This was not the right application for a compact fluorescent light

awardees loosening fdle disturbance hesitate propose lafonkxr salam roll tackling seer

I have been "beta" testing CFLs since 1995. Back then, they has a real ballast in the base and the bulb was replaceable. These are still in use in my basement which is lighted every day. The new spiral tube electronic ballast lamps are just more junk from china. The picture in the article above is exactly what has happened to my bulbs when installed in the ceramic ceiling light sockets in my shop and basement. Some electronic component overheats, the the filament comes on full blast and the tube begins to burn the case, the added heat causes a catastrophic failure and the things smokes and dies. I hav had so many of them die I got to watch one once. You can see a bright light momentarily in the case before it smokes and dies. I'm surprised the NFPA has not jumped in on this. I'm working on an LED solution - CFLs are NOT a good value!

at 10/3/2008 2:56:21 PM, tommy said: "Good things that work well usually do not need laws passed by a congress that can''t seem to get anything right, like my low flo toilet that I must flush 2+ times. Engineer it right, market the truth and the buyer will recognize the value. Congress = low value Good engineering = Great value" Bad argument. You should note that you do not have to flush more than once after urinating. Since we "pee" much more often than we "poo," the efficiency of toilets that may require multiple flushes only for "poo" should be clear.

I've had CFLs in use for years with very few problems. I had a few go bad in the beginning (<6, but those were the type that took a few minutes to get to full brightness so I didn't mind replacing them), but nothing compared to the savings in electricity they provide. When I moved into a larger home, I took the ones from my old house with me! They still work just fine, even after 7 years. I use them outside, inside, in ceiling fan fixtures, lamps, closed fixtures, etc. No problems with heat or undervoltage or anything like that. The money saved has been quite nice, but the heat savings is even better - no more foggy bathroom mirrors, no sweating under eight 60W bulbs while coming my hair, no ... well no problems. They work great, and they don't cost $6 apiece (like someone above said - you must be talking about the specialty bulbs, not the standard ones); and if they do go bad, take them back to the home improvement store to recycle and replace them. I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

Amen to the last entry! I had a CFL that I was using as a plant light, leaving it on sometimes when I wasn't home. This one day I came back and found it really dim. The ballast had begin to go bad and the whole assembly was extremely hot as was the fixture it was mounted in. The failure mode might hold some surprises for some folks!

@Dale in re to finger oils and using cloth to install CFLs. Bogus advice. This advice came along with halogen lamps. These lamps burn so hot that the presence of contaminants on the glass envelope can lead to premature failure. CFL lamps do not run anywhere near these temperatures so minor contaminants (ie, finger oil) will not have any adverse affect on the CFL lamp function. ref.: en dot wikipedia dot org slash wiki slash Halogen_lamp pound Handling_precautions

In my last 2yrs of usage, I have noticed that life of CFL depends on number of times the lamp has been switched on/off, and not on how long its been switched on. Also the CFL tends to grow dimmer over period of time.

Many CFLs do not start properly in low temperature environments. Some I've tried will not light fully at 10 C and not at all at 0 C. Can anyone say "outdoor lights"? The ban will be off when the California elite find out the CFLs won't warm their lava lamps enough to work (that is until the electronics catch on fire). Why are there no engineers in legislatures? Because engineers lack the patience to work with idiots.

I wonder if the designer's of CFL's or the idiot's that mandated they be used have ever tried turning one on in Minnesota in mid-winter in an outdoor application such as a house light.

To those that defend incandescent bulbs, please remember that they use tungsten filaments. Tungsten is a strategic metal needed in production of high-strength steel (e.g. tool steel), and nearly 80% of world supply comes from China, while US has none.

Bought a new house 2 years ago. I wanted to start out right by installing (21) new CFLs everywhere possible in our new home. After just 18 months in our new home, the CFLs began to fail. I couldn''t believe it! Manufacturers false claims of 5 to 7 years of energy light turned out to be BS. After 28 months since installation of 21 CFLs, only 3 continue to light. CFLs are junk. Garbage, no doubt about it. I''ll never buy another as long as I can buy incandescent bulbs. I''m strong on energy conservation but I''m not stupid, anymore.

