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

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.

---

that's pretty much the way I read it, too ... I only posted it, because it caught my eye, thought someone messing with CFLs would be interested ... I've never used a CFL for growing, I went from (lots of) 48" fluorescent tubes, directly to HPS ... :smokin:

No doubt HID's are in a different ballpark, but CFL are a good companion when dealing with low heat lighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForgetClassC

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

---

The only thing I see that makes this study "dumb as shit" would be it pointing out the obvious. No one ever said incandescent's were better than cfls. We all know they last longer, we all SHOULD know they lose brightness, and we all know incandescent's are the past.

There's NO WAY in knowing what an incandescent luminosity loss would be IF an incandescent could last as long as a cfl. Now if you knew WHEN the luminosity was lost and what factors contributed, then we'd have more information to make an informative guess.

I've been there, done that with cfls. And now I've been there, done that with HID's and there's no comparison. HID/HO floro's is where I'm at now. So many people use cfls for "stealth" grows but in the end they realize stealth is hard as fuck to do when growing a plant that smells, needs ventilation (fan noise), and much more.

Soooo people just use HID. You'll be glad you did. :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the image reaper

that's pretty much the way I read it, too ... I only posted it, because it caught my eye, thought someone messing with CFLs would be interested ... I've never used a CFL for growing, I went from (lots of) 48" fluorescent tubes, directly to HPS ... :smokin:

---

Wasn't it a bitch messing with all those floro fixtures? I'd imagine you'd have to have tons of them to get HID results or close to it. :stoned:

Believe me I have had experience with HID and loved it, but with an area smaller than 1 sq.ft. and only around 2.5 cubic ft. CFL's are very nice.

I've actually grown to love cfls for veg. Since i dont need all that much power or light the first month it really cuts back and is more efficient(costs less). When i flower there is no comparison to my 400w hps, im in a small space so it really works to my advantage this way. If i were in any bigger of a space i would have invested in a 250w MH but even thats over kill for my set up. So in general i've just found what works for me, not necessarily for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

I've actually grown to love cfls for veg. Since i dont need all that much power or light the first month it really cuts back and is more efficient(costs less). When i flower there is no comparison to my 400w hps, im in a small space so it really works to my advantage this way. If i were in any bigger of a space i would have invested in a 250w MH but even thats over kill for my set up. So in general i've just found what works for me, not necessarily for everyone.

---

Have you tried a 4 bay T-5 floro fixture for veg? I able to put 12 ladies under that with a month veg and there wasn't much stretch at all. Just enough IMO.