spectroscope with non-trace amounts of UV below 390nm.
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-09, 3:25 am |
| In article <1199838974.331557@athprx03>, I.N. Galidakis wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>My Optics reference (K.D. Alexopoulos, General Physics, Optics, Athens, 1966),
>seems to agree with Don's 340nm for regular glass.
>
>However, as much as I would hate to disagree with Don and with the above
>reference, in my experience the above is a tad low. I have in front of me the
>OSRAM catalog which gives the peak for UVA sun-tanning indium-amalgam
>fluorescents, L40W/79 K In, as 350nm.
That sounds long to me for suntanning. Wavelengths longer than about
330-335 nm or so don't do that much.
>If the 340nm lower bound for regular glass was correct, suntanning would be
>possible behind regular glass windows. But it's not. Hence the 340nm
>figure for soda lime glass cannot be correct.
I thik the effective cutoff wavelength is a little longer for windows
and a little shorter for fluorescent lamps, in part from window glass
being thicker, and in part from window glass having a slight tinting by
iron.
As for fluorescents made specifically for suntanning - I think they
would use a different glass to pass even shorter wavelengths.
>
>Note however that the direction of radiation with respect to the glass envelope
>and phosphor may be crucial to the transmissivity of UV. Whereas *outcoming*
>365nm radiation may pass through the glass envelope and hit the phosphor and
>excite it, this *DOES NOT* mean that there is *incoming* 365nm radiation which
>manages to survive both the phosphor AND the CFL glass envelope and radiate
>outwards.
>As I said, spectroscopic analysis does not show any appreciable amounts of
>radiation below 390nm, except traces in regular 2700K CFLs.
>
>I will gladly stand corrected if anybody shows a specific spectrogram from a
>calibrated spectroscope with non-trace amounts of UV below 390nm.
I don't expect there to be a whole lot because the 365-366 nm triplet is
a weak feature of the low pressure mercury vapor discharge.
Some spectral power distribution curves:
http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/spectra7.htm
Look for "Trisonic" 6500K (halophosphor) ones, all others noted as
"dollar store" ones, and compact fluorescents noted as 2700 K, Sylvania
"white" (halophosphor). The 365-366 nm feature is about half as strong as
the 404.7 nm one in all of these.
Two non-phosphor lamps that emit UVC are shown also: A "Water Purifier"
one and a "UVC" one (though with weak UVC output). The latter also has
365-366 about half as strong as 404.7, and the former has more 365 (I have
seen a similar lamp get hotter and have higher mercury vapor pressure -
that may be the explanation).
I tried getting the spectral power distribution of a Sylvania F40/350BL.
(Copying and pasting links is messy with Sylvania's website - I would try
searching their USA "business" lamp catalog for F40350BLECO 30/CS 1/SKU
or 24922.)
The spectral power distribution has the 365-366 nm spike smaller than
the 404.7 nm one, and there is a little one shown at 310 nm.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-09, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-09, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is the other
| article. It's been discussed on the radio and the people
| affected are affected by any bright light including sunlight.
I know I am affected by very bright light due to the brightness. But if
restricted enough, and that light is fine for me as a task or reading
light. Fluorescent lights, including CLFs, even when at low brightness,
can give me a headache within about 20-30 minutes
| There are actually real issues presented by the phasing out
| of filament lamps, but those aren't getting any coverage at
| all, of course.
Like how many CFLs does it take to keep my ophidian friends warm?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-09, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| CFLs run at high frequency giving high frequency (probably totally
| invisible) flicker. Is the high frequency flicker modulated at 50Hz
| giving a visible flicker? (Just curious.)
If they convert to DC and smooth it first, the answer would be no. Since
I see flicker from many CFLs, then it must be that not all of them do it.
FYI, this flicker is not what bothers me.
| Does the spectrum of fluorescents cause skin problems as the original
| link claimed?
What about unfiltered halogens?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
|
| Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <b8c78$4783b70b$4213eb3c$32485@dialupusa.net>,
> bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> writes:
>
> No. There could be 100Hz modulation. There is with some
> filament lamps, but no one claims they give migranes.
>
I should have said 100Hz but comments about 50Hz are interesting.
My guess is the DC drops substantially twice a cycle which should
produce modulation. But the phosphor persistence would counteract that
depending on the value of persistence. I hadn't thought about filament
lamps...
--
bud--
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:51:27 -0600, bud--
<remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>CS wrote:
>
>
>Crossposted to sci.engr.lighting
>Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
>migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
Well, both CFLs and linear fluorescent lamps that use high
frequency electronic ballasts can and do have flicker if the
DC storage capacitor is nor large enough to prevent 100 Hz
or 120 Hz modulation of the internal DC link. I have
measured the flicker on a few CFLs using electronic ballasts
and plan to publish the data, but have yet not done so.
CFLs with integral electronic ballasts are much more likely
to have flicker than linear or compact fluorescent lamps
using separate ballasts due to the size and cost constraints
of the ballast in integral CFLs.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-09, 1:25 pm |
| On 07 Jan 2008 19:25:00 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>In article <8f793$47826555$4213ea4e$25271@dialupusa.net>,
> bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> writes:
>
>I think these might have started from a couple of BBC articles
>last week accompanying short news features on radio/TV.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is an article
>with an alarmist headline and nothing credible to back it up,
>and an explanation near the bottom of how the misunderstanding
>has come about. Basically an alarmist piece of crappy jornalism.
