Talk:Compact fluorescent lamp

Case to Ban CFL's

These are barely if any more energy efficient that incandescent bulbs if the whole life time from mfg to disposal is combined with the power factor issue, which experts (on local tv station) state cancel out the gain. Further, it is well known that CFL's do not keep up to the initial advertised rating. I have measured this on a 10 EUR top of the line 16w megaman unit, which claimed to correspond to 75w incandescent in the light output. After 6 months of use it still uses 16w but light output is closer to 40w incandescent than 75w. So you get ~25w reduction in nominal use, but factor in the things mentioned above, and the carbon emission cost of the thing due to the generators having to work harder because of the power quality issue will cancel out the carbon saving and leave us with the dozens of disadvantages listed in the article.

Power utility experts also said that because of increase in CFL use, household energy bill will be in future calculated differently to account for the power factor losses at the network, so you end up buying 10-100x more expensive lamps (at the moment) and the electricity bill will be similar to if you were using incandescent lamp after.

The disadvantages listed outweigh the advantages by a mile. And I don't think all the disadvantages are even listed, for example someone who had poor light vision told that they can't see anymore in places that have switced to CFL as the light level dropped that much. (healthy eyes can adapt better to the lower light level given time and the drop may not seem so large) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.178.205 (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed. Power factor has been discussed repeatedly; most lighting has been non-incandescent for the last half century so it's not a big stretch to convert the remaining residential lighting. TV news is only good for keeping track of popular hairstyles and is notoriously inaccurate if it takes more than 15 seconds to explain an issue. EPA only gives the "Energy Star" rating to lamps that maintain light output. Generators emit less CO2 if they are producing one-third or one-quarter the amount of power that incandescent lamps would use. Utilities don't measure residential power factor because they don't care about it; it's only worthwhile to meter customers for power factor for large industrial or commercial buildings. If you use less electrical energy for lighting, your electical bill will be lower. I swapped out 360 watts of incandescents with 65 W of CFLs in my guest bathrooms and I find the light to be much improved (and I've had cataract surgery and two detached retinas). Again, I don't understand the fear; objections to use of CFLs would be more plausible if there was some science behind them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect external reference

Citation 39 does not link anywhere (energystar.custhelp.com). It should be corrected or removed.

Voltage of CFL

• what is the ignition voltage for a CFL?
• how much voltage is required for the high frequency ac current?
• what voltage for the filament ?--Edukeralam (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lamp sizes

The picture would have been a little more honest if it had shown a 300 watt mogul-base incandescent next to the 85 watt CFL, and a 13-watt mini spiral next to the 60 watt incandescent. Might as well show a 4 foot long 40 watt tube, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Redundant repetition of repeated things that are unnecessary to say again

Do we actually need the section "Operation"? A CFL is just another fluorescent lamp and that article explains in mind-numbing tedious detail how the bulb works. How much of the Wikipedia do we need to recap in this article? Next we'll be explaining how the electricity gets to the bulb and how the human eye works...let's nip this in the bud. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Trimmed more basic theory from /Components/ but put link to fluorescents to say that's where info is. This is only indirectly stated once in the lead section as far as I can see, saying CFLs are a kind of flurescent lamp. Trev M  ~  14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Brightness equivalent

Isn't it true that in reality, although the color of light from the CFL is [anemic] white, instead of the cozy yellow we are all used to, the reality is that even a higher up 42-watt CFL bulb isn't nearly as bright as a lowly 60-watt normal bulb (not to mention the 100- or 150-watt)?

This is the beauty of socialism - the governemnt FORCES us to switch, without asking what we want or leaving us our choices! Isn't it uber-hypocrytical to ban normal light bulbs, when in any metropolis there are millions upon millions of advertisement and neon lights burning 24 hours a day!

