New GE Incandescent Lamp Technology

[Victor Roberts]

Yesterday I read a press release from GE stating that they
were working on new technology that could eventually make
incandescent lamps as efficient as CFLs. The short term
goal is 30 lm/W. I can't find a copy of that press release
at the moment, but it does raise some interesting questions.

I have not had any connection with GE incandescent lamp
technology since I retired in late 1999. There were two
publicly-known technologies they were working on at the time
that, if improved, could raise the efficacy of incandescent
lamps to the 50 to 60 lm/W range.

The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

The second technology area is selective emitters. These can
be tungsten that has light-wavelength-sized patterns that
reduce emission of IR radiation while not reducing visible
emission, or they can be materials that are inherently
selective emitters. The prospect for these lamps was raised
by John Waymouth at LS:5 in York, UK in 1989. Research at
the old Bell Labs and more recently at GE R&D has shown that
it is possible to produce an efficacy gain through use of
patterned tungsten or alternate selective-emitting
materials. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one
has been able to develop a system that maintains this
efficacy gain for more then a few hundred hours at the
temperatures required for efficiency light generation.

This should be an interesting area to follow. Perhaps there
will be more information at Light Fair.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Victor,

Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.

For more information on this announcement, see:
http://www.huliq.com/12464/ge-announces-advancement-in-incandescent-technology

and
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/BUSINESS/702240399

The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.

Cheers,
Paul

[Victor Roberts]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:38:55 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Hi Victor,
Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.
http://www.huliq.com/12464/ge-announces-advancement-in-incandescent-technology
and
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070224/BUSINESS/702240399
The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.
Cheers,
Paul

Thanks for these links. I agree with the comments made in
the second article that regulations should not be
technology-specific. They should be based on performance.

My favorite example of a bad technology-based law is the one
giving preferences to hybrid vehicles - such as preference
in HOV lanes on US highways. I have a non-hybrid Passat
that gets better highway mileage than some hybrids. Any
hybrid car is allowed in the HOV lane with only one
passenger and I my Passat is not.

The regulations that many say banned EM ballasts in the US
never mention EM ballasts or any other ballast technology.
They just call for a level of performance that is almost
impossible to meet with EM ballasts. That's the way the
lighting regulations should be written. The regulations
should not specify CFLs or LEDs, they should specify
efficacy - under real operating conditions, of course.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Thomas Paterson]

Post by Victor Roberts
My favorite example of a bad technology-based law is the one
giving preferences to hybrid vehicles - such as preference
in HOV lanes on US highways. I have a non-hybrid Passat
that gets better highway mileage than some hybrids. Any
hybrid car is allowed in the HOV lane with only one
passenger and I my Passat is not.

I agree with your general point, but I would argue one difference.
The issue of lamps is all about providing incentive for efficiency,
full stop. There is an advantage to incandescents over CFLs in that
they don't contain mercury, and unlike LEDs, the factories are far
less polluting. We need to push for more efficient sources by any
path that is clean.

Your passat is efficient, yes, but it is part of a dead end line of
vehicle evolution, because there is a limit to the effciency we can
get out of the technology, and it will always be producing CO2.
Instead, the legislators are working to give incentives on
technologies which do have future potential. The more people buy
hybrids (which are basically testbeds for electric cars) the more
money will go into their development.

Post by Victor Roberts
The regulations that many say banned EM ballasts in the US
never mention EM ballasts or any other ballast technology.
They just call for a level of performance that is almost
impossible to meet with EM ballasts. That's the way the
lighting regulations should be written. The regulations
should not specify CFLs or LEDs, they should specify
efficacy - under real operating conditions, of course.

This is something I argue strongly for in my work on ANSI/ESTA
standards - performance based rather than construction based
standards. I'm with you all the way.

Regards,


Thomas Paterson

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by Thomas Paterson
I agree with your general point, but I would argue one difference.
The issue of lamps is all about providing incentive for efficiency,
full stop. There is an advantage to incandescents over CFLs in that
they don't contain mercury,

Burning fossel fuel to power them releases more mercury into
the air than an equivalent CFL contains.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Thomas Paterson
I agree with your general point, but I would argue one difference.
The issue of lamps is all about providing incentive for efficiency,
full stop.There is an advantage to incandescents over CFLs in that
they don't contain mercury,

Burning fossel fuel to power them releases more mercury into
the air than an equivalent CFL contains.

Hi Andrew,

Very true. According to the EPA, when one factors in the source of
generation, the amount of mercury pollution produced by an
incandescent lamp is two and a half times that of a comparable CFL.
The actual ratio may be even higher today, given that service life has
been on the rise in recent years (now up to 15,000 hours in the case
of Philip's Marathon Universal) and with efforts to reduce mercury
dosing. Also, a growing number of jurisdictions now provide consumers
with the opportunity to recycle or otherwise properly dispose of CFLs,
so hopefully this will further minimize their impact on our
environment as well.

Cheers,
Paul

[Thomas Paterson]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Thomas Paterson
I agree with your general point, but I would argue one difference.
The issue of lamps is all about providing incentive for efficiency,
full stop. There is an advantage to incandescents over CFLs in that
they don't contain mercury,

Burning fossel fuel to power them releases more mercury into
the air than an equivalent CFL contains.

Not on my watch. We use carbon offsetting and clean power in our
office and are working with at least 50% of our clients to go green
and only purchase renewable electricity. That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

I'm out in the Caribbean this weekend working with a client to
implement cleaner practices and to maintain the standards of
lighting. The truth is that they can't have both without tradeoffs,
but we're really pushing the performance limits. Their engineers have
done a superb job over the past two years to switch over nearly twenty
properties to 2700K integrated CFLs. They have a way to go on dealing
with certain circumstances where CFLs just don't cut it. Of
particular note are applications which need strong accenting, such as
where a PAR38 is typically used for landscape lighting. The PAR38
CFLs are miserable. We're working through each of these cases one by
one (a big call in an organization with over 100,000 lamps in
operation).

The possibility of the 21W Diamond Precise lamps is good, the same
power as most of the CFL pars, but they punch is four or five times
better in the "medium" distribution and there is no comparison with
the spots. Of course, the point to understand is that if you have
spill levels outside the beam which are even 20% of peak, your
accenting is AT BEST 1:5, more likely 1:1.5 to 1:2. That's not
accenting, it's a slight brightening of the location. Only with a
good controlled narrow beam can you achieve really great contrast
ratios, 1:20 or better. There is certainly potential for this
technological approach to deliver much higher efficacies and
particularly application efficacies through the use of quality optics,
etcetera. 60 lumens per Watt? Not so sure, at the source, but in
real applications, more light for less watts is certainly possible.

A long way to go anyway.

Thomas.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On 3 Mar 2007 14:32:01 -0800, "Thomas Paterson"

Post by Thomas Paterson
Not on my watch. We use carbon offsetting and clean power in our
office and are working with at least 50% of our clients to go green
and only purchase renewable electricity. That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now....

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for championing this and congratulations on your tremendous
success. Well done!

I've vacationed at some very nice resorts in Cancún and Punta Cana and
in at least two cases, I had the impression some or all of their power
was generated onsite by way of diesel generators (I actually saw them
running with my own eyes). In any event, CFLs were used extensively
in each of these resorts, but 4,100 and 5,000 K seemed to dominate and
in this type of setting, it didn't seem out of place.

With respect to the U.S., I understand one-half of all electricity is
coal-fired and much of this would be considered as "dirty". In 2005,
U.S. power generation resulted in the release of over 2,5 billion
metric tonnes of CO2, over 10 million metric tonnes of SO2 and almost
4 million metric tonnes of NOx. In 1999, mercury emissions stood at
48 metric tonnes. While pollution abatement certainly makes good
sense and there has been some movement recently in that direction, one
sure-fire way to lessen these emissions is demand reduction.

Also worth noting that each new kW of demand represents, on average, a
capital investment of $2,500.00 in new plant and related T&D and that
these capital costs (and increased O&M costs) are ultimately passed on
to consumers in the form of higher rates. Thus, replacing even a
small percentage of the hundreds of millions of incandescent lamps now
in service could potentially save the utility industry (and, in turn,
consumers) several hundreds of billions of dollars.

Cheers,
Paul

[Simon Waldman]

Post by Thomas Paterson

Post by Andrew Gabriel
Burning fossel fuel to power them releases more mercury into
the air than an equivalent CFL contains.

Not on my watch. We use carbon offsetting and clean power in our
office and are working with at least 50% of our clients to go green
and only purchase renewable electricity.

Carbon offsetting is irrelevant to mercury omissions. Of course, if the
offsetting is in the form of funding for clean energy generation schemes
then it may incidentally reduce future mercury release, but this
certainly isn't, er, certain. Only using renewable electricity is
another matter, and something that I must applaud... although everybody
doing this isn't really a large-scale solution to the planet's problems.

I was also told once that a significant amount of mercury is released in
the *production* of a tungsten lamp. However I don't have any source to
back this up, and personally I find it doubtful, as for economic reasons
the producers would want to recycle as much of the expensive materials
used in production as possible.

Post by Thomas Paterson
That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

Post by Thomas Paterson
I'm out in the Caribbean this weekend working with a client to
implement cleaner practices and to maintain the standards of
lighting. The truth is that they can't have both without tradeoffs,
but we're really pushing the performance limits. Their engineers have
done a superb job over the past two years to switch over nearly twenty
properties to 2700K integrated CFLs. They have a way to go on dealing
with certain circumstances where CFLs just don't cut it. Of
particular note are applications which need strong accenting, such as
where a PAR38 is typically used for landscape lighting. The PAR38
CFLs are miserable. We're working through each of these cases one by
one (a big call in an organization with over 100,000 lamps in
operation).

I'm greatly impressed. Not just at your work, but at the fact that what
is presumably an operator in the tourism industry is prepared to put
energy efficiency ahead of (presumably some) impact in aesthetics.

[Thomas Paterson]

Post by Simon Waldman
Carbon offsetting is irrelevant to mercury omissions. Of course, if the
offsetting is in the form of funding for clean energy generation schemes
then it may incidentally reduce future mercury release, but this
certainly isn't, er, certain.

We're working to set up a scheme for our clients involving offsetting
by investing in clean generation, basically we're costing out schemes
such as investing in new generation capacity and counting only the
first year of generation as the offset. In other words, the rest of
the lifecycle of the generation would be a bonus for the environment.

Post by Simon Waldman
I was also told once that a significant amount of mercury is released in
the *production* of a tungsten lamp. However I don't have any source to
back this up, and personally I find it doubtful, as for economic reasons
the producers would want to recycle as much of the expensive materials
used in production as possible.

I'd assume that mercury would be re-extracted and reused from whatever
waste products it's in.

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson
That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The problem that they are inherently using dirty power currently. The
offset to the problem is that all parts of the problem may be
addressed, unlike more efficient petrol engines, which will always be
a a problem.

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson
I'm out in the Caribbean this weekend working with a client to
implement cleaner practices and to maintain the standards of
lighting. The truth is that they can't have both without tradeoffs,
but we're really pushing the performance limits. Their engineers have
done a superb job over the past two years to switch over nearly twenty
properties to 2700K integrated CFLs. They have a way to go on dealing
with certain circumstances where CFLs just don't cut it. Of
particular note are applications which need strong accenting, such as
where a PAR38 is typically used for landscape lighting. The PAR38
CFLs are miserable. We're working through each of these cases one by
one (a big call in an organization with over 100,000 lamps in
operation).

I'm greatly impressed. Not just at your work, but at the fact that what
is presumably an operator in the tourism industry is prepared to put
energy efficiency ahead of (presumably some) impact in aesthetics.

Actually, they did the energy efficiency work under their own steam,
and my challenge is to tighten up the energy efficiency a little
further while bringing the aesthetics back to a high standard.
They're pretty good, but with a few lapses, cold white where it
shouldn't be, etcetera. We're doing things like using linear
fluorescents only in fully back of house spaces, and so as a universal
policy, we use CFLs front of house and linears in effectively back of
house. This means we buy only the correct lamps and they can't be
screwed up. Other "innovations" are as simple as labeling every lamp
base with the intended type, etc.

More than anything, we're helping a very competent team order their
own thoughts on these issues.

Thomas.

[Victor Roberts]

On 4 Mar 2007 11:07:11 -0800, "Thomas Paterson"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Thomas Paterson
I'd assume that mercury would be re-extracted and reused from whatever
waste products it's in.

Mercury is very inexpensive and the amount in each CFL is
very small. The value of the mercury in each CFL is far less
than $0.01 and it has to be cleaned by triple distillation
before it can be reused in lamps. If the mercury is
recovered at all it is probably just sequestered to prevent
contamination of ground water.

[snip]
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Clive Mitchell]

Mercury is very inexpensive and the amount in each CFL is very small.
The value of the mercury in each CFL is far less than $0.01 and it has
to be cleaned by triple distillation before it can be reused in lamps.
If the mercury is recovered at all it is probably just sequestered to
prevent contamination of ground water.

It can be used in fountains...

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bar/miro/Almaden1.html

[Victor Roberts]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 04:00:21 GMT, Clive Mitchell

Post by Clive Mitchell

Mercury is very inexpensive and the amount in each CFL is very small.
The value of the mercury in each CFL is far less than $0.01 and it has
to be cleaned by triple distillation before it can be reused in lamps.
If the mercury is recovered at all it is probably just sequestered to
prevent contamination of ground water.

It can be used in fountains...
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bar/miro/Almaden1.html

Is this fountain and pool open? It's not the liquid
mercury that is dangerous, its mercury vapor.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Ioannis]

"Victor Roberts" <***@lighting-research.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[snip]

Post by Victor Roberts

Post by Clive Mitchell
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bar/miro/Almaden1.html

Is this fountain and pool open? It's not the liquid
mercury that is dangerous, its mercury vapor.

This particular one is enclosed in glass. Visitors can view it from the
outside:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_fountain

Certain other variations are also a bit dangerous. There have been attempts to
create gyroscopic mercury telescope mirrors as well. I am not sure how
successful they have been.

Post by Victor Roberts
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Clive Mitchell
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/bar/miro/Almaden1.html

Is this fountain and pool open? It's not the liquid mercury that is
dangerous, its mercury vapor.

This one is enclosed in a glass chamber.

[Simon Waldman]

Post by Thomas Paterson

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson
That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The problem that they are inherently using dirty power currently. The
offset to the problem is that all parts of the problem may be
addressed, unlike more efficient petrol engines, which will always be
a a problem.

Ah, OK. As I understand it, electricity generation benefits greatly from
scale - power stations are a lot more efficient than small generators.
Whether this is offset again by losses in teh batteries, motors, etc., I
don't know. I imagine not, or the whole concept of electric and/or
hydrogen-fueled cars would be pointless.

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson
That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The problem that they are inherently using dirty power currently. The
offset to the problem is that all parts of the problem may be
addressed, unlike more efficient petrol engines, which will always be
a a problem.

Ah, OK. As I understand it, electricity generation benefits greatly from
scale - power stations are a lot more efficient than small generators.
Whether this is offset again by losses in teh batteries, motors, etc., I
don't know. I imagine not, or the whole concept of electric and/or
hydrogen-fueled cars would be pointless.

It's not quite pointless, it's of debatable point, in many cases, when
you consider the whole life cycle of the vehicle, including battery
replacement.
There is usually a small net win.

Small generation can work very well - if small (a few dozen houses)
schemes have one generator that also feeds heating around the area.
You can get better than 80% of the energy out of the fuel this way,
compared to around 50% with the best of power stations.

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Thomas Paterson
That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The way I read it, he's referring to the problem of assuming electric
cars necessarily represent a net reduction in emissions of GHGs and/or
local toxics and/or particulates. Whether they do or not is highly
dependent on how the electricity to run them is produced. I live in a
province that still burns dirt (i.e., coal) to make electricity; air
quality is directly and highly perceptibly linked most directly to
electricity demand.

-DS

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Thanks for sharing this remarkable news and for your additional
analysis/insight. In a word, this is AWESOME.

Unfortunately it's not the first time we've had this "perfect filament"
hype. It's a bit like electroluminescent technology. Lots of spin and
no significant result.

Talking of which... How are the quantum emitters doing?

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:52:05 GMT, Clive Mitchell

Post by Clive Mitchell
Unfortunately it's not the first time we've had this "perfect filament"
hype. It's a bit like electroluminescent technology. Lots of spin and
no significant result.
Talking of which... How are the quantum emitters doing?

Hi Clive,

I hear ya, but I think there's good reason for optimism this time
around. As Victor noted, current low-voltage MR16 IR lamps operate in
the 25 to 30 lumens per watt range and so 30 lumens/watt for an
equivalent or slighly higher wattage GS/A19 lamp seems well within
reach.

Secondly, GE has acquired considerable real-world experience with
integrated 120 to 12-volt transformers by way of their Diamond Precise
line. I have roughly forty of these lamps in my own home and after
two or three years of heavy use, not one failure to report as of yet.
This is quite remarkable given the fixtures that house these lamps are
poorly ventilated and I would typically replace one or more of the
previously used PAR20 lamps about every other week.

This is a picture of one of the "killer" fixtures:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/846606/other/halo-fixture.php

This is a picture of said lamp collection:

http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937220/other/ge-diamond-precise.php

Bringing together halogen IR coatings and integral electronics in one
attractive package makes perfect sense, and so long as heat can be
effectively managed at these higher wattages and it's priced
competitively vis-a-vis CFLs, I see this as a home run.

Cheers,
Paul

[Simon Waldman]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
The fact that these lamps could potentially offer the same lumen
performance as today's CFLs (without all the various drawbacks) AND at
a lower cost is nothing short of revolutionary. Can't wait.

It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present :-)

And perhaps there will be competition from usefully-dimmable low-power
metal halide and/or LED as well. Time to wait and see :-)

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi Simon,

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:27:32 +0000, Simon Waldman

Post by Simon Waldman
It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present :-)
And perhaps there will be competition from usefully-dimmable low-power
metal halide and/or LED as well. Time to wait and see :-)

All good points. I'm sure there are folks at GE still haunted by the
Halarc experience. It would be rather ironic if a new generation of
CFLs with multi-photon phosphors were to enter the market at roughly
the same time (in Hollywood terms: "HalArc II. The Sequel").

BTW, I have a Philips self-ballasted ceramic metal halide lamp in my
home (non-dimmable, of course).

Loading Image...

This is truly an engineering marvel and you can't help but be
impressed by its technical elegance. Unfortunately, high initial cost
and fairly significant lumen depreciation make it a tough sell
vis-à-vis its CFL counterparts outside a narrow range of applications.

Cheers,
Paul

[Ioannis]

"Paul M. Eldridge" <***@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
[snip]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
BTW, I have a Philips self-ballasted ceramic metal halide lamp in my
home (non-dimmable, of course).
http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937222/other/philips-self-ballast-cmh.jpg
This is truly an engineering marvel and you can't help but be
impressed by its technical elegance. Unfortunately, high initial cost
and fairly significant lumen depreciation make it a tough sell
vis-ΰ-vis its CFL counterparts outside a narrow range of applications.

Looks like a beauty. I certainly haven't come across one such. Looks like it's
electronically ballasted.

But is it really that bad that you start seeing significant lumen depreciation
during its lifetime?

OSRAM makes several kinds of small metal halides, (the HQI-TS/WDL) around 75W,
and they have installed dozens of them outside my house on the sidewalk. I
haven't noticed any depreciation in their 3-4 years of service, but some have
started cycling and some have extremely shifted colors.

Perhaps the electronic components in your specimen are to blame?

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Cheers,
Paul

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Post by Ioannis
Looks like a beauty. I certainly haven't come across one such. Looks like it's
electronically ballasted.

I'm pretty sure that's the case (it's completely silent in operation).

Post by Ioannis
But is it really that bad that you start seeing significant lumen depreciation
during its lifetime?

Well, in fairness, this lamp has several thousand hours under its
belt. According to Philips, initial and mean lumens are 1,220 and 850
respectively, so my impressions are pretty much in line with what you
would expect.

See:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/hid/pdf/p-5747.pdf

Post by Ioannis
OSRAM makes several kinds of small metal halides, (the HQI-TS/WDL) around 75W,
and they have installed dozens of them outside my house on the sidewalk. I
haven't noticed any depreciation in their 3-4 years of service, but some have
started cycling and some have extremely shifted colors.
Perhaps the electronic components in your specimen are to blame?

Some of the blame rests on my own shoulders, given my more frequent
switching; in a commercial environment where the lamp might operate
for twelve or more hours at a time, I suspect lumen depreciation would
be a little less severe.

The only other minor quibble with this lamp is that its light has a
slight mauve/purple tint to it (at least to my eyes). It's certainly
not objectionable and I suspect most people wouldn't pick up on it.

On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and
after this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy
efficient and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike
its impact on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement
has caught my interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

Cheers,
Paul

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and after
this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a warm,
friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost lifeless
quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy efficient
and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike its impact
on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps with a CRI
of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement has caught my
interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same efficiency as a
CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of incandescent
lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

There are certain venues where it's better to keep tungsten for colour
rendering and use the CFL's as fill lights in less visually critical
areas. The entertainment and food industries come to mind.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:16:02 GMT, Clive Mitchell

Post by Clive Mitchell
There are certain venues where it's better to keep tungsten for colour
rendering and use the CFL's as fill lights in less visually critical
areas. The entertainment and food industries come to mind.

Hi Clive,

I agree. I was describing the lobby/public areas of Roy Thompson Hall
(Toronto) to my brother earlier this week. Light grey carpet, grey
concrete walls, an impressive amount of glass, polished steel
handrails and bright white ceilings. Nothing out of the ordinary, but
the recessed halogen lighting makes this place truly sparkle -- what
you would fully expect to be cold and austere is literally transformed
into something very warm, rich and rather elegant.

Cheers,
Paul

[Victor Roberts]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:15:29 GMT, Paul M. Eldridge
<***@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
On a somewhat related note. A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
As it turns out, I happened to visit this complex just before and
after this relamping and was shocked by my reaction. What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and while I fully applaud the move to a more energy
efficient and environmentally friendly technology, I very much dislike
its impact on the general atmosphere (and these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86). This is one of the reasons why this announcement
has caught my interest -- a halogen lamp that operates at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

I suspect they used the wrong color temperature and perhaps
increased the light level. Another case where bad design
has perhaps lead to making many people believe that CFLs
cannot replace incandescent lamps.

With the help of a qualified lighting designer they should
have been able to find CFLs which would have provided the
same atmosphere. (Perhaps customers also need to convince
the industry to make lower CCT CFLs to match low power
incandescent lamp applications.)
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:02:08 -0500, Victor Roberts

Post by Victor Roberts
I suspect they used the wrong color temperature and perhaps
increased the light level. Another case where bad design
has perhaps lead to making many people believe that CFLs
cannot replace incandescent lamps.
With the help of a qualified lighting designer they should
have been able to find CFLs which would have provided the
same atmosphere. (Perhaps customers also need to convince
the industry to make lower CCT CFLs to match low power
incandescent lamp applications.)

Hi Victor,

I'm pretty sure these new CFL lamps are 3,000 K, so colour temperature
is similar and with respect to light levels, I would guess they would
reasonably close in this regard as well. I know the new lamps are
23-watt/1,200 lumens and the previous halogens were probably in the
range of 90-watt to 120-watts (i.e., upwards of 1,500 lumens).

I think the real difference is that the new light is very soft and
diffuse (you might say bland), whereas the original halogens offered
lots of punch and sparkle, and the much higher contrast ratios created
considerable visual interest as people moved about.

Cheers,
Paul

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by Victor Roberts

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and [...] these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86. [...] a halogen lamp at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

I suspect they used the wrong color temperature and perhaps
increased the light level. Another case where bad design
has perhaps lead to making many people believe that CFLs
cannot replace incandescent lamps.

Arrgh.

VR, despite the appearance I may be creating by responding with
contrary opinion to a fair number of your posts lately, I don't have
it in for you. Nevertheless, this what you've said sounds an awful lot
like the reaction I frequently get upon announcing I don't care for
sushi. Someone's *always* gotta take on a patronising tone and say
"It's not _all_ raw fish; you probably just don't like _sashimi_".
Typically they ramble on at length about quality and freshness of
ingredients, variety of non-fish-containing types of sushi, widespread
existence of poor-quality sushi on the local market and so forth
before I interrupt them to explain that I dislike the taste and
texture of the nori (seaweed) wrappers and the granular rice used in
most all sushi. Gee...turns out I do know the difference between sushi
and sashimi, do know the difference between good and poor quality, and
really, actually, genuinely dislike sushi *per se*.

Post by Victor Roberts
With the help of a qualified lighting designer they should
have been able to find CFLs which would have provided the
same atmosphere. (Perhaps customers also need to convince
the industry to make lower CCT CFLs to match low power
incandescent lamp applications.)

It is quite likely there are many CFLs with which I have no direct
experience, but I have observed a great many different ones, and the
ones I find disagreeable outnumber those I find *tolerable* by at
least one order of magnitude, probably two. The CFLs I've encountered
that I genuinely like, I can count on one hand and still have enough
fingers left to eat a sandwich without making a mess. One is a Thorn
(now G-E) Double-D, which is one heck of a good product. The other is
a Type-A replacement glass-encased unit by Panasonic. Maddeningly slow
startup, but almost a dead ringer for a standard Type-A soft white
once it's up to temp. I suppose I could include a couple of higher-CCT
units I find agreeable for certain applications (but then I'd have to
eat my sandwich with the other hand!). I find most of the lower-CCT
CFLs emit a pinkish-yellow light I find severely annoying. The
manufacturers are just going to have to do much better than they
presently are.

DS

[Victor Roberts]

On 2 Mar 2007 17:36:30 -0800, "Daniel J. Stern"

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Victor Roberts

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
A local movie complex recently replaced
the halogen PAR38 lamps in its main lobby and hallways with CFL PARs.
What was once a
warm, friendly and visually inviting place took on a dreary, almost
lifeless quality, and [...] these are good quality lamps
with a CRI of 86. [...] a halogen lamp at the same
efficiency as a CFL would provide us with all the warmth and charm of
incandescent lighting without any of the guilt and shame.

I suspect they used the wrong color temperature and perhaps
increased the light level. Another case where bad design
has perhaps lead to making many people believe that CFLs
cannot replace incandescent lamps.

Arrgh.
VR, despite the appearance I may be creating by responding with
contrary opinion to a fair number of your posts lately, I don't have
it in for you. Nevertheless, this what you've said sounds an awful lot
like the reaction I frequently get upon announcing I don't care for
sushi. Someone's *always* gotta take on a patronising tone and say
"It's not _all_ raw fish; you probably just don't like _sashimi_".
Typically they ramble on at length about quality and freshness of
ingredients, variety of non-fish-containing types of sushi, widespread
existence of poor-quality sushi on the local market and so forth
before I interrupt them to explain that I dislike the taste and
texture of the nori (seaweed) wrappers and the granular rice used in
most all sushi. Gee...turns out I do know the difference between sushi
and sashimi, do know the difference between good and poor quality, and
really, actually, genuinely dislike sushi *per se*.

Post by Victor Roberts
With the help of a qualified lighting designer they should
have been able to find CFLs which would have provided the
same atmosphere. (Perhaps customers also need to convince
the industry to make lower CCT CFLs to match low power
incandescent lamp applications.)

It is quite likely there are many CFLs with which I have no direct
experience, but I have observed a great many different ones, and the
ones I find disagreeable outnumber those I find *tolerable* by at
least one order of magnitude, probably two. The CFLs I've encountered
that I genuinely like, I can count on one hand and still have enough
fingers left to eat a sandwich without making a mess. One is a Thorn
(now G-E) Double-D, which is one heck of a good product. The other is
a Type-A replacement glass-encased unit by Panasonic. Maddeningly slow
startup, but almost a dead ringer for a standard Type-A soft white
once it's up to temp. I suppose I could include a couple of higher-CCT
units I find agreeable for certain applications (but then I'd have to
eat my sandwich with the other hand!). I find most of the lower-CCT
CFLs emit a pinkish-yellow light I find severely annoying. The
manufacturers are just going to have to do much better than they
presently are.

When I was at the LRC we once ran a focus group using
"normal" people who were not associated with lighting
technology. We set up four table lamps (portable fixtures
to be correct) in a room. Three had CFLs of different color
temperature and one had an incandescent lamp that produced
just about the same light output. The participants had no
idea what types of lamps were in the portable fixtures.

The lamp chosen by the majority of the people was not the
incandescent. If I remember correctly, it was the 3000K
CFL.

I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Daniel J. Stern]

We set up four table lamps in a room. Three had CFLs
of different color temperature and one had an incandescent
lamp that produced just about the same light output.
The participants had no idea what types of lamps were
in the portable fixtures. The lamp chosen by the majority
of the people was not the incandescent. If I remember
correctly, it was the 3000K CFL.
I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time. Now, I am particularly attuned to qualitative
aspects of light that many people seem not to notice or mind, so I am
probably going to wind up creating outliers in the dataset of any
blind lamp preference study in which I might participate (I have never
done so, BTW). Nevertheless, my apparently particularly keen
sensitivity to light quality implies there are others -- maybe plenty
of others -- with similarly-keen sensitivity.

I would like to read the writeup of the study you mention. Having seen
a huge range of light quality from different CFLs sold as "3000K", my
initial reaction based on what you've told me of the parameters of the
study is that different results could easily be obtained with
different "3000K" CFLs.

Regards,

DS

[Ioannis]

[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Victor Roberts
I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you don't
wear glasses of any sort or if you do, you haven't learned how to use them to
your benefit :-)

Those of us who have been blessed with myopia, have two additional tools at
our disposal:

1) Eyeglasses, which show a mini copy of the spectrum of any source when one
looks around the edge of the lens,
2) Unfocused vision, which allows the eye to make a pretty safe guess on the
color temperature of the source.

Using my glasses I can almost immediately tell whether the source is a CFL vs
incandescent. The gap between the Europeum red fluorescence and the Terbium
green bands around the green Mercury line in CFL's is usually resolvable with
glasses of around 4.0-4.5 diopters, so it actually manifests as a mini gap
consisting of two identical narrow copies of the source, one red and one
green. That's an immediate giveaway for CFL's.

It never happens with incandescents, because their spectrum is continuous.

Also, using unfocused vision, one only needs to look at the source without
one's glasses to make a safe guess about its CCT. When this happens, because
the source is unfocused, the CCT can be easily infered by looking at the
unfocused light-blob, because now the brain picks up data from an extended
source instead of a compact one, which allows it to extrapolate via color
saturation.

The latter makes a good guestimeter for the CCT of all sorts of sources, from
closeby ones to distant ones. It works particularly well for distant sources
because the image of the unfocused source becomes extended and saturates the
brain with color info. The CCT can be easily infered then, and can be even
accurately calculated if a source of known CCT exists nearby.

For example, one CFL and one incandescent of equivalent luminosity one km away
can be immediately classified using tool 1 for identification and tool 2 for
the CCT. The unfocused blobs of the two sources saturate the brain with very
similar color hues.

The two tools can be used to create "mini-analyses" of hundreds of light
sources, while one is travelling, provided one is not driving (combining
driving with this process is dangerous).

The above two principles usually deliver very accurate results (at least for
me).

Using the second tool for example, one can immediately discern approximately
the color of a star seen through a telescope, provided one defocuses the image
slightly. It's the same principle.

[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Regards,
DS

[Don Klipstein]

Post by Ioannis
[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Victor Roberts
I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you don't
wear glasses of any sort or if you do, you haven't learned how to use them to
your benefit :-)
Those of us who have been blessed with myopia, have two additional tools at
1) Eyeglasses, which show a mini copy of the spectrum of any source when one
looks around the edge of the lens,
2) Unfocused vision, which allows the eye to make a pretty safe guess on the
color temperature of the source.
Using my glasses I can almost immediately tell whether the source is a CFL vs
incandescent. The gap between the Europeum red fluorescence and the Terbium
green bands around the green Mercury line in CFL's is usually resolvable with
glasses of around 4.0-4.5 diopters, so it actually manifests as a mini gap
consisting of two identical narrow copies of the source, one red and one
green. That's an immediate giveaway for CFL's.

I am hyperopic, with my left eye more so requiring +3.5 diopters. I
like glasses with larger size lenses, and I can easily see this effect
through the upper left and lower left corners of my left lens. Sometimes
I can see this effect through the outer corners of my right lens at +2.75
diopters. Lens material is polycarbonate.

There are some CFLs with color that is "adequately incandescent" (not
excessively greenish nor the more-likely excessively pinkish-purplish and
with suitable CCT), and in fixtures that hide the lamp type well enough I
can only tell by this spectral analysis trickthrough my glasses.

As for what CFLs have a higher rate of "matching incandescent color" in
my experience, I would say:

1) I largely find more favorable non-Sylvania-3000K spirals of wattage
23 watts or less and not of any special whiter color. However, I find the
CCT generally a bit on the low side, and I prefer CCT into the 3,000's
when illumination level is "nice and adequate" and the overall color is
not significantly on the purplish side. (For 3500K or anything else
other than 3000K compact fluorescents, I do not find Sylvania worse than
most others.)

2) I have sensed some trend for electronic ballasts being better than
"magnetic" ballasts. I suspect that the current waveform crests with
magnetic ballasts have reduced efficiency of producing
phosphor-stimulating UV but not a similar efficiency reduction in
producing bluish mercury light, so I suspect that explains why I find some
trend of 2700K CFLs with magnetic ballasts to be slightly more
pinkish-purplish than 2700K CFLs with magnetic ballasts.
I do want to note exceptions to this trend, a little more significantly:

a) 2700K Osram/Sylvania F13DTT from the early 1990's I find more
incandescent-like.

b) GE FLB15 and FLG15 (early 1990's, probably obsolete now) I found more
incandescent-like.

c) 3000K Sylvania CFLs with electronic ballasts I found a bit on the
purplish side.

d) Electronic-ballasted 2700K CFLs of higher wattage (generally 24 watts
or more) or of especially compact bulb size for their wattage I find likely
to be at least a little slightly purplish, although no worse than most
magnetic-ballasted 2700K CFLs.

===============================================

One more thing: If there is a room where some lamps are more-greenish
and some are more-purplish and they all have the same CCT and apparent
brightness, it appears to me that the more-greenish ones appear "uglier"
unless known to be incandescent sharing the room with CFLs. I sense that
this has made erring slightly towards pinkish-purplish more tolerable than
erring towards greenish for "warm color" fluorescents.

Any comments on this one?

==================================

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)

[TKM]

Post by Don Klipstein

Post by Ioannis
[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Victor Roberts
I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

<Another snip>

Post by Don Klipstein
===============================================
One more thing: If there is a room where some lamps are more-greenish
and some are more-purplish and they all have the same CCT and apparent
brightness, it appears to me that the more-greenish ones appear "uglier"
unless known to be incandescent sharing the room with CFLs. I sense that
this has made erring slightly towards pinkish-purplish more tolerable than
erring towards greenish for "warm color" fluorescents.
Any comments on this one?
==================================

The greenish --- purplish effect, from what I understand, has to do with the
lamp chromaticity point being above or below the black body line (BBL). If
you plot the lamp chromaticity on the CIE x, y chromaticity diagram and then
draw the line that represents the chromaticity value in Kelvins, those lamps
of a given Kelvin value above the black body line will appear greenish;
those below the line will appear purplish. Those on the line are judged
most natural (whatever that means).

So, the lamps judged most acceptable are on, or close to, the BBL. Lamps
below the line have sometimes been called "cosmetic looking" since they make
complexion colors, for example, look better than say, under incandescent.
Few like the look of lamps above the BBL as few people seem to like green
light.

Some years ago, one fluorescent lamp manufacturer hoping to win a
competitive "lumen ratings race" moved their cool white lamp chromaticity
well above the BBL. Lumens did indeed go up; but it was easy to sell
against by setting up a side-by-side color comparison. No one in any group
of those that I saw make the comparison liked the look of the greenish lamp.

Terry McGowan

[Ioannis]

"TKM" <***@no.net> wrote in message news:mkYHh.122932$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[snip]

Post by TKM
The greenish --- purplish effect, from what I understand, has to do with the
lamp chromaticity point being above or below the black body line (BBL). If
you plot the lamp chromaticity on the CIE x, y chromaticity diagram and then
draw the line that represents the chromaticity value in Kelvins, those lamps
of a given Kelvin value above the black body line will appear greenish;
those below the line will appear purplish. Those on the line are judged
most natural (whatever that means).
So, the lamps judged most acceptable are on, or close to, the BBL. Lamps
below the line have sometimes been called "cosmetic looking" since they make
complexion colors, for example, look better than say, under incandescent.
Few like the look of lamps above the BBL as few people seem to like green
light.

What about those 6,000K triphosphors? What are people's opinion on them,
aesthetically?

I have one from NARVA and it has two basic shortcomings in my opinion:

It's EXTREMELY bright to the point of being annoying, with lots of glare.

It's way too cool for confortable illumination. I'd imagine that illuminating
larger spaces with 6,000K triphosphors would present similar problems,
although it may be more acceptable in the same way large numbers of regular
daylight halophosphate fluorescents are more acceptable when used for larger
spaces. Still, I don't like the cool color and glare. Come to think of it, I
never was a fan of daylight halophosphates, either.

I don't know if these (6,000K triphosphors) fall on or outside the BBL but at
least here I haven't seen them catching up with the warmer ones. I'm afraid
this may be because of ignorance reasons, as I see them randomly replacing
warm 2,700K triphosphors, whenever the electrical contractors here feel like
ordering from a different supplier.

The ideal in my opinion are the 4,000K triphosphors on the BBL. They combine
the best of both worlds. Confort and neither too warm nor too cool. Btw, these
are not which you and Don report as "purplish".

I haven't had a chance to use one for general illumination. I only have a
cold-cathode one illuminating my computer desk and I'm absolutely happy with
it.

On the other hand I wouldn't want a 2,700K triphosphor illuminating my desk,
either. My skin under those looks like it's made of bee's wax.

[snip for brevity]

Post by TKM
Terry McGowan

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by Ioannis

Can I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you don't
wear glasses of any sort

Wrong. See Loading Image... . I'll
wait while you stop laughing and catch your breath! No, these aren't
my primary main spectacles, they're my auxiliary backup ones, a pair
of my father's old frames from the early '60s. My primary specs are
semi-rimless with high-index *glass* lenses I like a great deal better
than the previous plastic ones I've had. Then there are my sunglasses,
and _then_ there are my night-driving glasses.

Post by Ioannis
1) Eyeglasses, which show a mini copy of the spectrum of any source when one
looks around the edge of the lens,
2) Unfocused vision, which allows the eye to make a pretty safe guess on the
color temperature of the source.

Well, sure, but that'd be cheating! The object of my little game is to
try and discern CFLs from incandescents without using any visual aids,
passive or active. Those of us with monocular depth perception must
also go through all kinds of ocular monkey-motion to pass the "look
into the scope" test when renewing our driving licence, and that's
cheating too, I suppose, but in that case the test was not designed to
account for monocular depth perception.

Post by Ioannis
The two tools can be used to create "mini-analyses" of hundreds of light
sources, while one is travelling, provided one is not driving (combining
driving with this process is dangerous).

Well over 90% of the time, I need no tricks or tools to discern the
light source being used in vehicle forward illumination devices.
Tungsten, tungsten-halogen, tungsten-halogen with coloured envelope,
HID...

Regards,

DS

[Ioannis]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by Ioannis

Can I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you don't
wear glasses of any sort

Wrong. See http://u225.torque.net/LJ/070213/DanDadsSpecs.jpg . I'll
wait while you stop laughing and catch your breath!

Why? You look like a perfectly respectable nerd/professor/engineer/nuclear
scientist :-))

Now it's your turn to laugh: Here's yours truly, with his favorite
companion(s), playing his favorite game:

Loading Image...

Note the obligatory gautee (which most denizens of sci.engr.lighting have).

We should find a server to place mugshots of all the members of s.e.l. A most
valuable resource.
[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Regards,
DS

[Victor Roberts]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:26:22 +0200, "Ioannis"
<***@olympus.mons> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Ioannis
We should find a server to place mugshots of all the members of s.e.l. A most
valuable resource.

I'm setting up a new web site for CFL Q&A. see
cflfacts.com. We can set up a subdomain off there for
photos of s.e.l members :-)
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Ioannis]

Post by Victor Roberts
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:26:22 +0200, "Ioannis"
[snip]

Post by Ioannis
We should find a server to place mugshots of all the members of s.e.l. A most
valuable resource.