Perhaps not so crappy, since integral CFLs can have flicker
even if they use high frequency electronic ballasts. See my
other note.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7167860.stm is the other
>article. It's been discussed on the radio and the people
>affected are affected by any bright light including sunlight.
This is the same link as the first.0
>These are remarkably poor articles, particularly for the BBC,
>which are being picked up and propapated by other parts of the
>media. It's been accompanied radio/TV coverage giving time to
>those who just want to moan about filament lamps being phased
>out.
>
>There are actually real issues presented by the phasing out
>of filament lamps, but those aren't getting any coverage at
>all, of course.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-09, 1:25 pm |
| On 9 Jan 2008 05:57:59 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
>| CFLs run at high frequency giving high frequency (probably totally
>| invisible) flicker. Is the high frequency flicker modulated at 50Hz
>| giving a visible flicker? (Just curious.)
>
>If they convert to DC and smooth it first, the answer would be no. Since
>I see flicker from many CFLs, then it must be that not all of them do it.
>FYI, this flicker is not what bothers me.
They do smooth the DC - but not enough to remove all the
100/120 Hz flicker.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-09, 1:25 pm |
| On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
>
>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
>
>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
properly filtered.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-09, 8:25 pm |
| Don Klipstein wrote:
[snip]
> Two non-phosphor lamps that emit UVC are shown also: A "Water
> Purifier" one and a "UVC" one (though with weak UVC output). The
> latter also has 365-366 about half as strong as 404.7, and the former
> has more 365 (I have seen a similar lamp get hotter and have higher
> mercury vapor pressure - that may be the explanation).
>
> I tried getting the spectral power distribution of a Sylvania
> F40/350BL. (Copying and pasting links is messy with Sylvania's
> website - I would try searching their USA "business" lamp catalog for
> F40350BLECO 30/CS 1/SKU or 24922.)
>
> The spectral power distribution has the 365-366 nm spike smaller
> than the 404.7 nm one, and there is a little one shown at 310 nm.
I am not sure why you are bringing the above lamp kinds into the discussion.
These are UVA/UVB/UVC CFLs/fluoros, and they are not used for commercial
lighting, so they are irrelevant to the question asked.
For the /third time/, and to return to one of the thread subjects: UV content in
regular lighting CFLs is insignificant, so any claims of skin rashes coming from
UV in CFLs are bogus, unless the test subject is skin-sensitive to the 390-440nm
area.
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
|
|
"I.N. Galidakis" <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote in message
news:1199925417.803276@athprx03...
> Don Klipstein wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> I am not sure why you are bringing the above lamp kinds into the
> discussion.
>
> These are UVA/UVB/UVC CFLs/fluoros, and they are not used for commercial
> lighting, so they are irrelevant to the question asked.
>
> For the /third time/, and to return to one of the thread subjects: UV
> content in
> regular lighting CFLs is insignificant, so any claims of skin rashes
> coming from
> UV in CFLs are bogus, unless the test subject is skin-sensitive to the
> 390-440nm
> area.
>
> --
> I.N. Galidakis
For a paper published some years ago on the UV output of "white" light
linear fluorescent lamps, we found that there was a substantial UV
differential between T8 lamps made in Europe and North American produced T8
lamps. An analysis indicated that the amount of iron in the glass was the
primary reason. Higher iron content reduces UV output.
Terry McGowan
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-10, 3:25 am |
| In article <1199925417.803276@athprx03>, I.N. Galidakis wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>[snip]
>
>
>I am not sure why you are bringing the above lamp kinds into the discussion.
>
>These are UVA/UVB/UVC CFLs/fluoros, and they are not used for commercial
>lighting, so they are irrelevant to the question asked.
>
>For the /third time/, and to return to one of the thread subjects: UV
>content in regular lighting CFLs is insignificant, so any claims of skin
>rashes coming from UV in CFLs are bogus, unless the test subject is
>skin-sensitive to the 390-440nm area.
I agree that the UV output below 390 nm of most general lighting
fluorescents is low. I was adding data to support my claim as to why it
is usually low - the low pressure mercury arc does not produce much
between the 253.7 and 404.7 nm features, and that mid-UVA (specifically
365-366 nm) passes through most glass and many to most fluorescent lamp
phosphors (so the glass is usually not the explanation for relative lack
of mid-UVA and often the phosphor is not).
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-12, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
| On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
|>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
|>
|>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
|>
|>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
|>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
|>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
|>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
|
| Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
| properly filtered.
No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-12, 9:25 am |
| On 12 Jan 2008 08:10:07 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
>| On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>|
>|>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>|>
>|>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
>|>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
>|>
>|>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
>|>
>|>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
>|>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
>|>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
>|>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
>|
>| Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
>| properly filtered.
>
>No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
>properly smooth out the DC?
They already know, but it costs more money than most
consumers want to pay.
>Hint: it can be done without those big
>capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
>comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
>compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
I large number of circuits that have high input power
factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple
have been published and/or patented. However, all cost
money and all dissipate energy.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-12, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
|>No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
|>properly smooth out the DC?
|
| They already know, but it costs more money than most
| consumers want to pay.
|
|>Hint: it can be done without those big
|>capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
|>comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
|>compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
|
| I large number of circuits that have high input power
| factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple
| have been published and/or patented. However, all cost
| money and all dissipate energy.
So just how much are we talking about to make a CFL that does not flicker?
