terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) (11/20/90)
In article <1990Nov17.211808.21546@ameristar> rick@ameristar (Rick Spanbauer) writes: >In article <1990Nov16.091211@mathcs.emory.edu> km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg) writes: >>I've seen a few pieces on TV showing some new high tech florescent light >>bulbs that can directly replace an incandecent bulb. Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular incandescent bulb. I've been told that they are available by catalog and that some discount houses sell them for about $40.00. If you have any clues about how to purchase such a beast, I'd like to know. Thanks. -- Terry
scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (11/20/90)
In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes: >Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been >described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one >of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a >whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the >amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular >incandescent bulb. > >If you have any clues about how to purchase such a beast, I'd like to >know. Thanks. You can buy them here at the Price Club (a warehouse type of discount store). A friend of mine bought one. I suggest you try one in the store before purchasing one. They certainly are *bright* While they do have a dimmer control I personally find the effect not to my taste. -- Scott Amspoker | Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | "I'm going out for a sandwich" (505) 345-5232 | - Ben unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |
salim@mozart.amd.com (Salim Shah) (11/21/90)
>In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes: >>Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been >>described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one >>of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a >>whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the >>amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular >>incandescent bulb. >> >>If you have any clues about how to purchase such a beast, I'd like to >>know. Thanks. They are available at KMART. We do not use them for every day (night :^) ) lighting, but use them for indoor video. Exelent results with correct white balance. salim.
jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) (11/21/90)
In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes:
Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been
described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one
of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a
whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the
amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular
incandescent bulb.
I've been told that they are available by catalog and that some discount
houses sell them for about $40.00.
Local department stores (Boston area) sell them for ~ $100. Damark, among
others, lists them in their catalog for $39.99 (extra bulb set for $12.99),
shipping is $9.50. I bought two from them, and I've been using them since
mid-July, and I'm quite satisfied with them. At full power, 500 watts in a
small room is quite overwhelming. It's almost a room heater at that level.
The dimmer is slightly noisy (AC hum). Damark is 1-800-729-9000.
The lamp is Item No. B-364-140905, for black. They also have
white, brass, chrome and almond. UL Listed.
Incidentally, the thing is really noisy, electrically. An oscilloscope about
6 feet away from the lamp, when the lead is touched, shows the normal
background AC 60Hz noise. When the lamp is turned on, about one-fifth
brightness, there is a glitch at every zero crossing. Quite noticeable,
easily 10% - 20% or more of the sine wave peak. Are they allowed to put out so
much junk ? I turn the lamp off and use a regular (=non dimmer) lamp
when I'm taking any low voltage readings. I don't know if the noise
is being radiated, or put onto the AC line, or both.
Regards,
/ Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722
jon_sree@world.std.comjdc@rama.UUCP (James D. Cronin) (11/21/90)
From article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu>, by terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland): > > Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been > described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one > of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a > whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the > amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > incandescent bulb. > > ... (etc) > > -- Terry It seems like energy usage depends on the dimmer setting. At a full 500 watts it should use more energy than a 100 (or 150) watt bulb. Unless it uses a hydrogen fuel-cell, of the type suppressed by the U.S. Navy and large auto companies. It may even use more, since you'd have to turn it up more, due to the losses from indirect lighting (i.e. pointing it at the ceiling). Jim Cronin jdc@rama.sc.harris.com
klee@wsl.dec.com (Ken Lee) (11/21/90)
In article <10920@rama.UUCP>, jdc@rama.UUCP (James D. Cronin) writes: |> At a full |> 500 watts it should use more energy than a 100 (or 150) watt bulb. Isn't energy use measured in watt-hours? At full power, a 500 watt bulb will use exactly 5 times as much energy per hour as a 100 watt bulb. -- Ken Lee DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif. Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (11/21/90)
In article <10920@rama.UUCP> jdc@rama.UUCP (James D. Cronin) writes: > >It seems like energy usage depends on the dimmer setting. At a full >500 watts it should use more energy than a 100 (or 150) watt bulb. >Unless it uses a hydrogen fuel-cell, of the type suppressed by the >U.S. Navy and large auto companies. > The wattage rating of a lamp, halogen, ordinary filament, or flourescent, is how much power it draws from the line....in no way reflects how much light it puts out... A 500 watt lamp will draw 500 watts from the a.c. line if not dimmed with a dimmer ckt. If the dimmer is full on, draw is 500 watts. Light output is measured typically in lumens. Watts don't equal lumens.... Watts x efficiency = lumens. Flourescents and halogens tend to be considerably more efficient than ordinary filaments....a 40 watt cool white flourescent tends to be comparable to a 75 or 100 watt filament...check the lumen rating on the box for both. Halogens can be more efficient than ordinary filament lamps because they run MUCH hotter, so you can get more lumens/watt. Just don't touch the lamp, it will burn you and likely cause the lamp to fail prematurely. If you touch it when cold, wipe the bulb with freon (or head cleaner) or the oils from your skin will be converted to carbon by the heat when you turn it on,,,and the tiny carbon deposits will cause local heating of the bulb causing early failure...
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (11/21/90)
In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes: |Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been |described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one |of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a |whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the |amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular |incandescent bulb. I have a 300 watt one. I'm not really impressed. If energy use were not an issue, they would be pretty neat. I do like the kind of indirect lighting they provide. But they are horribly inefficient. 300 watts and I still don't consider it good for reading. A 75 watt in a Luxo makes me happy. Or a 50 watt halogen above my bed is almost too bright. One of these 300 watt guys just does not do it for reading. Think about it. Is 500 watts less than a regular incandescent? It is true that halogen is more efficent. My 50 watt halogens are very nice. But the lamps you are talking about simply lose too much light through the indirect mode. What I like and am looking for is the recessed ceiling lights which use small fluorescent tubes. By S.F.T., I mean the kind commonly sold as incandescent replacements. They are high frequency, color balanced, and low power. The fixture is reflective and the mode is direct so the lighting power and efficiency is excellent, yet nobody (except people like me) would ever know you were using fluorescents. I have seen them at the ANTC, a fancy Chinese restaurant (the kind with marble floors) and Kentucy Fried Chicken, of all places. -- KristallNacht: why every Jew should own an assault rifle.
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (11/21/90)
>Halogens can be more efficient than ordinary filament lamps >because they run MUCH hotter, so you can get more lumens/watt. Yes, but also remember that when you run an incandescant lamp with a dimmer, you reduce the electric bill but also reduce the efficiency. When you dim your new 500 watt halogen lamp down to give you the reading light that might equal that of a direct-illumination 100 watt bulb, you're probably still using about 300 watts of power. By the way, I got the impression that the longer life-cycle of the halogen bulbs depends on the recycling pyrolysis of the tungsten halide lost from the filament. If that depends on the unusually high temperature of those bulbs, then one should fear that dimmer operation might reduce their life -- which is serious because they cost more than incandescents, because of the quartz envelope, etc.
mclaren (Gavin McLaren) (11/23/90)
In article <JON_SREE.90Nov20113948@world.std.com> jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: >Incidentally, the thing [500W Halogen lamp with dimmer] is really noisy, >electrically. [...] >Are they allowed to put out so much junk [RF noise]? I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, FCC in the United States regulates radio frequency equipment. This includes computers, which are producing video output, monitors, cellular phones, etc. What is not regulated are items that produce RF by accident, such as refrigerators, automobiles, vacuum cleaners, and, of course, dimmers. All kinds of noise pollution out there. I think the items regulated fall into the same categories here in Canada, but I have no idea about Europe, Asia, Australia, etc. --Gavin McLaren ...!uunet!van-bc!mdivax1!mclaren
spcecdt@deeptht.UUCP (John DuBois) (11/24/90)
In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) writes:
+
+Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been
+described to me: about 6 feet tall, point straight up (looking into one
+of them can ruin your eyes), take bulbs of up to 500 watts, light up a
+whole room well enough to read, with an analog dimmer to adjust the
+amount of wattage used, use less energy to light a room than a regular
+incandescent bulb.
+
+I've been told that they are available by catalog and that some discount
+houses sell them for about $40.00.
+
+If you have any clues about how to purchase such a beast, I'd like to
+know. Thanks.
+
+ -- Terry
Damark (1 800 729 9000) sells them for $40 + $10s/h. I've seen them
locally too, for the same $50. They're kinda neat, but the ones I've seen
in action don't seem to be a terribly efficient lighting scheme. At full
power (500W), reflected off of a white ceiling, they seem to give about
the same amount of light as a normal 150W incandescent bulb. If your
ceiling has a particularly high albedo they might perform better. Like any
incandescent, at lower power they are less efficient. On the other hand,
if you like indirect lighting they're great.
Damark's price for replacement bulbs is $19 (with s/h) for two. I don't
know where you'd get replacements if they stopped selling them.
--
John DuBois
spcecdt@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.usmetzger@cup.portal.com (David G Metzger) (11/26/90)
In article <57@deeptht.UUCP>, spcecdt@deeptht.UUCP (John DuBois) writes: >In article <27836@mimsy.umd.edu> terry@brillig.cs.umd.edu (Terry Gaasterland) w >rites: >+ >+Has anyone seen these new fangled indoor halogen lamps? They've been [.....lines deleted.....] >+If you have any clues about how to purchase such a beast, I'd like to >+know. Thanks. >+ >+ -- Terry > > Damark (1 800 729 9000) sells them for $40 + $10s/h. I've seen them >locally too, for the same $50. They're kinda neat, but the ones I've seen >in action don't seem to be a terribly efficient lighting scheme. At full >power (500W), reflected off of a white ceiling, they seem to give about >the same amount of light as a normal 150W incandescent bulb. If your >ceiling has a particularly high albedo they might perform better. Like any >incandescent, at lower power they are less efficient. On the other hand, >if you like indirect lighting they're great. This is contrary to our experience, and our ceiling is just your average, white, textured ceiling. We have had a similar lamp in our living room for nearly a year, and found the 500w bulb to be blindingly bright. We replaced the bulb with a 300w, and it was perfect. Although the lamp has a dimmer, the 500w bulb would produce light which was much too yellow when dimmed to the output of an ordinary 150w tungsten bulb. With the 300w, we can dim the lamp until the output about equals a traditional 100w bulb, and the light still appears "whiter" than the traditional bulb. (This would indicate that you are still getting good relative efficiency with the dimmed, 300w halogen bulb, and poor relative efficiency with the dimmed, 500w halogen bulb.) > Damark's price for replacement bulbs is $19 (with s/h) for two. I don't >know where you'd get replacements if they stopped selling them. > >-- >John DuBois >spcecdt@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us Our lamp uses the very same quartz-halogen bulbs that are used in the outdoor lighting fixtures that are now found in every hardware store, K-Mart, etc. We have had no problem finding replacements, and have even found them for as little as three dollars. The bulbs are rated at approx. 2,000 hours and we have yet to replace the first 300w bulb; we don't think bulb replacement or cost is much of an issue. We have been very pleased with the lamp. The quality of the light is wonderful, and with the 300w bulb we can get non-glaring light bright enough to cheer the room on a cloudy day, or dim it down to a soft, uniform glow which is perfect for watching a movie. The only drawback to these lamps is that a 300w/500w bulb at full power naturally produces 300w/500w of heat, but so do ordinary tungsten bulbs. Bottom line: try one; return it if you don't like it. David Metzger metzger@cup.portal.com sun!portal!cup.portal.com!metzger
minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) (11/26/90)
I have some large, dark panelled rooms, and it is prohibitively expensive to keep them well lit with incandescent bulbs. So I've used compact fluorescent bulbs for the last couple of years. Sixteen Panasonic 20-watt units. The light color is almost satisfactory, and the 16 bulbs give enough light, but they've noticeably dimmed since new. So that 6000-10000 hour rating hasn't been realistic, although they haven't burned out. I estimate they're actually at about 1500-2000 hours by now, and will soon need replacing. If so, those nice "energy efficiency" numbers may be considered deceptive! IN two other rooms, I used similar units made by Lights of America. These are half the cost (9-10 dollars). But the solid state converter-ballast unit in the base burns out, and most of them have died in less than 2000 hours. (The Panasonic units contain a fair-sized inductor, while the LOA units contain a mere couple grams of transistors and other small components. Obviously the margins are too small.)
karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (11/27/90)
In article <4171@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes: |> IN two other rooms, I used similar units made by Lights of America. |> These are half the cost (9-10 dollars). But the solid state |> converter-ballast unit in the base burns out, and most of them have |> died in less than 2000 hours. (The Panasonic units contain a |> fair-sized inductor, while the LOA units contain a mere couple grams |> of transistors and other small components. Obviously the margins are |> too small.) I have taken these LOA flourescents apart and traced the circuit diagram. While doing this I noticed some pretty shoddy soldering on the PC card. Leads were too long and too much solder was used. In the bulb I examined I found a solder bridge right across the DC supply rails, although it didn't short because it didn't break through the solder mask. Despite this, all of the 10 or so bulbs I've bought have worked fine so far. If one fails I will be sure to do a post-mortem. Phil
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (11/29/90)
In article <4171@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, minsky@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Minsky) writes: > So I've used > compact fluorescent bulbs for the last couple of years. Sixteen > Panasonic 20-watt units. The light color is almost satisfactory, and > the 16 bulbs give enough light, but they've noticeably dimmed since > new. So that 6000-10000 hour rating hasn't been realistic, although > they haven't burned out. I estimate they're actually at about > 1500-2000 hours by now, and will soon need replacing. Is the life of these dependent on orientation? Do they go dim quicker with the base up, down, or sideways? markz@ssc.uucp