Fluorescents and migraines??

I agree that the UV output below 390 nm of most general lighting fluorescents is low. I was adding data to support my claim as to why it is usually low - the low pressure mercury arc does not produce much between the 253.7 and 404.7 nm features, and that mid-UVA (specifically

365-366 nm) passes through most glass and many to most fluorescent lamp phosphors (so the glass is usually not the explanation for relative lack of mid-UVA and often the phosphor is not).

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein
Loading thread data ...

In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote: |>

|>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs. |>

|>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist. |>

|>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method. | | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not | properly filtered.

No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

They already know, but it costs more money than most consumers want to pay.

I large number of circuits that have high input power factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple have been published and/or patented. However, all cost money and all dissipate energy.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

|>No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to |>properly smooth out the DC? | | They already know, but it costs more money than most | consumers want to pay. | |>Hint: it can be done without those big |>capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that |>comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to |>compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple. | | I large number of circuits that have high input power | factor, low energy storage requirements and low DC ripple | have been published and/or patented. However, all cost | money and all dissipate energy.

So just how much are we talking about to make a CFL that does not flicker? I'm looking for two pricings. One considering that non-flicker CFLs might be made mandatory and therefore would be forced to have economoy of scale and thus a lower price, and one considering that flicker CFLs remain the popular item and non-flicker CFLs remain high at least in part due to the lack of economoy of scale. I want to use these figures during the coming election to argue that our Congresspeople should dump the law they just put in and start over with a better one (but I don't know just yet what that should be). My dissatisfaction over the current one is, however, a typical example of the junk we get from Congress. There are no standards for forcing the market to have decent CFL devices. Of course for myself, I would want not only the non-flicker devices, but also ones that have a reasonably continuous spectrum (merely balancing 2 or 3 color peaks to get an average white of the desired color temperature is not good enough).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

CFL's are a good idea but should not be legislated since they are "not ready for prime time".

The CFL's on the market are largly incompatible with dimmers and electronic switches (motion detectors and timers). Basically they are not a drop in replacement for incandescent. Also the failure rate is outrageous in my experience. They tend to overheat and the electronics either shut down or simply melt. I have no doubt some fires will result from these products.

There is also a potential RF interference problem from the electronic ballast that should not be ignored. As these proliferate, so could interference to radio spectrum.

Furthermore they are another hazardous waste disposal problem. Until there is a way to dispose of them safely, they should not be forced on the market.

I have about a dozen of them in my house with four failures in two years, so I am speaking from experience.

Reply to
**THE-RFI-EMI-GUY**

The same energy has to be stored.

Reply to
krw

There are indeed performance standards for CFLs -- from Energy Star. Life, light output, color, RFI, etc. are included. See the required numbers and test procedures at::

formatting link
But flicker is not on the list and I agree that it should be. Flicker is a lighting quality factor. Not everyone is bothered by it; but those who are tend to be bothered a lot and so they end up not liking or using efficient lamps which, of course, means less energy savings. As Vic points out, flicker can easily be minimized or eliminated. The additional cost is modest.

In my view, Energy Star CFLs, because they are already positioned as consumer products that are intended to provide quality lighting, should include flicker criteria. Flicker criteria should also be part of the new Energy Star LED system requirements and I've discussed the subject with Energy Star several times now.

While it isn't surprising that there are still complaints about short lamp life --- for all lamps, not just CFLs, there's little reason to complain about or tolerate it. If Energy Star CFLs are involved, manufacturers have to provide an 800 number on the carton and respond to complaints. I've had half a dozen on test in my own house for almost 5 years now. They are on several hours daily with no failures so far.

Terry McGowan

Reply to
TKM
[snip]

I fully agree! The flicker data was obtained with the goal of persuading Energy Star that a flicker spec was necessary because CFLs with electronic ballasts _could_ flicker; something that too many people think is impossible.

BTW - the Energy Star LED spec seems to have a (perhaps unintended) flicker spec - probably because LEDs can be run in pulse mode.

Same here. Most of my CFLs have long life and I have never had a failure that overheated the lamp or ballast.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

Not if you can suck it out of the power line at low line voltage levels and boost the voltage up for the DC link.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

| Same here. Most of my CFLs have long life and I have never | had a failure that overheated the lamp or ballast.

I have 5 CFLs so far. All are outdoors. So far no failures. But in the winter in the cold, they are very dim until they warm up. That is yet another issue they need to get fixed. Given that it is a mercury vapor issue, I suspect the fix will be to switch to LEDs. But I'll still make the complaint to the government.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | alt.engineering.electrical, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: |> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> | |> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote: |> |>

|> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought |> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs. |> |>

|> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist. |> |>

|> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum |> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal |> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now |> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method. |> | |> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not |> | properly filtered. |> |> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to |> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big |> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that |> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to |> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple. | | The same energy has to be stored.

Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: | On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:00:58 -0500, krw | wrote: | |>In article , |>alt.engineering.electrical, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |>> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: |>> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |>> | |>> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote: |>> |>

|>> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought |>> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs. |>> |>

|>> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist. |>> |>

|>> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum |>> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal |>> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now |>> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method. |>> | |>> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not |>> | properly filtered. |>> |>> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to |>> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big |>> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that |>> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to |>> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple. |>

|>The same energy has to be stored. | | Not if you can suck it out of the power line at low line | voltage levels and boost the voltage up for the DC link.

Or just chop it wide at the lower voltage part of the cycle and chop it narrow at the higher voltage part of the cycle. Then at the peak, chop it all the way out for a while and move the flicker from 120 Hz to 240 Hz.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth over".

Reply to
krw

In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: | In article , | alt.engineering.electrical, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> In alt.engineering.electrical krw wrote: |> | In article , |> | alt.engineering.electrical, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: |> |> | On 9 Jan 2008 05:52:14 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> | |> |> |>In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote: |> |> |>

|> |> |>| Does the spectrum cause migranies and "skin eruptions"? I thought |> |> |>| migraines were flicker rate which should be a non-issue with CFLs. |> |> |>

|> |> |>I see CFLs that flicker. Probably very cheap ones. But they exist. |> |> |>

|> |> |>BTW, I bought an LED flashlight the other day that has a white spectrum |> |> |>that does not bother me like other LEDs and all fluorescents and metal |> |> |>halides do. And it's a rather bright and well built one. LEDs are now |> |> |>looking more like they could be my future efficient lighting method. |> |> | |> |> | Line-powered LEDs can also flicker if the DC link is not |> |> | properly filtered. |> |> |> |> No doubt. Maybe one day the lighting industry will figure out how to |> |> properly smooth out the DC? Hint: it can be done without those big |> |> capacitors that power supplies of days gone by had. One idea that |> |> comes to mind is to chop the current with a pulse width varied to |> |> compensate for the lower frequency component(s) of the ripple. |> | |> | The same energy has to be stored. |> |> Stored? What do you mean stored? That's not the only way to do it. | | I see what VR is talking about but that's going to play hell with | the PF. The EU isn't going to like that much and I'd imagine the | US won't wait forever, particularly if every light bulb on the | planet plays these games. There are two zeros per cycle to "smooth | over".

The flicker will be worse in Europe.

So basically, it comes down to producing smooth DC while keeping PF near 1. And it would seem LEDs have the same issue.

Incandescent avoids the issue by having a long term temperature filament. That is, the filament remains hot even during zero crossing. So what about a phosphor that can continue to glow at the same color? FYI, I do see the existing phosphors glowing at zero crossing, but the color is different.

Or maybe we just need DC distributed in the home. But don't get any idea that Edison was right ... he was selling pulsing DC.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

You can only use this method if you don't need a DC link voltage near the peak power line voltage.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

Well, you obviously have to store SOME energy since you can't take energy from the power line when the voltage is near a zero crossing. However, using sophisticated techniques you can significantly decrease the size of the energy storage capacitor.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

I agree that in general they should have no sffect. If you had a lot of CFLs on shared neutrals, however, additional harmonic current in an undersized neutral might be a problem.

Reply to
Ben Miller

That's interesting. What do you mean by "pulsing DC" --- unregulated? The Smithsonian historical material indicates that the steam-powered generators were speed regulated and the load was just incandescent lamps initially, of course.

Terry McGowan

Reply to
TKM

snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: [snip]

I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.

And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on the kind of phosphor used.

I am still trying to figure out what in the world you guys are talking about.

I either must be blind or something else is at play here.

The flicker of, say, a PHILIPS TL-D/55/56 35W, is /colossal/ compared to the flicker of my 2700K CFLs. As far as I am concenred, I don't perceive /any/ flicker on my CFLs.

The only time I saw my CFLs flickering was when there was a voltage drop in my appartment, because all four kitchen ones flickered simultaneously.

Are we talking about non-perceptible flicker?

[snip]

Reply to
I.N. Galidakis

This is standard in the SMPSUs used in enterprise grade computers nowadays (or you can't sell them in various parts of the world, such as Europe).

It doesn't really. You can read the strobe on the side of a record turntable under a 240V 40W 50Hz lamp.

I'm not convinced there's any problem at all with the amount of 100Hz flicker that you'll get from a CFL. You can't actually perceive flicker at 100Hz though -- the human brain is far too large to process the information fast enough. A fly can see flicker at 1000Hz though, due to a much smaller brain. This whole issue was raised by someone in an organisation who didn't understand the difference between old magnetic ballasted fluorescent tubes and modern CFLs.

There are also a number of people who complain about fluorescent lighting, but I have found this to be psychosomatic in the cases I know. If they think the lighting is fluorescent, it causes them a headache or whatever. This doesn't correlate with whether it really is fluorescent though.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.