I'm looking for two pricings. One considering that non-flicker CFLs might
be made mandatory and therefore would be forced to have economoy of scale
and thus a lower price, and one considering that flicker CFLs remain the
popular item and non-flicker CFLs remain high at least in part due to the
lack of economoy of scale. I want to use these figures during the coming
election to argue that our Congresspeople should dump the law they just
put in and start over with a better one (but I don't know just yet what
that should be). My dissatisfaction over the current one is, however, a
typical example of the junk we get from Congress. There are no standards
for forcing the market to have decent CFL devices. Of course for myself,
I would want not only the non-flicker devices, but also ones that have a
reasonably continuous spectrum (merely balancing 2 or 3 color peaks to get
an average white of the desired color temperature is not good enough).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** 2008-01-12, 8:25 pm |
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
>
>|>No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
>|>properly smooth out the DC?
>|
>| They already know, but it costs more money than most
>| consumers want to pay.
>|
>|>Hint: it can be done without those big
>|>capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
>|>comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
>|>compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
>|
>| I large number of circuits that have high input power
>| factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple
>| have been published and/or patented. However, all cost
>| money and all dissipate energy.
>
>So just how much are we talking about to make a CFL that does not flicker?
>I'm looking for two pricings. One considering that non-flicker CFLs might
>be made mandatory and therefore would be forced to have economoy of scale
>and thus a lower price, and one considering that flicker CFLs remain the
>popular item and non-flicker CFLs remain high at least in part due to the
>lack of economoy of scale. I want to use these figures during the coming
>election to argue that our Congresspeople should dump the law they just
>put in and start over with a better one (but I don't know just yet what
>that should be). My dissatisfaction over the current one is, however, a
>typical example of the junk we get from Congress. There are no standards
>for forcing the market to have decent CFL devices. Of course for myself,
>I would want not only the non-flicker devices, but also ones that have a
>reasonably continuous spectrum (merely balancing 2 or 3 color peaks to get
>an average white of the desired color temperature is not good enough).
>
>
>
CFL's are a good idea but should not be legislated since they are "not
ready for prime time".
The CFL's on the market are largly incompatible with dimmers and
electronic switches (motion detectors and timers). Basically they are
not a drop in replacement for incandescent. Also the failure rate is
outrageous in my experience. They tend to overheat and the electronics
either shut down or simply melt. I have no doubt some fires will result
from these products.
There is also a potential RF interference problem from the electronic
ballast that should not be ignored. As these proliferate, so could
interference to radio spectrum.
Furthermore they are another hazardous waste disposal problem. Until
there is a way to dispose of them safely, they should not be forced on
the market.
I have about a dozen of them in my house with four failures in two
years, so I am speaking from experience.
--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
"Follow The Money" ;-P
| |
|
| In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |
> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> |>
> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
> |>
> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
> |>
> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
> |
> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
> | properly filtered.
>
> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
The same energy has to be stored.
--
Keith
| |
|
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fmaunr1o3u@news3.newsguy.com...
> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
> |>properly smooth out the DC?
> |
> | They already know, but it costs more money than most
> | consumers want to pay.
> |
> |>Hint: it can be done without those big
> |>capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
> |>comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
> |>compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
> |
> | I large number of circuits that have high input power
> | factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple
> | have been published and/or patented. However, all cost
> | money and all dissipate energy.
>
> So just how much are we talking about to make a CFL that does not flicker?
> I'm looking for two pricings. One considering that non-flicker CFLs might
> be made mandatory and therefore would be forced to have economoy of scale
> and thus a lower price, and one considering that flicker CFLs remain the
> popular item and non-flicker CFLs remain high at least in part due to the
> lack of economoy of scale. I want to use these figures during the coming
> election to argue that our Congresspeople should dump the law they just
> put in and start over with a better one (but I don't know just yet what
> that should be). My dissatisfaction over the current one is, however, a
> typical example of the junk we get from Congress. There are no standards
> for forcing the market to have decent CFL devices. Of course for myself,
> I would want not only the non-flicker devices, but also ones that have a
> reasonably continuous spectrum (merely balancing 2 or 3 color peaks to get
> an average white of the desired color temperature is not good enough).
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
> http://ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are indeed performance standards for CFLs -- from Energy Star. Life,
light output, color, RFI, etc. are included. See the required numbers and
test procedures at::
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partne...ls_prog_req.pdf
But flicker is not on the list and I agree that it should be. Flicker is a
lighting quality factor. Not everyone is bothered by it; but those who are
tend to be bothered a lot and so they end up not liking or using efficient
lamps which, of course, means less energy savings. As Vic points out,
flicker can easily be minimized or eliminated. The additional cost is
modest.
In my view, Energy Star CFLs, because they are already positioned as
consumer products that are intended to provide quality lighting, should
include flicker criteria. Flicker criteria should also be part of the new
Energy Star LED system requirements and I've discussed the subject with
Energy Star several times now.
While it isn't surprising that there are still complaints about short lamp
life --- for all lamps, not just CFLs, there's little reason to complain
about or tolerate it. If Energy Star CFLs are involved, manufacturers have
to provide an 800 number on the carton and respond to complaints. I've had
half a dozen on test in my own house for almost 5 years now. They are on
several hours daily with no failures so far.
