What's new

IMPORTANT anyone using CFL's please read!!!

rickemery

Member
It has recently come to my attention that the compact fluorescent bulbs sold in the united states and canada are not nearly as efficient as the supposed power consumption rating, (wattage), that is printed on the bulb and the box.

There are two types of power, real power and apparent power.
real power is the capacity of your circuit to do work at specific point in time, ie. a 40w cfl really only uses 40w of 'real power' to power its load, the lamp.
Apparent power is the voltage x amperage that is provided to the circuit, and this is what you are charged for by the power company.

Inductive loads, (such as lamp ballasts and transformers, motors etc.) are infact inductors! and will store energy as current passes through them. with a/c the current is constantly changing one direction to the other, (at 60cycles per second, (hz), in most areas of north america), when the flow of current switches direction the inductor releases its energy, but a split second afterwards, making the current 'out of phase' to the input current. to compensate for this the circuit will draw more current, even though this current isnt being used to directly power the load and is sent back to the grid!

the ratio between real power and apparent power is described as the power factor. usually a number from 0-1.0. quality ballasts, like those sold with the hps bulbs have a power factor near 1.0. this achieved by adding that large capacitor into the circuit. without the capacitor the lamps would most likely still run, but would cost 30-40% more to run, (that figure is an estimate).

so to simplify things here, a cfl uses a small ballast circuit containing an inductive transformer. this transformer places the a/c current out of phase and thus the circuit must compensate by providing extra current that is not used to power the lamp, but is sent back to the grid. these CFL's are built with poor power factor correction in mind and most have shown to usually have a power factor rating of a pitiful 0.55! that means if your lamp says it is rated at 40w, it will actually consume 40w/0.55 = 72.72 watts!

This can be verified for yourself if you have access to a wattmetre and a multimetre.


Sorry if this has been covered in a previous thread, it just came to my attention and i was outraged at the misinformation.

Also i only have a novice understanding of circuits and electronics, and the power factoring is new to me so i may not have the explanation 100% correct. but it is basically what is happening in these circuits.

the main fact rests, we are being mislead into believing that these bulbs are of high efficiency, when infact we are paying almost double in some cases to the power companies to use them.

If you are the experimental or diy type, you can google ways to power factor correct your cfl's by changing in different capacitors into the circuit.

Hope this reaches the cfl growers, peace
 

geopolitical

Vladimir Demikhov Fanboy
Veteran
Poor PF hasn't been the case with the ones I've used. What brands have you noticed this problem with?

A list would be a great thing.
 

420somewhere

Hi ho here we go
Veteran
Very interesting ...

Very interesting ...

This is very interesting.

To add to it, not growing tested. I use solar panels a deep cycle battery an inverter to power some electronics up on my hill. I have an inverter which displays the watts being used. I put a little CFL on it and noticed that it was drawing more watts then advertised. Hmmm...

Then I put on an Outdoor Large CFL, a free standing light used to work at night, it was only suppose to draw 60 watt, way over 100 watts.

Then I found that when it was cold, they even drew more wattage.

Of course these are just my observations, but to say the least, I was very surprised. And I can't use the light effectively in the manner I wanted, because of the limited power from my deep cycle battery.

just my $ 0.02:joint:
 

Tilt

Member
use pll lamps. The electronic ballasts have a pf of .9 or more. I would only reccommend
screw in type cfls for quick set up because they are readily available.
 

geopolitical

Vladimir Demikhov Fanboy
Veteran
So I broke out some equipment. These are lights I have around the house.

TMI 125w rated

128w actual PF .87

TMI 3w rated

3w (eeh, give or take) actual PF .68

Lights of America 20w

18w actual PF .67

Sylvania 13w

13w PF .79

Lights of America 23w

23.5w PF .69

"Truelight Daylight" 25w 4 prong CFL lamp for sewing.

22w PF .54!!!



A few HIDs for comparison.

100w semi-fried ballast (fan failed, top of the cab got to crazy temps & is being swapped out tomorrow)

105w actual .49 PF!!


250w HPF Sola ballast (15 year old ballast, 3 year old cap, air cooled & treated well

258w actual .98 PF!!



This being said our itty bitty local utility doesn't bother charging anyone other than "industrial/manufacturing" customers for wild PF's. Your local mileage may vary but chances are you may have nothing to worry about.
 

Tilt

Member
couple of reasons for spiral cfls being low power factor
1. downward pressure on the price to force the switch to using them results in cheaper components
2. adding the capacitor to correct the power factor would require more space (lose compactness )
3. the bulbs with a ballast are meant to be disposable
4. I dont like the lumen loss due to the spiral shape

When compact flourescents are installed in commercial and industrial facilities, They use a remote ballast with a power factor of .9 or higher.
Pll lamps with a workhorse 8 ballast is .9 pf
 

Anti

Sorcerer's Apprentice
Veteran
Droppin' science like Galileo dropped the orange!

Thanks for the heads up, ya'll.
 

foomar

Luddite
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Old news and wrong , irrelevant for domestic supply , no extra costs to consumer but advantages on the supply side with high PF.

Power factor is a measure of the phase of the voltage versus the phase of the current in the system; this phase difference causes higher current flow than would be expected for a given power output, but it does NOT increase the power consumed.

Where it does cause problems is that the increased current causes increased losses in the supply lines, and it puts a heavier load on those lines. A supply line that can carry a thousand amperes can only carry a thousand amperes; if part of that is due to bad power factor, less power can be transferred when the line is operating at capacity. For most environments, the supply lines run well below capacity, so it's not like this is a big deal unless all of the loading begins to come from low power factor CFLs (which isn't very likely at 10-20 watts each.)

But the real misrepresentation comes about when statistics full of Watts and VA (volt-amps) are bandied about. In fact, the only additional losses are in the supply lines and supply hardware, which now must carry more current. That said, supply line losses are intentionally kept very low - typically less than 1% of the power delivered over them. With this, we can construct a contrived worst case example for demonstration purposes:

Assume a 50% loaded line that loses 1% of the power delivered over it at a power factor of 1.0.

That same line will be 100% loaded at a power factor of 0.5, due to a doubling of the required current to provide the same power. This line will now suffer a 4% power loss. (P = I*I*R)

In short, the actual losses due to bad power factor are only a few percent, even in a worst case scenario. Much more important is the higher current caused by the bad power factor.

But utilities and electric companies aren't stupid. They already employ extensive power factor correction at substations and other locations; in some places, the power factor correction is even dynamic, so as to optimize the power factor at any given time. Why would they bother to do this? Isn't power factor a new problem? Not even close.

All electric motors and inductors have power factor issues by their very nature. The power factor issues with motors have been known and understood for over a century, and these things make up the backbone of nearly all electromechanical subsystems. To top this all off, nearly all homes will have fans, compressors for refrigeration, and other rotating equipment. If anything, the presence of CFL's will serve to compensate for this, as the CFL power factor and the inductive power factor cancel each other.
 

LoKey

Member
most cfl's actually consume less than there rated wattage, as they are liable for false claims due mainly for safety reasons.

i can tell you personally my small cfl cab, if by adding up all the claimed wattages, i should be consuming 187w not including the couple watts caused by the fans, but in fact i average around 172w when everything is going.

on complete units aka ballast included like cfl's the power factors are already figured into the wattages, now on units such as pll's or hps where the bulbs and ballasts are separate units they assume you will be using a ballast around a certain power factor range, so in fact if you have a crappy ballast you can be consuming more electricity than listed, or could be consuming less if it a high quality higher power factor ballast
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top