I still have some 220V Phillips CFL made in Holland that I installed around 1985 running

Hey you guys are right we should get rid of all those nasty FL lights in offices too. Maybe go back to arc lamps. Think!! Get rid of the electronics in the bulb. Put it in the fixture so you are not throwing away the expensive part!

I use CFL everywhere at my cabin with wind and solar power. And I have about 8 failed CFL units in my junkbox. My biggest objection - for those of us up north is the energy savings claims. Consider a condo in Vancouver with 15 100 watt incandescent bulbs and baseboard electric heat. Today the temp outside is a balmy 9C, in Toronto 2C. What will be the savings for the "green" condo owner who replaces all the 100W bulbs with CFL? And unplugs all the wall wart phantom loads? And goes to an energy efficient refrigerator? And turns of their computer and DSL box after each use? The answer - for 8+ months of the year is zero savings. And in the summer months, lighting is used much less up north due to the very long days.

I use CFLs in some of our pendant fittings, and in two glass shaded wall lights with the lamp inverted (tube uppermost) I have found that the CFLs in the wall lights have a shorter life than those in the pendants.This strikes me as very odd, as the report stating pendants run hotter makes perfect sense...although my glass shaded wall lights have open tops, and no vent holes in the bottom, so there can be no convection current to cool the lamp... I have also noticed that the CFLs in the wall lights lose output, and blacken quicker than those in the pendants. Any ideas for this happening? Finally, my general view on CFLs in the home situation. I have never had one last anywhere near as long as manufacturers claim, some have failed before incandescents in similar situations. They are good where you perhaps leave them on for long time periods, hallway, stairs etc, but you still can't beat an incandescent and dimmer in living rooms, bedrooms etc.

CFL's just don't last as long as they claim. I've thrown out two just within a year of putting them into ceiling fixtures, so the reports of not lasting long in "down-lighting" application surely do apply. There is something that does work very well, however, and I can't understand why they are not being used by everyone. They are little button and rubber ring devices that are used with your incandescent bulbs and they save not only electricity, but they truly extend the life of your incandescent bulbs. I have used them for at least ten years now, and somme of those bulbs are still working. The light is dimmed a little bit, but not enough to matter to me. They weren't expensive and they work!!! So why aren't we all using them? As I remember, they are supposed to change the ac current to dc which makes the bulbs last much longer. They work! They work well! Why are we being forced to deal with these expensive and polluting CFL's? Well, I would surely like to get some more of these other practical devices, but I can't remember the name. Can someone out there help?

if we would just have free power sources we should be able to choose our own method of lighting our bedroom. and way yea to the CFL tips and info offered here.

First of all , I am not Chris P and I don't like his comments. CFLs are not perfect , shortlasting and contain highly poisonous gas that can be released to home air. Spectrum of light contains blue , which is not the healthiest for our vision and if you look closely on most of them just like fluorescent they change color of everything.There are high quality CFLs , but they are sold only in specialty stores and they look like lightbulbs.The only difference is that they are double hermetized, so when an inside glass cracks(and it will like it does on most of CFLs) an outside baloon will keeo it contained.Otherwise , sorry ,But I will NOT replace all my bulbs with CFLs.They are good for garage,laundry room,( not bathroom because it will make you look yellow) ,hallways and outside light.Living areas should have natural light bulbs which spectrum is directed toward yellow(sun) not fluorescent (corpse pale).There is a happy medium without offending anyone and being "know everything".Use it Chris P.Be humble and learn before you post comments.Margery is a very knowledgeable engineer and she is humble in her great knowledge, which cannot be said about you Chris P.

Think we should remember that the main objective of new lighting technologies is to save energy. If the net energy required to not only operate the device, but also to manufacture it is less, then perhaps the initial cost to the end user is something we should consider as an overall burden/benefit we all need to share towards the conservation of fuel sources, until new sources of energy can be effectively deployed.....

