New bulbs.
 

Well Tony's been at it again;along with other EU leaders he has decreed that old style light bulbs will be 'phased'out in the next two years.
After this time stockist will only be allowed to sell the energy saving replacements(plus any remaining old stocks).
Basically the bulbs cost 8 times as much will last 5 times as long and give off 5 times as much illumination and as a bonus reduce the Co2 produced each year in lighting the bulb by a third.
Sounds a good idea,providing stocks are available and you are not the bloke who does the bulbs in the Blackpool illuminations.:D

Re: New bulbs.
 

I hate the things! It takes them too long to illuminate 100% for my liking so they can go and boil their heads in a bucket of P these Europrats and the Pres. Me I will buy as many of the old ones as I can and store them for future use.

Energy saving my little toe if they were that good we would have had em years ago.

Re: New bulbs.
 

so what about those other type of bulbs?
like the long fleuresent (cant spell) lights or the spot light ones, because as you said spuggie them 'things' are absolutley ****e!!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Not sure but if they are to be banned. There would be BIG problems at work as the office space is all those star wars lights. A lot of places especially shops use them so what happens then lights on at 7am so there is enough illumination for shoppers by 9am.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Might be a money spinner Spuggie buy stocks up and sell on e bay!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Now there's a thought and it didnt cross my mind. :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

well i think its really takin the p1ss, ordinary people can help and pay to save the planet and many big industries plus many governments dont give a rats, and could do far more than change lightbulbs.:p

Re: New bulbs.
 

If they wanted to save the planet they would all be on bikes, sailing/rowing abroad, making planes illegal and heaven forbid they might close the breweries. :eek:

This bulb guff is a bit of showing off to please the bums in Brussels.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Changed all mine to conserve leccy not that they make much difference but yeh they are dull, got 60w equiv & still got asked for a torch LOL!!!!

Re: New bulbs.
 

They are that dull Gordon Brown exudes more light and thats saying something. Question though which uses more glass the old globe or new snake?

Re: New bulbs.
 

forgot to mention,we have a couple for about 12months now,we think they are crap n nowhere near as bright as ordinary bog standard bulbs, so i,m with spug on this - will stock up.:p

Re: New bulbs.
 

LOL tho the fluescent tubes are good tho very bright & economic:D

Re: New bulbs.
 

Unlike that Fifer in 11 Downing Street.

Re: New bulbs.
 

The cost to industry will be prohibitive if the bulbs cost is x 8 then most offices of any size will not comply.I reckon there will be a panic buy up of stocks as the date approaches. I might follow my own E bay suggestion!:D

Re: New bulbs.
 

I seem to remember a few years ago, an American power company offered free energy saving bulbs to anyone that wanted them and as a result that company saved enough energy to pay for the initial cost of the bulbs and close down a complete power generation station.

filament light bulbs waste a great deal of electricity in heat,

(taken from Switch to energy-efficient light bulbs offers `enormous' saving),

So perhaps the way forward would be if rather than bully people into the new technology if our government took the brave step of replacing Old Lamps for new, just as was done in the story of Aladdin we would all be more willing to join with this not too inconvenient idea and put up with the minor shortcomings of the 'energy saver', and instead of fighting it, embrace this wonderous saving that is available to all?

Re: New bulbs.
 

:rofl38: thats a true point lol!!:D anything is brighter than that LOL

Re: New bulbs.
 

I wouldnt be surprised if they bump the cost of them before they go out of stock either:rolleyes:

Re: New bulbs.
 

Without trying to give you all an Alevel physics lesson, fluorescent lighting is created when electrons hit mercury particles inside the tube. The collision excites the atoms which bumps the contained electrons up to higher energy levels, they're then pulled back in by the atoms nucleous and give out a particle named a photon, which is light.

However the light given out is ultraviolet which we can't see, so the tube is coated with phosphor. The same process happens but instead a photon hits the phosphur atom, electrons move up to a higher energy level, then get pulled back in and release the excess energy as heat and light photon, but this time its white light because some energy was lost in form of heat.

Because it converts ultraviolet light to light we can see, its more efficient than normal light bulbs as they waste the ultraviolet light which is no use to anybody, except maybe your fish. :p

Therefore; me thinks fluorescent lighting will be fine as works similarly to energy saving bulbs in that they both prevent wasting ultraviolet light, although I think the energy saving ones cut out bits of visible light too, although its not supposed to be noticeable, clearly some people find it is.

Re: New bulbs.
 

What about all the money people have spent on lamps and light shades that the new ones don't fit in to.

Re: New bulbs.
 

LOL they still be bayonet or screw cap ones, but admittantly they are rather cumbersome to fit with some light shades as i have found when ran out of short ones & the short ones are only 40w equiv which isnt very bright:(

Re: New bulbs.
 

Re: New bulbs.
 

Thats the trouble with this nanny culture gov in this country willow, treated like kiddies being 'told'!

Re: New bulbs.
 

A-level Physics? I learnt that sort of stuff in a secondary modern third year science class back in the sixties, I tell you what, it was much better the way our teacher explained it!:p

Re: New bulbs.
 

That is precisely why im not a teacher! :p

At what point is secondary modern third year science in relation to todays education? I hope its not 3rd year of high school cause we certainly never did advanced things like photons and electrons moving up and down energy levels back then!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Just a small aside here.......Netto sell the energy saving lightbulbs at 49 pence each. Ok so it isn't any good if they don't fit in your particular light fittings.
Methinks that this decision was possibly pre-empted by Australia saying that it is also going to outlaw the incandescent lightbulb......round about the same time too.

