PowerSource

Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies. Follow Margery on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/margeryc.

Advertisement

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

PowerSource

« Evaluate tiny thermoelectric g... | Main | PHEV on sale now at your local... »

Monday, January 5, 2009

Bulb-within-a-bulb protects and hides CFL spiral

Jan 5 2009 12:13PM | Permalink |Comments (37) |

GE just introduced an incandescent look-alike CFL that encases both the familiar CFL spiral as well as the internal lighting ballast within a frosted plastic bulb. The product is called the “Energy Smart” line of bulbs, and went on sale on December 29^th at Target. (I think it’s available this month at other stores.) I purchased one for $5.49 at my local Target and brought it home to test drive.

's Energy Smart enclosed CFL bulb GE believes that people will pay more for CFLs that don’t look like CFLs. Compared to other CFLs in my house, this light turned on instantly, which I appreciate, and it was almost, although not entirely, at its full brightness at turn-on. For those who object to the light-color of typical CFL bulbs it has a pleasant warm light.

GE says that the outer bulb is for aesthetic reasons to cover the dreaded CFL spiral and makes no mention that it also performs the function of ruggedizing the bulb for those who fear mercury contamination in the event of breakage from the small amount of mercury contained in the CFL. I tapped the outer bulb fairly hard with a metal letter opener and it remained intact; I considered dropping it on the concrete garage floor under carefully controlled conditions, but certain family members, who can be real party poopers, said that was a bad idea, so I didn’t. The bulb gives every appearance of being quite rugged.

Its a 60W replacement that consumes 15W and is guaranteed for 5 years. At over $5 it’s more than twice what a CFL costs purchased in quantity from Costco, but the price will probably drop after the novelty wears off, and GE is betting you’ll pay a premium for its looks as well as the 5-year guarantee. Even at $5 it will still save several times its purchase price in energy savings.

As with all CFLs, this one will need to be recycled at a CFL collection point such as a Home Depot store.

Related entries in: Electronics Components | Power Sources/Controllers |

Reader Comments

at 1/6/2009 1:45:51 PM, Tom said:
What is so special about these GE bulbs? I bought Philips branded bulbs that hide the CFL spiral inside a bulb-like plastic housing

at 1/6/2009 1:47:11 PM, Tom said:
What is so special about these GE bulbs? I bought Philips branded bulbs that hide the CFL spiral inside a bulb-like plastic housing; a 3 pack was $10 at Walmart. I've had them in a lighting fixture in the kitchen for over 2 years now. Unless I told you it was a CFL you'd never guess it was one. The only downside is this older design doesn't get to full brightness as fast as these bulbs.

at 1/6/2009 1:53:18 PM, Alan said:
Does it turn on just as fast when installed in a garrage at 10-23 degrees amb. temp? CFL's take forever to reach max brightness in cold temperatures!

at 1/6/2009 2:16:35 PM, Frank said:
I'm sorry, I can't see what's so 'new' about this. Seen a few like this at my local Lowe's. The BIG question: will it really last the '5-year' bogus guarantee, which they're hoping you'll loose the receipt and your perseverance in trying to collect a replacement? I bet probably not.

at 1/6/2009 2:39:25 PM, A. Ramirez said:
I'm waiting (and will wait) for a true replacement for incandescent. I need to use it with dimmers and light sensors.

at 1/6/2009 2:56:21 PM, Dork said:
"As with all CFLs, this one will need to be recycled at a CFL collection point such as a Home Depot store."

I have a CFL collection point. Its called my garbage can in back of the house. Or I just throw it at my neighbors cat.

at 1/6/2009 3:27:36 PM, Dave said:
Nothing innovative or novel here. I've also been seeing bulbs similar to these by companies like Phillips and Feit for quite some time now. You can also purchase CFL's with a cover that look like traditional flood reflector and globe bath bulbs. What has been pointed out and what I can't understand though is why they have to cost so much more just because they have a plastic cover. I am willing to pay a little more for the increased aesthetics, but not more than double.

at 1/6/2009 7:58:12 PM, Barack said:
I've installed about a dozen CFLs in my house over the last three years and have about ten to dispose of thusfar. They are not good for many on off cycles. Thus, they are far, far less energy and environmentally efficient than a 100W bulb you turn off when you don't need it, but lasts several years. Has anyone calculated the tons of Mercury going into landiflls?

at 1/6/2009 11:55:46 PM, LS said:
For now, these CFL bulbs are the way to go, but soon we will all use LED lighting which is much less power hungry and can give off real white light.

at 1/7/2009 12:04:47 AM, not impressed said:
CF''s, another idea that doen''t make much sense, they use much more energy to make than regular bulbs,use hazardous chemicals, and since they use so much energy to make they probaly don't save any, Not to mention the huge price, incandesants $0.96 for 4, CF's $5.99 each.

at 1/7/2009 5:25:17 AM, Clark said:
Think about the real usefulness of the 5 year guarantee carefully. The normal profile of the light output from a fluorescent lamp is roughly expotential and is at 50% at the end of life (5 years). This means that the light output is greatly decreased during the entire last 2.5 years of life. NOT what most people expect or want with a "5 year" guarantee!

at 1/7/2009 10:54:10 AM, Darren Holdstock said:
GE may also believe that customers could be put off by revelations of unwanted UV emissions from unenveloped spirals, as per MC's previous post [www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/380037038.html?nid=3002], but they'd be unlikely to admit to that I guess. I do like the "hitting with a letter opener" test; I shall remember that technique for future use.

at 1/7/2009 1:33:28 PM, BillS said:
I agree that these look a lot like the CFLs I''ve been using for a couple of years. I''ve had several burn out within a month or two of use. The stores have replaced them, but why the short life? They''re probably turned off an average of two or three times per day. Is is just a quality control issue?

at 1/7/2009 4:47:12 PM, x said:
The main issue with CFL's is that they are too expensive in comparison to tungsten. OK so they consume less power. Gee whiz!

The biggest power drain in modern homes is that people leave their AC or heating on for long periods. They also leave their computers and TV's on or in standby mode taking power all the time.

CFLs are no more than a marketing gimmick at the moment. One has to look at ones whole energy usage and not a quick fix by replacing bulbs!

Not convinced to waste my money on these devices. I personally add a timer to my TV and appliances so that they turn off when I'm asleep or away at work. Cheaper and probably saves more energy.

Can't wait until LED bulbs hit the market at a reasonable cost. No hazardous vapour, cheap mass produced semiconductors are the way to go!!

at 1/13/2009 1:22:24 PM, Martin at TMW said:
I bought a pack of 10 CFLs at Costco. I'm using nine because on failed and I've yet to bring it in for recycling even though there's a Home Depot near the office. I won't buy any more CFLs until an incandescent replacement without mercury is available. I have too many dimmers, timers, and standing lamps anyway. Oh yes, never use a CFL in a standing lamp, especially if you have kids. It's not worth risking a breakage if the lamp topples over.

at 1/13/2009 1:29:11 PM, Carl Spearow said:
I'm always surprised at the negative opinion people seem to have toward CFLs. They are very cheap, perhaps one dollar more than incandescents, last much longer (even if they don't meet their claimed 5-year life), and save an outrageous amount of energy. A typical home can save a good $100 per year using technology that is a no-brainer. I think maybe many people just don't appreciate the amount of energy and cost that is saved with these things. It's funny that we pass laws to cut 2W of power from a cell phone charger, but there is no requirement to replace a 60W bulb with a 13W CFL.

at 1/13/2009 1:30:47 PM, bender said:
I bought 10 of these bulbs at OSH 2 went bad immediately I means at first power applied, the others slowly dying at rate 1 every two months, one bulb when failed almost set my bathroom wiring on fire (it died shorted) I can smell the electrical burnt smell when the bulb went bad. These thing generate lots of toxic waste and did not last very long to justify the energy savings.

at 1/13/2009 1:45:07 PM, Bob said:
Energy cost for CFL vs INCAND @ 18 cents/KWH. Break even is 1.7 years. Sorry if the formatting doesn't show up well.

