ESL Lightbulbs Better Than CFL, LED?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems interesting!
I'm sure it's a product with a future, probably good to start investing in on the stock market!
 
For those who are sticking up for compact florescent light bulbs.
Any Mercury is too much mercury when it ends up in land fills that allows it to migrate down into the water table.
 
[citation][nom]Regulas[/nom]For those who are sticking up for compact florescent light bulbs.Any Mercury is too much mercury when it ends up in land fills that allows it to migrate down into the water table.[/citation]
By "those of you sticking up for mercury" I assume you mean me? I pointed out that CFLs pose LESS mercury risk than standard bulbs when you look at the big picture. It's an improvement and a step in the right direction.
 
[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]There is no "electron stream" outside of a CRT. X-Rays are generated by the fast deceleration of the electron beam which hits the "target" (anode). The higher the speed of electrons (and acceleration voltage), the more intensive the X-Ray radiation. Up to about 10kV there isn't any dangerous radiation generated.[/citation]Thanks for the clarification.

Kids, aren't you learning anything any more in today's schools?
Apparently not. Wait, I graduated 25 years ago, don't remember any lessons on CRT technology then. 😉
 
So far, even after the video I prefer LED. No mercury, ultra efficient, and just plain very long lasting. If color accuracy with LED's is a really pressing issue later in the life of the bulb, design a fixture or even a bulb itself with a holder for a color correction gel for where accuracy is truly important. Of course, this wouldn't be necessary everywhere, and in some places it would be a major pain in the ass, but it's one thing that could make LED's significantly better.
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Okay, about the mercury: CFLs contain so little of it that, environmentally speaking, they more than make up for it with the amount of coal-fired electricity they save. Coal-burning plants put out more mercury than CFLs do, just by producing power. And CFLs only release mercury if they're broken. Furthermore, they don't release ALL the mercury if that happens, because as it gets used the bulb's tube actually binds up most of the mercury vapor in a form that isn't release when a break occurs.[/citation]Great points. Here's some additional info. According to GE's website, a "typical" CFL contains about 5mg of Hg. A modern home thermostat contains about 500mg of Hg. Even if broken or improperly disposed of, it takes 100 CFL bulbs to potentially release as much Hg as one improperly disposed of thermostat.

Each 15W CFL lasts 6000 hours and saves 45W (vs the 60W incandescent it replaces), which is a savings of 270KWh per bulb. I'm not sure how much coal it takes to generate that much electricity (plus 5-10% for distribution losses), but I'm pretty sure that burning the coal will release more than 5mg of Hg. Granted, hydro, nuclear, wind, and other sources don't have the same return, but in much of the US, coal is the major source of electricity generation.

I live in Texas, so I get a secondary benefit from using CFLs, they generate less heat, which means I use less electricity cooling the house. I don't get that benefit when I have to heat the house, but around here, we use air conditioning far more than heating. Bottom line is that CFLs save me a lot of money.

LED looks promising, but it's not quite competitive in terms of light quality, color temperature, and purchase price with CFL as a replacement for incandescent bulbs. In the next 5-10 years, LED might even replace CFL, we'll see. ESL is interesting, but I'll wait and see. In the mean time, I'm a CFL user.
 
I'm surprised many people are bashing this new technology while ignoring the huge breakthrough they claim to have made: fully dimmable lights. Depending on your application, the ability to dim your lights the full range from 0% to 100% has been one of the major reasons to stick with standard incandescents. If they have solved this problem, that sounds like a pretty big deal to me.
 
[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]Great points. Here's some additional info. According to GE's website, a "typical" CFL contains about 5mg of Hg. A modern home thermostat contains about 500mg of Hg. Even if broken or improperly disposed of, it takes 100 CFL bulbs to potentially release as much Hg as one improperly disposed of thermostat.[/citation]
Of course, also keep in mind that the average house probably WILL dispose of a hundred CFL bulbs before throwing out a thermostat. Unless I've just been lucky with the thermostats in my house.

[citation][nom]jdog2076[/nom]I'm surprised many people are bashing this new technology while ignoring the huge breakthrough they claim to have made: fully dimmable lights. Depending on your application, the ability to dim your lights the full range from 0% to 100% has been one of the major reasons to stick with standard incandescents. If they have solved this problem, that sounds like a pretty big deal to me.[/citation]
True, I did overlook that. I guess that's what I get for not using our recessed lighting fixtures in years.
 