Thanks for an excellant practical failure analysis on CFL. In asia power starved countries like INDIA are in a hurry to implement energy saving projects by replacing conventional filament lamps with CFL.Will they care u'r analysis? It is up to the certifying authorities to subject Life cycle test on random CFL lamps manufactured and then allow it in the market so that customers will not loose heavily by premature failures of CFL. Altrnativily CFL industry should try and evolve Higher temperature with standing electronics or thermal shielding to protect electronics to increase life time cycle on CFL. Regards P.S.Nagesh VIBGYOR ENERGY SOLUTIONS, Plot no 102,NagappaNagar, Chromepet West, Chennai-600044, TamilNadu, India Phone :91 44 22384753 E-mail :padasalanagesh@yahoo.co.in

While CFLs are more efficient at converting electricity to light they do not necessarily save energy. The reason - Incandescents also produce heat, take this away and you have to source this heat from elesewhere as this heat adds to your overall heating budget. Electricty costs may be higher for heat generation so there may be a cost saving using CFLs but there is no energy saving except in summer.

I think it was 1997 that I replaced all my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. In about 2 years I began to notice an energy savings. The CFLs used less energy but are only aboyt 1/2 the total used in a house, but the energy cost went up, which kind off doubled that CFL savings. I did find that a few lamps went bad in less than a year, but many lasted 5 years. The first try at CFLs by Sylvania was not too good, there was problems. I now have mostly 13 watt GE type which seem to be the best I have tried so far. I have even used the 13 watters in enclosed outdoor fixture {2 of them}They still last 5 eyars.

hi james: I've actually had worse luck with "150 W equiv" ceiling light with separate electronic ballast (30W (?) circular fluorescent bulb) than I've had with many CFLs. The ballast is not easily replaceable, and it's potted, so I can't even dissect it for parts. When it blows, I pretty much have to replace the whole fixture, which is a real PITA. I'd also think that moving the actual bulb further from the ballast circuitry would make the RF interference issue worse.

I have been using CFL's successfully for several years in the horizontal position in closed fixtures. The incandescents that had been used had very short lives. I have yet to replace a CFL, so I have no idea how long they will last. I also have two on table lamps that I have on timers as an anti burglary device and they burn for hours even though no one is there. None of my CFL's has failed yet and it has been several years. One that is in the horizontal position just passed 3 years and it is doing fine. I never had an incandescent last 6 months in that fixture.

Well, it appears that nobody considered my first commet in the ones that followed it. Most of the issues raised can be addressed by permanently retrofitting lamps to use standard CFLs without the integral ballasts. Permanent retrofitting is changing the socket and installing a ballast. Separate ballasts are available with high powerfactors although an inductive ballast is probably adequate for residential use.

Which congressman sponsored the legislation to ban ALL incandescent bulbs without considering the consequemces? Let's out him!

This was an excellient article. Your research is faultlss. I applaud this article for pointing out the downside of these lamps. The mercury content of these bulbs does need to be addressed since disposal of them could be a problem, especially where ground water tables are close to the surface and contamination could occur if bulbs are not desposed of properly. Thanks again for a detailed article.

Good article. You mention LED lights and indicate they are lower power. Be careful with this since the ones I have tested are lower current but with terrible power factor (~1.7). This means that all your savings and more go out the window because of high peak currents. The best use for LED lights is in cold environments (cold storage plants, etc.) or hard to replace areas.

Actually the biggest factor on CFL lights is the brand you choose. I bought some cheap imports intitially (buyers choice and some brand that starts with an F). I had some failing after only a few months, a couple were bad out of the box, and one failed at first power up. I only buy the name brand now and I haven't had to replace any of them yet (I usually buy Sylvania but all name brands have held up well). I switched to CFL's almost everywhere in the house about 2 years back and it was clearly the best move ever. The energy saving is very noticeable from this one move alone. There are only a couple of places I don't use them such as in the recessed flood lighting in the rec room downstairs where I like the low dim of the flood lights for watching movies. Everywhere else, the CFL's are great.

Does anyone know how long the CCFL has to be in use before the energy associated with manufacturing it is paid back? What's the carbon impact vs leaving the original bulb burning until is goes out?