Terry McGowan
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-12, 9:25 pm |
| On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:02:53 GMT, "TKM" <nomail@no.net>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>There are indeed performance standards for CFLs -- from Energy Star. Life,
>light output, color, RFI, etc. are included. See the required numbers and
>test procedures at::
>http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partne...ls_prog_req.pdf
>
>But flicker is not on the list and I agree that it should be.
I fully agree! The flicker data was obtained with the goal
of persuading Energy Star that a flicker spec was necessary
because CFLs with electronic ballasts _could_ flicker;
something that too many people think is impossible.
BTW - the Energy Star LED spec seems to have a (perhaps
unintended) flicker spec - probably because LEDs can be run
in pulse mode.
>Flicker is a
>lighting quality factor. Not everyone is bothered by it; but those who are
>tend to be bothered a lot and so they end up not liking or using efficient
>lamps which, of course, means less energy savings. As Vic points out,
>flicker can easily be minimized or eliminated. The additional cost is
>modest.
>
>In my view, Energy Star CFLs, because they are already positioned as
>consumer products that are intended to provide quality lighting, should
>include flicker criteria. Flicker criteria should also be part of the new
>Energy Star LED system requirements and I've discussed the subject with
>Energy Star several times now.
>
>While it isn't surprising that there are still complaints about short lamp
>life --- for all lamps, not just CFLs, there's little reason to complain
>about or tolerate it. If Energy Star CFLs are involved, manufacturers have
>to provide an 800 number on the carton and respond to complaints. I've had
>half a dozen on test in my own house for almost 5 years now. They are on
>several hours daily with no failures so far.
Same here. Most of my CFLs have long life and I have never
had a failure that overheated the lamp or ballast.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-12, 9:25 pm |
| On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:00:58 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz>
wrote:
>In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
>
>The same energy has to be stored.
Not if you can suck it out of the power line at low line
voltage levels and boost the voltage up for the DC link.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-13, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
| Same here. Most of my CFLs have long life and I have never
| had a failure that overheated the lamp or ballast.
I have 5 CFLs so far. All are outdoors. So far no failures. But in the
winter in the cold, they are very dim until they warm up. That is yet
another issue they need to get fixed. Given that it is a mercury vapor
issue, I suspect the fix will be to switch to LEDs. But I'll still make
the complaint to the government.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-13, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
| In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
| alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
|> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |
|> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> |>
|> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
|> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
|> |>
|> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
|> |>
|> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
|> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
|> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
|> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
|> |
|> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
|> | properly filtered.
|>
|> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
|> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
|> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
|> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
|> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
|
| The same energy has to be stored.
Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-13, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
| On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:00:58 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz>
| wrote:
|
|>In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
|>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|>> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
|>> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>> |
|>> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>> |>
|>> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
|>> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
|>> |>
|>> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
|>> |>
|>> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
|>> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
|>> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
|>> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
|>> |
|>> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
|>> | properly filtered.
|>>
|>> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
|>> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
|>> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
|>> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
|>> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
|>
|>The same energy has to be stored.
|
| Not if you can suck it out of the power line at low line
| voltage levels and boost the voltage up for the DC link.
Or just chop it wide at the lower voltage part of the cycle and chop it
narrow at the higher voltage part of the cycle. Then at the peak, chop
it all the way out for a while and move the flicker from 120 Hz to 240 Hz.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
|
| In article <fmc51411549@news4.newsguy.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
> In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
> | In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
> | alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
> |> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |
> |> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> |> |>
> |> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
> |> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
> |> |>
> |> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
> |> |>
> |> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
> |> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
> |> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
> |> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
> |> |
> |> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
> |> | properly filtered.
> |>
> |> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
> |> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
> |> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
> |> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
> |> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
> |
> | The same energy has to be stored.
>
> Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it.
I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with
the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the
US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the
planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth
over".
--
Keith
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
| In article <fmc51411549@news4.newsguy.com>,
| alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|> In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
|> | In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
|> | alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
|> |> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
|> |> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
|> |> |>
|> |> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
|> |> |>
|> |> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
|> |> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
|> |> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
|> |> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
|> |> |
|> |> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
|> |> | properly filtered.
|> |>
|> |> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
|> |> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
|> |> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
|> |> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
|> |> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
|> |
|> | The same energy has to be stored.
|>
|> Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it.
|
| I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with
| the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the
| US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the
| planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth
| over".
The flicker will be worse in Europe.
So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF near 1.
And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.
Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature filament.
That is, the filament remains hot even during zero crossing. So what about
a phosphor that can continue to glow at the same color? FYI, I do see the
existing phosphors glowing at zero crossing, but the color is different.
Or maybe we just need DC distributed in the home. But don't get any idea
that Edison was right ... he was selling pulsing DC.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| On 13 Jan 2008 04:47:29 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
wrote:
>In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
>| On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:00:58 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz>
>| wrote:
>|
>|>In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
>|>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
>|>> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
>|>> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>|>> |
>|>> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>|>> |>
>|>> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
>|>> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
>|>> |>
>|>> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
>|>> |>
>|>> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
>|>> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
>|>> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
>|>> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
>|>> |
>|>> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
>|>> | properly filtered.
>|>>
>|>> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
>|>> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
>|>> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
>|>> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
>|>> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
>|>
>|>The same energy has to be stored.
>|
>| Not if you can suck it out of the power line at low line
>| voltage levels and boost the voltage up for the DC link.
>
>Or just chop it wide at the lower voltage part of the cycle and chop it
>narrow at the higher voltage part of the cycle. Then at the peak, chop
>it all the way out for a while and move the flicker from 120 Hz to 240 Hz.
You can only use this method if you don't need a DC link
voltage near the peak power line voltage.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:58:13 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz>
wrote:
>In article <fmc51411549@news4.newsguy.com>,
>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
>
>I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with
>the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the
>US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the
>planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth
>over".
Well, you obviously have to store SOME energy since you
can't take energy from the power line when the voltage is
near a zero crossing. However, using sophisticated
techniques you can significantly decrease the size of the
energy storage capacitor.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Ben Miller 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| "CS" <Idontwork@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:QOednahSx_Acsx_anZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@linkline.com...
> "Dean Hoffman" <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote in message
> news:1199674232_347@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> That's more a medical question than an electrical one, but adjustments to
> how CFL's are manufactured could solve that problem.
>
>
> That's just silly.
>
> CS
I agree that in general they should have no sffect. If you had a lot of CFLs
on shared neutrals, however, additional harmonic current in an undersized
neutral might be a problem.
--
Benjamin D Miller, PE
www.bmillerengineering.com
| |
|
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fmdb5v02dq6@news4.newsguy.com...
<Big Snip>
>
> Or maybe we just need DC distributed in the home. But don't get any idea
> that Edison was right ... he was selling pulsing DC.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
> http://ham.org/ |
> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's interesting. What do you mean by "pulsing DC" --- unregulated? The
Smithsonian historical material indicates that the steam-powered generators
were speed regulated and the load was just incandescent lamps initially, of
course.
Terry McGowan
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
[snip]
> The flicker will be worse in Europe.
>
> So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF
> near 1. And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.
>
> Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature
> filament. That is, the filament remains hot even during zero
> crossing. So what about a phosphor that can continue to glow at the
> same color?
I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are
different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.
> FYI, I do see the existing phosphors glowing at zero
> crossing, but the color is different.
And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on
the kind of phosphor used.
I am still trying to figure out what in the world you guys are talking about.
I either must be blind or something else is at play here.
The flicker of, say, a PHILIPS TL-D/55/56 35W, is /colossal/ compared to the
flicker of my 2700K CFLs. As far as I am concenred, I don't perceive /any/
flicker on my CFLs.
The only time I saw my CFLs flickering was when there was a voltage drop in my
appartment, because all four kitchen ones flickered simultaneously.
Are we talking about non-perceptible flicker?
[snip]
[color=darkred]
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
| Andrew Gabriel 2008-01-13, 1:25 pm |
| In article <fmdb5v02dq6@news4.newsguy.com>,
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>
> The flicker will be worse in Europe.
>
> So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF near 1.
This is standard in the SMPSUs used in enterprise grade
computers nowadays (or you can't sell them in various
parts of the world, such as Europe).
> And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.
>
> Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature filament.
It doesn't really. You can read the strobe on the side of a
record turntable under a 240V 40W 50Hz lamp.
I'm not convinced there's any problem at all with the amount
of 100Hz flicker that you'll get from a CFL. You can't actually
perceive flicker at 100Hz though -- the human brain is far
too large to process the information fast enough. A fly can
see flicker at 1000Hz though, due to a much smaller brain.
This whole issue was raised by someone in an organisation
who didn't understand the difference between old magnetic
ballasted fluorescent tubes and modern CFLs.
There are also a number of people who complain about fluorescent
lighting, but I have found this to be psychosomatic in the
cases I know. If they think the lighting is fluorescent,
it causes them a headache or whatever. This doesn't correlate
with whether it really is fluorescent though.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
| |
| Stuart 2008-01-13, 8:25 pm |
| In article <fmc4vj01549@news4.newsguy.com>,
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
> I have 5 CFLs so far. All are outdoors. So far no failures. But in the
> winter in the cold, they are very dim until they warm up. That is yet
> another issue they need to get fixed.
There are special types for outdoor use so perhaps they already have. We
have one over our back door step and it seems to work fine. It also has a
built in light sensor so it only comes on when it gets dark.
--
Stuart Winsor
From is valid but subject to change without notice if it gets spammed.
For Barn dances and folk evenings in the Coventry and Warwickshire area
See: http://www.barndance.org.uk
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-14, 3:25 am |
| In article <4f60c64e79SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>, Stuart wrote:
>In article <fmc4vj01549@news4.newsguy.com>,
> <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote:
>
>There are special types for outdoor use so perhaps they already have. We
>have one over our back door step and it seems to work fine. It also has a
>built in light sensor so it only comes on when it gets dark.
I do consider it normal for CFLs used outdoors in wintry conditions to:
A) If rated for such conditions, to take a few or several minutes to warm
up. (In locations where it gets "really cold", it helps and may sometimes
be necessary to enclose the CFL in some sort of housing to help accumulate
heat - and allow at least several minutes for good warmup.)
(In locations with temperature extremes in both directions, such as
USA's "northern Great Plains" and nearby areas including adjacent areas of
Canada, one may want to have outdoor fixtures with outdoor-rated CFLs
having a housing that is seasonally removable so as to assist warmup only
during colder times of the year.)
B) If not suitable for such conditions and if lacking an outer housing to
hold in some accumulated heat, to only partially warm up and not get
well-warmed-up until the weather improves.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-14, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical TKM <nomail@no.net> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fmdb5v02dq6@news4.newsguy.com...
|
| <Big Snip>
|
|>
|> Or maybe we just need DC distributed in the home. But don't get any idea
|> that Edison was right ... he was selling pulsing DC.
|>
|> --
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> | Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/
|> http://ham.org/ |
|> | (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/
|> http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| That's interesting. What do you mean by "pulsing DC" --- unregulated? The
| Smithsonian historical material indicates that the steam-powered generators
| were speed regulated and the load was just incandescent lamps initially, of
| course.
Edison's generators output DC by reversing the electrical connections every
half cycle. The end result is basically the same as a full wave rectifier
bridge. You get 2 pulses per cycle. I don't know what speed his generators
actually ran at.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-14, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical I.N. Galidakis <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
| [snip]
|> The flicker will be worse in Europe.
|>
|> So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF
|> near 1. And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.
|>
|> Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature
|> filament. That is, the filament remains hot even during zero
|> crossing. So what about a phosphor that can continue to glow at the
|> same color?
|
| I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are
| different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.
They can be mixed. So why not? I just don't know what colors would be an
option or available.
|> FYI, I do see the existing phosphors glowing at zero
|> crossing, but the color is different.
|
| And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on
| the kind of phosphor used.
I'm just tossing the idea out. I'm not an expert on specific kinds of
phosphors.
| I am still trying to figure out what in the world you guys are talking about.
|
| I either must be blind or something else is at play here.
|
| The flicker of, say, a PHILIPS TL-D/55/56 35W, is /colossal/ compared to the
| flicker of my 2700K CFLs. As far as I am concenred, I don't perceive /any/
| flicker on my CFLs.
Maybe you have one of the good ones I've read about that don't flicker.
| The only time I saw my CFLs flickering was when there was a voltage drop in my
| appartment, because all four kitchen ones flickered simultaneously.
|
| Are we talking about non-perceptible flicker?
The 100 Hz or 120 Hz (depending on country) blinking.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-14, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| It doesn't really. You can read the strobe on the side of a
| record turntable under a 240V 40W 50Hz lamp.
I've seen that. It's every so slight.
| I'm not convinced there's any problem at all with the amount
| of 100Hz flicker that you'll get from a CFL. You can't actually
| perceive flicker at 100Hz though -- the human brain is far
| too large to process the information fast enough. A fly can
| see flicker at 1000Hz though, due to a much smaller brain.
| This whole issue was raised by someone in an organisation
| who didn't understand the difference between old magnetic
| ballasted fluorescent tubes and modern CFLs.
Nice try ... to make people who admit to seeing the flicker be perceived
as having a small brain. Just keep in mind that the whole brain does not
get involved in the sensation of light and flicker. Possibly, different
people perceive the flicker in very different ways. I know I do see the
flicker. I used to think it was the cause of my headaches from such
light sources. But it's not. The cause of the headaches for me turns
out to be the dis-continuous spectrum. But I still see the flicker when
it is there. I see the flicker is HPS lamps, but those don't give me a
headache.
| There are also a number of people who complain about fluorescent
| lighting, but I have found this to be psychosomatic in the
| cases I know. If they think the lighting is fluorescent,
| it causes them a headache or whatever. This doesn't correlate
| with whether it really is fluorescent though.
Some LEDs give me the headaches. Some CRT screens do, too. But some don't.
Almost all fluorescent lights do, whether they flickered or not. I have
seen some incandescents that flickered. One recently was a bathroom night
light that had actually burned out and in so doing, recontacted the filament
in an unsupported way. It was physically/mechanically vibrating while it
was also running brighter than usual due to the now shorter filament.
Again, I do see the flicker in a great many lights. I don't see any in
many others, but I don't know if that is because the light is smooth or
just flickering at a higher frequency. BTW, I see the flicker in _some_
car tail lights, and not in most others. I'm guessing they are regulating
the current on the LEDs by a rather low frequency PWM.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-01-14, 3:25 am |
| In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
| On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:58:13 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzz>
| wrote:
|
|>In article <fmc51411549@news4.newsguy.com>,
|>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|>> In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzz> wrote:
|>> | In article <fm9skv027h7@news4.newsguy.com>,
|>> | alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
|>> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts <xxx@lighting-research.com> wrote:
|>> |> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>> |> |
|>> |> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>> |> |>
|>> |> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought
|>> |> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs.
|>> |> |>
|>> |> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist.
|>> |> |>
|>> |> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum
|>> |> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal
|>> |> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now
|>> |> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method.
|>> |> |
|>> |> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not
|>> |> | properly filtered.
|>> |>
|>> |> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to
|>> |> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big
|>> |> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that
|>> |> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to
|>> |> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.
|>> |
|>> | The same energy has to be stored.
|>>
|>> Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it.
|>
|>I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with
|>the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the
|>US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the
|>planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth
|>over".
|
| Well, you obviously have to store SOME energy since you
| can't take energy from the power line when the voltage is
| near a zero crossing. However, using sophisticated
| techniques you can significantly decrease the size of the
| energy storage capacitor.
My idea was to boost the flicker frequency to evade the issue. But, alas,
it has the problems of bad PF and missing the peak voltage when at 2x Hz.
Back to DC.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-14, 9:25 am |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
[snip]
>
> Maybe you have one of the good ones I've read about that don't
> flicker.
Every single one I've owned, from the first PHILIPS SL-18W which used a magnetic
ballast back in 1980, to cheapo chinese ones to the modern OSRAM DULUX 27W and
daylight NARVA 27W, don't flicker.
