User Resistance to the Take-up of High-Efficiency Lamps

"What persuasion techniques have been used successfully to encourage the use of more efficient replacements for the traditional incandescent lamp"

Given that the lamps will soon be completely unavailable, seems to me the problem will take care of itself.

As you stated, he is well into his retirement years. His eyesight may be getting poorer and a well lit environment is essential for him. His thoughts may be "How the hell am I gonna see my newspaper?" or something similar. Explain to him that he can switch over to more efficient lighting, and therefore save money thus allowing him to turn on more lights in the room he is in and still be saving money. They even last longer.

You can also mention to him that you read somewhere that tungsten from the bulbs is leaking into the water tables and could be our next problem as great as mercury or lead.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/7938/Tungsten-Could-It-Be-The-Next-Mercury-or-Lead

GOOD LUCK!

I do have one minor personal reason against.

Recently I bought a floor lamp to throw some light on one corner of my castle. Upon unboxing it, I found the cord came with a clunky inline box located near the plug end. The box has a large button switch (for stomping on, presumably) and some other electronic bits inside. I thought this convenient since stomping the switch would suit not only my temperament but also because the lamp is somewhat out of reach.

Turns out that CF bulbs won't work in that lamp. I guess the box is also a safety device and the CF's ballast briefly draws too much current or makes too much electrical racket or something. I tried a few different ones - all no go. But any incandescent put in it works like a charm.

I don't know if all floor (and other?) lamps are reqired to have this box, but if so that's a CF killer in my kingdom.

That's not just a good answer, it's a GREAT answer.

Well done emc c.

Reverence for the 100W incandescent is directly related to the aging eyes. There's nothing worse than struggling to see, and nothing more blissful than the relief provided by a 100W incandescent when you're having sight problems due to age effects in low light levels.

As for persuasion, I recommend demonstrating a true equivalent of a 100W incandescent. If you can find one that's bright enough and that doesn't tire the eyes faster due to glare and different spectrum, how about letting us all know (I wouldn't mind a few myself..). [I expect to see some research coming out of the EU in years to come, letting us know if old folks lost their sight quicker after switching to fluorescent bulbs. Or settled for reading half as much because it 'hurts my eyes'. Hope it ain't true.]

BTW I still have 3 or 4 working GE compact fluorescents that have been in service lighting my home since 1993. They cost a bundle and were worth it: they all lasted at least 10 years. But the new ones that I bought to replace them - now much cheaper - are cheaper in every way: about half of them have failed within 6 months. The EU could be in for a major pollution problem if the new gear is trash.

I don't know if this applies to the compact bulbs, but the flicker from tubular fluorescents can bother some people, leading to their eyes tiring quickly.

In a small percentage of people it can even trigger epileptic fits, or, more commonly petit mal.

I find a daylight color bulb very good, although they are not always easy to get.

If "they" want to phase out incandescents, why not simply make the details of their advantages and characteristics readily available and people can make their own choice. (Sorry, this flies in the face of all bureaucrtic behaviour and is, therefore an unacceptable approach)

CFLs operate differently than traditional fluorescent tubes operated from a ballast. The traditional ballast is basically a transformer, so the light intensity is modulated by the mains frequency. I would think that at 50/60 Hz it would be mostly unnoticeable, but I have heard the same, some people are sensitive to it.

Regardless, the CFL bulb base has a power supply that converts the ac mains power to a very high frequency in the tens of kHz that excites the gas in the tube, and thus, no flicker.

well every body has become energy savers these days,CFL lamps are one such fad,Nun of the manufacturers will share the technical data of these Green or energy savers or echo friendly,energy saving fads .as long as the new green/echo-friendly/energy saver labels fetch high profits who cares any way customer is an idiot and let him remain for ever seems to be the New business theme

crm

Beg to differ. When government steps in to ban a particular product and promote another one, then it is government, not business, which has the attitude that the customer is an idiot and has to be coerced into making the correct decisions.

Business can come up with all manner of products, good, bad, or indifferent, but business does not have the power to force you to buy their product. They can only entice you to do so, by means fair or foul.

Over time, people will make the decisions which shape which products succeed, and which fail. The decisions are based on the standards of value held by the individuals making up the consumer base.

I don't agree with all the choices that people make. For instance, I cannot figure out how a product like Coca-Cola (or any of their competitors - not singling them out) is successful. Their main cost is promoting the product, which exceeds the cost of the raw materials and labor of putting the product together and getting it to market. Doesn't seem like that ought to work.

But the point is, it's not my decision. I can choose whether to buy that product, but not whether you can buy that product. This concept is fundamental, but it seems to be antithetical to the modern nanny-state.

I don't consider sceptic's question off-topic, nor the following response. The original post asked how to convince someone they ought to use CFLs in lieu of incandescents. The answer to that, aside from the coming legal banishment of incandescents, is tied up in how CFLs work, which is what sceptic's question and my response addresses.

The high frequency is part of it. Directly rectifying the mains potential without requiring a transformer is what allows the ballast and tube to fit in a space designed for an incandescent. The high frequency allows the ballast to be smaller, and flicker-free.

Aside from that, I read that newer tube coatings also make the tube brighter, and since light output will be proportional to tube surface area, a brighter tube means less tube, for the same amount of light. But if that were all there was to it, the same coatings could presumably be applied to the traditional long narrow tubes.

100/120 times each second the supply Voltage goes through zero. Where in the housing of a volume-manufactured CFL is there sufficient energy storage to bridge this time?