Incandescent lights are cheap to produce, cause little pollution in their manufacture or destruction, and in cold weather, the heat generated isn't wasted anyway(unless they are outdoors). Their inefficiency in producing light is only relevant in hotter weather, or where there are lots of them. LED's, hopefully will overcome those reservations, but from what I have seen, the really high power ones don't actualy have THAT long a life anyway !.

I use CFLs everywhere they will fit, and have even replaced several fixtures to use them. My favorite reading lamp is a "daylight temperature" u-tube model. Expensive, but the color is better than the 60W incandescent that it replaced. There are also dimable CFLs that work well, I''ve been using a pair for about a year. BTW: an incandescent on a dimmer is less efficient than otherwise, due to the lower temperature. A greater percentage of the Planck curve (we''re all engineers here right?) slips into the infra-red. The dimmer also has losses due to heat and generates some EMI. I do have to agree though about the equivalent power and MTBF claims being exaggerated, but these are the time we are living in.

The real issue is that there is no single lamp source that will meet all needs. In my more than 30 years as a lighting designer I have used a broad range of lamp types as the application demands. Wrongly the public has decided that "energy efficacy" is the only important criteria for lighting. That's just a foolish approach. Be aware that the LED folks are going down the same path! Lamps need to be selected by application, time of operation, orientation, etc. There is no single solution!

Richard, it's not your eyes, it's the CFL bulbs. Take a look at the CFL output spectrum [ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/spectroscope/amici.html] compared to sunlight or an incandescent bulb, and you'll see why. Also, the "equivalent power" rating is a lie - CFLs are always noticeably dimmer than the incandescents they claim to be able to replace. HTR has a valid point about EMI, and it's something I fed back to Farnell when they discontinued every single incandescent they had. I have two CFLs in my house, in hallway areas where their main function is just to stop me tripping over cats, and I have to turn them both off if I'm making a recording from FM radio. They're the worst source of continuous interference in my home, and if the incandescent supplies dry up completely I'll have to do my EMC chamber work by candlelight.

Have these devices been given a look by the FCC? They have been known to interfere with X10 devices. EMI/RFI concerns for communication equipment? No one else has posted any RF interference concerns. When the whole world is CFL, what will be the condition of HF communication bands with respect to noise levels? If it is such a great idea, why does congress have to mandate? Wouldn''t market forces do the job?

I think a lot of us have missed the issue with CFLs. Yes they have cathodes but these cathodes are a filament at initial start just like a regular flourescent tube. Heat the mercury vapor to start electron conduction then the higher frequency ac voltage takes over. WHAT does burn out is the filament (cathode) because hot spots develope in it just like an incandescent lamp. This happens more often then the electronics burning out. Just take one apart and carefully break the tube without cracking the glass at the filaments you will see the filament which is thinned out slightly where this hot spot developed. Hey, but don''t throw away the electronics they 13 watt one will drive up to a 36 watt U tube fluorescent tube!

The author seems to use the term CFL to referr to the screw in replacements with integral ballasts. Yes, there are problems with these. OTOH, the CFLs that have separate ballasts don''t have these issues. The better solution to the problem is to retrofit lamps to use CFLs rather than using the screw in replacements. There is issues with this. The ballasts cost more, but last longer. It is almost impossible to find sockets that are suitable to directly replace sockets with 1/8" pipe thread. For portable lamps, a wall cube ballast seems to be the answer. These seem to be unavailable. Perhaps what is needed is to develop better products to permanently retrofit light fixtures.

Installed CFLs in every socket in the house. Removed globes where necessary, Installed shades/filters to correct the glare. Very noticable improvement in our electric bill. Did the same in our small business. Only a few replacements so far. Keep the law. Looking forward to LED, as well as better CFL though.

I almost exclusively use CFLs, I have used CFLs and the circular fluorescent adapters that fit in Edison sockets since the early 1980s. The new cheap CFLs do not last as long as the vintage ones. I still have a few CFLs from the '90s which work reliably, but I have gone thru boxes of new CFLs. The magnetic ballast circular fluorescent adapters I bought in the 1980s still work fine, with a slight delay before they turn on. I hope that LED bulbs have improved reliability, since of the two that I have tried, one lasted 2 weeks, the other is not very bright. Indoor mercury is an issue, since the CFLs often fail with cracked glass, perhaps due to thermal cycling.