I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
[snip]
[color=darkred]
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-14, 1:25 pm |
| I.N. Galidakis wrote:
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> Every single one I've owned, from the first PHILIPS SL-18W which used
> a magnetic ballast back in 1980, to cheapo chinese ones to the modern
> OSRAM DULUX 27W and daylight NARVA 27W, don't flicker.
>
> I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
I've also asked my mother, two neighbors, my aunt and another visitor.
Nobody can detect any perceptible flicker on my 4 OSRAM DULUX 27W/2700K
installed in my mother's kitchen.
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-14, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:11:30 +0200, "I.N. Galidakis"
<morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
>phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>[snip]
>
>I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are
>different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.
>
>
>And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on
>the kind of phosphor used.
>
>I am still trying to figure out what in the world you guys are talking about.
>
>I either must be blind or something else is at play here.
>
>The flicker of, say, a PHILIPS TL-D/55/56 35W, is /colossal/ compared to the
>flicker of my 2700K CFLs. As far as I am concenred, I don't perceive /any/
>flicker on my CFLs.
>
>The only time I saw my CFLs flickering was when there was a voltage drop in my
>appartment, because all four kitchen ones flickered simultaneously.
>
>Are we talking about non-perceptible flicker?
Yes - at least for me. I can measure significant 120 Hz on
the light output of all the the CFLs in my house, but I
don't see any flicker.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
| Victor Roberts 2008-01-14, 8:25 pm |
| On 13 Jan 2008 18:49:38 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>In article <fmdb5v02dq6@news4.newsguy.com>,
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net writes:
>
>This is standard in the SMPSUs used in enterprise grade
>computers nowadays (or you can't sell them in various
>parts of the world, such as Europe).
>
>
>It doesn't really. You can read the strobe on the side of a
>record turntable under a 240V 40W 50Hz lamp.
>
>I'm not convinced there's any problem at all with the amount
>of 100Hz flicker that you'll get from a CFL. You can't actually
>perceive flicker at 100Hz though -- the human brain is far
>too large to process the information fast enough. A fly can
>see flicker at 1000Hz though, due to a much smaller brain.
>This whole issue was raised by someone in an organisation
>who didn't understand the difference between old magnetic
>ballasted fluorescent tubes and modern CFLs.
With respect to 100Hz or 120 Hz modulation of the light
produced by fluorescent lamps, there is far less difference
between "old" magnetic ballasts and many "modern" high
frequency electronic ballasts - especially those built into
CFLs.
>There are also a number of people who complain about fluorescent
>lighting, but I have found this to be psychosomatic in the
>cases I know. If they think the lighting is fluorescent,
>it causes them a headache or whatever. This doesn't correlate
>with whether it really is fluorescent though.
I fully agree. When I do a blind test with friends and
family who say that fluorescent lamps are terrible, they
have no problems with the quality of light produced.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.
| |
|
| In article <slrnfolmaj.7b1.don@manx.misty.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, don@manx.misty.com says...
> In article <4f60c64e79SW_NOSPAM@dsl.pipex.com>, Stuart wrote:
>
> I do consider it normal for CFLs used outdoors in wintry conditions to:
>
> A) If rated for such conditions, to take a few or several minutes to warm
> up. (In locations where it gets "really cold", it helps and may sometimes
> be necessary to enclose the CFL in some sort of housing to help accumulate
> heat - and allow at least several minutes for good warmup.)
> (In locations with temperature extremes in both directions, such as
> USA's "northern Great Plains" and nearby areas including adjacent areas of
> Canada, one may want to have outdoor fixtures with outdoor-rated CFLs
> having a housing that is seasonally removable so as to assist warmup only
> during colder times of the year.)
Oh, that's great. You want people to go back to removable
screens/storms too? There is enough crap to do around a house to
get ready for winter every year without futzing with damned light
fixtures. Not to mention that often outdoor lighting is only
needed for a few minutes (otherwise MV or Na lights seem a better
choice).
> B) If not suitable for such conditions and if lacking an outer housing to
> hold in some accumulated heat, to only partially warm up and not get
> well-warmed-up until the weather improves.
>
Yeah, "you don't need no steenkin' light when there are fifteen
hours of darkness". Just think of how great it'll be when you have
fifteen hours of daylight. Great plan to save electricity.
--
Keith
| |
|
| In article <fmes0j1ge3@news1.newsguy.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
> In alt.engineering.electrical I.N. Galidakis <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> | [snip]
> |> The flicker will be worse in Europe.
> |>
> |> So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF
> |> near 1. And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.
> |>
> |> Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature
> |> filament. That is, the filament remains hot even during zero
> |> crossing. So what about a phosphor that can continue to glow at the
> |> same color?
> |
> | I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are
> | different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.
>
> They can be mixed. So why not? I just don't know what colors would be an
> option or available.
>
>
> |> FYI, I do see the existing phosphors glowing at zero
> |> crossing, but the color is different.
> |
> | And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on
> | the kind of phosphor used.
>
> I'm just tossing the idea out. I'm not an expert on specific kinds of
> phosphors.
>
>
> | I am still trying to figure out what in the world you guys are talking about.
> |
> | I either must be blind or something else is at play here.
> |
> | The flicker of, say, a PHILIPS TL-D/55/56 35W, is /colossal/ compared to the
> | flicker of my 2700K CFLs. As far as I am concenred, I don't perceive /any/
> | flicker on my CFLs.
>
> Maybe you have one of the good ones I've read about that don't flicker.
That's another of the problems with CFLs. You have no idea exactly
what you're buying. If a poor choice is made buying an
incandescent it just doesn't last as long. If a poor choice is
made with a CFL you're stuck with expensive (and unreliable) crappy
light. It's like chocolate...
<snip>
--
Keith
| |
| I.N. Galidakis 2008-01-14, 8:25 pm |
| Victor Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:11:30 +0200, "I.N. Galidakis"
> <morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Yes - at least for me. I can measure significant 120 Hz on
> the light output of all the the CFLs in my house, but I
> don't see any flicker.
Thanks Vic. That was a sanity check for me. I actually unpacked my PHILIPS
SL-18W, which is the oldest one I've got (1982 or thereabouts) and I asked an
array of visitors if they could see any flicker and they said no.
Although the SL-18W uses a magnetic ballast, I believe that the triphosphor
phosphor persistence is so great that it drowns any visible flickering.
One my newer types there isn't even a question as they use electronic ballasts.
So I was wondering what on earth was all the fuss about.
--
I.N. Galidakis
| |
|
| In article <eovno3t8588g6v7t0ev3p5pnld4uheiva2@4ax.com>,
alt.engineering.electrical, xxx@lighting-research.com says...
> On 13 Jan 2008 18:49:38 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
> (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
>
>
> With respect to 100Hz or 120 Hz modulation of the light
> produced by fluorescent lamps, there is far less difference
> between "old" magnetic ballasts and many "modern" high
> frequency electronic ballasts - especially those built into
> CFLs.
>
>
> I fully agree. When I do a blind test with friends and
> family who say that fluorescent lamps are terrible, they
> have no problems with the quality of light produced.
Of course not. If they're blind how would they see flicker. ;-)
I can see perceptible flicker with most fluorescents. Depending on
the circumstances I can ignore it or it can be quite bad. Under
most lighting conditions, 85Hhz is where things stop diving me
right up the wall. Just because *you* don't see it doesn't mean no
one can. I know people who have their monitors set for 60Hz too.
They can't see the difference.
--
Keith
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-14, 9:25 pm |
| In <eovno3t8588g6v7t0ev3p5pnld4uheiva2@4ax.com>, Victor Roberts wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2008 18:49:38 GMT, andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
>(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:
> <edit for space>
>
>With respect to 100Hz or 120 Hz modulation of the light produced
>by fluorescent lamps, there is far less difference between "old"
>magnetic ballasts and many "modern" high frequency electronic
>ballasts - especially those built into CFLs.
I would beg to differ. I find a major difference between
electronically-ballasted CFLs and magnetically ballasted ones in terms
of flicker.
I look at a CFL and roll my eyes up and down, and I can usually tell
what kind of ballast it has. I look at the streaks that I see as a result
of rolling my eyes up and down, and I see a flicker pattern with
magnetically ballasted ones. I see lack of such with CFLs with
electronic ballasts (though I have not tried this with any known to
have electronic ballasts with high power factor).
>
>I fully agree. When I do a blind test with friends and
>family who say that fluorescent lamps are terrible, they
>have no problems with the quality of light produced.
That I agree with! I get people to look at a lamp, and I tell them,
"Can you believe it's a fluorescent"? They say, "What makes you think
it is fluorescent"? I have large polycarbonate eyeglass lenses and my
left one has +3.5 diopter, and the upper left corner is prismatic
enough for me to see enough spectral characteristics of most lamps for
me to identify what basic kind of lamp it is.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-14, 9:25 pm |
| In article <MPG.21f5276199be4d669898e7@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:
>In article <fmes0j1ge3@news1.newsguy.com>,
>alt.engineering.electrical, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net says...
<edit for space>
>
>That's another of the problems with CFLs. You have no idea exactly
>what you're buying. If a poor choice is made buying an
>incandescent it just doesn't last as long. If a poor choice is
>made with a CFL you're stuck with expensive (and unreliable) crappy
>light. It's like chocolate...
If I buy a CFL that I don't like and it costs more than $2, I take it
back and get a refund. And I say why I don't like it.
The most recent time I did that was with N:Vision 3500K spirals of a
higher wattage (I forget how many watts). Reason for return: They
audibly buzzed. That was a little over a year ago.
Return bad ones, and the manufacturers get feedback.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
| |
| Don Klipstein 2008-01-14, 9:25 pm |
| In article <MPG.21f5266121022a039898e6@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:
>In article <slrnfolmaj.7b1.don@manx.misty.com>,
>alt.engineering.electrical, don@manx.misty.com says...
>
>Oh, that's great. You want people to go back to removable
>screens/storms too? There is enough crap to do around a house to
>get ready for winter every year without futzing with damned light
>fixtures. Not to mention that often outdoor lighting is only
>needed for a few minutes (otherwise MV or Na lights seem a better
>choice).
>
>Yeah, "you don't need no steenkin' light when there are fifteen
>hours of darkness". Just think of how great it'll be when you have
>fifteen hours of daylight. Great plan to save electricity.
If I was going to avoid CFL for outdoor lighting, I would use metal
halide or LED. Mercury and sodium have lousy color rendering,
especially sodium - makes many colored objects appear darker than
"proper", so there is "less illumination".
Another factor in outdoor lighting is that human vision is often
(probably usually) mesopic when outdoor lighting is needed.
Scotopic/photopic ratios ("s/p ratios | | |