Surge Protection and Light Bulbs

Well a surge protector is only going to offer protection against voltage transients. What you are describing is inrush current when the light switches on. As for any light (energy saving or otherwise) they mostly fail at turn on (it is generally the most stressful time for devices). There is generally not a great deal you can do about it with regard to lights, although it should not be a major problem unless you are rapidly switching a light on and off in a short time, or are switching it on and off a lot.

Just one of those things.

Hello Joankelsy,

Your question has two parts.

a)Will switching OFF and ON the lights ,consume more energy? the answer is No.

When we switch say a flourescent tube the current is more during the switching time which is very small and negligible in the larger context of running time of lights.

A light which is OFF when it is not required is the biggest saver.

b) A surge protector wil protect the lights from voltage surges but will not save energy.

Hope that helps.

Good luck

The on/off/on/off/on/off in quick succession increases the temperature beyond its capacity of insulation/melting temperature limit thereby damaging the equipment.

No, not really. As has been stated when turning on an incandescent bulb there is a large inrush of current known as "tungsten in-rush". This is because the resistance of the cold tungsten is actually up to 1/10th the hot resistance. Also remember the way an incandescent bulb works is to get so hot as to give off life so turning a bulb on and off very quickly will not cause it to get any hotter then a bulb left on. In fact almost all light dimmers do this. A light dimmer actually turns a bulb on and off 120 times a second, one on/off cycle in each half wave of the 60Hz signal. (100 times a second for 50Hz applications)

As an incandescent bulb ages bits of tungsten come off the filament causing narrow spots. These narrow spots become weak points because their resistance is higher (smaller conductor). When you turn on a cold bulb and get the tungsten in-rush the weak spot fails and the filament breaks. The amount of the inrush varies by where in the half cycle the switch is made. At the peak of line its obviously worse and at the zero cross its better as the filament begins to heat immediately. Depending on bulb size the filament will heat to normal temperature (and resistance) in about 5 line cycles give or take. Turning a hot bulb on has less in-rush as the filament is somewhere between its low and high resistance levels.

FYI, this is why dimmers that fade up and down dramatically increase bulb life because they never put full voltage across the bulb until it has been warmed up thus decreasing the effect of the tungsten inrush.

Shawn

Here are the "Bits" you are speaking about.

Could you please explain what bits are and how the picture explains it?

Regards;

Nadeem

01242008

And I had always thought it was a mechanical failure caused by rapid thermal expansion/contraction that caused the filament to fatigue and break.

I have heard several "old wives" tales about light bulbs lasting 50, 60 or 70 years of continuous "on" duty. The filament reaches a steady hot position and does not flex due to on-off cycling was the story I always heard.

Anyway, occasionally I see (in the US) 130v rated incadescnt light bulbs. These are a bit more expensive with brass instead of aluminum bases, but work will in nuisance areas where you don't want to be changing light bulbs.

Nice post and some very fascinating replies!

...to keep turning lights on and off, on and off, as there is a boost in electrical usage when you turn on a light or appliance. Is this still true?

Was it ever true?

How updated is the home to current building codes?

What if we all turn on the bathroom light at half-time?

Thank you. You fellows have given me good information. The terminology helps considerably.

Just to clear things up...my father exagerated about the on/off thing. We were not playing with the lights. "If you are going back into the room within a half-hour, leave the lights on, otherwise turn them off."

My thoughts on this are that even if the inrush current causes a negligible amount of wasted energy, think about the entire country and how many times this happens each day. If only they could come up with something.

This is one of the questions I ask at www.driveucrazy.com

Energy-saving lamps are not really "Energy-Saving" when the extra costs of materials, manufacture, and disposal of the failed lamp are taken into account.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but this is an interesting statement. Fluorescent lamps have mercury in them, and thus are not safe to simply throw away. "Green" fluorescent lamps have come out, but they still contain mercury. Also, low-energy, incandescent replacement bulbs also contain mercury. There are "laws" governing how such lamps and bulbs are to be disposed of. The incandescent replacement bulbs are supposed to be enclosed in 2 plastic bags prior to disposal in the regular garbage. I don't know yet how you are supposed to "properly" dispose of fluorescent lamps.

The point is that way too much responsibility has been placed on the end user to properly dispose of such lamps, and I'm sure very few actually follow the rules. Therefore, the push to use energy-saving bulbs may actually be detrimental to the environment in the long run. In that respect, I agree with the above poster.

Thank you for info about disposal. Was looking fluorescents over when another shopper said she would not buy them, as there are grandchildren in the house. That brings up another consideration, safety.

As for the price, I lucked out in a local hardware store...79 cents a bulb. Seems they were discontinuing little known brand and bringing in GEs. Both are made in China, but isn't nearly everything? That shot is definitely off-topic!

Joan Kelsy

Kind of makes you wonder where the politicians are when they require conversion to low energy lights.

Very good answer Sparkstation. Thank you.

I also wanted to know this and thanks Joankelsy for putting my thoughts on the paper.

Regards;

Nadeem Butt

01242008

Good morning Sparks!

uhhh...is your number 2. _really_ true? Do you have (real) data to back that statement up? Because although the energy-saver lamps clearly require more materials & energy to make (and dispose of), they last MUCH longer than the plain ol'...

Just curious, because over here, the talk is about banning tungsten bulms within the next couple of years.

Also need to consider that a whole gaggle of tungsten bulbs, most of whose energy is given off as heat and not visible light, add to air-con loads when & where it's hot...

cheers & nice weekend

RF_G

Hello RF_guy,

If you do the costs correctly, you will see that although the save electricity at the point of use: Home, Office etc, the cost of energy and resources to manufacture those lamps and dispose of their toxic products, far outweighs the totalled home user savings.

Like many products: Petroleum, Plastics, and the like, these energy-saver lamps are "cheap" because a precious resource is being subsidized, while at the same time the resource is being squandered.

Kind Regards....

Hi Sparks!

I'm sorry, but you still haven't convinced me. You write, "Like many products: Petroleum, Plastics, and the like, these energy-saver lamps are "cheap" because a precious resource is being subsidized, while at the same time the resource is being squandered."

- while I certainly don't disagree with that statement in a general sense (= other industries, products), I don't see the connection to energy-saving light-bulbs

(here I'm speaking, to be unambiguous, about the flourescent-tube lamps with the 'fat'ceramic box-bases). First off, I'm paying a lot more for the lamp, which I assume is going to pay for their construction, the electronics inside, the additional glass, the flourescent gas, etc. Further, as I've already mentioned, these lamps last *much* longer than ordinary incandescents. And lastly, they certainly a fraction of the wattage for a given amount of light. Granted there is a problem with their disposal, but at least here in Europe, they're being disposed of like all other recyclables, in an industrial facility which must follow all environmental regulations. I don't see how any of this chain is subsidized, but perhaps you know something I don't. The more elaborate production etc. must be viewed against the significantly lower energy use and much longer lifetime if a serious & comprehensive 'footprint' calculation is to be carried out.

At the moment, the EU has a huge lead on protection of the envirnoment and the consumer from chemicals and pollutants, measured against the US (which used to be in the forefront decades ago). Certainly the issue about the presence of mercury in these bulbs is moot - the EU eliminated mercury in every aspect of life here long ago - a simple example is batteries containing mercury, which have been illegal for at least 10 years here. Illegal meaning: they are unobtainable, you cannot manufacture them anymore. While it's certainly folly to blindly trust the EU, I would find it difficult to believe that these bulbs aren't doing something positive for the overall carbon/energy balance.

My impression is that energy-saving lightbulbs are a good thing, whereas 'biofuel' - which at the moment manifests itself as using (mostly) feed crops (whether for people or animals people eat) to fill up the tanks of over-sized toys owned by people with inferiority complexes, but which is heavily subsidized by governments, is inherently evil. That's something worth fighting against!

Nice day

RF_G

Hello RF_guy

If you can show me where the "energy-saving lamps" are carefully collected separate from the general "rubbish stream", the electronic ballast and other parts separated and recycled, please advise.

Remember that there is normally mercury and argon inside the coiled tube.

When the costs in terms of energy to build the lamp factory; energy to manufacture mining equipment, explosives and the like, to obtain metals; energy requirement to explore for petroleum, refine same to make plastic parts; the other factories to build sub-parts; the energy required for gathering together and assembling the various parts; the waste streams of those factories, mines etc; the energy to actually build, complete and test the lamp; energy required for tree growing and harvesting for the packaging; transport of the packaging; energy input for transporting to warehouse, shipping, warehouse, store, car to get to your home; energy to insert/remove the lamp, energy required for disposal of all the product, including packaging.....

Then the environmental costs of energy and disposal, which are higher than most people realize.

That is a very general summary of the energy/disposal requirements for the so-called "energy-saving" lamp.

Because of the complexity of the "energy-saving lamp", the costs are much higher that the "standard" incandescent filament lamp.

There are many further factors, of course, but perhaps you may now see how the product is "heavily subsidized".

Life for life, energy for energy, waste products for waste products, the incandescent filament lamp wins every time.