$/KWH $0.018

Energy Only Plus Bulb
Lamp/Wattage Cost/yr Cost/5yr Cost/yr Cost/5yr
60W Incandscent $3.94 $19.71 $4.94 $20.71
15W Flourescent $0.99 $4.94 $6.99 $10.94
Savings $2.95 $14.77 -$2.05 $9.77

at 1/13/2009 1:46:42 PM, Bob said:
Well that didn't show up well...

Bottom line: 5yrs=$9.77 savings, bulb cost included.

at 1/13/2009 2:03:41 PM, Pretty said:
One advantage I havn't really seen is this new bulb appear to conform to the old bulb shape. In some old lamps the lampshade holder is hsaped tot he old bubls so that most new CFLs don't fit. We all know you need a well more than 13 W to get ^)W worth of incandescence...r etha

at 1/13/2009 2:07:20 PM, Steve S said:
I've had 3 15W CFL's in outdoor fixtures for at least 3 years now, maybe closer to 5. These lights are kept on pretty much all night, year round. Figure they have over 10,000 hours on them, and they're all still working. Yes, they are a little slow to turn on in sub-freezing weather, but that's OK in this application.

at 1/13/2009 2:14:38 PM, W17053 said:
Sometimes these 'bulbs' are designed 'that' way because they are supposed to mimic the original bulb. We have one that looks like a spot light to look similar to a 'spot' rather than a 'twisty' in a spotlight base. Sometimes they are made so they can be used with certain lamp shades.

at 1/13/2009 2:28:51 PM, Mark Question said:
Does anybody really plan to drive their old CFLs to a special disposal site? I don''t think so! So where is all that mercury going to end up? In our children''s drinking water!
Also, I have bought many CFLs and after a while they get dim. Really dim! Is the GE bulb guaranteed to stay bright for 5 years? Considering the total cost, CFLs are not our answer.

at 1/13/2009 2:30:46 PM, George said:
CFL is much more complicated device compare to incandescent one. It must cost several times more. And if built improperly (to save money) it is far less reliable and hazardous.

at 1/13/2009 2:50:27 PM, Pete O. said:
Encasing the the spiral won't help dissipate the heat but rather hinder. Heat is one of the problems why we are told not to burn the CFLs base up. Good by ceiling lights.

at 1/13/2009 3:17:19 PM, Rebecca said:
Pete is right. Testing has shown that the temperature at the base of the bulb reaches 120F when burned base down; it reaches 160F when burned base up. The life of the circuit is substantially reduced when operated base up. Base temperature can also be kept lower by mounting the bulb horizontally...

at 1/13/2009 3:50:10 PM, Kevin said:
IKEA have been selling this sort of thing (in the UK at least) for a few years now.
Although they resemble the incandescent lamps they''re intended to replace, the higher power ones (>15W) are still not as small - yet.

at 1/14/2009 12:08:40 AM, ELH said:
If it doesn't have a pfc or proper choke it's again just another EMI generator. According to research done; exposure to low frequency magnetic fields cause a raise in blood sugar level -> doubt a connection exists between diabetic condition. As I live in a house with direct electric heating I have nothing against incandescent bulbs either.

at 1/14/2009 4:53:35 AM, curmudgeon said:
The total cost of manufacturing is reflected in the price, and the total cost of operation is reflected in the energy cost and the probability of failure.

What's the total cost of disposal (including the mass-transit tokens to go to the recycling center, since I presume that using petroleum is verboten), and where is it captured? Does the purchase price include the cost of recycling? If so, is it reasonable to assume that the purchase price will go down further as more of the units are deployed (I don't think so, but I could be wrong)? What's the estimate on the number of CFLs that will wind up in landfills vs. recycling centers designed for that purpose, and what's the estimate on the amount of mercury that will escape into the groundwater over time? What's the cost to remove the mercury from the groundwater, counting not only public but private processing facilities (i.e. water wells)

To be fair, the same types of questions should be asked about incandescent bulbs, but the answers look pretty different to me. As far as I can tell, all that's in an incandescent bulb is tungsten, some metal (not rare) for the support wires, some brass in the base, a bit of tin/lead solder (horrors) for the bottom connection, and glass. Pretty benign stuff in the landfill, and not a great risk to the groundwater. Anyone know different?