I want my bright, good old 100 watt and 150 watt incandescent light bulbs back!! --KpoT (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1. 42-watt CFL bulb isn't nearly as bright as a lowly 60-watt normal bulb' Not true. Check out lumens.
2. No one's forcing you to do anything. Just search and buy them on line if you really want them. Or fit low-voltage halogen lamps and transformers. The legislation is for those who don't really care and can't be bothered to do anything else.
3. This is not a forum about lighting but a place for discussing improvements to the article.

Trev M  ~  13:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

instead of the cozy yellow we are all used to

More like piss yellow. And I'm used to daylight, not incandescent. Totsugeki (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Brightness equivalency and comfort of light spectrum are not hand-in-hand, Comparing lumens is the best we can do now, but let's remember, best lumens come from monochromatic green light, which is by no means most comfortable to human eye.

What is really wrong in the article, is the bias towards official propaganda confusing people by calling electric energy just energy, Partial optimisation is one of the biggest dangers taught to engineers right after weaning off their diapers, but even higher studies in politics or economics do not seem to pay attention on wasting money in so-called savings. Example of this attitude is the table "Electrical power equivalents for differing lamps", giving impression that 60 W incandescent could be replaced by 9 W CFL with same light expectancy.

And last, but not least, write me, I can deliver you just about any incandescent lamp up to 150W with E27 base, even bigger with bigger E-bases ;-) They are just great for heating, and you get the light for free ;-) Of course, we will have to call it something else than light bulb, otherwise I could be sentenced for selling illegal dr... -- uups, -- goods. Seikku Kaita (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Heating/Cooling

Can we either remove this section or explain it better?

Heat from lightbulbs contributing to heating the whole house is not cost-effective or efficient in any way. Firstly, electric heating is both more costly and more carbon-intensive than heat from most other sources, including natural gas. Secondly, the heat that is emitted from incandescent bulbs is not in the right place; it is concentrated around the bulb itself, heating the ceiling and the air above people's heads, neither of which is particularly useful.

I will remove in the near future if no objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlavisbad (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, don't just remove it. Try to improve it. It has been through many iterations, and was considerably longer in the past with all the points you make clearly laid out. (I can find a version link for this if you are interested). Someone came along and said that that was too much detail and cut it right down. Now you say it not detailed enough and so you want to remove it altogether. If you do, someone will bring it all up again and it will have to be rewritten to clear up their confusions. One point to note is that many people do use electric heating these days, so that can't be discounted too. --Nigelj (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we in the name of sweet reason please get *citations* before whaling on this part of the article? Sounds like OR to me; heat is heat, and if you keep the layer of air next to the ceiling warm, is it not possible that this reduces heat transfer from every other layer below it? But *I* don't have a citation for this and we all agree Wikipedia doesn't work on common sense (see above). --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

added more info on this. The section as it read was not very clear, it implied there was always a positive impact on energy use even when that has shown to be false were colder climates and older heating technologies exist (such as oil furnaces). Info added is also well cited. 207.81.141.208 (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone find the BC hydro study? Journalists are notoriously innumerate, though I like to think the CBC can get the facts right. It sounds peculiar to me; if you're relying on electric lights for a significant fraction of your home heating because it's cheaper than oil, why aren't you heating your home entirely with electricity? Most places *burn* fossil fuels to *make* electricity at no better than 50% efficiency, whereas burning fuel in your home heating system is at least 60% efficient; true, an electrical utility pays less per million BTU of coal than the householder pays per million BTU of natural gas. BC Hydro must be considering that most of their electricity comes from hydroelectric power, whereas home heating is natural gas. 45000 tons per year spread over a couple million houses isn't a lot, though, and I'd sure like to see the BC Hydro study. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Many Canadian's still reply on oil burning home heating. Additionally, many homes are equiped with older technology natural gas furnaces which, depending on age, maintenance and installation (or quality there of) can render a less than 60% efficiency. I'll see if I can dig up the original study for your review. 206.108.31.34 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Every 3rd house in Finland is heated with either direct or charging electric heating. Many of these houses have bedrooms upstairs, especially all the older houses, and any bigger houses. The climate is such that at leat 10 months of the year you use some energy to heating. During the one or two months when you do not need heating, sunset occurs after 10PM, if at all. Any of the claims against using classic bulbs downstairs are just void. Not to mention, every 3rd consumed kWh of electricity in Finland is free of CO2 or quick silver.