Re: New bulbs.
 

You also can't use them with dimmer switches.

I have them in some places but in others like stairs I keep filament lights as they need to be on when you want them, not 5 mins later

Re: New bulbs.
 

double post

Re: New bulbs.
 

1sf of all there were 3 posts now theres only 1 that I edited, who's nicked my others?

Re: New bulbs.
 

Right, I'll post it again.
Go for the SAD bulbs, think there 6500K as opposed to about 3000K, they give a pure white light and not a yellow one, bright enough when there switched on too.
PS, good for indoor photography :)


Edit - I knew I'd posted this before, HERES the link

Re: New bulbs.
 

If these new low energy light bulbs cost 8 times a much and last 5 times as long then they cannot be cost effective.

If a hot filament bulb costs 40p and lasts for 1,000 hours 8 such bulbs costing £3.20 would last for 8,000 hours.
A new low energy bulb costs £3.20 and lasts for 5,000 hours.

However they do not give off 5 times as much light.

Some time ago some organisation or other sent all pensioners 2 of these new fangled bulbs and they were rated at 60w. Being a pensioner I got two and decided to try one in the table lamp sat on top of my telly.

I often use a solar powered calculator whilst sat at my computer and in the evenings with the curtains drawn and the light on top of the telly on, the light from it was sufficient to power my calculator. When I replaced the hot filament bulb with one of the low energy bulbs the light from it would not power my calculator unless I moved it at least two feet closer to the light. Ergo the new bulb did not produce the same amount of light as the hot filament one.

The other question I would ask is how much energy is consumed (and the carbon footprint that it produces) in making one low energy bulb compared to the amount of energy (and carbon footprint) used to make one hot filament bulb?

I would dare to suggest that if you took into account the cost, energy to make, the amount of light produced and the energy consumed in using each type of bulb, then there wouldn’t be a great deal of difference.

I will stick with hot filament bulbs until such times as they are no longer available.

Re: New bulbs.
 

You only got 2 jambutty - my mum got 6 20w = 100w sent through the post. Best is they are supposed to last 12 years - ive only used 1 of them so ive got another 60 years to go yet!!! Ive got them in 2 of the lights - in the living room and on the stairs because they are the ones that are used the most and theyre ok.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Yes I only got two but there was a card with them that I could use to send for two more. I did but they were two 40w bulbs, which are worse than useless. I get a brighter light from my fag lighter.

I recently bought myself two 75w bulbs from Asda at £1.76 each but they had been reduced from three pounds odd. I would never have paid the full price for them. They are supposed to last 6 times as long so I reckoned that it would be cost effective.

I reckon that the new fangled 75w will give off the same amount of light as the old 60w.

Re: New bulbs.
 

i got a pack of 8 bulbs this morning for £1 from poundland on broadway so stuff em.:D

Re: New bulbs.
 

I think you will find a big difference in these energy saving lamps. It all depends on the make I think. I have a couple in the hallway down stairs and they strike instantly. I have had ones that are slow to strike as well. I have a very bright one that is almost blue in colour, it is that awful a light we don't use it. They are no good as outside security lights. I had a couple as outside lights a few years ago, they did not like cold weather. They were very dim when it was cold, I don't think they could get up to normal temp so the light output was very poor.

I think they have pro's and con's depending on the application. I personally don't believe in saving electricity to save the planet. It's the 21st century, we should have enough energy to use as we wish without damaging the planet. I blame the oil companies for keeping is the dark ages of burning oil for everything still.

Re: New bulbs.
 

You have mentioned this before in the Tax on Lightbulbs
Thread, Cyfr took time and effort to explain the difference to you, you even thanked him for his explanation about how and why your calculator doesn't run from a low energy bulb and now you repeat the same inaccurate tale, you cannot compare the two different light sources by using a solar powered calculator and all you are managing to do is confuse the issue as you did in the earlier thread.

I totally agree with the comment made by Madhatter in that earlier thread.

Re: New bulbs.
 

sodding useless things , I have them in the bathroom , if I get up during the night I want instant light , I can be finished and back in bed before the things light up .

Also seem to remember reading a report that they are only manufactured in Asia , so that means more jobs out of the country and twenty years from now being held to ransom for light bulbs .

Re: New bulbs.
 

LED lighting would be the most energy efficient it is just starting to come on to the market but being designed for shop displays and outside lighting also very expensive retailers wont like LED’s because they last forever!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Well I have found all this information very illuminating.
:) When/if Gordon Brown becomes PM we may not have to worry about the cost of light bulbs;it may be back to candles and whale blubber lamps for lighting purposes(is that what John Prescott is kept employed for?)

Re: New bulbs.
 

We changed all ours a while ago, got used to them now, didn't like them at first.

Re: New bulbs.
 

I have indeed Less and it is not inaccurate. It is an observed and measured fact. My solar powered calculator will function from the flame of my fag lighter, (although it has to be held pretty close) where before I mentioned a candle. It will function from torchlight or any source of visible light. That’s what solar panels do. They use visible light. I have a red and a blue bulb and the light from these also powers my calculator. Of course it has to be pretty close to do so.

So it is permissible to compare different sources of light on a solar panel and is a good way of measuring the intensity of that light, because it is the intensity of the light that is crucial not its source.

The wattage printed on the hot filament bulbs and their boxes refers to the electrical power required to light the bulb to its normal intensity. Thus a 60w normal bulb will require 60w of electrical power. Anyone remember Ivy Watts? That is I x V = W. However that applies to DC only. For AC it is a bit more complicated because of the RMS value of an AC voltage but Ivy Watts will do to get a rough idea.