I tried some 'scope traces of the light output of some CFLs (not the very earliest, but I've not repeated it with recent samples either, as my access to a lab is now restricted so that I have to make the optimum intended use of any lab time). They looked as if there was only some very high frequency ripple - until you triggered the scope from the mains. Once you did that you could see that twice in each cycle there was a low in the output that lasted about 1 ms, and the intensity was not all that constant. I don't know whether things have changed since, but it may be indicative that companies like ALZO make specific claims about the suitability for photography of their specialist CFLs. On the other hand, it could just be that the problems that we wrinklies have with CFLs is down to unexpected rendering of some colours (due to the peaky spectrum) or to subliminal differences due to the response of the cones not matching the colour expectations raised by the rods.

BTW, 50/60Hz flicker would imply some rectification - so shouldn't the dominant flicker of a ballasted fluorescent be at 100/120Hz?

P.S. A supposed 100W equivalent CFL is somewhat less bright than the 100W incandescent I would have bought formerly - because the reference for comparison is a "soft white" incandescent, which I would never have used. However, there's an easy way around that one...

The CFL electronic ballast is an ac-to-dc rectifier, then uses the dc to create an ultrasonic ac that actually excites the fluorescence. It isn't hard to provide a few milliseconds of hold-up in a power supply when the current is low:

Say a 10 Watt bulb. That means 1/12 Amp on USA power. In turn, the load the lamp presents to the line is

120 Vac/(1/12 Amp) = 14.4 k Ohms

You need a capacitor in parallel with that such that the time constant is long relative to the 60 Hz mains frequency, or as you point out, assuming a full-wave bridge, relative to twice the mains frequency.

So if you decide on a 20 ms time constant, with a 14.4 k Ohm load, you get

C = 20 ms/14.4 k Ohm = 1.4 microfarad

That can be a tantalum or other type electrolytic cap with high charge density, should fit nicely, even when derated properly for the mains potential.

BTW, don't understand the comment about rectification relative to linear fluorescents. I thought all the ballast did was step up the ac potential, wasn't aware of any rectification involved.

Also BTW, GA for the nice comparison of lumens per Watt for the different luminary technologies.

I think I'll skip the CWF and go strait to LEDs. I can make my own lamps and still use less electricity. Besides they don't need the ballast tied to the dimmer switch.

I'll start retrofitting this spring.

Brad

One of my problems with CFLs is that I have a number of fixtures which are outdoors, or in unheated buildings. In winter, some of them will simply not light up, and others may take ten - fifteen minutes to get beyond a dull orange glow stage, and likely will NEVER reach nominal brightness. This is NOT acceptable for stairwells or other areas on a farm. At least some will actually self-extinguish when they get too cold, even when left on 24/7. Finally, some refuse to work in certain positions, and those that do function emit a nasty whine (I still hear it at age 67). The relative who doesn't like them may hear them directly, via a hearing aid, or the radio frequency emissions may be directly energizing the electronics, bypassing the sound portion of the aids. Ask!

I can buy electronic ballasts for tube-type fluorescents that are guaranteed to start at zero Fahrenheit (-17C) - but we see temperatures well below that most years (we just had a string of 26 days with no high of 32F / 0C or warmer, and we are in the WARM corner of the state). Those ballasts cost roughly three - four times as much as the conventional ones, although supposedly they will eventually pay for themselves in efficiency. Most CFLs do not specify their start temperature either on the base or in packaging / labeling material.

I have yet to see an actual LED unit which can be used with any existing socket [except for a $14USD PR-2 flashlight "bulb", when incandescents cost $0.50]; ones I've read about online for house lighting carefully omit pricing or introduction dates - NOT a good sign in my estimation. None mentioned cold-starting temperature.

Hmmm,

>> is no longer distributed within the European Economic Community

I smell profit - smuggling incandescents!

Or an increase in fixture sales that will accept two incandescents of equal lumen's.

In my areas of influence I have sensitized our local municipality to the need for a CFL recycling location. As a result, over the course of a year they first got credit vouchers for a sister city to accept our old CFL's; next added their own recycle day twice per year; now have sealed collection boxes at key locations (some donors have been seen to derive pleasure from throwing them through the air lock doors so they can hear florescent tubes and CFL's explode inside); professional HAZMAT personnel service these boxes on a regular basis, now.

I explain the concept of lumen's to those who complain that their (almost universal) first attempt at using a compact light is "equal to 60 watts." (I've long understood that the ignorance of the majority of technology users are technologies' worst enemy.). Along those lines, I've built a website that shows the cost savings of "going green." My reasoning being that one can't talk 'tree hugger' to create converts - However, dollars, euros and cents works very well indeed. The website includes datums like how much indoor plants that cool, clean and condition the air flourish in light from fluorescent sources and how to expend just a few cheap gallons of water to create outdoor shade for a building instead of expensive electricity to cool a structure after the fact, etc.

There is no dragging of mules to a drink of water, they will still refuse, leaving ruts where their hooves dragged. However, if one leaves them to their own devices, they always seem to wander over to the pond for a drink before they croak, all in good time. All of the major lighting manufacturers have spent a couple centuries to make hidebound consumers of incandescent lighting - but at any rate, change probably won't take the same amount of time - now that so many know better and are learning better.

It may well be that the exciting developments in LED Lighting may eclipse the CFL before it reaches universal acceptance, anyway. We have many area applications for these brilliant devices which sells their limited use by us to our friends and neighbors when visiting our home and office. I have one used as a headlight if I get caught on the road after dark with my battery powered trike used for shopping. LED's still have a way to go on their cost, color and intensity, however... But they are orders of magnitude cheaper to operate than CFL's. My suggestion to our municipality a couple years ago also resulted in their purchase and stockpiling of a large number of solar cell/ battery powered outdoor light poles that use LED's in order to put an eventual stop to the practice of pillaging by thieves of the copper wire that powers conventional outdoor lighting. As municipalities with large purchase order power encourage this sector, they'll create competition and the costs will certainly start to come down. All in good time I'm sure.