Comment on "heat is heat, and if you keep the layer of air next to the ceiling warm, is it not possible that this reduces heat transfer from every other layer below it?" :

Question is not about where the heath is produced, but where does it go? It cannot just vanish, it must go somewhere. If it cannot go through the ceiling, it must come down. Ever heard about heath radiators in ceiling? This warm ceiling talk reminds me about Good Ol' English Central Heating, where heaters are in the middle of the house (since it is against the English reason to warm the cold air by the windows) and heath pipes go outside the buiding (so they are easy to melt when, not if, they freeze).

There is one claim I'd challenge: CFLs could unload cooling AND save energy in 'energy efficiency savings' -- first you save the energy by not heating, then you save the same energy again by not cooling it. Doesn't this sound like counting the same energy twice?

These thoughts are here to calm down the heath of blood for those willing to bias the article towards the advert of Energy Saving Lamps. Seikku Kaita (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

X ray picture value

Undeniable high marks for coolness, but is it of value to the article reader? You have to zoom in quite carefully to see the broken filament, and I suspect anyone who knows where to look for the filaments anyway is not going to learn anything from the X-ray that wouldn't be better demonstrated by visible light photographs instead. Keep or remove? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, wouldn't the broken filament be hidden by the opaque phosphor coating inside the tube? The X-ray view also shows components on the ballast board packed into the base. Component count correlates with reliability. Appropriately placed and worth keeping, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but don't most things stop working when they are broken? And the component count is better illustrated by the visible-light photos of the ballast. Plus, I had to zoom in about 25X to see the breamk in the filament and I knew where to look. If I put my non-expert glasses on, all I see in the X-ray is shadowy grey squares, not components...but the visible light pictures I can relate to the insid of a TV or other consumer electronics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of the X-ray view is that it shows everything in situ instead of disassembled and spread out. It gives a visual sense of the level of complexity involved. I see the filament break as a side issue to that. As soon as the complete image was on screen, there it was plain to see— didn't seem like excessive zoom was needed. I don't see the image as detracting from the article; is there a reason to get rid of it? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

energy saving light ? Says Who?

The first sentence indicates that the term "energy saving light" is specific to CFL's which I challenge. I have searched extensively and only found manufacturers using this term to help with driving sales and overall image of CFL's. I believe this should be removed until it can be well cited from 3rd party sources that CFL's are in fact "also known as". 206.108.31.35 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did your extensive search include 15 seconds with Google Books? There were 400+ hits there when I looked, many of which refer to CFLs. I don't think you need to remove the phrase. --Wtshymanski (talk)

The phrase I often hear (and use) (in the UK) is 'low-energy light bulbs'. That gets lots of Google hits too. I wonder if these two have become more common in everyday use than some of the others we mention in the top sentence, especially 'compact fluorescent light' and 'compact fluorescent tube'. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I tend to agree that CFL are no "energy saving light". They just use less energy input for the same amount of light output compared to incandescent light bulbs. Smells salespitch all the way. Comparision examples here. Electron9 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be mostly a marketing term used by manufacturers and a few enviro zealots. The term is widespread but is not exclusive to CFLs and even within google books there looks to be no specific correlation to CFL with the term being applied to LED and other technologies. It stinks of bias IMO. 207.81.141.208 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Says who? Says lots of people, but the question should be Why? Salesmen...

I have a constructive suggestion: replace the "or" before the "energy saving light" with "often advertised as". The British are once again better out with this, not claiming general saving of energy. The CFL itself saves no energy, it consumes more energy to make one, it makes comparative amount of light with less electric energy, or it makes more light with same amount of electric energy, compared to a traditional lamp. It may even cause additional energy consumption under certain conditions, but the CFL itself does not save energy. Anyone telling me CFL is the energy saving lamp goes to categories like "speed kills" and "http://www.dhmo.org/".

If just the people would say "The lamp that saves electric energy" or "electricity saving lamp" I would not complain that much.

"Save Electricity, burn the Rainforests Instead!" Seikku Kaita (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

More archiving

Moved some threads that haven't been active in months to Archive 4. If you're curious about something covered or not covered in this article, check out the talk page archives and see what's gone before. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Durablility new section

CFL bulbs are more durable against shaking and , similar to rough service bulbs found in trouble lights.

This could be the correct place for any statistics about actual burning hours vs promised life of CFLs, or information about decay due to cold or hot environment. Seikku Kaita (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically we need to know about the maintenance factor of a CFL so that we can get an idea of the actual life rather than the one written on the lamps while its sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.54.142 (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Recycling versus Broken Lamps

The subsection of this page entitled Broken and discarded lamps discusses the problems involved with broken lamps. It mentions that instructions for dealing with this problem are not always printed on the lamp packaging. It discusses the mercury problems when a lamp is broken, and how long these problems remain if the fragments are in a carpet. It talks about the meaning of "chronic exposure" to mercury.

This subsection began with a Main tag that stated: Main article:Fluorescent lamp recycling

However, the Fluorescent lamp recycling article does not address any of these issues. In this entire article, the only reference to broken bulbs in a household is the single sentence "A broken fluorescent tube will release its mercury content." It says nothing about the safety issue, the carpet issue, how long the mercury remains, etc.

Therefore it is wrong to tell the reader that the "main article" about Broken and discarded lamps is Fluorescent lamp recycling. That's why I removed the tag. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than removing it, it is relevant, so why not change it from 'Main' to 'See also'? --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! I feel silly for not thinking of that. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid CFL

Web searching only turns up the GE press release and the usual sage journalistic commentary on said press release. There's no product yet. Suggest we hold off adding it to the article at least till it hits store shelves. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wtshymanski is right. Even though i have no idea how can we confirm this, we must mention that product didnt hit stores yet(?). GE's product also added. There are at least actual photos of that product, where wikipedians can refer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.42.139 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are other hybrids than the yet-to-come GE. In Finland, you can find for example hybrids of CFL with LED already. This, of course, is a solution to a different problem than the GE will-be hybrid, but it is a hybrid, anyway. And this is a true electricity saver hybrid, LED is a real low power light source. Seikku Kaita (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Power factor of CFLs and impact on supply-side power generation

Despite citing numerous neutral, third-party, non-commercial scientific sources from Europe, Canada and the U.S., all edits mentioning the CFL power factor debate have been removed post-haste. The issue of low power factor CFLs is much more relevant to the anti-CFL argument than the mercury issue (which tends to be over-blown). I strongly encourage open and honest debate about the power factor issue, and question which sources might pass your personal litmus test for inclusion in the article. Prguy72 (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are about 400 editors with two or more contributions to this article. I must have missed the numerous citations, all I found was a worthless blog - so I pulled the whole paragraph. The power factor item comes up every time a new editor discovers this article - take a look at the archives, this has been discussed at length. It would be nice to have a valid, accessible, authoritative, reliable citation in case anything new has come up since 1994 which is when most of the interest at IEEE publications seems to have petered out in assessing the "impact" of CFL power factor on the distribution system. How many megawatts of *regular* flurorescents and halide lamps and other discharge lamps do you suppose are already being supported by the distribution system? This isn't the forum for debate...there's blogs for that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the power factor of every other piece of electronic equipment that runs internally on something other than mains AC and so has a PSU - computers, TVs, satellite and TV set-top receivers, every kind of battery charger, stereos, hi-fi. Everything that has an electric motor in it - electric drills, saws, lawnmowers, food mixers, pumps, fans... etc etc. If people wanted to campaign against the use of all of these things, then they would have some credibility. But then they would lose it again as soon as someone did the sums. --Nigelj (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of the world's electric lumens have been provided by some kind of discharge lighting since, oh, about 1950 or so. And what the carbon-filament brigade never explains to me is why replacing X MW of hotwires with X/3 MW of CFLs at 0.5 pf, reducing current by 33%, is somehow going to overload the system. Aside from kettles, frying pans, and the like, what household appliances actually still have 1.0 pf? And people who natter about the 4x-5x inrush of CFLs seem unfamiliar with the 15x inrush of tungsten filaments - you have to get specially rated contactors to switch tungsten lighting loads. Again, a citation to a paper that describes the changing nature of domestic loads would be of interest, but is beside the point in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Street lights, fluorescent tubes in factories, warehouses, supermarkets etc. Yet it is a surprisingly consistent line of attack here. Someone somewhere must be driving it: publishing stuff that most people don't understand about W vs VA, pf, phase angle etc and blowing it out of proportion specifically against CFLs. It's mostly conspiracy-theory internet and blog noise, but someone somewhere is knowingly feeding it, I'm sure. Some actual published figures from the power industry would be interesting, but as usual this isn't them. --Nigelj (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Minions of the carbon filament cartel? Those bamboo growers are powerful and ruthless and will stop at nothing in their attempts to regain control of the light-bulb industry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

They've got very sharp machetes and they know how to use them. We'd better say no more, if we want to sip our cocktails safely after sunset (on our CFL-lit verandahs), I think. --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mercury. Again.

EPA used the average emission of mercury per kwh in the US, not just coal plants, which would be higher. Let's have some perspective on quoting non-bulb-related studies of mercury poisioning till we hear of some authority banning or regulating CFLs because of it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Engineering, 5th edition,Wiley 2003 978-0-471-41813-9 says that an acceptable daily intake of 0.03 mg of mercury for a 70 kg adult male human would provide a safety factor of 10 over the recommended levels of metallic mercury in food and water. Hmmm. 5 milligrams of mercury divided by 0.03 mg/day is 166 days. Does this mean you could eat two CFL bulbs a year and still stay below the toxic threshold? Probably not, unless CFLs were the only source of mercury in your diet. Makes you think, though. Oh, and the book says that the "half life" of mercury in humans is about 74 days. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Qualified. Pregnant females and children shouldn't eat so much mercury. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The graph shows 14% of mercury in the bulbs escaping to the environment right? Where does the other 86% go? This whole section seems sketchy, while trying to tell us that CFL effectively reduce mercury release into the environment. How much mercury is left at he bulb plant, and how much escapes into the environment from there? The EPA put out data for the US, but if bulbs are made overseas what about the mercury back at the factory and its effect on the environment. Point is, too many question left unanswered to prove a net positive effect on the environment by the use of CFL. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to a citation of a reliable criticism of the EPA numbers. The reference says that the mercury that doesn't escape to the air stays in the landfill site. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Frequently switched lights

I see little mention of the problem of frequently switched lights-- it appears to be discussed only with regard to cold cathode fluorescent lamps, where it is noted that CCFLs stand up to frequent switching better than conventional CFLs, which may have their life-spans substantially reduced by frequent switching. I have also heard that, during startup, CFLs actually draw more power than an incandescent bulb of the same light output.

This leaves me wondering, when replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL in a location where the light is typically on for a short time (bathrooms, closets, hallways) whether it is possible that energy will be wasted, rather than saved. Do we need to pay more attention to this issue, and recommend that CCFLs or even incandescent bulbs be used in such locations? Does anyone know how short a typical use has to be before a non-CFL should be considered? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not energy so much as lamp life; every fluorescent lamp start is a glow discharge that sputters a little active material off the cathodes. I haven't seen any documentation on this. The life problem is mentioned in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

so irresponsible to advocate and encourage mercury containing light bulbs

The mercury content is rarely, if ever, disclosed on the packaging of these types of bulbs,and that is outrageous. They really should have a big giant mercury warning sticker on them in fact. The fact that it doesnt is very curious indeed.Thats all the world needs now is a new source of rampant mercury poisoning. Could it be industries like coal burning power plants and others, are trying to push these bulbs so they can easily SELL their waste products(e.g. their mercury)?! The article needs to discuss other alternatives to cfl bulbs, especially LED lamps/bulbs, which are safer and as effective(and almost unbreakable.)

Also there needs to be an update about how California is taking steps to ban standard light bulbs in favor of these bulbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See above. The amount of mercury in a CFL is less than in the average set of dental fillings. Don't know what the bulb packages say in your part of the world (the world is a very big place), but on packages in my local stores there's an "Hg" symbol, and a warning that the State of California knows there's mercury in them thar bulbs. The mercury from coal plants isn't shipped out in bottles, but instead is vaporized throughout the local biosphere. And if every fluorescent, HID, halide and sodium lamp in North America all broke in the next 15 minutes, that's still less total mercury emission than ONE smelter at Flin Flon used to emit every year. You want to deal with conspiracies against our health, rip into cheeseburgers or tobacco, which are killing more people than mercury. Why all the fear? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Average amount of mercury in human bodies at cremation in UK is 3g, mostly from mercury amalgam fillings (although much of this has migrated out of the fillings and resets harmlessly in other parts of the body). Average amount of mercury in a 60W equivalent CFL is down to 3mg nowadays. Thus you (on average) have the same amount of mercury in your body as there is in 1000 CFLs. Hope that puts things into perspective.

81.187.162.109 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Early burnouts?

I've never had trouble with CFLs, but I've heard people say that their's have burned out early. There's a long discussion over at this "Bad Light Bulbs" blog post. One anonymous commenter hypothesizes that this could be due to spikes from the utility. Has there been much research into this? That is, has there been testing of a wide variety of brands and under a wide variety of real-world conditions rather than solely laboratory testing? I looked around but couldn't find much - Google Scholar shows an article from O'Rourke & Figueiro 2001 (Long-term performance of screwbase compact fluorescent lamps) which says at the end of the discussion section:

Post-mortem analyses were conducted to determine whether the lamp or the ballast had caused the system failure. After the system had failed, the test lamp was connected to a new ballast and the test ballast was connected with a new lamp. This procedure allowed determination of the failed component. In general, early system failures were caused by ballast failures. The majority of the system failures, however, were due to lamp failure.

The above is a preprint, and this was apparently published in the Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society (website doesn't go back to 2001). Google Scholar shows 7 articles citing O'Rourke & Figueiro, but it's not clear that they add much to the question. II | (t - c) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

An anecdote: it happens. I use a clip-on bell reflector lamp as a worklight over the stationary belt sander. A few days ago the coiled CFL failed promptly when I switched on the sander and the dust-collecting shop-vac. Naturally all three units are supplied by the same 120V 15A breaker, so the lamp sees whatever induction spikes (or commutator spikes, in the case of the shop-vac) those motors put out. Came here to see if such a thing was known, and now this... thanks for bringing it up. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is covered to some extent at Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan, although it doesn't really talk about ballast failures. If you feel up for it, maybe including more would be nice - I think you might have more understanding of this than myself. II | (t - c) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Peter Braun" at "Alab"

I have searched for any original publication by a "Peter Braun" at a research center in Berlin called "Alab" and have only found the one Telegraph article citing Braun. Who is he and what are his qualifications? What is "Alab?" I have "a lab" in my basement, but my "research" should not be cited for extreme claims in Wikipedia articles. Has this research been published anywhere? This alarmist article in the Telegraph has been quoted many times by websites, but at present falls far short of verifiability. We do not make scientific claims based only on "research" cited only in a mass circulation newspaper. If Braun's research gets published, this would deserve another look. For now, it does not belong in the article. Edison (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The PCB of the retrofit CFL

The details of the PCB is required as to how the ballast of the CFL works along with its circuit diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.10.106 (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 EPA vs 2008 EPA

Now EPA is saying 1.6 and 5.5 mg instead of 1.8 and 5.8 mg, still 3:1 ratio. Does anynoe think the bar chart needs updating for a visually unimportant difference? Does anyone have a reference saying EPA has missed the boat here and that CFLs in the wild on average only last 1/3 as long as EPA believes? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Alleged availability of recycling facilities

The last sentence of the second paragraph says "in the US many home improvement stores accept CFLs for recycling". Also, the last sentence of the first paragraph of subsection 7.3.2 (Broken and discarded lamps) says "In the U.S., The Home Depot is the first retailer to make CFL recycling options widely available". In the last two years, I have visited nine home improvement stores — four Home Depot, two Lowe's, and three mom-and-pops — and not one of them recycles CFLs. Government lists of participating recyclers near me have also completely disappointed me. I still have a few CFLs at (premature)-end-of-life that I want to recycle. I haven't yet found any research about the true participation of alleged recyclers; has anyone else done so? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, my local Rona and Home Depot both have bulb bins (though they won't take my old 4 foot tubes). We need a citation saying how many bulb bins are actually available. Did you ask your retailers why they don't have a bulb bin? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

US centric

This article is severely lacking in data concerning contries other than the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.155.85 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about an honest graph, instead of a biased advocacy graph ?

This is the Wikipedia entry for "Compact fluorescent lamp", not some sales pitch for CFL's (or is it?) Specifically, a bar graph labeled: "CFL" vs. "Incandescent", with a title of "Mercury Emissions by Light Source" should show the emissions comparison between the "CFL" and the "Incandescent" BULBS THEMSELVES, not the estimated emissions of some power plant a hundred miles away, under the assumption that everyone switches over, etc. etc. etc. This is ridiculous advocacy here. It's far from encyclopedic. Either change the TITLE of the graph to "the case for CFLs based on POWERPLANT emissions" or show an honest graph that doesn't put the powerplant qualifier in the fine print. An actual honest bar graph showing "Mercury Emissions by LIGHT SOURCE" in the CFL entry should show a big fat ZERO next to Incandescent. And if we are including emissions from everywhere, lets include the emissions from the CFL bulb factories and their suppliers too. 71.190.3.50 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with the EPA. If you can find a published graph, cite it. Yeah, everyone knows the bulb doesn't give off mercury while its intact. Only a Wikieditor would not get that point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong incentive from government and environmental organizations to make people believe that CFL is a better alternative than incandescent light bulbs. Despite being a mercury hazard, having sloppy tolerances and quality in the electronic driver, producing potentially long term harmful blue-UV content etc.. Claims on mercury reduction only works when it reduces coal usage and when counting the ecosystem as a whole, lamp life claims only hold true when electronics will hold as long as the lamp itself, and other health problems won't increase the total cost.Electron9 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the point. As long as cheeseburgers are legal, there are much bigger health and environmental threats out there than CFL lamps. (A study comparing the incremental impacts of a single cheesburger vs a single CFL would be interesting.) If all of that could be documented from reliable sources, it would be an interesting comparison for the article. Is there any documentation? Studies? Or have the government mind-control lasers gotten to all of the researchers? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Junkfood impact the health of those that eat it. Not other people. The relevance of CFL vs burger-poisoning is irrelevant to the scope. CFL-mercury vs coal fired mercury isn't. And yeah some governments push the dogma that CFL is all good. They are useful in some applications, in others that are a long term hazard. Electron9 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you generalize, you can consider impacts aside from that on the consumer. Monoculture of grains, industrial agriculture, hormone-injected feeder lots contaminating water tables, CO2 emitted in hauling beef thousands of miles to the consumer, etc. etc. - but without any numbers, it's all bar-room gossip. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Greenhouse Gas emissions

An edit pertaining to GHG emissions effects of CFLs was recently undone. This article is grossly misleading in that it suggests that burning natural gas for heat generates more GHG emissions than allowing incandescent lights to provide heat. Even ignoring the issue of transmission and generation inefficiency, the simple question that determines whether this is true is this: If I save one watt-hour of electrical power consumption, what energy source does that watt-hour come from? In most cases in North America this still ends up being hydrocarbon-based (coal, oil, or best-case, gas) generation. The only valid claim at that point is that local emissions, i.e. within a particular city, can be reduced. However, statements along the lines of "total greenhouse gas emissions [being reduced]" are grossly incorrect. Without sufficient research (I haven't found any cited here), the safe, valid claim to make is something along the lines of "while incandescent lights themselves produce zero GHG emissions when heating a home, and natural gas heat does, whether a net increase or decrease of GHG emissions occurs depends upon the source of the increased electrical power demanded by the incandescent light". Clearly, in the case of nuclear power, we have a net win. In other cases the picture is much more complex, and one cannot draw conclusion that overlook that fact. --Indigophox (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you want heat, burn natural gas in the local furnace, not at a power plant; even the best combined-cycle natural-gas-fired plant burns 2 units of gas energy for 1 unit delivered to the customer. Heating with hydro or nuclear electricity only reduces overall CO2 emissions if there's no other market for the hydropower or nuclear power; our local utility tells us to plug in CFLs so North Dakota doesn't have to burn so much coal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: Generally speaking, utilities try to use all of their nuclear and hydro capacity FIRST because it's the cleanest (and hydro, once the capacity there, is the cheapest). So, consume an extra kWh to generate heat with a less efficient power, and in most cases 100% of that (or close) is going to be coal, or best-case, gas, which as you've pointed out is still substantially less efficient than simply extracting energy from the gas in a 95-97% efficient furnace. However, someone felt the need to undo an edit pointing out the fact that, despite an IEEE journal article cited there, the net GHG emission impact of replacing a CFL with an incandescent bulb, during heating season, is still to increase GHG emissions simply because of where that extra generation capacity is drawn from. --Indigophox (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Using CFLs in direct current (DC) lighting circuits

We use standard 23W (100W replacement) CFLs in our emergency lighting system at work, which is a DC circuit. Are there differences between AC and DC lamps?

Cool - can you point us at a citation for this? What voltage is the DC system? Does it work with any brand of CFL? SOme types I've seen have a voltage doubler stage as input, meaning that they won't work on 125 VDC. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

CFLs as strong sources of ultrasonic noise

I've used an "ultrasound diagnostic tool" (normally used to detect leaks in air conditioning lines or vacuum lines) to listen to various household noises and I find that compact florescent lights are the strongest source of ultrasound in my house. This tool is not a scientific instrument that measures decibel levels, but it does present ultrasounds as audible sounds. I can stand several feet away from a wall and detect noise from a compact florescent light on the otherside of the wall. I don't think the device is inadvertently responding to electromagnetic radiation since I can put my hand in front of the device and effectively block the sound. It would be interesting to know if the ultrasonic emissions of CFLs have been quantified.

Tashiro (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Museum conservation

Actually, just about *everything* damages artifacts in museums; it's a wonder they let them be displayed at all. Re-phrased the UV section to something like what I've seen in a few Google Books hits. They seem to be more worried about daylight than artificial light. Museum curators also worry about heat, so they don't embrace incandescents unconditionally either. Even just plain visible light still affects some items badly (and that's why, children, Grandma's old photo albums look so crummy). --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)