Posts Tagged ‘fluorescents’

Last Full-Spectrum Post, I Promise

Monday, June 29th, 2009

I have just a couple more points to make about full-spectrum lamps.

  • They are more expensive. Since “full-spectrum” lighting is a marketing term, you should expect it to be an attempt to get you to pay more for a light bulb. There are reasons to pay more for a light bulb, such as increased efficiency or better color rendition, but paying more for a “full-spectrum” lamp should be approached with caution. You can sometimes get the exact same spectral distribution with greater efficiency from a non-full-spectrum source.
  • They are only worth it if they make you feel better. Some people will just like them. If that is you, and you don’t mind the cost, go ahead and use them. The increased UV isn’t too bad (remember: 8 hours of full-spectrum lighting to equal UVB of 1 minute of sunlight).
  • (A follow-up claim) Full-spectrum can make your whites whiter and paper brighter: This is slightly true, as you can increase the luminance about 1.7 to 2.3% of a piece of white paper or white cloth treated with whitening agents, but at the cost of 30 to 40% less efficacy.
  • Generally speaking, full-spectrum sources are less efficient than the standard version of the same thing. When making a choice, I recommend using the more energy efficient lamp.

Full-Spectrum Lighting Health Claims

Friday, June 26th, 2009

I realized there are a couple of other things to mention, but so much of what I’ve been hearing relates to the health claims that I want to address that today and let the other things spill over into next week.

When the full-spectrum term was coined in the 1960′s it referred to both visible light and the invisible ultraviolet (UV) light. The health claims of full-spectrum lighting mostly revolve around the UV end of the range. All fluorescent light emits UV radiation, since it is the UV rays created by the mercury vapor striking the phosphor coating which makes a fluorescent light work. Full-spectrum lamps just emit more UV radiation than normal lamps.

The typical recommendation is to avoid as much UV exposure as possible. UV exposure has been linked to sunburn and skin cancers as well as cataracts in the eye. UV exposure also cause the degradation of textiles, paints, and architectural materials. Museums typically require all wavelengths shorter than 400nm to be filtered out of artificial lights.

  • Technical info, you may ignore: Visible light is 760 nm to 380 nm, UVA is light wavelengths between 400 nm and 315 nm, UVB is light wavelengths between 315 nm and 280 nm, UVC is light wavelengths between 280 nm and 100 nm. Visible light is broken down as red from 760 to 610 nm, orange from 610 to 591 nm, yellow from 591 to 570 nm, green from 570 to 500 nm, blue from 500 to 450 nm, and purple from 450 to 360 nm. These are defined by the International Organization for Standardization in ISO 21348:2007.

Full-spectrum lighting to treat SAD (seasonal affective disorder): Using full-spectrum lighting does not fit into the standard treatment of SAD, which involves exposure of the eye to a white light source in a light box. The light box typically generates 10,000 lux and it is used for about 30 minutes. Lower intensities might be used for longer periods. At 10,000 lux, any light source will be effective to treat SAD. Most importantly, these light boxes shield out UV rays, which is the opposite of using full-spectrum lighting. Using full-spectrum lamps in normal overhead lighting will have no effect upon SAD treatment.

Full-spectrum lighting and vitamin D production: Vitamin D is important, but the production is stimulated by the UVB band (315 to 280 nm) of light. Full-spectrum lamps typically use phosphors to generate UVA radiation (400 to 315 nm), and they typically peak around 355 nm. You are better off eating fish and dairy products and–if you’re really worried–taking supplements. Various studies have been done showing exposure to full-spectrum lighting for vitamin D production is impractical. For example, to spike vitamin D production in your body you may need 30 hours continuous exposure to a full-spectrum lamp to get the same affect as 22 minutes of mid-day sunlight. Or, 8 hours of full-spectrum office lighting has about the same UVB exposure as 1 minute of direct sunlight.

Also, the UVB rays that are generated by full-spectrum lamps often don’t bounce off surfaces. That means that if you are hoping to increase your UVB exposure you will only get it when in direct line of sight from the lamp to your skin. Everything else is absorbed by the materials and clothing around you. That also increases the deterioration of those materials.