A low energy bulb rated at 11 watts allegedly gives off the same amount of light as a 60w normal bulb. I have proven that it doesn’t. A 15w LE bulb is the alleged equivalent of a 75w normal bulb.

Low energy bulbs are more energy efficient and do last about 6 times longer than a normal bulb but they cost a lot more. So just do the maths and you will discover that the new low energy bulbs are not as cost effective as the old type. So we are being conned.

Must go Chelsea v Spurs has just started on the box.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Well upto now i have been sent 3 boxs of them all free 8 in one box and 6 in the other 2 so they are cheap to get:D
i cant use them fast enough they just keep sending me a box every couple of months .

Re: New bulbs.
 

What do you mean by intensity? It's a bad way because you're measuring the ENERGY which dosn't equate to 'X source is better than Y' because it depends on which bits of the light spectrum its actually giving out. A lot of it could be wasted because we can't see it, but it'll still energy that the calculator can use.

Again, LE light bulbs DO give off less light, this is the whole idea, its why they're more energy efficient. We're humans that use light to help us see things, we don't need the whole spectrum to do this, but if the whole spectrum is there then there is more energy so your calculator will work better, however this dosn't translate to your point because we don't need the extra energy as it makes no difference to our vision.

They might not be as cost effective (I can't be bothered to do the maths because its a none issue), but that isn't the point. We can't sit here relying on technology to save us from a decline of natural resources.

Normal light bulbs might be cheaper, but theres no point having extra cash in your pocket when theres no oil/coal/gas left!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Quote:

What do you mean by intensity? It's a bad way because you're measuring the ENERGY which dosn't equate to 'X source is better than Y' because it depends on which bits of the light spectrum its actually giving out. A lot of it could be wasted because we can't see it, but it'll still energy that the calculator can use.

Intensity in relation to light means brightness Cyfr. A 100w bulb gives off a brighter light than a 15w one. A 200w bulb will outshine a 100w bulb. As I stated before the wattage quoted is the amount of electrical energy that the bulb uses to produce that light although much of the energy is converted to heat energy. My calculator or any solar panel will work when visible light is shone on it. It matters not that the light is red or blue or yellow or green or any other spectrum colour or any combination of colours. However a solar panel will need a brighter light if only one colour is shone on it than it would if it was ‘white’ light.

Your graph at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22924&highlight=energy+saving clearly shows that visible light comes between the lowest frequency of UV light and the highest frequency of IR light. That is the visible spectrum. Light bulbs unless specifically made to radiate UV or IR emit the visible spectrum. However a UV or IR light will also emit the visible spectrum to a degree.

Quote:

Again, LE light bulbs DO give off less light, this is the whole idea, its why they're more energy efficient. We're humans that use light to help us see things, we don't need the whole spectrum to do this, but if the whole spectrum is there then there is more energy so your calculator will work better, however this dosn't translate to your point because we don't need the extra energy as it makes no difference to our vision.

We humans do need white light to see all the colours of our surroundings. In red light the blues and greens etc are not as visible. Similarly in blue light the reds and greens are not as visible. In dim light colours are not as distinct and the brighter the light the more distinct they are. So the brightness of light does make a difference to what we see. And the same goes for a solar panel. If the light is dull it will not produce as much electrical power as it would in brighter light.

Re: New bulbs.
 

I think you're just reiterating what im saying but missing my point.

You seem to think that because your calculator works better off a certain source then that source must be brighter. Which is incorrect as I have explained many times we only need certain parts of the spectrum for lights to work well. Therefore the energy saving lightbulbs only show the parts we need.


I don't know how to make it any clearer..

A normal lightbulb shows the full visible spectrum from red to purple including all the different shades of all the colours, every single wavelength from 400nm to 700nm. Where as an energy saving one dosn't use every single wavelength, this means it uses less energy but it is NOT less bright. It just simply uses less energy because its not outputting the same amount of wavelengths but its not noticeable to the human eye.

Oh and, the colour of light does matter because different wavelengths = different colours = different amounts of energy..... but in this case it dosn't because we're talking about all visible light and not blues/greens etc individually.

Re: New bulbs.
 

We have the low energy bulbs lighting our staircase and they are pretty dim...which I suppose could be a hazard for the elderly.
(ours are supposed to equate to 100w bulbs)

Re: New bulbs.
 

I’d be obliged if you would show me where I have stated that my calculator works better from a particular SOURCE of light. My statement was about the INTENSITY of the light or as you seem to have trouble working out what I mean by intensity – it is the brightness of the light. Where it comes from is irrelevant. My 60w LE bulb gives off less light than a normal 60w bulb. It is hardly noticeable to the naked eye but a light meter or solar panel can detect the difference.

A solar panel will generate a DC electric current at a particular voltage when a light is shone on it. If the light is dull the electrical energy generated will be small. If the light is bright the electrical energy generated will be sufficient to power whatever device is connected to it, in my case a calculator. There is a limit on how much electrical energy a single solar panel will generate so shining a 10Kw light onto it won’t make it generate more.

Quote:

Therefore the energy saving lightbulbs only show the parts we need.

Really? If we are to see all the various colours around us we need the full spectrum of white light. We can see all the colours around us by the light of a normal bulb and also a LE bulb. The BRIGHTNESSof the light will determine how well we will see all colours. You can’t see colours very well in full moonlight but you can in full sunlight.

Quote:

A normal lightbulb shows the full visible spectrum from red to purple including all the different shades of all the colours, every single wavelength from 400nm to 700nm. Where as an energy saving one dosn't use every single wavelength, this means it uses less energy but it is NOT less bright. It just simply uses less energy because its not outputting the same amount of wavelengths but its not noticeable to the human eye.

Oh! Yes? Then explain this. I placed an LE bulb inside a closed box that had a tiny slit on one side to allow the light out. I placed a prism in front of the slit so that the beam of light shone onto one side of a prism. Close to the hypotenuse face of the prism I placed an upright white card. Guess what I saw? A full and complete spectrum. So if an LE bulb is not generating all the colours of the spectrum as white light as you claim, where did the colours come from? Any source of visible light will split into all the spectrum colours unless, as I have already stated, certain colours are filtered out. Then you will get a coloured light. If you remove all the red element of white light you get a cyan light. If you remove the blue element you get a yellow light. If you remove the green element you will get a violet light.

Open up a paint package like Paint Shop Pro and access the palette and play around with the RGB values. RGB at 000,000,000 produces black. RGB at 255,255,255 produces white. By varying the individual values of the RGB you can get 16,777,216 different colours.

The reason why an LE bulb uses less electrical energy than a normal bulb is because more of that energy is converted to visible light than to heat. Thus for a given amount of light you need less power for an LE bulb than you do for a normal bulb.

Quote:

Oh and, the colour of light does matter because different wavelengths = different colours = different amounts of energy..... but in this case it dosn't because we're talking about all visible light and not blues/greens etc individually.

Eh?

Re: New bulbs.
 

Who do you know that we don't know? :p

Re: New bulbs.
 

"A phosphor emits light in a narrow frequency range, unlike an incandescent filament, which emits the full spectrum"

Taken from wikipedia.

Try using a magnifying glass to observe, you might notice the gaps in the spectrum then. I know they're there because i've tested this myself in the past, properly in lab conditions, the gaps were pretty clear under a microscope.

Re: New bulbs.
 

You can quote OHMS Law, you can argue till your all blue in the face, this type of bulb or lighting is cheaper to run providing you use them in the correct manner IE switch them on and leave them on, all flourecent lighting is expensive to 'start up', if you are going to continualy switch them on and off, they are neither cheap or convenient but a darned pest as the 'warm up time is too long.

Re: New bulbs.
 

There are superb articles on incandescent and LE bulbs on wikipedia and howstuffworks.com (They can be a bit scientific/techie for some people I must admit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

http://www.howstuffworks.com/light3.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell.htm (thought I'd add this one for Jambuttys solar calculator problem)

Effectively what they are saying is that the number of lumens is teh same, its just the colour temp of teh light that changes. its this colour temp change that makes teh calc work 'better' with incandescent light.


Jambutty,
I do have one addition, you started talking about the RGB colour palatte, I think you should investigate the difference between the RGB(sRGB) and Adobe colour spaces for when you are talking about digitised colour as there is a significant difference in teh 'amount' of colours that can be described by each

Re: New bulbs.
 

Re: New bulbs.
 

I lent my microscope to Mez, if you ask her nicely she might let you use it, it has a usb cable so you can view it on your P.C. screen.:)

Re: New bulbs.
 

I have never stated that the new LE bulbs are not cheaper to run. Indeed I have acknowledged that they are.

My point is that they are not as cost effective as the normal light bulb when you take into account the cost to buy and the life of each type, as I have already explained.

My other point is that a LE bulb rated at 60w but in fact uses 11w of energy is not quite as bright as a normal 60w bulb that uses 60w of energy. My proof being that with my calculator being a fixed distance from a light source needs to be closer to an LE bulb than it does to a normal bulb to work. All this spectrum stuff was introduced by Cyfr in some attempt to discredit my observations about my calculator.

Re: New bulbs.
 

I must agree with you there jambutty they do not appear to be as bright as an ordinary bulb, but in some situations staircases and lobbies they are ideal to leave on all the time, my point was it's how and where you use them.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Re: New bulbs.
 

Re: New bulbs.
 

I do find it amusing that the goverment tell us to turn all our lights off yet leave the street lights burning brightly all night long. couldn't they be on alternating circuits so 50% could be turned off after midnight? OK, you may want to leave major roads on but there are a heck of a lot of side roads that don't need lighting all night long.

Re: New bulbs.
 

heh, just another pointer to the sheer uselessness of joe public trying to save the environment

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/12/lights_budget/

Re: New bulbs.
 

Many people have put forward the night-time street lighting idea forward entwisi. There was burglar Bill and burglar Wally and ……. well you get the drift.

I’m not saying that having the streets lit at 3 o’clock in the morning will discourage a burglar because it probably won’t. He usually goes round the back anyway. But no lights might just encourage more. No street lights would also encourage vandals plying their trade on parked cars.

The point about these LE bulbs that some people don’t seem to have considered is the amount of energy consumed in making them compared to making a normal bulb. It has to be more. If were to hazard a guess I would suggest that the net result will be that the normal light bulb is more energy/cost efficient than the new LE bulbs.

I don’t know if anyone saw the news a few days ago where it was reported that a couple in the Lake District set up their own hydro electric scheme. It took them many years to get the planning permission required but now they have a small hydro electric unit that generates 300Kw which they sell the surplus to the National Grid. They reckon that it will have paid for itself in 10 years time and will last for more than 50 years with just minimal maintenance.

I accept that not everyone can do that but a massive hydro electric plant would be even more efficient.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Right i'll attempt again to explain it though my patience is thinning.

You can *not* use a calculator to determine how good or 'bright' a light source is.

You can't do this because calculators work from light energy. They don't express how well you see things, they can only express how much energy is there in terms of light.

Light comes in all different colours, some we can see some we can't. The different types of light are all different wavelengths all with different energy levels.

I've explained how Low Energy lightbulbs work, and as a result of the way they work they emit a white light but with more focus on the lower end of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths (The Blues) where as filament bulbs focus more on the red side of the spectrum with longer wavelengths.

Solar cells do not simply work off any light. They only work off light with certain frequencies which happens to be the red end of the spectrum, hence they don't work as well with low energy bulbs because they give off more of the blue end of the spectrum which solar panels can't use.
However this does not mean the low energy bulbs are less bright they simply emit a different side of the spectrum more strongly, if you could measure ALL the energy given off in terms of light im sure there would be enough to power your calculator properly, just not in its current form due to the inefficiency of solar cells.



Don't make such enormous assumptions such as "The energy consumed in making them compared to a normal bulb has to be more" because at the very least its a very misguided statement. I don't know for fact how much energy is used to make either bulbs, but I know you also don't know. If you happen to be right, then i'm sure the benefits of lower energy consumption easily balance any additional manufacture energy. If you can prove otherwise then I would love to hear it, but so far it seems to be a complete bombshell of a statement without any tangible evidence.

At the end of the day you're welcome to continue using traditional lightbulbs without a bad conscience. However I would hope that the rest of the country are not as stubborn and help to reduce energy consumption for the better of everyone.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Well said, cyfr. And, while I am not an expert in the field, it would not suprise me to learn that it would be possible to build solar cells, ones that work better with the light spectrum from LE bulbs, for use in calculators and the like.

My area is finance, and I've done the calculations (based on US electricity prices) and the LE bulbs make financial sense - and will make even more sense as the price of electricity increases. I would expect that electricity in the UK probably costs more than it does here (based on the price of gasoline, another energy source), so LE bulbs probalby make even more sense over there. Also, I really like the fact that the LE bulbs burn out less frequently, in part because I like the convenience and set some value on my own time.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Quote:

Right i'll attempt again to explain it though my patience is thinning.

Am I supposed to tremble in my boots because your patience is thinning Cyfr. That’s a bit presumptuous isn’t it?

Quote:

You can *not* use a calculator to determine how good or 'bright' a light source is.

Why not? In any case who the heck are you to tell me what I can and cannot do? A light meter, as used by photographers to determine the level of light falling on the subject, is nothing more than a solar panel in that the meter uses the light from the subject converted to a tiny electrical current to move a needle across a dial to indicate optimum aperture size and shutter speed settings.

So explain to me why when I spark up my fag lighter and hold the flame close to the solar panel the calculator works? The same goes for a candle flame or a flame from my gas stove. The glow from my computer monitor or TV screen. Explain to me why my calculator will not work the further away it is from any light source. Explain to me why my calculator will work with light from a blue bulb, a red one, a yellow one or a green one. I’ll grant you that I have to bring it closer to the source though. No doubt those coloured bulbs will also emit a little of the remaining colours but each bulb’s major emission will be in that colour. I don’t suppose that it would have anything to do with the intensity or brightness of the light would it?

Quote:

You can't do this because calculators work from light energy.

Good! You finally agree with what I have been stating all along. The colour of light does not come into the equation just its brightness or as I prefer to call it the intensity.

All your blathering about the light spectrum is just a red herring.

Quote:

Don't make such enormous assumptions such as "The energy consumed in making them compared to a normal bulb has to be more" because at the very least its a very misguided statement.

Here you go again trying to tell me what to do. Since when did you become my keeper?

Re: New bulbs.
 

Cyfr you have my sympathy, instead of going down this dead end might I suggest you see how long you can keep hold of a 60W filament light bulb while it's switched on? It's about as useful, but just think how much relief you'll get when you let go.:)
http://seekingtheessence.wordpress.c.../lightbulb.jpg

Re: New bulbs.
 

Come on lads,lights out!

Re: New bulbs.
 

Why are we to expect Gizmo and co for lunch???

Re: New bulbs.
 

i bought some of those bulbs from asda, 99p for 2 :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

Only 2 you skinflint. :p

Re: New bulbs.
 

no you div, i was merely pointing out how much they are

Re: New bulbs.
 

And here was me thinking you were being a rebel. ;) Oh which division am I then?

Re: New bulbs.
 

I think it's ever so slightly silly to play the 'Who are you to tell me what to do' card when we're talking about how to conduct fair experiments here not how you should go about your daily life.

I don't have any knowledge of photography admittedly. I don't know how their light meters work but if it's from a solar cell, there are many different types. The one in your calculator is about 10% efficient in terms of how much of the spectrum it can use, where as roof type panels are 40-45% efficient.



As previously stated, solar cells work best from red light wavelengths. Flames are incandescent in the same way filament bulbs are which means a lot of the light is from teh red end of the spectrum. Therefore your calculator will work fine from them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jambutty The glow from my computer monitor or TV screen.

I thought that would be rather obvious to you as you produced the information about RGB earlier in the thread. Red light is present, therefore your calculator works fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jambutty Explain to me why my calculator will not work the further away it is from any light source.

The light spreads out as it gets greater distance. In the same way you can spray deodorant and it spreads out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jambutty Explain to me why my calculator will work with light from a blue bulb, a red one, a yellow one or a green one. I’ll grant you that I have to bring it closer to the source though. No doubt those coloured bulbs will also emit a little of the remaining colours but each bulb’s major emission will be in that colour. I don’t suppose that it would have anything to do with the intensity or brightness of the light would it?

I'll be honest and say I don't know. It should not work in blue light. I'm sure there is physics to explain it, like the efficiency of the filter, perhaps it allows some of the other wavelengths of light through but not many, hence explaining why you have to be close to the source.

Another reason could be any external light thats not coming from the blue light bulb such as light from another room, sunlight from the window, street lamps, anything.

Don't let this put you off the truth though, filters just arnt something I know about in enough detail to explain the anomaly. The rest however does explain that they work best from red light.

I wasn't going to patronize you by making additions to what I was writing, I especially considered the sentence you quoted but assured myself that you would read the rest of my post in regards to the certain frequencies of light that solar cells work off. They work best off the red frequencies.



No, they're actually the key to the whole debate. The sooner you accept them the sooner you will realize why your calculator works less well with a low energy light bulb. They mainly emit a different kind of frequency which solar cells can't use.

Re: New bulbs.
 

bit of a sidebar.....I dont think its a good idea for the wrinklies to be arguing the toss with the young uns, I think a bit more respect could be shown , considering that they are dependant on the financial contributions the young uns are making to pay for the pensions and benefits the owd uns enjoy . :D :D :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

Too late to edit, but I can explain why it works through a blue bulb now.

I was under the impression that it didn't work at all with blue light, however it turns out that its just a LOT less efficient under light from the blue end of the spectrum as opposed to the light at the red end.

So if you are very close to the blue light source, it will work, but as I say you need to be closer as the solar cell is much less efficient at the blue end of the spectrum.

I think this pretty much clears everything up now.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Off topic and cobblers, steeljack pensioners paid for their own pensions and contributed to educate these so called young uns, well out of order in my opinion.:mad:

Re: New bulbs.
 

Quote:

solar cells work best from red light wavelengths

If that is true how do you explain this?
Of visible light, violet has the most energy and red the least.
As stated on http://www.howstuffworks.com/light3.htm
Is a well respected site correct and you have got yourself mixed up or are you right and they are wrong?

I can make my computer screen into any colour I choose simply by either changing the boot up picture or running a paint package that covers the whole screen with a picture of any colour. Regardless of which colour I chose (except black or dark greys) my calculator will work.

Quote:

The light spreads out as it gets greater distance.

Or the further away you get from a light source the less light there is to fall on a given area. Less light means not as bright.

Quote:

Another reason could be any external light thats not coming from the blue light bulb such as light from another room, sunlight from the window, street lamps, anything.

It could be but it isn’t. I have already stated that the during the evenings with the curtains drawn the only light source is the table lamp on top of the TV and the glow from my monitor. As the monitor is in front of me and the calculator has to face me so that I can see the display ergo the solar panel is also facing the table lamp on top of the TV and cannot receive any light from the monitor.

Quote:

They work best off the red frequencies.

In light of what I have stated at the beginning – prove your statement by pointing me to a bona fide web reference.

Quote:

The sooner you accept them the sooner you will realize why your calculator works less well with a low energy light bulb.

But that is where all this started. I stated that the LE bulb would not make my calculator work unless I brought the calculator closer to the source. Therefore I concluded that the light from an LE bulb was not as bright as the light from an equivalent hot filament bulb. And now you agree with me.

Unless you can prove your “solar panels work best off red frequencies” statement as a proven scientific FACT then this post does clear up everything.

Re: New bulbs.
 

They're right, i'm right, you have misunderstood them. Not once does it state how the light works with solar cells. The extra energy makes no difference, it is nowhere near as efficient with blue light.

Correct violet wavelengths are shorter and hence there is more energy. However i explicitly said that it's because of the way solar panels work and the efficiency of them as to why the blue end of the spectrum does not work very well. It doesn't matter how much energy they carry, it matters WHAT WORKS WITH SOLAR PANELS. Which is undoubtedly the red end of the spectrum.

Check http://www.iee.cz/iwtpv04/6-Pociask.ppt slide number 32. Much more efficient type of cell than yours, but you get the picture. The lower the wavelength the lower the efficiency. Blue light has a shorter wavelength = not as efficient with solar cells.

This does clear it up. It is scientific fact that solar cells are not as efficient with the lower end of the spectrum. It showed up on the first google link about the subject, however I did have to do some searching to get a graph to visually display it.

I do hope you'll finally accept it because i've wrote a heck of a lot on this thread in an effort to explain things to you.

Re: New bulbs.
 

well i know sod all about this,but looking and reading jambuttys link,he seems to be correct with the colors cyfr.:)

Re: New bulbs.
 

I am not sure if that was ever the case, even with old fittings or if it always was an old wives tale. I will quote some info I found to save me typing it all in:

Re: New bulbs.
 

He is correct, but it has no relevance :p

The high energy blue/violet light dosn't work very well with solar panels, where as red light does.

Pretty pointless being high energy if it dosn't work! Jambutty just failed to link the knowledge he found to our situation, cause i'd already said blue light dosn't work, its energy dosn't matter, because the energy isn't the reason it dosn't work.


ps. check the graph link on my other post. The bottom of the graph indicates the light colour.. the left side is violet then it works its way to red on the right. It shows that red is more efficient. :)

Re: New bulbs.
 

I tried to warn you but it looks like my post was deleted. Somebody must have wanted you to go through this pain :D :D :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

I like janbutty Neil spent all or most of my life from leaving school in the electrical trade, I personally do not understand some of the things discussed in this thread, but if you place a 'clip on' ammeter round the phase being used you will see the proof of my old wives tale.

Re: New bulbs.
 

The article says that the start up current is the same as 5 seconds normal running. Yes there is a start up surge but it is only very short on modern lamps. The real test would be to fit a kw/h meter to your lamp. Take a reading after a week of it being on continuously, then try another week of switching it on and off as needed.

I was having a quote at work from a lighting engineer a few months ago for zoning some florescent lights so they could be automatically turned on and off as needed to save electricity. He also said that start up current equates to only a few seconds of running power on modern florescent lamps and that they should be turned off when not needed.

Re: New bulbs.
 

I must admit that lighting like all other electrical products have improved, and are far more effecient than in my day, there is now a quickstart type, Iv'e also found some of the old fittings parts and tubes are not compatable with the new ones so 'yerman' is probably correct.;)

Re: New bulbs.
 

Everything changes (except maybe transformers). The latest high frequency florescent tubes are only about 15mm in diameter. They will eventually replace the current ones. I am told that 8' fittings are being phased out as well.

Re: New bulbs.
 

The only problem with the 15mm tubes that iv'e found is that thay do not seem to last as long as the the wider ones, this is how I discovered the incompatability, when trying to fit a wider tube it would not work. But I have been retired for 10 years, it was the guy in the shop that wised me up.;)

Re: New bulbs.
 

Nope they do as well, into cars, boats, planes.............(Robots in disguise........)


OK, I'll get me coat :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

I don't think the tri-phospher, high frequency ones have been around 10 years. You can get standard 15mm tubes as well, I agree that they don't seam to last very long. There is also the problem of disposal. A business has to treat them (all fluorescent lamps) as hazardous waste and have them removed by a licensed contractor. Householders just throw them in the bin.

Don't forget your hat :D

Re: New bulbs.
 

Hello all. Long time no see. Been at uni in manchester studying... physics. I just felt that the physics being used was sketchy at best. Lack of clear reliable sources meant that confusion is everywhere and I hoped I might be able to clear up the matter somewhat.

I think most people are happy that flourescent bulbs do not produce as much heat (infrared radiation) as their classical cousins. Simply by looking at the two types of bulb (without the aid of a prism/magnifying glass) you can see that the Energy saving bulbs (Compact Flourescent Lamp or CFL for short) emit bluish white light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CFBulbs.jpg).

Since the human eye can only view light in the visible spectrum (with wavelength from about 350 - 750nm. Your mileage may vary though) any light emitted outside this range is wasted (for viewing purposes by the human eye). Thus, by converting electrical energy into only visible light (rather than infrared as well) the CFLs are more efficient at lighting and thus require less energy per second (power). In this way, 20 Watts of power can produce the same amount of visible light as an equivalent 100 Watt bulb.

Light is composed of discreet packets of energy (quanta) known as photons. Each photon has a set energy which is related directly to its frequency by the equation Energy = hc/wavelength (where h is Planck's Constant and c is the speed of light). A photon of Blue light (wavelength=400nm) therefore has more energy than a photon of red light (wavelength=700nm).

http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell4.htm (stated as a reliable source previously) says that the energy of photons falling on a crystalline silicon solar panel must be 1.1 to 1.4 eV of Energy which corresponds to a wavelength of 885 - 1127nm. As you can see on this image of the electromagnetic spectrum, these wavelengths lie in the infrared end of the spectrum. Any other photons are wasted. Thus the frequency of the light is paramount to the effectiveness of the calculator's solar panel.

Having said all that, I live in university halls and hence have no choice about the light bulbs used in my room. I think it's a CFL covered with some sort of protective cover that blocks out a ton of the light, so I can't comment on whether the things are actually as bright as they say they should be. It's possible that the manufacturers are using theoretical equivalance values which may not be applicable in practise.

I'd also expect the Energy saving bulbs to be far more cost effective. Assuming that we leave both bulbs on for 10,000 hours, we'd need to buy 10 incandescant bulbs and one Energy saving bulb. Taking the price of an incandescant bulb to be 50p and an energy saving bulb to be £3.50 we've saved money already without even considering the electric bill! Taking a cheap price of electricity of 5p per kilowatt hour gives that the energy saving bulb (25W) uses £12.50 and the equivalent incandescant bulb (100W) uses £50 of electricity. Obviously you don't leave the bulbs on all day and all night, but the point is there.

Finally, I find the response of various people to global warming and environmental damage to be quite shocking. Global warming is no fictional device created to make money! It's a fact. Just like people used to deny that smoking is dangerous to your health. Tackling the situation will require radical action. Complaining at being told to replace your lightbulbs to conserve energy, time and money is just daft. Why fight it? Replace your bulbs, save money, save time and save your children's future.

References:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/solar-cell4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
http://www.est.org.uk/myhome/efficie...g/bulbratings/

Re: New bulbs.
 

My white flag is now definitely up now, I surrender.:cool:

Re: New bulbs.
 

P.S. The blue bulb will permit infrared emission to occur. Just touch the bulb to see how hot it gets. This heat will be radiated and used to power your calculator explaining why it works. Your lighter also emits infrared radiation as will your computer screeen.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Global warming may not be a fictional device but the 'evidence' that it is us that is causing it is not as yet proven. The world has and will continue to go through major climate changes as time progresses.

Interestingly as a result of global warming we in the UK are more likely to experience colder weather due to the dilution of the sea affecting the North Atlantic drift which keeps us artificially warm.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Re: New bulbs.
 

I must say that the figures I've seen always quoted 10X lifespan.

No ones mentioned the mercury yet................

Re: New bulbs.
 

Jambutty, do you accept the physics behind my post informing you about the different frequencies that can be used with solar cells and hence the reason why your calculator dosn't work with LE bulbs, rather than it being less bright?

Re: New bulbs.
 

Oh come on. Scientifically it's hard to prove a correlation such as that due to the number of possible factors. But carbon dioxide levels rose drastically in the late 19th and the 20th centuries. Carbon dioxide being a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. At the same time there was a peak in global temperature. Is it just a coincidence that this coincides with the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels? Perhaps aliens began to inconspicuously deposit vats of CO2 into the atmosphere. I somehow doubt it. It's obvious to all but the ignorant that we are the cause of the problem. Even if we aren't, we still need to do something about it if we want to conserve our way of living. Reducing the amount of CO2 will help with this. Please stop ignoring the problem in the hope that it will go away. I'm not trying to point the finger. I'm as much to blame as anyone else. I'm just saying that there is a problem and it needs acknowledgement before we can solve it.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth...u501page04.cfm

Re: New bulbs.
 

Very true but how much heat does a torch with a blue filter over the lens produce that can have an affect on my calculator? Undoubtedly some infrared will filter through as well as will other spectral colours because the blue filter is unlikely to be a perfect blue.

The bottom line is that my calculator will be activated by light from any source and it is the brightness (or amount measured in lumins) of light falling on the solar panel that will determine at what point the calculator will become operative. Where the light comes from or what colour it is, is irrelevant. The blue end of the spectrum has more energy than the red end and therefore I conclude that more energy means a brighter light. With a 10% differential between the outer limits of the spectrum as shown by http://www.iee.cz/iwtpv04/6-Pociask.ppt slide number 32 it is hardly a major factor.

In any case the point being made applies to, presumably, a modern solar cell. My calculator is more than 20 years old.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Strangely enough Nature is absolutely full of seemingly impossible co-incidences, without one of which we wouldn't be here ourselves to chat about it. We have proven nothing except a coincidental set of circumstances which someone wishes for whatever reason (political, religious, financial, who knows) to link together.

There's statistics and theres life. I know whos side I'd bet on

Re: New bulbs.
 

Me too entwisi, I’ve always heard 10 times quoted by those who are trying to encourage us all to go down the LE road.

However according to the packaging on a General Electric LE bulb (normal price £3.50 reduced to £1.75 at Asda) on side of the box it quotes; “Lasts 6 years, if used for 2.7h per day.” Thus ignoring leap years, 365 x 6 x 2.7 = 5913 hours. Near the bottom of the same side it reads: Last longer – 6 times longer than normal bulbs. I still prefer classical cousins to normal bulbs. It also states: Saves energy – uses 80% less electricity.

Interestingly this particular 15w LE bulb is sold as an equivalent to a 75w classical cousin and the box also quotes the lumens. 799Lm for the LE and 820Lm for the classical cousin. Not a huge difference and probably not discernable by the naked eye but it doesn’t fool a solar panel on a calculator. So if proof were ever needed that an LE bulb does not give off as much light as a normal bulb General Electric has supplied it.

The box also reveals that the LE bulb should not be used in conjunction with a timer or dimmer switches. Why not a timer I wonder? The box also goes on to declare that an LE bulb should not be used in “enclosed or recessed fixtures” because it could reduce its life. That’s about all of the fittings in a house if you include lampshades. LE bulbs are looking less of a bargain than is being claimed.

The 60w hot filament bulb box reveals that it delivers 700 lumens for a life of 1,000 hours. It also declares that the bulb is fused for extra safety. That would explain that every time that the bulb dies it always take the plug fuse.

However a rated 60w LE bulb (actual 11w) from Philips lasts for 6 years according to the box and uses 5 times less electricity to operate. I measured the current of the 60w normal bulb and it was 200mA whereas the current drawn by the LE bulb was 20mA. On the top of the box it states 6,000 hours, 600 lumens, 80 mA. 80mA? Maybe my multimeter is dicky? But to be so far out? It is unlikely. So there again if proof were ever needed, an LE bulb gives off less light than a normal bulb. And that is what I stated at the outset and did so on the observation that my calculator had to be brought closer to the source for a LE bulb than for a normal bulb for it to work.

P.S. I don't want to talk about mercury arc lights.

Re: New bulbs.
 

Argumentatively you could say that because of the heat given out by using incandescent lamps you wont need to burn as much fossil fuel to heat your house. Anyone fancy giving us a nice equation to work out the difference in heating fuel need by house A using fluorescent lamps and house B using incandescent lamps?

Re: New bulbs.
 

That is why I mentioned the disposal by licensed contractor in the workplace. HBC will have to have a compact fluorescent collection service unless they want us landfilling that mercury ;)

Re: New bulbs.
 

More than 20 years old? Then this proberbly applies even greater because its only with recent times that they're getting more efficient and using more of the spectrum.

Unless you can prove otherwise, stop denouncing scientific fact. The colour of the light DOES matter. It explains EXACTLY what is going on and why your calculator works less well with LE bulbs even though they're the same brightness. How can you just conclude otherwise going against physics, unless you happen to have proof.


It is a major factor, it is the single factor that explains why your calculator works differently under two bulbs (of the same brightness).

Ps. Your whole assumption that 'it has more energy so it must be brighter' would mean LE lightbulbs are actually brighter than normal ones so don't prove yourself wrong in the same thread.

Just accept science. For once.