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]Okay, about the mercury: CFLs contain so little of it that, environmentally speaking, they more than make up for it with the amount of coal-fired electricity they save. Coal-burning plants put out more mercury than CFLs do, just by producing power. And CFLs only release mercury if they're broken. Furthermore, they don't release ALL the mercury if that happens, because as it gets used the bulb's tube actually binds up most of the mercury vapor in a form that isn't release when a break occurs. I'm not saying it's not a problem and a health risk, I'm saying it's not as bad as some people make it out to be.[/citation]
Nice theory... but it has one main problem: the mercury emitted by coal energy plants is far away from inhabited zones, the one from broken bulbs right in your room. Which one is more dangerous? While the plants can be fitted with emission reduction measures, there is no feasible way of protecting from breaking a fragile glass bulb.
All the politically correct hype for "greener" environment has a mostly neglected part: financial interests.
[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]But I don't see a reason why a similar mix of phosphors can't be used in inside a CFL tube (they both use phosphors excited by electrons to make light), so there goes their "color" argument if that's the case.[/citation]
CFLs are low pressure gas discharge lamps (the lamps on street poles are the high pressure variety, with better efficiency, but a more complicated design: two bulbs, a small high pressure one for the gas discharge, encompassed in a larger one, which has the luminophore coating). They do not generate "electrons", the electron flux excites the mercury atoms, which generate UV radiation (another danger), which is converted in visible light by the phosphorous coating on the internal side of the (external) bulb.
[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]Thanks for the clarification.Apparently not. Wait, I graduated 25 years ago, don't remember any lessons on CRT technology then.[/citation]
You're welcome. Seems your school was lousy even 25 years ago... 😉
No lessons about Herr Roentgen in physics?
 
[citation][nom]jerther[/nom]Wow... mini CRT (Cathode Ray Tube).I thought the liquid filled bulb we saw earlier was a better innovation.[/citation]
Was just thinking it sounded like a television (using electrons slamming against phosphorous)...

[citation][nom]TunaSoda[/nom]Got a couple cases of standard 75w incandescent bulbs from Home Depot so I'm good[/citation]
I like efficient lights because:
Lighter on the power bills. I could swear my power company charges me $1 per KW... (actually, they say I use up to 3000KW a month, even though I run a single 16 amp 110V fuse, limiting my max power draw in extreme situations at 100% 24/7 use at 1200KW/month... hmm).
I have blown my fuse a few times (mainly due to a shared fusebox with my others, thus things get VERY hot, thus burning fuses).
 
geoffs, dimming is nothing new. There are CFL companies that offer that down to 10% or less... PureSpectrum is just one I found via a quick google search and saw mentioned on a Vu1 employee's blog... I'm assuming that's a company that Vu1 sees as their competition/are worried about for a reason.

Another... of the many problems with Vu1 is that they have no patents and no money according to their last filing. 2 things that I'd think are needed to be a powerful player in this industry. I think I read something like "if they don't find financing by October, they have to shut down operations/their going concern." Not too good of news. If this technology takes off [which they'd have to pass Energy Star, and and jump through tons of other hoops first... btw nobody answered my question re: how they are even going to pass Energy Star, and when they'll try considering their targeting to take to market mid 2010] it will be via another company.

Needless to say, there is a lot of opportunity... and I'm excited about technology in lighting, but I don't see it coming from Vu1, a company that has about run out of money and don't own their technology.

Plus, I mirror the other folks that say, they are really playing up the mercury piece to their benefit. Why not just have a little girl picking a flowers pedals, counting, until a nuke goes off in the background? Seems a bit like fearmongering.
 
[citation][nom]jjamess[/nom]They really undervalue the CFL bulbs we are all familiar with. Sure the first generation of CFL bulbs produced poor lighting qualities, but from what I have seen, this was fixed years ago. Just stay away from the cheap CFL ones.Does anyone know the real risks of mercury poisoning when a bulb breaks? I have broke a few myself and just cleaned it up like any other bulb. My guess is they are trying to scare you into buying their new technology. I will stick with the bright white CFL bulbs I have been buying, perfect light IMO.[/citation]
I replaced all the bulbs in my room with CFL and it is much better than incandescant
 
[citation][nom]jaragon13[/nom]I replaced all the bulbs in my room with CFL and it is much better than incandescant[/citation]

I have too... throughout my house. It's been over a year and I've never had any problems. In fact, I'm saving at least 30% on my energy bill. Some of the CFLs I'm using dim quite well... color is the same as incandescents if not better. I know initial CFLs stunk, but the newer ones made by GE and company are pretty good.

Again, I don't care what technology wins in the end, ...just saying it probably won't be ESL, and definitely won't be Vu1.
 