What components actually fail in a CFL at end of life? Maybe it is the tube itself, or soldered connections. Your analysis seems to assume that a PCB-mounted part must be the problem.

I have tried several brands. One 'off brand' from a local supply house and GE brand. The GE brand comes on immediately and at full brightness. The other takes several minutes to come up to full brightness. I have about 8 of the off brand and all are the same. They slowly increase in brightness. Not good. I had some higher 150W wattage off brand a year ago, in a downward position, that go so hot after about six months use, I was sure it was going to catch on fire. So brands are different.

I just changed my dimmer fixtures over to CFL's. The problem is that they take several minutes to stabilize. CFL's work really well in lights that stay on for extended periods. Here in Southern California there isn't the cold temperature problem. When my family first began using CFL's the color temperature was terrible. There are now warm, bright, and daylight. They are much better. Warm CFL lights are also great for plant growth.Try that with an LED or regular light bulb and you get bad results.

Rocky Mountain Institute has an interesting paper comparing CFL with incandescent ( www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C08-02_CFL_LCA.pdf ). Unfortunately, they missed a few technical issues mentioned here. After 10 years experience with CFLs at home and in work apps, I currently use dimmable halogen task lighting and love it. At .44/kwh, I would like a more efficient light source but CFL operation doesn''t fit my use profile. ( I rarely sit around with general room lights on for an hour or more.) I''m trying 5 watt LED MR16s in a few places and have been pleased so far.

I have cfl's outside where it gets down to -35F. In the bathroom - in fact everywhere including spots. NO troubles. You guys are buying the wrong ones. Margery appears to represent the usual whiny stick in the mud American who doesn't understand their effect on the planet. Probably whines about recycling too.

I've had bad luck CFLs in bathroom and hallway lighting applications. These areas only require momentary lighting so the bulbs are required to go off and on all the time, which should shorten cathode life. Also in the dimmer application, I've noticed incandescent bulbs last much longer than those that are switched on in the normal manner. This should be true for two reasons: the dimmer ramps up the voltage thus avoiding the inrush surge-flash phenomena. Also the dimmer doesn't pass the full RMS voltage. Dimmed bulbs stay in service with excellent life in the applications I've seen.

I think that the correct way to answer the question is: "Does the CFL disadvantages outcomes the advantage of "low" consumption?" And I say that because it seem forgoten that the CFL is PULSING device, while the incandescent bulb, due to the thermal innertia has almost no pulses. I where glasses and I do not need to actually see the bulb type to tell you that it pulses. CFL hearts people''s eyes. And the bill will not be pyed by the CFL manufacturers. After me, the right use for CFLs is where you do not realy need to see details.

Maybe we should go to these: www.centennialbulb.org/

I have found LightsOfAmerica CFLs perform substantially better than FEIT. Many FEIT CFLs I have purchased (often for <$1 for a 100W equiv.) lasted less than 6 months on 2-3 hours per day. CostCo sells only FEIT and I plan to write a letter to them explaining how badly FEIT lights perform. To their credit, FEIT has replaced bulbs I have shipped back to them. However, it costs me $4-8 to ship them the burnouts so I loose money. Another issue I've found with the really small CFLs (e.g. the ones you can put in a chandelier) is that it takes many minutes for them to 'warm up' to full brightness. So, when you first flick on the switch, you get only a very dim light that then slowly gets brighter. I have also used dimmable CFLs and have found that they really don't dim to low light levels well at all and often flicker at low light and cause interference with my cable television. I don't recommend 'em. I've recently tried LED PAR 38 floods. The first lasted 3 months before totally going out. The company shipped me a new one. We'll see how long it lasts. It was a $13.00 bulb! For sure, CFLs and LEDs have a long way to go before they actually fullfill the promises on their packaging. I don't think I have saved any money yet. But, I have saved watts and I value that savings.