Kind Regards....

Hey Sparks,

"If you can show me where the "energy-saving lamps" are carefully collected separate from the general "rubbish stream", the electronic ballast and other parts separated and recycled, please advise." - here in Switzerland as in Germany, Austria, and the Scandanavian countries (elsewhere I don't know...), there are collection points for *all* products - in this case, the vendor has to take them back and they get disposed of properly (or the mfr and the disposal firm fact heavy fines). NZ, Oz, the USA, etc., all are all still pretty 'dirty' countries in that regard.

I regard pretty much everything in your 2nd paragraph as moot points, since those issues apply generally to pretty much all products..

I don't know what's in the 'fat'/'square' base of the lamp, but with today's technology I don't think it's a big deal.

I stick to my point - they use much less energy and give off much less heat for the same light output, and they last much much longer.

Either way, I think it is extremely difficult to come up with an accurate 'footprint' for any product!

cheers

RF_G

I understand that in years gone by, 35 mm projectors using quartz halogen lamps had some sort of resistance limiting the onrush of current when first turned on. Once the lamp was fully on the effect of this resistor diminished. Whether or not it was a Voltatge dependent resistor, or a relay that took a fixed resistor out of the circuit I do not know.

To cut to the chase, such a device certainly minmised the frequency of lamps blowing and could be useful in minimising lamps blowing in situations where you want to save power by turning lights off when the room is not occupied, and turning them on when occupied.

In Vacuum tube TV sets we called them Globars. They were negative coefficient resistors wired in series with the heater cicuits of the vacuum tubes. When cold, these had a higher resisance thus minimizing the cold inrush current to the heater elements. As the Globar heated up from current flow, its resistance dropped and the heaters finally came on with full power. Thsi interval was only a matter of seconds.

I have my bathroom makeup lights by the mirror on a dimmer and the bulbs seem to last a lot longer there than elsewhere in the house. I only turn them on and off by dialing the dimmer thus eliminating the shock of a sudden onrush of current. The elements are heated and cooled gradually this way.

I wanted to get a toggle dimmer but I'm waiting for this one to die. Now I can't seem to find a quality dimmer. The one I have in my living room functions flawlessly and was made by Power Controls but even don't make a good one anymore.

Thank you for the update on quality. When we had an addition to our home, a studio, I wanted dimmers on most of the lighting, which is considerable for a 14x30' room. The electrician said that often these devices blow or something and the customer has to pay for the loss.

Dimmers are a must have for me, as I have photo phobia. Quite a few have been servicing me for years, now. I had also used the fluerescents in an older home around the eighties, I think. Afraid I have been lax in shutting off what I am not using. Big changes in the electric bill have me "juiced", however. I mean my bills have gone down!

Peace, Joankelsy

Some large commercial users will sometimes notice a high failure rate among their line voltage incandescent and halogen lamps.

In some cases, this is due to the whole facility have a slight over voltage. One facility was receiving 126 volts, and it burned out lights like flashcubes.

The power company adjusted the voltage down, and the problem went away. Many commercial and industrial users specify lamps that are rated for higher voltages (130 volt). These are sold to residential consumer as long life bulbs.

Exactly, voltage has a huge effect on bulb life. I don't remember the exact formula but its something like the ratio of voltages to the 7th power or something. So by just running bulbs at 90% of rated volatage it almost doubles their life and conversely by running just 10% over will half their life.

I don't think they are sold anymore but their were some energy savings bulbs that had a diode in series with the filament causing the bulb to half wave. The problem was that the flicker of the on/off bulbs is perceptible to the human eye so they were very annoying to some.

Shawn

Hello Shawn33

Use of diodes in such a manner is frowned upon by Power Suppliers.

The reason is that it gives a DC component in the AC system.

That DC component interferes with transformers, kWH meters, and can cause premature ageing of transformers, should there be enough electricity users doing this on a network.

Use of proper dimmers is no problem, because they switch off a portion of both the positive going and negative going waveforms, thus it evens out, and no troublesome DC is thence reflected into the network.

Kind Regards....

If equal wattage loads are connected with series diodes Anode to Active and Cathode to Active, won't that even things out?

Hello Lleros Marharg

Yes, that does even things out, as you say.

But as you might appreciate, in practice this solution to the DC problem is not always easy to implement, because the connected Wattage of each type must be kept equal at all times.

Kind Regards....

Hi Sparkstation,

The bulbs would come with the diode placed randomly, I suppose the thought being with enough of the bulbs around and with some conducting in the positive half cycle and others in the negative half cycle that it would "even out". Anyway you look at it though it was a poor design as the flicker of the bulbs was noticeable and annoying.