About WHITE color quality:
you can choose the quality of standard size tubes
(white "colors" 827, 830, 840, 850, 930, 940, 950)

You can't find quality in COMPACT fluorescent tubes
(827 usually, 840 at best)
 
This is a very novel technique.
Elektrons bouncing against fluor.
About the electrons, they are in the bulb and stay there.
About the radiation: the radiation is dependent of the energy of the elektrons.
In a CRT-screen, the electrons get 30000eV of energy.
That energy produces X-rays as a by product.
Normal light has an energy of 1 to 3 eV.
If the EFL doesn't accelerates electrons and produces radiation, 'light' beyond the visible spectrum (into UV and further), then this is a very good technology.
Comparable in performance and features, except for the lower power consumption, to the incandescent light bulb.
The not continuous spectrum of LED's is actually not very good for the eyes. Eyes where designed to look in environments with a lightning that has a continual spectrum, like the sun.
The long-term effects aren't know but it just can't be healthy.
 
[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]Nice theory... but it has one main problem: the mercury emitted by coal energy plants is far away from inhabited zones, the one from broken bulbs right in your room. Which one is more dangerous? While the plants can be fitted with emission reduction measures, there is no feasible way of protecting from breaking a fragile glass bulb.[/quote]
So that would make the danger of mercury posed more of an immediate one than an environmental one. Compared to coal power plants, which emit it into the atmosphere where it's more likely to end up in rivers and streams and things we ingest, which one do you think is more of an environmental and systemic problem? CFLs do a lot to reduce the amount of mercury contamination of the environment. I was talking specifically about the environmental risk of CFL's mercury, not whether or not to clear a room if one breaks.

[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]CFLs are low pressure gas discharge lamps ... They do not generate "electrons", the electron flux excites the mercury atoms, which generate UV radiation (another danger), which is converted in visible light by the phosphorous coating on the internal side of the (external) bulb.[/citation]
Thanks for clearing that up. Does that explain why the same (or at least a similar) mix of phosphors can't be used in CFLs for the same quality light as in the ESLs promoted in the video? Possibly the compounds they use don't respond the same to UV as to direct excitation by electrons? Although I'd hardly call the UV output of a typical CFL a "danger."

[citation][nom]ask me[/nom]About WHITE color quality:you can choose the quality of standard size tubes(white "colors" 827, 830, 840, 850, 930, 940, 950)You can't find quality in COMPACT fluorescent tubes(827 usually, 840 at best)[/citation]
Don't know about the color index, but at least on the color temp side I find that CFLs with a color temperature of 6500-6700 K (usually marketed under "Daylight") is a really nice white without being too bluish, compared to the older CFLs I've had with the orange or yellowish cast to make them look more "warm" and mimic incandescent light. It seems to do better at bringing out the pink of our kitchen walls.
 
[citation][nom]annymmo[/nom]... The not continuous spectrum of LED's is actually not very good for the eyes. Eyes where designed to look in environments with a lightning that has a continual spectrum, like the sun. The long-term effects aren't know but it just can't be healthy.[/citation]

The only lights that produce real "continuous"-spectrum are the filament based ones which are also known as "black-body" radiators. The problem with these is that they cannot glow at the same temperature as the sun because the filament will evaporate way before that temperature is reached. The closest step to this is the halogen lamps which contain a halogen gas that reacts with the metal fumes and deposits them back to the filament. But still, halogen lights are nowhere near the 6000K which is the average black-body temperature of the surface of the sun.

The closest artifical light is the sulphur plasma light and from what I've seen on diagrams, its spectrum almost perfectly follows the continuous spectrum of the sunlight. I've been wondering how it is possible for a fluorescent light to produce such a spectrum which is a little contradictory if you've taken a course in quantum physics. While I have no reasonable explanation my guess is that the light comes from sulphur molecules which may allow for a more continuous spectrum than pure atoms/ions, and/or it may come from their interaction with the microwaves. I think S2 is a dipole and dipoles interact with microwaves in a certain way which momentarily may produce heat-like movements of the molecules.

I'm not working for a lamp manufacturer, I'm just dreaming of having sunlight in my living room for there is not much sunshine where I live...
 
It looks to be a good solution, but this like many things is focused in the wrong area. I'm not saying we don't need a replacement for the everyday house light bulbs and yes there are certainly a lot of them, but the area that needs the most attention is a replacement for the florescent. Think of how man warehouses, schools, office buildings, and retail outlets use these types of bulbs. Also put into consideration the use. In most homes when nobody is home generally the lights are off and even when you are home most don't have every single light in the house on. There are a lot of factories that run 24/7 that are burning light energy 24/7. A lot of the larger grocery stores are 24/7 these days. Walk into a Super Walmart and look at the ceiling. They have endless rows of florescents that are never turned off. It just seems to me we need to focus here first and adapt the technology for home use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.