Fluorescents and migraines??

There are special types for outdoor use so perhaps they already have. We have one over our back door step and it seems to work fine. It also has a built in light sensor so it only comes on when it gets dark.

Reply to
Stuart
Loading thread data ...

I do consider it normal for CFLs used outdoors in wintry conditions to:

A) If rated for such conditions, to take a few or several minutes to warm up. (In locations where it gets "really cold", it helps and may sometimes be necessary to enclose the CFL in some sort of housing to help accumulate heat - and allow at least several minutes for good warmup.) (In locations with temperature extremes in both directions, such as USA's "northern Great Plains" and nearby areas including adjacent areas of Canada, one may want to have outdoor fixtures with outdoor-rated CFLs having a housing that is seasonally removable so as to assist warmup only during colder times of the year.)

B) If not suitable for such conditions and if lacking an outer housing to hold in some accumulated heat, to only partially warm up and not get well-warmed-up until the weather improves.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

|> 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. |>

|> -- |> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |> | Phil Howard KA9WGN |

formatting link
|>
formatting link
| |> | (first name) at ipal.net |
formatting link
|>
formatting link
| |> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 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.

Edison's generators output DC by reversing the electrical connections every half cycle. The end result is basically the same as a full wave rectifier bridge. You get 2 pulses per cycle. I don't know what speed his generators actually ran at.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical I.N. Galidakis wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | [snip] |> 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? | | I don't think that can be easily arranged. The mechanics of fluorescence are | different from the mechanics of phosphorescence.

They can be mixed. So why not? I just don't know what colors would be an option or available.

|> FYI, I do see the existing phosphors glowing at zero |> crossing, but the color is different. | | And glow at the crossing is from phosphorescence and additionally it depends on | the kind of phosphor used.

I'm just tossing the idea out. I'm not an expert on specific kinds of phosphors.

| 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.

Maybe you have one of the good ones I've read about that don't flicker.

| 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?

The 100 Hz or 120 Hz (depending on country) blinking.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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

I've seen that. It's every so slight.

| 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.

Nice try ... to make people who admit to seeing the flicker be perceived as having a small brain. Just keep in mind that the whole brain does not get involved in the sensation of light and flicker. Possibly, different people perceive the flicker in very different ways. I know I do see the flicker. I used to think it was the cause of my headaches from such light sources. But it's not. The cause of the headaches for me turns out to be the dis-continuous spectrum. But I still see the flicker when it is there. I see the flicker is HPS lamps, but those don't give me a headache.

| 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.

Some LEDs give me the headaches. Some CRT screens do, too. But some don't. Almost all fluorescent lights do, whether they flickered or not. I have seen some incandescents that flickered. One recently was a bathroom night light that had actually burned out and in so doing, recontacted the filament in an unsupported way. It was physically/mechanically vibrating while it was also running brighter than usual due to the now shorter filament.

Again, I do see the flicker in a great many lights. I don't see any in many others, but I don't know if that is because the light is smooth or just flickering at a higher frequency. BTW, I see the flicker in _some_ car tail lights, and not in most others. I'm guessing they are regulating the current on the LEDs by a rather low frequency PWM.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

In alt.engineering.electrical Victor Roberts wrote: | On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:58:13 -0500, 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". | | 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.

My idea was to boost the flicker frequency to evade the issue. But, alas, it has the problems of bad PF and missing the peak voltage when at 2x Hz.

Back to DC.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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

Every single one I've owned, from the first PHILIPS SL-18W which used a magnetic ballast back in 1980, to cheapo chinese ones to the modern OSRAM DULUX 27W and daylight NARVA 27W, don't flicker.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

[snip]

Reply to
I.N. Galidakis

I've also asked my mother, two neighbors, my aunt and another visitor.

Nobody can detect any perceptible flicker on my 4 OSRAM DULUX 27W/2700K installed in my mother's kitchen.