Shawn

Re post 7.

I can confirm that a dimmer switch will reduce the surge and make tungsten lamps last longer.

I use the type where the dimmer knob is also an on/off push-button. That means you can set the brightness then use it as a switch.

I tried the 'thermistor' approach (negative temp coefficient resistor) but not successfully because I could not match the thermistors to the lamps - and it was difficult to wire them up safely (they get hot).

The dimmer switch works a treat. They are readily available and easy to fit.

This on-off-on-off cycling of bulb's isn't just on the incandescant lights in the house, but also in your car, turning the lights on and off for night driving, and the indicators what are possibly the worst affected (well, not as much for those who don't use them, or those who give 1-flash and think they have given enough warning)

I designed a driver for driving lights, with "soft-start" function (current controlled) and low battery shutdown (leave lights on without engine running)

This is the same idea as for "smart dimmers" that "soft-start" your lights for you, and the newer car ECU/Body-computers that "soft-start" your car lighting systems (including brake lights)

Dear Snaketils,

Very interesting. Are your devices in production? Please visit my site, www.driveucrazy.com and go to category "Why Not?" It contains an entry about inventing. Would love to have you add comment for my readers. In four months, over 22,000 hits.

Just hope the dialog keeps going. There is so much that can be done about the energy issue.

Imagine, Joankelsy

Excellent. I feel like I am in Light Bulb 101. imueller's comments are particularly interesting. I remember the small disks of the eighties but not the gas mantles. How did you come up with that one? They were from my grandmother's day and I'm well into the senior zone.

Initially, I was curious about the waste of electricity with the inrush current. However, the thrust of the discussion has turned toward the light bulb. Not a bad idea. The more we learn about every aspect of this energy thing, the better.

I am doing my best to understand so that this household, at least, will consume less. So far, changing habits have brought the bills down considerably. (Laypeople usually measures these things by the dollar.)

I will continue to visit this great site for an education.

Joankelsy www.driveucrazy.com

And a lot of tight wad engineers measure things by the dollar.

Welcome to the site! Feel free to ask anything, don't mind the occasional outbursts or sarcasm, and you will find a lott of interesting information, data, and opinions.

It was interesting to hear about the transition from gas to electric, and the design of switches to handle the inrush of current, but it would be worth adding that the toggle action was much to do with 'breaking' the current in the early days when we had DC supplies.

A slow breaking action would draw an arc, not only to burn the contacts, but enough to set the switch and cables on fire - and the surrounding woodwork - and the house!

The transition to AC reduced this risk to near zero, where in it's wake came the micro contact switches (remember the old GEC mute action 'Mutac' switches?).

They were marked 'AC Only' but surprisingly in my early apprentice days (the 50's) you would not necessarily know whether the supply to a house was DC or AC - where fitting these 'new fangled' silent switches to DC supplies could have dramatic results.

In those days electricians did not have the luxury of test meters - and even if they could afford them - they were big and bulky - and not he sort of thing you could carry on a bus or bike - so the simple test was to disconnect a current carrying wire from a terminal to see if you could slowly pull an arc.

Not that this has anything to do with in-rush current.

Not exactly off-topic, my original question was just to open a dialogue into saving energy.

Without a history, where can we go with anything? Enjoyed the part about the bus/bike. Not everyone family had one or more gas guzzlers in those days.

I remember it well, Joankelsy

I am glad you liked the bus/bike bit. Here's another story (under the guise of energy saving by not using cars).

I was sent from the building site back to the depot to pick up a whole 12ft length of 1¼" conduit. I was expected to walk back (about 3 miles) across London with this pipe on my shoulder. It became very difficult because the streets were crowded with people, so I tried to catch a bus.

Surprisingly the conductor (we had them in those days) agreed to let me on the bus (a double-decker). He told me to stand on the rear platform with the pipe upright held tight against the side of the bus. It worked a treat. Great! I thought.

Until suddenly, a couple of stops down the route, some bloke ran alongside and grabbed hold of my pipe. I thought he was trying to pinch it (there was a serious national steel shortage at the time) so I hung on tight. But instead of letting go, he jumped on the bus - and when on board - he apologised saying he thought my pipe was the hand rail.

Later, back at the site, expecting the foreman to give me a pat on the back for initiative, he has a go at me because the pipe was bent.

My little contribution to energy saving today, is to boil only the exact amount of water to make the tea. And then boil it only once. A 3kw kettle run for a few unnecessary minutes use far more power than ever saved by economising on light bulb surges.