I'm setting up a new web site for CFL Q&A. see
cflfacts.com. We can set up a subdomain off there for
photos of s.e.l members :-)

I also have a lot of space on my server as well and can set up a subdomain for
this. The only problem is that the name of my domain is a bit strange.
"virtualcomposer2000.com" comes from a Mac music sequencer I sell, so lest the
visitors think that the members displayed therein are a weird band of
composers who use light technology and lamps for sound and music, your server
will probably be better suited :-)

Please give us a ring when you set the subdomain up, for us to start sending
photos.

Post by Victor Roberts
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com

[Ioannis]

"Daniel J. Stern" <***@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message news:***@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Well, sure, but that'd be cheating! The object of my little game is to
try and discern CFLs from incandescents without using any visual aids,
passive or active.

[snip]

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Well over 90% of the time, I need no tricks or tools to discern the
light source being used in vehicle forward illumination devices.
Tungsten, tungsten-halogen, tungsten-halogen with coloured envelope,
HID...

I find it is possible, too. After many years of looking at light sources, I
find that arc sources have a distinct "metalic" quality to their hue, which
completely distinguishes them from incandescent sources.

The different hues that Don speaks about on CFL's for example, are immediate
giveaways. There is a distinct difference between (filtered/unfiltered)
incandescent sources and arc discharges, which once observed, can be used to
guestimate the nature of the source.

But I find that the two tools I gave above are of great help in general and
speed up the process of classification. I guess to each his own :-)

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Regards,
DS

[Victor Roberts]

On 5 Mar 2007 14:45:56 -0800, "Daniel J. Stern"

Post by Daniel J. Stern

We set up four table lamps in a room. Three had CFLs
of different color temperature and one had an incandescent
lamp that produced just about the same light output.
The participants had no idea what types of lamps were
in the portable fixtures. The lamp chosen by the majority
of the people was not the incandescent. If I remember
correctly, it was the 3000K CFL.
I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time. Now, I am particularly attuned to qualitative
aspects of light that many people seem not to notice or mind, so I am
probably going to wind up creating outliers in the dataset of any
blind lamp preference study in which I might participate (I have never
done so, BTW). Nevertheless, my apparently particularly keen
sensitivity to light quality implies there are others -- maybe plenty
of others -- with similarly-keen sensitivity.
I would like to read the writeup of the study you mention. Having seen
a huge range of light quality from different CFLs sold as "3000K", my
initial reaction based on what you've told me of the parameters of the
study is that different results could easily be obtained with
different "3000K" CFLs.
Regards,
DS

The test I mentioned was a very small part of a study
conducted for a client while I was at the LRC. I don't
believe the study was ever published. I don't have access
to the final report and could not publish it without the
clients permission even if I did. However, I don't think
revealing this one small piece of the large study reveals
any proprietary information.

I believe I can also tell you this about the lamps used,
since it may shed some light on your color quality issue. In
order to get the three different CCTs, we used pin-base CFLs
mounted in special sockets in table lamps with external high
frequency ballasts. These were commercial-grade lamps from
one of the "big three" lamp manufacturers.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
BTW, I have a Philips self-ballasted ceramic metal halide lamp in my
home (non-dimmable, of course).
http://server4.pictiger.com/img/937222/other/philips-self-ballast-cmh.jp
g
This is truly an engineering marvel and you can't help but be impressed
by its technical elegance. Unfortunately, high initial cost and fairly
significant lumen depreciation make it a tough sell vis-à-vis its CFL
counterparts outside a narrow range of applications.

Could you open it and post a picture of the ballast please? :)

(Only kidding.... Don't do what I did to my first and only Genura
lamp.... "Pop!")

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by Clive Mitchell
Could you open it and post a picture of the ballast please? :)
(Only kidding.... Don't do what I did to my first and only Genura
lamp.... "Pop!")

I carefully opened the first failed Genura we had.
Managed to do it without breaking the bulb.
The electronics had gone phut (it was an early
failure -- the others lasted much longer).

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Simon Waldman
It is exciting... but bear in mind that by the time these lamps become
available, CFLs will probably be far more efficient than they are at
present :-)

Don't forget that gas lamps used to be the plain fishtail burner type
that created a flat flame like a large area candle. Gas technology was
initially overtaken by electric lamp technology and then they developed
the gas mantle and gas suddenly overtook electrical lighting technology
again. Then there's the "Aladdin lamp" powered by liquid paraffin
(kerosene) and lights a room up like an electric lamp. (Tubular wick
for high air flow and mantle)

It just seems to take a bit of incentive to drive the technology
forward.

For instance... Would current technology red LEDs be so bright if the
introduction of Gallium Nitride greens and blues hadn't set a new
intensity target?

[Simon Waldman]

Post by Victor Roberts
The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

It's worth getting one and doing a comparison, however. I use their
IR-coated MR16s all the time, but when I looked at the AR111 versions, I
found that the light from the IRC versions was a warmer colour (the
opposite of what you'd expect?!) and thus to the eye rather than the
light meter it actually looked dimmer than the non-IR version...

Post by Victor Roberts
The second technology area is selective emitters.

Sounds exciting.

[Victor Roberts]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:28:05 +0000, Simon Waldman

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Victor Roberts
The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

Thanks for the tip. Here's the data I just found for one of
their IR halogen lamps:

Model : 64447 IRC 65W 12V GY6,35 FS1
Voltage : 12 volts
Power: 65 watts
Output: 1700 lm ==> 26.2 lm/W
Life : 4000 hours

The wall-plug efficacy will drop by at least 10% due to
losses in the transformer, but considering that the life is
4000 hours this is a very respectable efficacy.

[snip]
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Ian Stirling]

Victor Roberts <***@lighting-research.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by Victor Roberts

Post by Simon Waldman
FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

Thanks for the tip. Here's the data I just found for one of
Model : 64447 IRC 65W 12V GY6,35 FS1
Voltage : 12 volts
Power: 65 watts
Output: 1700 lm ==> 26.2 lm/W
Life : 4000 hours
The wall-plug efficacy will drop by at least 10% due to
losses in the transformer, but considering that the life is
4000 hours this is a very respectable efficacy.

I have some doubts that 10% is reasonable.
For these reasons.

The bulb is a lovely integrator, it doesn't care what waveform you feed
it, or even the ripple.

So, you can do things that you can't with fluorescant tubes - for
example, completely omit the resovoir capacitor - a major source of
failure, connect the bulb directly across the switching transistor, in
series with the inductor, hooked directly up to the output of a fullwave
bridge.

No output rectifier losses, no losses in the input capacitor -
especially as it ages, no losses in the output capacitor, no losses in
snubber networks.

The major source of losses are those in the inductor, and a percent or
two in the input rectifier.

[Victor Roberts]

On 26 Feb 2007 13:05:16 GMT, Ian Stirling

Post by Ian Stirling
<snip>

Post by Victor Roberts

Post by Simon Waldman
FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.

Thanks for the tip. Here's the data I just found for one of
Model : 64447 IRC 65W 12V GY6,35 FS1
Voltage : 12 volts
Power: 65 watts
Output: 1700 lm ==> 26.2 lm/W
Life : 4000 hours
The wall-plug efficacy will drop by at least 10% due to
losses in the transformer, but considering that the life is
4000 hours this is a very respectable efficacy.

I have some doubts that 10% is reasonable.
For these reasons.
The bulb is a lovely integrator, it doesn't care what waveform you feed
it, or even the ripple.
So, you can do things that you can't with fluorescant tubes - for
example, completely omit the resovoir capacitor - a major source of
failure, connect the bulb directly across the switching transistor, in
series with the inductor, hooked directly up to the output of a fullwave
bridge.
No output rectifier losses, no losses in the input capacitor -
especially as it ages, no losses in the output capacitor, no losses in
snubber networks.
The major source of losses are those in the inductor, and a percent or
two in the input rectifier.

By "have some doubts that 10% is reasonable" I assume you
mean that the losses in the "driver" can be less than 10%. I
tend to agree. Some F-lamp ballasts already have losses in
the 5% to 10% range and this driver should be simpler:
there's no need for a high impedance current source, no need
for high starting voltage or extra windings to heat
electrodes. However, I used a conservative 10% based on
discussions I had at the recent SSL workshop regarding LED
drivers.

The DOE SSL research plan includes funds to increase the
efficacy of LED drivers to 90%, I think in five years. I
argued that this task does not require any research since
F-lamp ballasts are already there and are considerably more
complicated than an LED driver for the same reasons I
listed in the previous paragraph. LEDs should be operated
from a current-regulated source, but they do not need a high
impedance current source.

Others in the room who work on the design of LED drivers
made a number of arguments to explain why 90% is indeed a
challenge for this application. The only significant issue,
in my opinion, is the challenge of driving a low voltage DC
load. Certainly a driver designed for a single LED could
have substantial output rectifier losses, but if LEDs are
connected in series to raise the load voltage, the
additional losses related to creating DC should be
negligible. Of course, the low voltage incandescent lamp
does not require DC.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Clive Mitchell]

Others in the room who work on the design of LED drivers made a number
of arguments to explain why 90% is indeed a challenge for this
application. The only significant issue, in my opinion, is the
challenge of driving a low voltage DC load. Certainly a driver
designed for a single LED could have substantial output rectifier
losses, but if LEDs are connected in series to raise the load voltage,
the additional losses related to creating DC should be negligible. Of
course, the low voltage incandescent lamp does not require DC.

Current LED lamps that use arrays of 5mm devices tend to use a
capacitive dropper and rectifier arrangement with the only real loss
incurred by the series inrush current limiting resistor. That actually
makes the circuit quite efficient even if the current/voltage waveform
is less than desirable looking to the supply authorities.

A quick reminder of what's inside a cheap LED lamp....

Loading Image...

[Victor Roberts]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:04:12 GMT, Clive Mitchell

Post by Clive Mitchell

Others in the room who work on the design of LED drivers made a number
of arguments to explain why 90% is indeed a challenge for this
application. The only significant issue, in my opinion, is the
challenge of driving a low voltage DC load. Certainly a driver
designed for a single LED could have substantial output rectifier
losses, but if LEDs are connected in series to raise the load voltage,
the additional losses related to creating DC should be negligible. Of
course, the low voltage incandescent lamp does not require DC.

Current LED lamps that use arrays of 5mm devices tend to use a
capacitive dropper and rectifier arrangement with the only real loss
incurred by the series inrush current limiting resistor. That actually
makes the circuit quite efficient even if the current/voltage waveform
is less than desirable looking to the supply authorities.
A quick reminder of what's inside a cheap LED lamp....
http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/candle2.jpg

But ... I was referring to drivers for commercial
applications using high brightness LEDs operating at 350 ma
and above -- while maintaining high input power factor.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Clive Mitchell]

Post by Ian Stirling
No output rectifier losses, no losses in the input capacitor -
especially as it ages, no losses in the output capacitor, no losses in
snubber networks.

And near unity power factor as standard.

[Thomas Paterson]

Post by Simon Waldman

Post by Victor Roberts
The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)

FWIW, Osram in Europe do sell an IR halogen capsule under the name of
Halostar IRC. I don't have a catalogue to hand so I can't quote
efficacies, but IIRC their 35W version has approximately the output of
their standard 50W.
It's worth getting one and doing a comparison, however. I use their
IR-coated MR16s all the time, but when I looked at the AR111 versions, I
found that the light from the IRC versions was a warmer colour (the
opposite of what you'd expect?!) and thus to the eye rather than the
light meter it actually looked dimmer than the non-IR version...

Last time I checked, they were nailing 26.4lm/W on their IR capsules.

They also need to focus a little not just on doing more light with the
same power, but doing the same light with less power - the bottom end
of the IR lamps is too powerful for many needs.

T.

[Victor Roberts]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:14:49 -0500, Victor Roberts

Post by Victor Roberts
Yesterday I read a press release from GE stating that they
were working on new technology that could eventually make
incandescent lamps as efficient as CFLs. The short term
goal is 30 lm/W. I can't find a copy of that press release
at the moment, but it does raise some interesting questions.
I have not had any connection with GE incandescent lamp
technology since I retired in late 1999. There were two
publicly-known technologies they were working on at the time
that, if improved, could raise the efficacy of incandescent
lamps to the 50 to 60 lm/W range.
The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)
The second technology area is selective emitters. These can
be tungsten that has light-wavelength-sized patterns that
reduce emission of IR radiation while not reducing visible
emission, or they can be materials that are inherently
selective emitters. The prospect for these lamps was raised
by John Waymouth at LS:5 in York, UK in 1989. Research at
the old Bell Labs and more recently at GE R&D has shown that
it is possible to produce an efficacy gain through use of
patterned tungsten or alternate selective-emitting
materials. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one
has been able to develop a system that maintains this
efficacy gain for more then a few hundred hours at the
temperatures required for efficiency light generation.
This should be an interesting area to follow. Perhaps there
will be more information at Light Fair.

Here's a link to work on selective emitter R&D for
incandescent lamps. It's sparse, and rather dated, but
gives an indication of the technology. I have the LS:9
paper this link refers to but have not yet taken a new look
at it. More later.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tech/lighting/filaments.html
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[James Hooker]

Victor,

There is a third option - higher temperature emitters. There is a nice
review of this in Milan Vukcevich's book "The Science of Incandescence". He
talks about GE's research on ceramic filament materials, especially the
carbides of tantalum and hafnium. Efficacy figures of 40 lm/W for a long
life incandescent lamp are quoted. But he ends up stating such problems as
the brittleness of the filaments, and that the scale of industrial research
required to develop and manufacture such a lamp outweighed the commercial
benefits, so the project lost the interest of the GE managers. However that
work was all 15-20 years ago.

Last month I received a proposal from the authorities in California
outlining their proposals to ban certain types of incandescent lamps by
2012, accounting for the bulk of the incandescent business. Perhaps with
such prospects looming, it now becomes more interesting for GE to think
about finishing off the old projects on ceramic filament technology. After
all, the press release does specifically talk about research on new
materials. Something as simple as an HIR lamp with a step-down transformer
in the base has already been commercialised in Europe by Philips (and only
achieves at best around 20-25 lm/W).

James.

Post by Victor Roberts
Yesterday I read a press release from GE stating that they
were working on new technology that could eventually make
incandescent lamps as efficient as CFLs. The short term
goal is 30 lm/W. I can't find a copy of that press release
at the moment, but it does raise some interesting questions.
I have not had any connection with GE incandescent lamp
technology since I retired in late 1999. There were two
publicly-known technologies they were working on at the time
that, if improved, could raise the efficacy of incandescent
lamps to the 50 to 60 lm/W range.
The first is IR reflecting films, a technology that is
already in commercial use. Considering that 90% to 95% of
the energy generated by an incandescent filament is radiated
away as IR (depending upon where you define the long
wavelength end of the visible spectrum), using IR films to
raise the efficacy of incandescent lamps by a factor of 3 or
even 4 is possible. Low-voltage IR-halogen filament tubes
may already meet the initial goal of 30 lm/W. (Most
IR-halogen lamps are reflector lamps so I don't have ready
access to data on bare filament tubes, but this is what we
suspect Osram is doing with their e-Pro lamp.)
The second technology area is selective emitters. These can
be tungsten that has light-wavelength-sized patterns that
reduce emission of IR radiation while not reducing visible
emission, or they can be materials that are inherently
selective emitters. The prospect for these lamps was raised
by John Waymouth at LS:5 in York, UK in 1989. Research at
the old Bell Labs and more recently at GE R&D has shown that
it is possible to produce an efficacy gain through use of
patterned tungsten or alternate selective-emitting
materials. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one
has been able to develop a system that maintains this
efficacy gain for more then a few hundred hours at the
temperatures required for efficiency light generation.
This should be an interesting area to follow. Perhaps there
will be more information at Light Fair.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.
This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Victor,
There is a third option - higher temperature emitters. There is a nice
review of this in Milan Vukcevich's book "The Science of Incandescence". He
talks about GE's research on ceramic filament materials, especially the
carbides of tantalum and hafnium. Efficacy figures of 40 lm/W for a long
life incandescent lamp are quoted. But he ends up stating such problems as

Is this before HIR?
If so, that would actually hit the lower - mid end of CFL efficiency.

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Ian Stirling

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Victor,
There is a third option - higher temperature emitters. There is a nice
review of this in Milan Vukcevich's book "The Science of Incandescence". He
talks about GE's research on ceramic filament materials, especially the
carbides of tantalum and hafnium. Efficacy figures of 40 lm/W for a long
life incandescent lamp are quoted. But he ends up stating such problems as

Is this before HIR?
If so, that would actually hit the lower - mid end of CFL efficiency.

I suppose UV reflection too.

[Victor Roberts]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:22:33 GMT, "James Hooker"

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Victor,
There is a third option - higher temperature emitters.

Good point. I had neglected this option.
--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by James Hooker
There is a third option - higher temperature emitters.

...and some interesting modifications of the familiar old Tungsten
filament. For example, Dave Dayton did some very interesting research
some years ago, with positive results, on increasing the efficacy of
filament lamps by doping the filaments with welsbach mantle material.

Regards,

DS

[Don Klipstein]

Post by Daniel J. Stern

Post by James Hooker
There is a third option - higher temperature emitters.

...and some interesting modifications of the familiar old Tungsten
filament. For example, Dave Dayton did some very interesting research
some years ago, with positive results, on increasing the efficacy of
filament lamps by doping the filaments with welsbach mantle material.

Is there any data on such a lamp maintaining lumens and color for a
decent amount of time? How much was overall luminous efficacy increased?

If such data exists and is favorable, did the lamp run into problems for
being greenish?
Not that I would mind lamps with a "green cheese shade of lunar white"
(CCT mid or middish-upper 3000's and CIE y coordinate maybe .02 or even
maybe .025 or so higher than is on the blackbody locus for same CCT). But
I sure think my mother would, especially in a room with a mixture of such
lamps and more ordinary tungsten lamps.

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)

[Daniel J. Stern]

Post by Don Klipstein

Post by Daniel J. Stern
Dave Dayton did some very interesting research
some years ago, with positive results, on increasing the efficacy of
filament lamps by doping the filaments with welsbach mantle material.

Is there any data on such a lamp maintaining lumens and color for a
decent amount of time? How much was overall luminous efficacy increased?
If such data exists and is favorable, did the lamp run into problems for
being greenish?

Don't recall. The info is buried in my office. Give me some time and
I'll see what I can dig up. Pester me (via e-mail, dastern "at" torque
"dot" net ) if you don't hear from me within 2 weeks or so.

Regards,

DS

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Just as an update to our previous conversation, Philips will be
introducing their Halogená® Energy Advantage lamps in Q3. These lamps
produce roughly 1.5 more light, per watt, than a standard Halogená.
The 70-watt version is rated at 1,600 lumens, or just a hair under 23
lumens per watt; not too shabby, IMO.

For more information, see page 27 of their new products guide:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/catalogs/p-5635.pdf?PHPSESSID=7d975baf52845708c9da224191dd8edd

The new MasterColour Elite line of ceramic metal halide lamps is
pretty darn impressive as well. Their 70-watt T4 offers significantly
higher lumen output (7,300 lumens versus 6,400 for their standard
offering), longer service life (12,000 hours versus 9,000), a CRI of
90+ (versus 83) and better than 80 per cent lumen maintenance at end
of life (versus 60 to 70 per cent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
don't think there's anything else out there that approaches this level
of performance.

Cheers,
Paul

[James D. Hooker]

The CDM Elite is indeed a most impressive lamp. I tried out a few samples
back in May 2005 when they were first launched in Europe and what's
especially impressive is how they slowed the rate of lumen depreciation.
Ceramic MH normally suffers a very rapid lumen drop, but even at end of
life, the Elite lamps are said to deliver higher luminous flux than brand
new lamps of the standard design.

The way they seem to have boosted the efficacy and CRI was simply to
increase the wall loading. The 70W samples had PCA burners roughly the same
dimensions as standard 35W types. Interestingly the outer jackets were
gas-filled instead of the usual vacuum - presumably to solve issues of
thermal stress in the PCA.

Other lamps on the market can reproduce the CRI and efficacy of Elite, many
of the Japanese firms already achieve this with formed body PCA like the
Powerball. But I still think the real smart thing with Elite is being able
to do this while also improving lumen maintenance.

Unfortunately the Elite of 2 years ago was only on sale for a few months.
The one thing that did suffer was lamp life - which was presumably OK in the
laboratory test racks, but turned out to be only 2000 hours or so when used
in real fixtures, where the lamps burn hotter. Clearly also using a
gas-filled outer jacket means that the arc tube temperature is much more
under the influence of the individual fixture design. Probably performance
was much worse in some fixtures than others, preventing the lamp from being
sold as a true retrofit. After 2 years back in the labs, hopefully it will
do better this time around!

The Halogená® Energy Advantage also seems like a simple but smart idea. It
looks like they just took the burners from their IRC-PAR lamps and mounted
it in a regular T60 bulb. But the efficacy seems remarkably high. The
50W/120V lamp is achieving 22lm/W in a white-coated bulb, so the burner
itself will be putting out about 5% more light and must be around 23lm/W.
This compares extremely favourably with the 24lm/W of the 50W 12-volt IRC
capsules, which is surprising because the 12V lamps are generally much more
efficient than 120V.

James

Post by Paul M. Eldridge
Just as an update to our previous conversation, Philips will be
introducing their Halogená® Energy Advantage lamps in Q3. These lamps
produce roughly 1.5 more light, per watt, than a standard Halogená.
The 70-watt version is rated at 1,600 lumens, or just a hair under 23
lumens per watt; not too shabby, IMO.
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/can/ecatalog/catalogs/p-5635.pdf?PHPSESSID=7d975baf52845708c9da224191dd8edd
The new MasterColour Elite line of ceramic metal halide lamps is
pretty darn impressive as well. Their 70-watt T4 offers significantly
higher lumen output (7,300 lumens versus 6,400 for their standard
offering), longer service life (12,000 hours versus 9,000), a CRI of
90+ (versus 83) and better than 80 per cent lumen maintenance at end
of life (versus 60 to 70 per cent). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
don't think there's anything else out there that approaches this level
of performance.
Cheers,
Paul

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Hi James,

Thanks for sharing your experience with this lamp; much appreciated.
The 39 and 70-watt TCs are my workhorses, so I'm pretty anxious to try
out these new CDM Elites for myself. Vastly improved lumen
maintenance, in addition to much higher CRI, certainly raises the bar
by large measure.

I don't know if this is a mistake, but take a close look at the lumen
depreciation "curve" on page 34 of this presentation:

http://aeglicht.philips.de/be_nl/installers/pdf/frietkottour2005vl.pdf

I trust this press release confirms everything is now back on track:

http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/news/press/product_innovations/archive_2007/press_mastercolour_elite.php?main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

Best regards,
Paul

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:03:52 GMT, "James D. Hooker"

Post by James D. Hooker
The CDM Elite is indeed a most impressive lamp. I tried out a few samples
back in May 2005 when they were first launched in Europe and what's
especially impressive is how they slowed the rate of lumen depreciation.
Ceramic MH normally suffers a very rapid lumen drop, but even at end of
life, the Elite lamps are said to deliver higher luminous flux than brand
new lamps of the standard design.
The way they seem to have boosted the efficacy and CRI was simply to
increase the wall loading. The 70W samples had PCA burners roughly the same
dimensions as standard 35W types. Interestingly the outer jackets were
gas-filled instead of the usual vacuum - presumably to solve issues of
thermal stress in the PCA.
Other lamps on the market can reproduce the CRI and efficacy of Elite, many
of the Japanese firms already achieve this with formed body PCA like the
Powerball. But I still think the real smart thing with Elite is being able
to do this while also improving lumen maintenance.
Unfortunately the Elite of 2 years ago was only on sale for a few months.
The one thing that did suffer was lamp life - which was presumably OK in the
laboratory test racks, but turned out to be only 2000 hours or so when used
in real fixtures, where the lamps burn hotter. Clearly also using a
gas-filled outer jacket means that the arc tube temperature is much more
under the influence of the individual fixture design. Probably performance
was much worse in some fixtures than others, preventing the lamp from being
sold as a true retrofit. After 2 years back in the labs, hopefully it will
do better this time around!
The Halogená® Energy Advantage also seems like a simple but smart idea. It
looks like they just took the burners from their IRC-PAR lamps and mounted
it in a regular T60 bulb. But the efficacy seems remarkably high. The
50W/120V lamp is achieving 22lm/W in a white-coated bulb, so the burner
itself will be putting out about 5% more light and must be around 23lm/W.
This compares extremely favourably with the 24lm/W of the 50W 12-volt IRC
capsules, which is surprising because the 12V lamps are generally much more
efficient than 120V.
James