Reply to
I.N. Galidakis

Yes - at least for me. I can measure significant 120 Hz on the light output of all the the CFLs in my house, but I don't see any flicker.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

With respect to 100Hz or 120 Hz modulation of the light produced by fluorescent lamps, there is far less difference between "old" magnetic ballasts and many "modern" high frequency electronic ballasts - especially those built into CFLs.

I fully agree. When I do a blind test with friends and family who say that fluorescent lamps are terrible, they have no problems with the quality of light produced.

Reply to
Victor Roberts

Thanks Vic. That was a sanity check for me. I actually unpacked my PHILIPS SL-18W, which is the oldest one I've got (1982 or thereabouts) and I asked an array of visitors if they could see any flicker and they said no.

Although the SL-18W uses a magnetic ballast, I believe that the triphosphor phosphor persistence is so great that it drowns any visible flickering.

One my newer types there isn't even a question as they use electronic ballasts.

So I was wondering what on earth was all the fuss about.

Reply to
I.N. Galidakis

Oh, that's great. You want people to go back to removable screens/storms too? There is enough crap to do around a house to get ready for winter every year without futzing with damned light fixtures. Not to mention that often outdoor lighting is only needed for a few minutes (otherwise MV or Na lights seem a better choice).

Yeah, "you don't need no steenkin' light when there are fifteen hours of darkness". Just think of how great it'll be when you have fifteen hours of daylight. Great plan to save electricity.

Reply to
krw

That's another of the problems with CFLs. You have no idea exactly what you're buying. If a poor choice is made buying an incandescent it just doesn't last as long. If a poor choice is made with a CFL you're stuck with expensive (and unreliable) crappy light. It's like chocolate...

Reply to
krw

Of course not. If they're blind how would they see flicker. ;-)

I can see perceptible flicker with most fluorescents. Depending on the circumstances I can ignore it or it can be quite bad. Under most lighting conditions, 85Hhz is where things stop diving me right up the wall. Just because *you* don't see it doesn't mean no one can. I know people who have their monitors set for 60Hz too. They can't see the difference.

Reply to
krw

I would beg to differ. I find a major difference between electronically-ballasted CFLs and magnetically ballasted ones in terms of flicker.

I look at a CFL and roll my eyes up and down, and I can usually tell what kind of ballast it has. I look at the streaks that I see as a result of rolling my eyes up and down, and I see a flicker pattern with magnetically ballasted ones. I see lack of such with CFLs with electronic ballasts (though I have not tried this with any known to have electronic ballasts with high power factor).

That I agree with! I get people to look at a lamp, and I tell them, "Can you believe it's a fluorescent"? They say, "What makes you think it is fluorescent"? I have large polycarbonate eyeglass lenses and my left one has +3.5 diopter, and the upper left corner is prismatic enough for me to see enough spectral characteristics of most lamps for me to identify what basic kind of lamp it is.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

If I buy a CFL that I don't like and it costs more than $2, I take it back and get a refund. And I say why I don't like it.

The most recent time I did that was with N:Vision 3500K spirals of a higher wattage (I forget how many watts). Reason for return: They audibly buzzed. That was a little over a year ago.

Return bad ones, and the manufacturers get feedback.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

If I was going to avoid CFL for outdoor lighting, I would use metal halide or LED. Mercury and sodium have lousy color rendering, especially sodium - makes many colored objects appear darker than "proper", so there is "less illumination".

Another factor in outdoor lighting is that human vision is often (probably usually) mesopic when outdoor lighting is needed. Scotopic/photopic ratios ("s/p ratios") have some significance here.

If I had trouble with CFLs for outdoor lighting, I would either go for metal halide (probably at 39 watts), or go for an LED solution. Tens of watts worth of LEDs that achieve good fluorescent-like overall luminous efficacy is still pretty expensive.

Meanwhile, for outdoor lighting with CFLs, I like higher color temperatures to get higher s/p ratio.

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

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Just released -

formatting link

NLPIP - Specifiers report Title: CFL Residential Downlights Date: 2008 Author(s): Conan O'Rourke, Chris Gribbin, Patricia Rizzo Number of Pages: 32

=46rom the New York Times Article -

Any Other Bright Ideas?

By JULIE SCELFO Published: January 10, 2008 WHEN Lloyd Levine, a California assemblyman, proposed last year that his state become the first in the country to ban energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs, his position was met with outrage.

Manufacturers balked at the idea of outlawing an entire technology. Libertarians objected to the idea of government dictating what kind of bulbs people could use in their homes. Even some environmentalists who supported switching to more efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs expressed reservations about requiring consumers to adopt products containing mercury, with no provisions for safe disposal.

But perhaps the most ardent dissenters were those who feared compact fluorescents would turn their home into a place with all the charm and warmth of a gas station restroom.

The uproar was such that the bill never made it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk. Meanwhile, with concern about global warming growing, other states took up the issue (and California eventually adopted new standards), moving legislators on the Senate and House energy committees to take up the lighting issue on the national level last spring.

After more than eight months of intense deliberations between Congress and bulb manufacturers, environmental groups and other parties, a law that requires light bulbs to become more energy efficient became part of the energy bill that President Bush signed into law on Dec. 19.

Over a three-year period beginning in 2012, all new bulbs will have to use 25 percent to 30 percent less energy for the same light output as today's typical incandescent bulbs. Given that the vast majority of bulbs now on the market that meet those standards are compact fluorescents, which use 70 percent less energy and last 6 to 10 times longer than incandescents, Americans may have little choice but to accept them as part of the future.

For every eager adopter, though, there are plenty of holdouts. "I want to use fluorescents," said Kath Brandon, a health care recruiter in Denver. "I try to live as green as possible. I telecommute, I recycle, I try to group all my errands together so I don't have to needlessly burn extra gas."

But in her experience, compact fluorescents make her house look "dark, cloudy and cavelike." The bulbs do not emit a "warm, comforting, inviting feeling," she said. "Your home is your sanctuary," she said. "It's where you live and recharge, and it nurtures you."

The people who design and sell lighting have not been as quick as legislators and environmentalists to embrace compact fluorescents, judging by the dearth of fixtures designed for compact fluorescents in showrooms.

"Designers hate them, and I hate them, too," said Mitchell Steinberg, the founder of Lee's Studio, a Manhattan shop that specializes in designer light fixtures. "The beauty of a light bulb is that it gives a warmth. It goes back to fire. I believe people have an innate feeling for fire. We like the setting sun. We like warm color. And these bulbs, although they're getting better, they're still not nearly as nice as a regular incandescent bulb."

To many people, giving up incandescent lighting means relinquishing some intangible, beloved quality associated with home in favor of a ghastly institutional glow. And the sheer number of choices (not only of compact fluorescent bulbs but of incandescent bulbs that claim to be energy efficient, halogens and alternatives like light-emitting diodes and induction lights), along with the weird shapes of compact fluorescents and the confusing packaging information that generally comes with them, has done little to encourage exploration.

For all the efforts of Wal-Mart to generate sales of compact fluorescents since late 2006, the bulbs still account for less than 20 percent of bulb sales.

In an attempt to determine whether energy-efficient lighting is as awful as Mr. Steinberg and others believe it to be, or whether some energy-efficient bulbs might cast an appealing light on a bedside table or a living room wall, the House & Home section asked several manufacturers to provide samples of their products. The bulbs had to work in a screw-in base and be appropriate for indoor use, and manufacturers were asked to choose models they believed were closest in light and color to traditional incandescents.

Once the bulbs were collected -- 21, including 14 compact fluorescents

-- a panel of staff members at The Times was asked to judge the quality of the lights. Identical ceramic table lamps with plain white shades were placed at the ends of a long table, one with a traditional 60- watt incandescent bulb for comparison.

THE first compact fluorescent tested, an n:vision Soft White manufactured by TCP for Home Depot, evoked a collective groan. Although some liked its brightness and whiteness and the way its outer shell hid the coil and made it look more like a traditional incandescent bulb, others dismissed it as harsh, comparing it to hospital lighting.

Sylvania's Bright White Designers Choice was even less popular. Panelists decried the color as sickly and gluelike As other compact fluorescents were tried, the complaints grew louder. G.E.'s Energy Smart Daylight 15-watt bulb looked "icky frigid blue." Sylvania's Micro-Mini evoked a rainy day. One tester said the MiniBulb from MaxLite "makes me queasy."

The judges were fascinated by the way the complexion of the editor who was changing the bulbs shifted, from tan and fit to rosy to pallid to alabaster. After seeing his face under Greenlite's 13-watt Mini, a writer barked, "Dermabrasion, right away!"

The slight buzzing emitted by many of the compact fluorescents, including G.E. Energy Smart bulbs, Sylvania's Designers Choice, and TCP's Spring Light/Soft White, irritated panelists, as did the time it took for some bulbs to light and the flickering that sometimes ensued once they did.

There were a few particularly interesting products, like the futuristic-looking eBulb from American Lighting Industry (951-328-8184), which uses induction technology, an old form of lighting sometimes used in places that are hard to reach, like tunnel ceilings. The $50 bulb uses 80 percent less power than incandescents, its maker said, and is expected to last 50,000 hours, or five times longer than many compact fluorescents, largely because of its round magnet, which helps it recycle electricity. Panelists described its color as "channeling Jules Verne" and said its light looked "O.K. for a tattoo parlor."

Some judges were enthusiastic about a dimmable compact fluorescent, the G.E. Energy Smart Dimmable, given that such bulbs have, until recently, been hard to find. But rather than moving smoothly from dark to light, as incandescents and halogens do, it functioned more like a bulb with three settings: high, low and off.

Another object of excitement was the Pharox bulb (upscalelighting.com) from Lemnis Lighting, which uses a light-emitting diode, or L.E.D. This technology, which works by illuminating a semiconductor chip, is more efficient than compact fluorescent lighting. But because L.E.D.'s emit directional rather than diffuse light, they are typically implanted in flat surfaces like walls or light panels.

Lemnis is one of a few companies that have managed to apply the technology to a screw-in bulb, but the panel complained about how green its color looked, particularly against the skin. (A photographer, echoing criticisms from others, thought the bulb cast a glow that gave a person nearby an "embalmed look.")

Not all the bulbs were met with negativity. Panelists favored the light cast by halogen bulbs (including the Daylight Plus and the BT15 from Sylvania, and G.E.'s Edison 60), which last twice as long as incandescents, requiring less energy for the production and distribution of replacements, and are therefore more efficient.

One halogen model, the Philips Halogena, was not only pleasing to the eye -- "nice, soft, golden light" one panelist said -- but efficient enough to meet the criteria of the new energy bill. Panelists also admired Sylvania's eLogic incandescent bulb (describing it as "creamy, "cozy for reading" and "nice, even, warm light"), the lone incandescent to be included because it lasts 50 percent longer, measures 30 percent smaller and uses 5 percent less energy than a standard incandescent.

Although most of the compact fluorescents were deemed unacceptable by the panel, there were several that were found to be not only acceptable but attractive. The n:vision TCP Home Soft White, for example, was deemed "a warm pleasant light." The TCP Spring Light/Soft White was "almost warmer than incandescent," one person said. And the MaxLite SpiraMax was generally liked, considered "pretty good" and "clean."

IN the course of testing one of the compact fluorescents, the white fabric lampshade was replaced with an opaque cardboard one. Instantly, the color of the light on the wall, the look of surrounding objects and the sharpness of their shadows were dramatically altered, in ways both pleasant and not.

It was a reminder, as one panelist said, that a bulb's light may be "no more important than how it's cast around the room" -- or, as another put it, that "you have to look at all the variables: it's not a one-bulb-fits-all situation."

Indeed, the right way to think about lighting, according to designers and other lighting professionals, is to go beyond the quest for a bulb that uses the least energy and to make sure you are applying the right technology.

"Lighting doesn't mean anything if you don't put the light where you need it," said Paul W. Eusterbrock, president and owner of the American branch of Holtk=F6tter, a high-design German lighting company. Warm-toned compact fluorescents may work fine for lighting a whole room, for example, but fluorescent light does not project the same way that halogen light does, so for reading, a single adjustable halogen light could be both the best and the most energy-efficient choice.

Tom Dixon, the British furniture and lighting designer, and an advocate for compact fluorescents, agreed that context is all- important, and that the ways light is cast and fixtures are arranged need to be thought through. Deployed properly, he said, energy- efficient lights can make for a beautiful interior. "What you do in the modern world is mix light qualities anyway," he said. "You can use C.F.L.'s for overall lighting, and then pick out a couple of objects with halogen spots, and do an L.E.D. wash on the wall."

He believes the main problem with compact fluorescents is simply a distaste for change. "I'm sure there were the same arguments when gas lighting replaced candles," he said. "The light's quality is very different, and it's going to take people some time to adjust to that."

The adjustment may not be as hard as some fear. Manufacturers, who are continuing to pursue better light quality for compact fluorescents and light-emitting diodes, are also racing to develop incandescents and halogens that will meet the new national standards. One day soon there may be a much wider range of energy-efficient bulbs to choose from.

Meanwhile, another European designer, Richard Sapper, may be a useful test case for Mr. Dixon's theory of adaptability. An older man -- 75 to Mr. Dixon's 48 -- he describes himself as something of a lighting traditionalist, even if he did pioneer the home halogen lamp with his

1972 Tizio, and design an elegant L.E.D. fixture, the Halley, 33 years later.

He has definite ideas about light in general -- for example that "northern light on a day without sun is the only kind that renders color naturally" -- and about fluorescent light in particular: "Another problem, besides its color," he said, "is that it's always diffuse, whereas incandescent light is coming from a point. And coming from a point it has somehow the quality of sun."

So it's perhaps surprising that at his home in Milan, apart from a few halogens on the living room ceiling and several of his own fixtures scattered about the house, all the bulbs have long since been replaced with compact fluorescents. "My wife is very aware of environmental problems," he explained, and "she doesn't give me a choice."

He wasn't enthusiastic at first. Even now, he said, "I prefer traditional incandescent light. But you get used to it."

Reply to
LAI

The are problems with the mesopic notion. One is that there is no way to tell when the eye is mesopic or how far into the mesopic it has gone. Plus the eye/brain combination is clever enough not to adapt the whole eye --- just portions of it. That makes the idea very hard to apply from a lighting standpoint. What happens, for example, as your eye roams around at night and sees a lighted pathway at very low luminance and then moves to view a bright luminaire. If the eye, or part of it, was mesopic, it instantly changes.

I can see how a stroll in an open meadow in moonlight with no electric lighting nearby can allow adaptation to mesopic or scotopic vision; but I don't see how that can happen in any setting with a continuous stream of bright and dark areas in your visual field such as a motorist would experience while driving a traffic-filled lighted street with headlights on.

My view at this point is that the higher blue content of so-called high s/p ratio lighting simply excites the rods in the eye to give you the impression of more brightness (or glare) without actually improving vision which primarily uses the retinal cones. The work that the Lighting Research Center (and others) are doing to set up a system of mesopic photometry is helping to answer those questions.

Terry McGowan

Reply to
TKM

In alt.engineering.electrical I.N. Galidakis wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | [snip] | |>> 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. |>

|> Maybe you have one of the good ones I've read about that don't |> flicker. | | Every single one I've owned, from the first PHILIPS SL-18W which used a magnetic | ballast back in 1980, to cheapo chinese ones to the modern OSRAM DULUX 27W and | daylight NARVA 27W, don't flicker.

Are we talking about different people's ability to see, or not see, flicker?

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.