In summary, there really are no serious health benefits to using full-spectrum lighting.

Full-Spectrum Lighting

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

I’ve been running into people, Tweets, and marketing articles about full-spectrum lighting recently and I want to set some things straight. Full-spectrum lighting is a marketing term used by people selling you lighting products; it does not have any technical meaning in the lighting industry. Full-spectrum sources often cost much more than a standard product, sometimes more than 10 times the cost, and the overall benefits have not been proven.

Common claims:

  • It is closer to “natural” daylight, which is its own benefit: This claim is more or less meaningless. Daylight changes throughout the day due to atmospheric conditions (is it cloudy or clear) and time of day (mid-day sun or morning sunrise). All artificial lighting sources are static in their output, what you get at 3:00 PM on a cloudy day is that same as 2:00 AM at night. Some LED sources are collections of LEDs that can be programmed to change color, but that has nothing to do with mimicking daylight. Trying to hash out the meaning of this claim gets you mired in spectral distribution curves which is a huge topic, so for now just keep in mind that “full-spectrum” sources are just modifications of existing fluorescents. Except GE Reveal and the like, which are modified incandescents.
  • You get better color from full-spectrum sources: This is sort-of true. Full-spectrum fluorescents use a different phosphor mix that can sometimes have a higher CRI (color rendering index) than a typical fluorescent. The increase in CRI is often accompanied by an decrease in efficiency. You can also get non-full-spectrum fluorescents with higher CRI ratings than standard for slightly more cost than a standard lamp but still less than a full-spectrum lamp. The stand-out exception to this is the incandescent full-spectrum sources, which decrease the CRI of their bulbs.
  • You get increased worker productivity with full-spectrum: There are two parts to this: the first is just based on the ability to see tasks well. In most circumstances productivity for visual tasks is linked to monochromatic tasks, such as reading black ink on white paper. For these tasks it is the amount of light that determines good visibility, not the color or quality of the light. In this regard full-spectrum offers no benefits. There is some research suggesting that since the rods–which are blue-green sensitive–control the size of the pupil, light to the cool, bluish side causes the pupil to constrict and thereby increase acuity and you can get equal acuity with less power by using bluish light. I think it is unreasonable to get into this kind of detail when you just want to buy a lightbulb, so the simple answer is “no.” However, if your work is very color sensitive, such as fine art or clothing production, you want to maximize the CRI of your sources to affect productivity.
  • It has psychological benefits: This is the second part of the “increased productivity” claim. By definition, a psychological benefit is “all in your head,” so in terms of the benefit claim it is true. If you like full-spectrum lighting and don’t mind the disadvantages then you are getting a psychological benefit. Does everyone feel better equally, there’s no way to say, which is why it makes a good marketing claim. I have never found any research that shows a physiological link that leads to a psychological benefit. This is also often linked to the “natural” daylight claim. It is true that most people feel better working and living under daylight than artificial light. However, daylight changes throughout the day and with the weather, and I think the change over time is one of the main reasons people like daylight.

This post is getting longer than I like for a daily reading, so I’ll deal with the health concerns tomorrow. That will give you a chance to rest up and stay with me.

Universal Waste

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps are categorized by the US EPA as “universal waste.” The category was created specifically for batteries, pesticides, and mercury-containing equipment and lamps. It allows these items to be excluded from the more stringent hazardous waste handling laws.

Federal law requires pretty much all commercial and institutional users to handle fluorescent lamps as universal waste. Some states, such as Massachusetts and California, have outlawed throwing fluorescent lamps in the trash. Some states leave it up to individual counties. However, I think everyone is best served if we don’t throw any fluorescent lamps in the trash.

Instead of trashing lamps, a much better alternative is lamp recycling. Nearly every part of a fluorescent lamp can be recycled, from the glass down to the phosphors. You can find a recycler near to where you live or work from a variety of websites. The EPA’s site is at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/live.htm and there is an independent site that is very user-friendly at http://earth911.com/.

