al@qiclab.UUCP (Al Peterman) (04/07/90)
In article <10607@netcom.UUCP> mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >I want to put more light into my kitchen, and since I have flourescent tubes >(the 4 foot variety) I thought the easiest way would be to just get a >higher wattage tube. Wrong. I can't seem to find any tubes that are not >40 Watts that fit my fixture (it is the kind with 2 pins on each end). Do >they make such a thing, hopefully in soft white? If so, it sure would save >me lots of time and expense replacing the current fixture or adding another. That's ONE of the hassles with florescent lighting. For the most part you are stuck with the light output you have, since the ballasts are designed to run the tubes that fit the fixture. I'm not positive that you can't get more than a 40 watt in a 4 foot tube, but I've never seen one. You can put another dual tube fixture into the same recess, if that's how they are mounted. This brings up the main drawback to florescents vs. the incandescents, namely flexibility. In a "standard" socket I can usually put anwhere from a 25 to a 100 watt bulb with no problem. (yes I know some fixtures are limited to 60 or 75 watts due to heat limitations). Also, I can -and do - use dimmers and BSR remote controllers, to control the lighting to the amout I want at a given time. Flourescents, despite their advantages in efficiency, are just unable to be adjusted or controlled easily. Another minor hassle with florescents is the disposal problem. They are somewhat hazardous to smash to fit in the trash. I also think they contain rather dangerous substances. This of cousre is not a problem with the "bulb" replacement size units, but the 4 and 8 foot tubes are awkward. I've got 70+ incandescent bulb fixtures in the house, and 6 florescent fixtures. I wish I could have it the other way for efficiency, but for aesthic AND practical reasons, it just don't make sense in the home. -- Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm Airborne N33291 Cessna Cardinal RG Net !tektronix!(psueaa,nosun,ogicse)!qiclab!al
dgc@euphemia.math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor) (04/08/90)
In article <4604@qiclab.UUCP> al@qiclab.UUCP (Al Peterman) writes:
This brings up the main drawback to florescents vs. the
incandescents, namely flexibility . . . Flourescents,
despite their advantages in efficiency, are just unable to
be adjusted or controlled easily . . . Another minor hassle
with florescents is the disposal problem. . . . I've got 70+
incandescent bulb fixtures in the house, and 6 florescent
fixtures. I wish I could have it the other way for efficiency,
but for aesthic AND practical reasons, it just don't make sense
in the home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimmers for flourescents are available from a number of sources. They
are indeed more expensive than those for incandescents, but the
efficiency and coolness of flourescents more than compensate. Other
methods for controlling brilliance include having fixtures with, perhaps
12 bulbs and using two switches, one which turns on 4 and the other
which turns on 8 (much like a 3-way light bulb).
In my home, I have 40 4-foot flourescent tubes which are the main lights
in the bedrooms, hall, office, kitchen, and garage. The fixtures are flush and
attractive, and the light is glare-free.
Lutron Electronics, Co.
Suter Road, Box 205
Coopersburg, PA 18036
800-523-9466, 800-222-4509
manufactures flourescent dimmers.
dgc
David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet: dgc@math.ucla.eduISW@cup.portal.com (Isaac S Wingfield) (04/09/90)
There's been some recent commentary concerning those screw-base fluorescent conversion units. Does anybody know: 1) What is the "incandescent equavalent" light output? None that I've seen mention it. 2) What is the economic payback time, including initial purchase? 3) Do they hum, buzz, or do other antisocial fluorescent type things? Isaac isw@cup.portal.com
chrz@tellab5.tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) (04/11/90)
In article <28713@cup.portal.com>, ISW@cup.portal.com (Isaac S Wingfield) writes: > There's been some recent commentary concerning those screw-base > fluorescent conversion units. Does anybody know: > > 1) What is the "incandescent equavalent" light output? None that I've seen > mention it. A "compact flourescent" bulb that uses 15 watts is equivalent to about 60 watts incandescent; an 18 watt equiv ~75 watts. Note that incandescents are brightest when new, as the filament evaporates onto the inside of the the bulb (light loss is about 10%). > > 2) What is the economic payback time, including initial purchase? > Varies a lot depending on usage, price, electricity cost. Why not calculate your own, assuming 10,000 hours avg life for the flour.? > 3) Do they hum, buzz, or do other antisocial fluorescent type things? > Buzz or hum? No. They use high frequency (>30Khz) electronic "ballasts". The light color is very good -- much better than "warm white" flour. lamps. I put two table lamps next to each other, one with a compact flourescent and one with incandescent: the difference was not noticeable. The relative lack of heat output makes them much more pleasant to use in hot weather. Some drawbacks: 1. You can't use a dimmer. 2. You can't get a compact flourescent replacement equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent. 3. Thunderstorms sometimes destroy the electronic ballast.
jerry@altos86.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (04/12/90)
In article <4604@qiclab.UUCP> al@qiclab.UUCP (Al Peterman) writes: }Another minor hassle with florescents is the disposal problem. They }are somewhat hazardous to smash to fit in the trash. I also think they }contain rather dangerous substances. This of cousre is not a problem }with the "bulb" replacement size units, but the 4 and 8 foot tubes are }awkward. Florescents used to contain beryllium, a very poisonous element, but no longer do. The main danger is getting cut on the shards. -- Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos86!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134 Guns don't kill people, bullets do. (408) 432-6200
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/14/90)
In article <3359@altos86.Altos.COM>, jerry@altos86.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) writes: > In article <4604@qiclab.UUCP> al@qiclab.UUCP (Al Peterman) writes: # # }Another minor hassle with florescents is the disposal problem. They # }are somewhat hazardous to smash to fit in the trash. I also think they # }contain rather dangerous substances. This of cousre is not a problem # }with the "bulb" replacement size units, but the 4 and 8 foot tubes are # }awkward. # # Florescents used to contain beryllium, a very poisonous element, but no longer # do. The main danger is getting cut on the shards. # # Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems The main hazard isn't the normal symptoms of toxicity, but that cuts from a beryllium-containing compound will develop into large ulcerous, non-healing wounds. I don't believe beryllium compounds have been used since the 1950s, but I wouldn't completely discount that there are still a few tubes sitting around in storage that contain beryllium, and I wouldn't hold your breath hoping for a doctor to recognize berylliosis. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!