study indicates CFL lumen loss ...

Study Casts Dim Light on Energy-Efficient Bulbs

Thursday, November 19, 2009


They're billed as energy-efficient, but compact fluorescent bulbs are getting a dim review in a new study.

The study, published in Engineering and Technology magazine, shows the energy-efficient light bulbs lose on average 22 percent of their brightness over their lifetime, the BBC reports.

Compact fluorescents reduce energy consumption by up to 80 percent compared to traditional bulbs. But the study concludes consumers were being misled by the bulbs' packaging, suggesting that although the bulbs save energy that savings may come at the cost of long-term brightness.

"It may be deliberate, but because of the standards set, you end up with figures that are exaggerated compared to what people really experience," the magazine's editor, Dickson Ross, told the BBC.

Of the 18 bulbs tested by the magazine for over 10,000 hours, three stopped altogether. Traditional bulbs lose only up to 7 percent of brightness over 2,000 hours.

************** copied from FOX News ***********************

And, there's mercury in all dem CFL's.

Wasn't it just a few years ago we were getting rid of mercury, 'cause it was in the fish and working its way up the food chain?

That suddenly became unimportant, somehow...

Well actually that proves that the study was dumb as shit in the first place. They are saying that incandescent bulbs loose 7% of their brightness over a time period of 2,000 hours. Then they state that the CFL are tested over a time period of 10,000 hours and lost up to 22% of brightness of those that actually lasted the 10,000. Well if you multiply 7% by 5 you get 35%. So didn't they really just prove that the high quality bulbs are even MORE worth it than incandescents?

-C

I've also found through experience that they burn out a lot quicker then they say they last.

Indeed, have had my share of faulty bulbs, but the ones that work, do just that.

The study was not trying to prove anything except that consumers are MISLED by what the packaging says. PERIOD.

How is the study suppose to observe a incandescent bulb for 10,000 hours?? The avg. life of an incandescent is about 1000 hours. All it's saying is the cfl bulbs loses on avg. 22% of its brightness during its lifetime, which isn't stated on its packaging. In comparison, an incandescent bulb loses LESS brightness during its' LIFETIME.

No one has stated that incandescent bulbs are better, just that the packaging is misleading.

FYI, if you can, HID trump all.

I don't see why they would put it on its packaging tho, i mean do HID bulbs say that they loose lumen output with time? i have yet to see that. When u buy tires for your car do they explicitly state that with time the tread will wear away? If im not mistaken, most CFL packages do state "initial lumen output" which should indicate to a consumer that they do in fact loose lumen output with time. Almost everything looses its efficiency with time, at least in an electronic sense. With time resistance builds up within the unit, much like a battery, u get more heat and less usable power, which then leads to the ultimate demise of the unit itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

I don't see why they would put it on its packaging tho, i mean do HID bulbs say that they loose lumen output with time? i have yet to see that. When u buy tires for your car do they explicitly state that with time the tread will wear away? If im not mistaken, most CFL packages do state "initial lumen output" which should indicate to a consumer that they do in fact loose lumen output with time. Almost everything looses its efficiency with time, at least in an electronic sense. With time resistance builds up within the unit, much like a battery, u get more heat and less usable power, which then leads to the ultimate demise of the unit itself.

---

They SHOULD put that on the packaging. To be honest, 22% if accurate is significant. 7% for incandescent's isn't as significant IMO. I think the confusion begins with CFLs being advertised as lasting MUCH longer than incandescent's, which they do, but did all those people know 22% (if accurate) of their brightness will be lost during its' lifetime. :stoned:

Study's often "discover" information that is already well known.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be publicized, but i don't think companies are misleading people by not stamping it on the package. What would be misleading is saying that they don't loose lumens, but they do state there is an initial lumen output. It's still more efficient then a incandescent with the 22% decrease, so there claim still holds true. Misleading is not the same as just declaring exact lumen loss over a period of time. Like i stated, no light bulb really states on its packed the overall lumen loss over its lifetime, so why would they have to? It's usually up to consumer reports to give us that kinda info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balkey

The study was not trying to prove anything except that consumers are MISLED by what the packaging says. PERIOD.

How is the study suppose to observe a incandescent bulb for 10,000 hours?? The avg. life of an incandescent is about 1000 hours. All it's saying is the cfl bulbs loses on avg. 22% of its brightness during its lifetime, which isn't stated on its packaging. In comparison, an incandescent bulb loses LESS brightness during its' LIFETIME.

No one has stated that incandescent bulbs are better, just that the packaging is misleading.

FYI, if you can, HID trump all.

---

Thus me stating that the investigation proves that CFL are that much better than incandescents. Seeing as they last about 10x longer and that even if an incandescent COULD last as long, they would be THAT MUCH MORE better. Think sometimes, its helpful.

-C