There are lamps in which the mercury content is low enough to be exempt from universal waste classification. These are lamps that have passed the TCLP test (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). This basically says that if the lamp is thrown in a landfill less than 0.2mg of mercury will leach out per liter of the testing solution. However, it doesn’t apply to incinerated trash, and I emphasize that it is still best to recycle TCLP-compliant lamps.

Dimmers in the Kitchen

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

The kitchen is an odd sort of place when it comes to dimming. You need to have lots of light for preparing meals, so it would seem to be a place you could skip. However, the kitchen is also a place where many people tend to congregate. To that end, your dimmer will receive much more of a workout, but you’ll end up finding you use it all the time. It becomes a more comfortable gathering place when dimmed, and you’ll find yourself only cracking it up to full to prepare a big meal. Most of the time it will be dimmed down some.

Note that some newer homes have fluorescent lights installed in the kitchen to really pump up the light levels for cooking. If you have a fluorescent light in the kitchen, you’ll need to refer to my postings about fluorescent dimming, which I haven’t written yet. Be on the lookout.

Intro to Fluorescents, Day 5

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Maintenance for fluorescent lamps is very different than incandescents. With incandescent bulbs you just put them in and replace them when they stop working. Fluorescents don’t work that way.

Fluorescent lamps typically don’t “burn-out” and stop working. They slowly get dimmer and dimmer over time. They need to be replaced based on how long they have been on. It is different lengths of time for different lamps, but the box will probably list the expected life of the lamp, and it will be a number like 8,000 or 10,000 hours. If you have your lights on for about 6 hours a day, say 1 hour before work and 5 hours after (6 to 11), you’ll have them on a little more than 2,000 hours a year. The expected life is not the length of time until it stops working, it will work long after reaching its allotted time, it will just have gotten so dim as to need replacement. When you change the bulb it will seem much brighter.

There actually are filaments (similar to an incandescent light bulb) in a fluorescent lamp located at each end. When you see the ends of the lamp getting darker over time, that is the lamp aging and material burning off those filaments and depositing on the glass. If the ends get really dark you should replace the lamps.

Fluorescents need to be on for about 100 hours to stabilize the phosphors when brand new. During this time they will be brighter than their rating and the color may shift, but not enough for you to see it. It really only matters for dimming fluorescents, since if the stabilization isn’t done before the lamps are dimmed it can dramatically shorten their life.

Fluorescents are temperature sensitive. They work better in warmer temperatures, up to a point. When you first turn them on it may take a short time to come to full intensity as they warm up.

Intro to Fluorescents, Day 4

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

There are a couple health concerns that have been discussed in the media recently. Fortunately, the technical benefits of fluorescent lighting outweigh the risks.

The gas in fluorescent lamps is a mercury vapor, which is why some people are concerned about switching to fluorescents. However, the amount of mercury is small when compared to the amount of mercury released by coal-fired power plants. Since you’ll be changing out a 100 watt bulb for a (somewhere around) 25 watt bulb to get the same light, you reduce the generation needed at the power plant. (The US still generates most of its electricity from coal-fired plants.) Most researchers agree that switching to fluorescents will bring a net reduction in mercury emissions, and the EPA claims about a 2/3rd reduction in mercury emissions for changing a 60 watt incandescent to a 13 watt compact fluorescent.

Also, you can get lower mercury lamps by looking for TCLP compliant lamps. TCLP is a test the EPA has that involves crushing stuff up and see what leaches out.

Fluorescent lamps are classified as Universal Waste, which means you can’t throw it in the dump, but it doesn’t have to be handled like hazardous waste. It’s in the middle. You may or may not be able to recycle them in your area. The EPA has a page to help you figure out what’s available at their website: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/live.htm.

On a second matter, the current passing through the vapor generates UV (ultraviolet) rays, which are necessary to make the phosphor coating fluoresce. Much of the UV is shielded by the glass simply as a property of glass, nothing special is done to it. Some UV does come through, but it is a fairly small amount. “Full spectrum” fluorescent lamps are available, but I recommend you do not use them. They use older and less efficient phosphor coatings, they allow more UV through, and they are typically less efficient. There is also no definition of what “full spectrum” means, so you don’t know what you’re getting when you buy them.