If we are going to do a mature assessment of these items, we need this kind of detail; however, nobody on either side of this has put forth this kind of information. Why not, if we are really doing science?

I also agree with the EMI generator comment. All too many mfrs submit switchmode power supply designs (which is what operates a CFL) for type certification with suppression components installed, and then delete the components from the production models. FCC does NOT trap this, and we wind up with more and more EMI.

Does anyone do real science around this stuff any longer, or is it all for show and "feeling good about ourselves"?

at 1/14/2009 9:25:01 AM, BillyU said:
As a former sales manager for GE Lighting, this is NOT new tech. This is a SKU that was in inventory five years ago.

GE is always attempting to pull a premium for little upsell. Just purchaed the new T3 spiral CFL's from Sylvania. Great light, long life, super small size.

at 1/14/2009 1:29:39 PM, Tom Anderson said:
The environmental mercury footprint of CFLs is much lower than incandescents, even if they are disposed of improperly. There is only 4mg or 5mg or so of mercury in the bulb, and it is in the metallic form. If you eat the bulb (not recommended, but I did see a guy on TV once who ate an incandescent bulb) it is the equivalent mercury of 10 lbs of fish at the EPA limit for mercury. Presumably you won''t eat the whole thing, so it will be more like a nice piece of flounder if you break the bulb and smear the pieces across your skin, then lean down into the dust and inhale.

Just about all the CFL arguments I have heard are against specific CFL implementations. If you shop around you can find ones that work with dimmers, have different color balance, start time, cold temperature performance, etc. I would hope that EDN readers are smart enough not to expect one type of incandescent to work in all applications.

I go to the hardware store often enough that bringing along my dead CFLs doesn''t generate another trip.

at 1/15/2009 10:11:10 AM, Bob Dodson said:
My cousin had regular florescent lights in his garage and was always having trouble with them failing. I had some myself, with no problems over many years. On one visit, I decided to replace the ballast in one of his failed units rather that have him buy a complete fixture replacement (which was his standard mode of operation). When I opened it up, I found a cheap electronic ballast. That was the difference between his and mine. I believe many CFLs would perform better (and last much longer)if the electronics in the ballast wasn't compromised by the cost cutting often seen in imported products nowadays.

at 1/15/2009 1:49:10 PM, W17053 said:
I believe Lowe's or Home Depot recycles the CFL bulbs (we should put pressure on other big box stores, whom sell CFLs). The newer CFL should contain closer to 1.2 mg of mercury (vs. 4 - 5). I believe RHoS allows 5 mg.

at 1/15/2009 6:59:30 PM, David said:
Similar bulbs were once available at Costco for $9.99 for a pack of 5, it was 1 year ago.

at 5/13/2009 11:09:16 AM, rodnrobbin said:
I had one of these Phillips bulb's outer case to fail/shatter this morning. There had been no impact to the bulb and afterwards, the inner twist part of the lamp continued to burn. The bulb was located in our master bath''''s vanity fixture. Fortunately no one was injured.

at 5/28/2009 11:43:20 AM, mpeg guy said:
I just did the math. 1.2mg per bulb translates to 380,000 bulbs to generate 1 pound of mercury in a landfill. Last I heard we are pumping tens of thousands of pounds of mercury into the air annually from power stations. We lose sight that all that mercury used to be in the ground somewhere and just as likely to be added to ground water. I'll echo others: how about a little real science in all of this?

at 10/23/2009 5:37:03 PM, Steave said:
Great story as for me. It would be great to read something more about this theme.

PowerSource

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives