Message-ID: <074DB78DC81E4354B8D9F4645D7E2A42@Hugh>
From: "Hugh_m0wye" <m0wye@radiouk.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
References: <1794381892.23372.1236524009509.JavaMail.mail@webmail03> <007f01c9a004$97057380$0900a8c0@AM>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:49:35 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: LF: Re: Re: energy saving bulbs
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


Peter and group,
I don't know if this contributes to the original discussion, but I found 
this table which shows the relative efficencies of different types of lamp: 
The original is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency

Note the wide range of efficiency for LED lamps - some are worse than 
incandescent !
I have found some Compact fluorescent lamps radiate. They all have an 
"electronic ballast circuit" which chops the mains and very little room for 
any filtering. Their frequency wanders. But some are worse than others. Alan 
is right about strip lights which are efficient light producers and, with 
conventional inductive ballast, are usually RF-quiet.

      Category
        Type
        Overall
      luminous efficacy (lm/W) Overall
      luminous efficiency[3]
      Combustion candle 0.3 [6] 0.04%
     gas mantle 2 [7] 0.3%
      Incandescent 100 W tungsten incandescent (220 V) 13.8 [8] 2.0%
     200 W tungsten incandescent (220 V) 15.2 [9] 2.2%
     100 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 16.7 [10] 2.4%
     200 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 17.6 [9] 2.6%
     500 W tungsten glass halogen (220 V) 19.8 [9] 2.9%
     5 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 5 0.7%
     40 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 12.6 [11] 1.9%
     100 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 17.5 [11] 2.6%
     2.6 W tungsten glass halogen (5.2 V) 19.2 [12] 2.8%
     quartz halogen (12–24 V) 24 3.5%
     photographic and projection lamps 35 [13] 5.1%
      Light-emitting diode white LED 10–100 [14][15][16] 1.5–15%
      Arc lamp xenon arc lamp 30–50 [17][18] 4.4–7.3%
     mercury-xenon arc lamp 50–55 [17] 7.3–8.0%
      Fluorescent 9–26 W compact fluorescent 57–72 [19][20] 8–11%
     T12 tube with magnetic ballast 60 [21] 9%
     T5 tube 70–100 [22] 10–15%
     T8 tube with electronic ballast 80–100 [21] 12–15%
      Gas discharge 1400 W sulfur lamp 100 15%
     metal halide lamp 65–115 [23] 9.5–17%
     high pressure sodium lamp 85–150 [24][9] 12–22%
     low pressure sodium lamp 100–200 [24][25][9] 15–29%
      Theoretical maximum Green light at 555 nm 683.002 100%


73
Hugh M0WYE

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Melia" <alan.melia@btinternet.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:42 PM
Subject: LF: Re: energy saving bulbs


> Peter some do and some dont. I have found the Osram bad and the Philips 
> best
> so far. There are a number of other things to think about too.
> One, in normal replacement for tungten Fil they do NOT last 10,000 hours.
> The reason seems to be that in a normal vertical hanging fitting the
> connector end of the assembly get very hot....... this bit of course
> contains the electronics which get unreliable with increasing temperature.
> Bulb life test on fil bulbs is traditionally done the "other way up" for
> ease of loading....so maybe this was not spotted.
> They take several 10s of seconds to reach usable brightness....longer than
> tuble starters. No good for short spells of activity as they are only
> becomming usable when they are switched off.
> They do contain mercury, albeit a small amount.
> They should not be used in reading lamps which come close to the face as
> there is a signigicant UV content.
> I have just been using one in a bedside lamp and after a couple of days
> relised I could smell a similar smell to that close to a Xerox
> machine.....yes the lamp was pproducing sufficient ozone to significantly
> irritate the nostrils.
>
> I have a large stock of filament lamps!! but I use tube fluorescents for
> main lighting which are even more efficient in terms of light for energy 
> (no
> a lot of "greenies" or lamp manufacturers admit that, and my tube
> fluorescents are radio quiet for antennas outside the house. I have
> relagated the CFLs to outside lighting fittings, which I occasionally 
> forget
> to switch off!!
>
> The tale that filament lamps are inefficient is a myth !! All the energy 
> fed
> to the bulb is converted into radiation ! some is light and some is
> heat.....a CLF just produces less heat and more light and more polution!
>
> Alan G3NYK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Cleall" <peter.cleall@virgin.net>
> To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:53 PM
> Subject: LF: energy saving bulbs
>
>
>>   For many years I have avoided using the energy saving bulbs under the
> impression that they were major RF pollutents. I am under increasing
> pressure to move to using these bulbs.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Are my concerns still the case or are they old fashioned and out of
> date.
>>
>>   Do you have experience of using these bulbs in the home.
>>
>>   Do modern versions interfer with your Radio receiving , I am interested
> in signals from 15 kHz to 500 MHz.
>>
>>   Are there specific types or manufactures to be avoided
>>
>>   Any thoughts would be appreciaated
>>
>>   regards
>>
>>   peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>