Ken - all valid points, but I can at least reassure you that CFLs don't flicker, at least not once they're warmed up. Unlike the old fluorescent striplights running at 50/60 Hz, CFLs run at 10s of kHz, and there's a sufficient phosphorescent time constant to maintain a continuous glow. However, you'd ideally still want an incandescent in your machine shop, as a CFL safety light that takes a couple of minutes to warm up (and even then gives a poor colour spectrum) is just a liability. Time to start stockpiling filament bulbs while they're still available.

Policebox, Power LEDS (that I sell for a living) DO age: the best have an half-life of 50,000 hours (meaning, the time at which the lumens they generate become half). The decay is slow and begins immediately. Also, the light is not broad spectrum and contains some blue which is dangerous to look into. The warmer ight versions are less efficient and tend to veer towards cooler light with time. Heat is a special problem: Incandescents emit a lot of thermal (infrared) radiation, A LOT (proportional to the CUBE of absolute temp), and this brings heat away from the bulb. LEDs do not, light is cool. This is good, but you have to be extra careful to put GOOD heat sinking right behind the chip (if you don''t, these 50,000 become much much less, maybe even 10,000). Very few now do it, be it for being ignorant or because they want to have the same shape factor as with halogens at every cost. Some put the sink but later enclose the whole thing in a ceiling recess, making it useless - and then blame the manufacturer. Another great problem is that the lighting guys are attuned to cheap power supplies full od uncontrolled transients and spikes, harmless on lamps but deadly on LEDs. Thst''s why I am leaving this field of bozos and changing activity. Do not cringe for your prices. 2-3$??! Here in Europe we pai min. 9 euros for a 18W! You guys are all very spoilt.

Yes, the problem is accute and must be handled very carefully. But the problem with LED''s is not so simple. LED''s must be kept cool to get the right life. LED''s require heat management more accurately than electronic ballast used in CFL. Therefore, unless the heat is properly managed, LED lamp life will be shortened drastically.

I too have had mixed results with CFL life. Some, COSTCO, have had high infant mortality. My main concern is the effect on the power grid when almost all the incandescent lights, and their resistive loads, are removed from the grid.

Claims of 5 to 7 years life have never been met even with the more expensive older style units in my experience. The general public should not have been enlisted to replace all incandescents when the lamps have serious disposal problems and now the net cost is higher just to buy and throw away before energy savings are recovered. The fragility alone is a health issue that outstrips the energy savings.

I replaced all of the incandescent lamps in our house with CFL's 6-7 years ago. The electric bill dropped at least $20 every month. 2 of the original Phillips lamps, at $16 ea. are still operating. The failures have been infrequent. proper disposal has been to only problem. I'm waiting for LED's,

Apparently if you buy the wrong brand they don't work well. If you bought Philips CFLs - I have never had one go bad. Instead of saying that all CFL's are bad because you bought the wrong ones why don't you do some research on all brands first. People in the US are far to quick to buy cheap crap and then whine when it doesn't work.

I have purchased some LED lights recently that have fairly good performance. One of them I put in the outside fixture above the porch and because of its low power consumption (3.5 watts) we leave it burn 24/7. It produces lots of light and almost no heat. Keep in mind that motion controlers will kill LED and CCFL lights because they are using a Triac which distorts the AC. This automaticly shortens the life of these new light sources. There are more than a few wrinkles that need to be worked out to make them perfect. Lights of America is who makes my test subjects. I have split them open and analized the circuitry. Anyone who is curious about how they are designed is welcome to ask.

Interesting article, but based on my experience and my friends, the implication that CFLs are over-sold is not warranted. The right question is not "will the CFL last for the advertised life," but rather "will the CFL last for long enough to have electricity savings that outweigh the initial cost?" And the answer is "Almost, always, yes." CFLs are heavily subsidized: 3 for 99 cents last week at Walgreen, for example. Power savings for the "100 watt" size are 70 watts x 28 cents per kwh (I was shocked, but that's what my San Diego electric bill showed.) That's 2 cents per hour. So if a bulb lasts 500 hours, that is a savings of $10, minus 30 cents initial cost. And almost every bulb lasts _several thousand_ hours, in my experience. Now factor in the labor time to change inaccessible light bulbs less often. Result: I use CFLs in EVERY non-dimmer installation in my house, including outdoors. I change a light bulb about 3 times a year, so far.