Intro to Fluorescents, Day 3

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

Following up on yesterday’s post, there are fixes for the two common complaints regarding color and flicker.

  1. Color is tricky. The details regarding color for fluorescent lighting is complex and I’ll address it in another post, but for now just look for two things: the lamp’s color temperature and its CRI. The color temperature will be four digits followed by a “K,” such as 3000K or 4200K. The CRI will be two digits and may or may not be labeled, such as 72 or 86. For color temperature, select from three options: 3000K, 3500K, or 4000K. The 3000K will appear warmer, supporting reds and oranges better. The 4000K will appear cooler and brighter, supporting the blues and greens better. It comes down to personal preference, and you should see each before making a selection. For the CRI, select the highest number available, hopefully higher than 85. The color temperature and CRI will be printed on the bulb if it isn’t on the box. GE uses a code like F32T8/SPX35/ECO, where the SPX means a CRI of 86 and the 35 means a color temperature of 3500K. Philips and Sylvania use similar codes: F32T8/TL835/ALTO for Philips or FO32/835/XP/ECO for Sylvania. The 8 means a CRI of 86 for Philips and 82 for Sylvania (the addition of XP raises it to 85) and the 35 means a color temperature of 3500K. Those three codes will basically provide you the same lamp.
  2. Flicker is not tricky. Flicker can be solved by using electronic instead of magnetic ballasts. Older, magnetic ballasts operate at 60 Hz, as discussed yesterday. Electronic ballasts operate at thousands of cycles per second, so it is impossible to see the flicker. Plus, they are much quieter than older ballasts, so if you hear a ballast buzzing, change it!

Intro to Fluorescents, Day 2

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

Since fluorescent lighting is much more efficient it would seem to be good way to save on energy consumption. However, most people don’t want to switch to fluorescents. There are basically two main complaints.

  1. I hate the color. It’s not so much the color as the lack of color. Incandescent, like sunlight, has a wide “spectral distribution,” which simply means it looks white because it has all the colors of the rainbow mixed together. Because the light in a fluorescent lamp is generated by the phosphor coating on the inside of the lamp (see yesterday’s post), rather than incandescence, the spectral range is reduced. Think of a rainbow with parts missing. Objects and people that you see will looked dingy if the colors on them are not present in the fluorescent lamp’s “rainbow.” Although most people can’t quite put their finger on it, that’s why they think that things just look bad under fluorescent lights.
  2. I hate the flickering. The “flicker” that some people see is a real problem and can lead to headaches as well as annoyance. It is caused by the ballast. Old ballasts operate at 60 cycles per second, the same as the cycle supplied from the power company. Each end of the lamp is actually firing off 60 times per second, which is slow enough some people can see it, usually in their peripheral vision.

There are good fixes for these complaints, which is tomorrow’s posting topic.

Intro to Fluorescents, Day 1

Monday, June 8th, 2009

This week I’ll be going over the basics of fluorescent lighting.

The principles of fluorescent lighting were discovered before Thomas Edison invented his incandescent lighting bulb. However, fluorescent lighting is more complex than an incandescent, so were commercially available first and quickly became the standard.

Fluorescent ligting is a two-step process: energy passes through a gas, which releases more energy that acts upon the coating on the inside of the glass. The light is generated by causing this coating to fluoresce, hence, “fluorescent lighting.”

Much of the complexity of fluorescent lighting comes from the fact that the power flowing through a gas instead of a filament has “negative resistance.” That means that the more electricity you give a lamp the more it tries to draw. It quickly takes in some much power that it bursts. To control the power a second piece of equipment is needed, called a ballast. To operate a fluorescent lamp the ballast must match the voltage and wattage design of the lamp. This means fluorescent lighting require a lot of parts, so incandescent lamps are the simple alternative.

Tomorrow: common complaints.