Could this be a thermal problem? Do they expect convective cooling of the lamp itself to NOT flow over the electronics package? Sean On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Bob Axtell wrote: > My experiences are that they do NOT work at an upside-down 30-degree > angle, which I had in my dining room candelabra. Two sets burned out > in less than a week (two bulbs burned out on the first day). I had to > replace them with regular tungsten bulbs. > > On the other hand, CFLs work fine in the upright position. > > Stated Longevity has never been met here in Tucson. > > -- > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Russell McMahon wr= ote: >>> What do the enlightened readers of PICLIST have to say ? >> >> Claiming enlightenment would be, quite possibly, too much, even on New Y= ears >> day at the very beginning of time as we leave the noughties and launch i= nto >> the teens, but I have a few thoughts thereon (CFLs and enlightenment, but >> I'll reserve the latter). >> >> _______ >> >> Full disclosure: Philips paen follows. No shares or financial interests = in >> Philips - I just tend to like their better products. >> >> Extremely good and detailed CFL versus other comparison >> comprehensive investigation of issues involved. >> Writer is not anti CFL per se. >> 60+ screens. >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.h= tm#cchar >> >>> And what about the toxic material in CFLs ? >> >> Mercury is the most quoted toxic material. >> Levels in modern well designed CFLs are lower than in many older ones >> (figures available from Gargoyle and/or Philips nee Glowlampen Fabriken >> (full-circle)). >> >> Philips and their apologists (of whom I tend to be one) claim that the >> Mercury levels emitted from a typical power station when producing 4 or 5 >> times the energy required to operate a CFL are well in excess of those >> contained in the CFLs. ie burning coal etc to produce the power to opera= te >> an incandescent bulb of equivalent light output to a CFL liberates more >> mercury than is contained in the CFL. Further, the extra CO2 generated by >> operating an incandescent bulb is currently considered by some, due to t= heir >> degree of enlightenment (see above) to be a net disadvantage. Also, I >> understand that in th USA, but note perhaps elsewhere, yet, CO2 is poiso= nous >> and therefore presumably also toxic. Note that this toxin does not emit = from >> nor is contained in the non-CFL but is produced elsewhere as a consequen= ce >> of its operation. >> >>> The CFLs I have purchased do not reach the lifetime touted for them. >>> Some fail after about 100 to 200 hours. =A0I have not seen a >>> relationship between brand name / cost =A0 and longevity. >> >> As a substantial but largely domestic user I have seen some early failur= es >> but note that name brand bulbs typically to last for extended periods. B= ulbs >> subject to long periods of operation often have lifetimes in excess of >> manufacturers claims - sometimes much in excess. When starting a new bul= b I >> usually write the date on its base and I know what sort of usage each >> location sees, so my lifetime assessments are not entirely anecdotal. >> >> NZ & Australia "Consumer" (testing organisation) tests show that light >> output per Watt varies between brands by up to about 2:1. Usually the >> Philips "Tornado" (spiral glass) top the efficiency table. I tend nowada= ys >> to only buy Philips Tornado CFLs and their longevity is usually good. >> >> Philips publish a lumenr/Watt rating on the outer package. This increases >> with increasing Wattage and is higher for bright-white/daylight blue bul= bs >> than for warm-white. >> >> I do not know what range of PFs are produced by various CFLs but typical >> figures given are around 0.5. It would be entirely doable to produce near >> unity power factors electronically if the will existed. cost is liable t= o be >> an issue. >> >> Sample of one: =A0I have a CFL here which has run for about 30,000 hours >> (probably about 1 month to run to reach this target). It's a Philips "Ge= nie" >> 8 Watt, 3 small loops, warm white, 53 l/Watt claimed. It operates in our >> hall light fitting and is operated essentially '24/7'. It was installed = on >> August 12th 2006. 1238 days, 29,712 hours. Turned off sometimes >> semi-randomly. (Running cost at ~$NZ2/Watt is $16/year 24/7. Turning the >> bulb off regularly will kill it much quicker, but running it say 12 hour= s / >> day would save about $8/year in energy costs which is more than its capi= tal >> cost, so doing so would arguably save money. And result in a somewhat da= rk >> hall even in daylight due to less than inspired house design. >> >> >> >> =A0 =A0Russell >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist