Jump to content

Talk:Fluorescent lamp/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Mercury. Again.

A sense of proportion, please. I've seen many broken light bulbs in my day, and I'm going to die, too, but not from mercury. In a world where you can't buy BPA water bottles any more because lab rats get bumps on them, surely the all-seeing nanny state would have banned the killer light bulbs by now? What, specifically, are these lethal compounds in a light bulb? Sure, dimethyl mercury is deadly in tiny quantities, but that doesn't come from light bulbs. That poor woman had 16 milligrams of mercury circulating in her blood, months after exposure...what was left in her blood stream was the equivalent of injecting the mercury content of three bulbs. Corrected after reading [1]. Estimated absorbed dose at the time of the accident was 1344 milligrams of mercury, equivalent to many bulbs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the amount is pretty small, though some extra is supplied for long lamp life. (It might be 0.1 atmosphere in operation.) As well as I understand it, for the same lumen-hours, incandescent lamps put more mercury into the atmosphere through coal power plants.

Addition of Fluorescent versus Neon section

I know this section doesn't have references but I think it is fairly accurate. It should help people understand the difference, since the two lamp types are very similar. WWriter (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of what people call neon lamps aren't. Pink, and colors close to red use neon plus fluorescence. Yellow, green, and blue use argon and fluorescence. Gah4 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ballast loss

The article appears to assign a single percentage for ballast loss (if I read it correctly). Isn’t there a large ballast loss associated with generating the initial striking voltage? In other words, turning on the lamp for only a minute might lead to a larger ballast loss percentage compared to keeping the lamp on for an hour. Should this be in the article?

Psalm 119:105 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your concern here? It takes a fraction of a second to start - I expect the reason no-one tabulates energy lost during startup is that it's a negligable part of the operating life of a lamp. Most of the time, it's running, not starting - so starting losses of a ballast don't consume a lot of energy, at least compared to running loss. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the amount of energy required to generate the striking voltage was much higher. However, I did a little research and the web site http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/lighting_daylighting/index.cfm/mytopic=12280 indicates that the initial ballast energy is only equivalent to that needed to operate the lamp for about 5 seconds. Never mind... Psalm 119:105 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
For some lamps, the starting voltage is high, but not for long, and not a lot of current. Some lamps used in signs flash much faster, but also use different ballast designs. Some people figure the cost of shorter lamp life due to frequent starting, and maybe the energy cost of making the lamp. Otherwise, 5s sounds about right to me. Gah4 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Amperage, not Voltage?

As I was reading through the Starting section, I was seeing a lot of the use of the word "voltage" especially with reference to the bi-metallic strips found in the starters. I'm no electrician, but I have worked quite a bit with electricity and as far as I've understood the issue, it's not the voltage that heats the bi-metal, it's the amperage (the current) based on the resistance value (ohms) of the metal.

As I've come to learn, amperage is what really effects a load. With electric motors, the movement of the load is engaged by the high amperage, not the voltage. If you clamp an ammeter to the leg of power coming into the motor, at start-up you'll see a huge amp draw of approximately 5 times the normal running amp draw. This difference in amperage is called LRA (locked rotor amps) versus normal running amps, or RLA / FLA (run load amps / full load amps, both the same thing just different abbreviations). Voltage, although important, isn't the driving force of the motor. It's the start-up amperage. This, as far as I knew, dealt with heat motors (bi-metal motors) as well.

It's rather hard for me to believe that it takes thousands of volts to move a bi-metal strip when it would only take a few amps to move it. Additionally, I didn't think it was possible to get that many volts out of the power company without lowering the amount of amps by the hundreds. My understanding comes from Ohm's Law (E over I R).

Can anyone verify this one way or another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeP1983 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bi-metallic strips move due to heating and cooling, not necessarily due to either voltage or current. The only mention of “thousands of volts” that I can find is the “thousand volts” required to strike an arc in the main fluoro tube. According to the article, the starter and its bi-metallic electrode is part of the circuit to generate that voltage. The “thousand volts” is not available until the bi-metallic electrode has already heated up, connected, cooled down, and disconnected from the opposite electrode in the starter. Hope this helps; but what bits needs clarifying in the article? Vadmium (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
As the article clearly describes, it is not the current through the bi-metal strip which causes the heating, but the arc in the surrounding gas. Without the high voltage, the arc will not start in the first place. To put it another way, there is no path for current to flow through the bi-metal strip until the contacts have closed.Gutta Percha (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, bi-metallic strips move according to heating and cooling. They expand and contract based on the heat gain or heat loss to the strip. But what causes the heat? The heat is generated when the current moving through the metal encounters resistance. It's the same as heating elements. The voltage does the arching, but the arching wouldn't be possible without the strip first moving into place, expansion due to heat caused by the current, aka amperage. So I think the clarification needs to be made that the amperage, or current, causes the metal to heat and expand, thereby moving the element within range to allow for arching, the passing of power. Hope that's clear enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeP1983 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding by reading Fluorescent lamp#Switchstart or preheat is the heat is generated by the glow discharge in the starter. Presumably the the bi-metallic electrode has low resistance (being metallic) and causes little heating directly. Provided there is enough voltage, the glow discharge in the starter occurs immediately, when the bi-metallic electrode is in its cooled position, furthest from the opposite electrode. Is it perhaps that the article is not clearly distinguishing the starter tube, using glow discharge, from the main fluorescent tube, an arc lamp using arc discharge? Vadmium (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

I think the problem is first distinguishing, at least in our minds, the difference between current and voltage. Voltage is electric potential while current, or amperage, is the actual work horse of an electric charge. You can have voltage with nearly no amperage. But without amperage, motors won't run, electric fields can't be generated, and heat doesn't exist.

The idea behind bimetallic strips is that it's a multi-layer coupling of metals. Two metals are connected together, flush, and attached at their tips. Because different metals expand and contract at different rates, this is what causes the movement in a bimetallic strip. One side of the strip will expand quicker than the other side, moving the piece of metal from one direction to another when heated. The heat is generated because of the resistance of the metals, each metal heating at a different rate based on their individual ohm ratings, or resistance. The higher the current, or amperage, the faster the circuit or metals will heat.

Most electricians know that with low voltage, amperage starts to jump because resistance in any given circuit will remain constant. The formula is Amperage = Voltage / Ohms. Ohm's Law. If you keep resistance, ohms, constant and decrease voltage, your amperage will increase. This is what burns out circuits and causes brown outs and black outs. When too many people are using appliances and spreading the electric potential (voltage) out over a greater amount of area, such as in the heat of summer, your voltage will decrease and you start to experience brown outs/black outs because the amperage is jumping, heating the circuit and throwing breakers. That's why resisters are used in most circuitry. If they weren't there, then the entire circuit would burn up from the excessive amperage. But amperage isn't all bad in the right situation. This is the idea used to heat bimetallic strips. They allow a greater amount of current, amperage, to flow to the strips in order to heat them. Moving them and allowing them to become an automatic switch as long as amperage is present.

Hopefully that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeP1983 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Electric power is proportional to both voltage and current (have a read of Electric power or Joule's laws). Also, current and voltage are proportional for a constant resistance (read Ohm's law). But even without that knowledge, if there’s a specific bit of this article that is misleading or confusing, then we should fix it. Vadmium (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

Just for clarity so this gets archived, before striking, heat is -not- primarily generated by the current flowing in the bimetallic strip. It's from the current flow through the ionized -air- around it, and that ionization requires significant initial -voltage-. Once current is flowing only through the strip, it actually cools down. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's an introduction of the "improved" me.

Hello again, everyone. I have changed the way I socialize despite my autism now. First of all, I would like to apologize to Wtshymanski for the conflict two months ago thanks to advice I had received a week later and me deciding to give you a little break. Secondly, many thanks to whoever cited the Hg Law in the USA. Thirdly, I would like to create some new sections to the article due to some new facts I have learned about Fluorescent Lamps. There is some facts about HPF, VHO, LPF etc. that should ideally be written on the "Rapid Start" section. There are some phaseouts going on for the less efficient tubes and control gear in North America and here in Europe. ELIOT2000 and I would like to write about the European Union legislation phaseouts (like the banning of Halophosphate T8's) but other Europeans may also do so. I would also like the North American Wikipedians (including Wtshymanski) to write about the North American phaseouts (like the apparent banning of Magnetic Rapid Start F40T12's?). The section "Instant Start" should ideally mention about connecting the electrodes in parallel (unless untrue). I would also like to write about "Warm Start" which is the most modern form of starting a hot cathode tube. Fourthly, in the light turning pink section, I'd like to mention about technology to prevent this (like Argon and Krypton) but please politely correct me (but don't just remove) if I'm wrong. All of you can feel free to correct any false text but please do not remove any that are true or just delete too much text without permission (a bit like in the conflict two months ago) as you will avoid being reported for vandalism by not doing so. I won't edit just yet, I need permission first to prevent conflict. Autisexp235 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed opening edit

Present version says, “A fluorescent lamp or fluorescent tube is a gas-discharge lamp that uses electricity to excite mercury vapor. The excited mercury atoms produce short-wave ultraviolet light that then causes a phosphor to fluoresce, producing visible light.” Is it necessary or correct to say it is a mercury vapor discharge excitation? A white LED that uses a fluorescent phosphor to convert blue emissions into "white" light should also be called a fluorescent lamp as it employs fluorescent conversion. Why not say instead, "A fluorescent lamp is any light source that employs fluorescent conversion of a primary emission into a different spectral region. Typically this means a mercury vapor discharge lamp with a phosphor to convert the UV to the visible range. A white LED is an example of a fluorescent lamp that uses a solid state emission source and a phosphor to produce white light." Paleotechman (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the world seems to be happy calling the mercury-vapor variety a "fluorescent lamp" and the LED variety a "LED lamp" - Wikipedia follows usage, not sets it. I wouldn't recommend this change. Besides, some white LED lamps don't use a phosphor. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Color temperature, Kruithof curve

I have changed "natural" into "pleasant" and "comfortable" for low CCTs. For 5000 K I left it since high-lux daylight color looks both pleasant and natural. But the statement that only 2700 K looks natural (or even neutral) at low light levels is simply wrong. To me, 2700 incandescent or fluorescent light looks orange-yellowish even at low levels, and many others too. At low light levels, the neutral white (i.e. no apparent color hue) is about 4000 K while being about 6000 K at high (daylight) intensities. Furthermore, the Moon has a CCT of about 4100 K (probably due to its slightly brown surface color), and moonlight does not look unnatural, but unpleasant to many people if it is the only light source. If there are sources which state a natural/neutral color appearance for light CCT below 3000 K at low light levels, please cite them. I am only referring to the Kruithof curve article.--SiriusB (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tube pressure contradiction?

The Construction section of the article says the pressure in a fluorescent tube is 0.3% of atmospheric pressure, while the footnote referred to at the end of the sentence says it is 8 Pa or 0.0008% of atmospheric pressure. Which is right? --ChetvornoTALK 08:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Total pressure in the lamp, compared to vapor pressure of the mercury alone. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that. --ChetvornoTALK 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fluorescent Lamp starting with heat/steam from stove

After perusing technical information about Fluorescent lamps, it seems that temperature conditions has something to do with starting the light when the electrical current does not work. My kettle of water for tea starts my bulb over the stove, so my question is whether it is the steam or the heat that causes it to ignite or glow. I am looking for an explanation in layman's terms. Joan in Roswell joancrev@att.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.97.211 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's really more a question for the Help Desk; what I understand of your description is at odds with what I understand of the operation of a lamp. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Efficacy

The books say "Efficacy". What we want in lighting is efficacy, not efficiency; an incandescent light bulb is better than 90% efficient at turning electric power into electromagnetic radiation, but we can only *see* a small part of that radiation. Notice the units of efficacy - lumens per watt. Efficiency is dimensionless, a percentage. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is also the term "luminous efficiency" that only considers visible power output. The luminous efficacy article also uses luminous efficiency. In some contexts, referring to a luminous efficiency can be more approachable because it shows how close to perfect the conversion is. Glrx (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Efficiency Vs Efficacy

I just noticed that I edited the page for (mis)using the word efficacy instead of the (correct) word efficiency, and that in the process I have unknowingly stumbled into an edit/undo cycle of two people I don't know. So, to explain why I committed the edit...

According to Merriam Webster - Efficacy is a noun meaning the power to produce an effect. They trace the 13th century origin of the word efficacy to efficacious.

According to Merriam Webster - Efficiency is a noun meaning the quality or degree of being efficient. They say the word efficiency was first used in 1633.

Efficacy is is the correct word when discussing whether or not something has a particular effect or does not have that effect.

Efficacy is is the correct word when discussing the relative cost to produce a particular effect.

The source of this Wikipedia "efficacy" vs "efficiency" discourse may be a beaureaucratic decision to name a mandatory performance standard metric for fluorescant ballasts in a revised USA regulatory standard "ballast efficacy". The record suggests that the name was chosen to suggest "efficiency", the regulatory purpose of the rule, although it didn't measure it. (Ballast efficacy is calculated as [(ballast factor × 100) ÷ system watts], where ballast factor is the lamp specifc ratio of the light output of a lamp with a given ballast vs a reference ballast and ignores the power consumption ratio.)

Lastly, to the prior comment and efficiency as dimensionless etc., as a Ph.D. E.E. I have a very clear understanding of efficiency, and there is no reason to only use efficiency as a description of dimensionless ratios. However, it also notable that that in this case both measured quantities are electro-magnetic power and this in fact a dimsionless power ratio multiplied by a unit conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolychromePlatypus (talk • contribs) 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC) --PolychromePlatypus 23:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)PolychromePlatpus — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolychromePlatypus (talk • contribs)

As Dean of MIT, president and CEO of ABB, owner of General Electric, and a Nobel Prize Winner in Electrical Engineering, you are doubtless also aware that we buy light bulbs to make light, not to make "electro-magnetic power". A watt of green light makes more lumens than a watt of red light. A watt of infrared is useless for illumination. Careful people writing about light sources say "efficacy" when they mean "efficacy", and "efficiency" when they mean "efficiency", and Wikipedia should strive to maintain the distinction where it matters. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

The GE fluorescent lamp handbook and other handbooks I've read say that the capacitor in a ballast is for power factor correction. The discussion of different starting methods is out of place and confused. Agapito Flores has nothing to do with the lamps. The discussion of cold cathode lamps is out of place and redundant. A DC ballast must either be an electronic ballast or else must be a resistor - an inductive ballast won't work with DC. The references say the polarity must be reversed on DC to keep the distribution of mercury even in the tube; if there's a reference saying this is to balance erosion of the cathodes, please cite it. Not all the mercury in an operating tube is gaseous - some condenses on the tube wall at the coldest spot and this is a critical mechanism in regulating mercury partial pressure in the tube. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It happens to be the case. Running a tube from a single polarity of DC gives uneven wear on the coated filaments. It is not to do with distribution of the mercury (and this would be the same problem in an AC operated tube - if it was a problem). Thus fluorescent fittings designed for running from a DC supply had to have provision for reversing the polarity of the supply to the tube every time the lamp was switched on. The way it would be done today, of course, is to invert the DC into AC. Unfortunately, as the technique is no longer relevant, references are difficult to impossible to find. I have a very old electrical text book where I had hoped to find it discussed, but sadly it seems to predate the fluorescent light. It was published in 1920. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It's too bad Messrs. Kane and Sell didn't mention this in their book; they only discuss mercury distribution as the problem in DC lamps. It's also too bad that all the old books on DC lamps were burned in 1987, else we could find references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Why would they have burned the books in 1987? DC distribution and DC fluorescent lighting was in use in London, England as late as the 1990's. The whole Fleet Street newspaper empire ran from 200 volts DC until its major relocation in that decade. Power was generated in Bankside power station, just across the river, The reason was largely down to the power and clout of the printworkers' union who insisted that all newspapers had to be printed using 1920's hot metal type machines. These ran from 200 volts DC as this was the supply available in that part of London at the time. The reason was that they were not prepared to accept the reduction in manpower that would result from adopting desktop publishing systems.
Your tongue in cheek comment aside, there probably are references available somewhere, but few people bother hanging onto old out of date reference books which makes good references hard to find (I seem to be an exception because I have a modest collection of old reference material). It would be nice if someone did find a reference, because this is the sort of material that should be in article. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
See Fahrenheit 451 . Without references, we can't put it in here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Where exactly did I suggest otherwise? 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Interesting aside on Bankside. I thought DC had disappeared in the 1950s.
I've just checked Cayless; Marsden (1983) [1966]. Lamps and Lighting (3rd ed.). and there's no mention in that either. I too have a bit of a gap in my books between 1920 and this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It's quite true. The DC power station had to be maintained to drive the antiquated equipment in Fleet Street. It was why the station was so close to the city of London (DC doesn't travel very well). The electric co. could have installed rectifiers, but I suppose they were ever hopeful that the newspaper boses would one day beat the unions. They did, or rather Rupert Murdock did. Once the newspapers moved to the docklands area, Bankside was immediately decommissioned - the last DC power station in Britain - can't speak for the rest of the world. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Electronic Ballasts copyedit?

"inductance" in the first sentence. Should that be inductor? bondolo (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Think you actually mean #Electronic ballasts, second sentence. Probably could be inductor if that helps. Technically inductance is correct also I think, though maybe it sounds a bit smart-arse. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Switchstart or preheat

I have removed the phrase "Electronic starters contain a series of capacitors that are capable of producing a high voltage pulse of electricity across the lamp to ensure that it strikes correctly" because it is meaningless, factually incorrect, and at odds with the more detailed explanation below. Gutta Percha (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lifespan

I think you should include the approximate lifespan of a fluorescent lamp in hours. --Kizar (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As of Oct. 2018 the article claims a lifetime, but I have 3 fixtures in my basement the bulbs last less than 5-10 years probably a total of 300 to 800 hrs total. In other words, their "standard" testing is likely designed to make the bulbs (or ballasts, IDK) look much better than they really are in infrequent use conditions. I've put up with their lousy performance (various manufacturers) but am now going to find something that actually works. FWIW. Also shouldn't the article state the lumens of the typical retail sizes (of the old long tube type) bulbs? I was looking for it, and of course didn't find it here. (I understand that the color, etc. of the bulb will change the output, but still)72.16.99.93 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is lifespans vary drastically between manufacturers, between different models from the same manufacturer, between different batches of the same model, and even between two lamps that come off the production line one after the other. When a gas discharge lamp operates at high power regimes, like flashtubes, ablation of the glass from the electrical arc becomes the main process of wear. Due to this, the lifetime is typically shorter, but you can calculate it with a fair degree of accuracy. At lower power regimes like those in fluorescent lamps the main process of wear is sputter, which typically takes longer, but is far more susceptible to dramatic changes in sputter output due to the tiniest variation in any of a number of factors, thus it is rather impossible to predict the lifetime accurately at these lower energy levels. (See: Chaos theory) All you get are ballpark measurements, and these factors can vary drastically between manufactures, models, lots, or individual lamps. It can also be affected by the choice of ballast, or whether the ballast is new or not, or (in multiple lamp fixtures) if only one lamp in a fixture is changed, because adding a new lamp along side an old one can off-balance the load on the ballast and, therefore, the whole system. (The load on the system is a balancing act between the tubes, ballast, and line voltage, so a change in any one will affect the distribution of the whole.)
Also consider that how a lamp wears depends a lot on how it's used. If you turn it on and off a thousand times a day, it won't last as long as if you only switch it a few times a day, and that won't last nearly as long as if you simply leave it on all the time. Likewise, they won't last nearly as long in a cold environment as a hot one.
The same is true for lumen output, color, color temp, and conversion efficiency. Just look through a Grainger catalog and you can see how drastically these numbers differ between models and manufactures (not counting ballasts and fixtures as these can have a huge effect on all of these). Also consider that these numbers are only good after the initial warm-up, and drop of as the electrodes wear, the gas pressure lowers, and the phosphors degrade. We're not a catalog, so we can't get into that level of detail. We're just here to give a summary of the subject. We expect manufacturers to bloat their numbers, which is why we take ours from secondary sources which we hope do their due diligence. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Outdated info

I noticed that pros/cons and life specs were based on mid 20th century materials. I tagged them as update needed. I will work on finding more recent references when I have time. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is the inventor never mentioned?

Why is the inventor, Agapito Flores, who Filipino scientist that created the Flores-cent lamp not mentioned once in the article?Presidentbalut (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If you could provide some reliable sources, that would be very helpful.
I've never heard of him before. being curious, I just did a pretty thorough search of google books to see what I could dig up. Most mentions are nearly identical stories which give very little in the way of detailed information, but rather have the sense of story being "handed down through the grapevine." All of these accounts come from books which are completely unrelated to either science, inventors, or the lighting industry (ie: children's books and books on literature, etc...) The one book I could find which bears some relevance is Inventions and Innovations By Virgilio L. Malang. On page xiv, he gives the following statement: "By the way, before you miss the fluorescent lamp by the persistent folk creative Agapito Flores, I must apologize for my inability to locate any verifiable information about said invention and inventor. From where I stand, both appear to be simply myths." Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
its hard to find because the white people cover it up on places like wikipedia. but any1 who is edcated knows this Presidentbalut (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources which report such a cover-up? By the way, what makes you think that any of us are white? Virgilio L. Malang is definitely Filipino, and his book, Inventions and innovations: A Glimpse of the Filipino Legacy is completely dedicated to Filipino inventions. Dr. Malang appears to have done thorough research for his book. If he can't find reliable sources, what makes you think anyone else can? Zaereth (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
His name was Agapito Fluores. 78.151.30.73 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
See http://inventors.about.com/od/filipinoscientists/a/Agapito_Flores.htm Zaereth (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article not mention this was invented in the Philippines?

The florescent lamp was invented in the Philippines by Doctor Flores. Hence the name "Flores-cent". Why is this vital information not mentioned here??? Presidentbalut (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:V policy forbids it. DMacks (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The term "fluorescence" was coined in 1852 by Sir George Stokes, as a combination of the ancient Greek word, "fluorspar" and "opalescence," in reference to the afterglow produced by some substances. The fluorescent lamps uses such fluorescence, and hence the name, "fluorescent lamp." The powder that coats the inside of the glass is the fluorescent substance, and the term quite literally translates as: The essence of fluorspar. Zaereth (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
His name was Doctor Fluores. 78.151.30.73 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Moore's lamp

The comparison is between Moore's lamp and a 1904-era carbon filament bulb. If you've ever visited a museum lit by 1904-style carbon bulbs, you would notice that the light is anything but white. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a great quote allegedly said by Moore about the Edison lamp: "It's too small, too hot and too red." [[2]]--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Frequent turning on/off ... and magnetic ballasts?

Bit of a mystery here. How does frequently turning the power to a fluorescent lamp on and off use up the emission coating, if the lamp has a magnetic ballast?

Due to the way a magnetic ballast lamp works, it is ALREADY being turned on and off, with 100/120 electric arc direction reversals per second.

So how does the operator frequently turning the lamp on for short periods have any effect on emission coating life? If that were a problem, then the AC reversals would be doing far more damage.

Apparently this will be true for any other drive mechanism that uses discontinuous pulses to repeatedly start and stop the lamp arc.

So what is the actual cause of wear? Is it the thermal stress of heating and cooling on the components? Do the rapid thermal heating and cooling cycles of being turned on for short periods by the operator, cause the emission coating to weaken and fall off the tube electrodes?

-- DMahalko (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the switching that ruins the electrodes, but the cold-starting. There are three stages to lamp start-up, which are strike, boost, and run. The lamp starts with a high-voltage, low-current electrical signal, which strikes the arc across the extremely high-resistance gas (typically argon). Once the arc strikes, the current is boosted to heat the gas to a plasma state. For the first minute or so, light is produced only by the gas, shining on the fluorescent coating.
There is a little bead of mercury inside (if you tip a new tube back and forth you can usually hear it rolling around in there) which remains in a liquid state for a minute or two while the glass and everything else heats up. When the tube gets hot enough to vaporize the mercury, the resistance of the plasma lowers even more, so the current is adjusted to the run phase, and the light is produced mostly by the mercury.
Just like flashtubes, it is the low-current, low-energy striking and boosting that does most of the damage to the electrodes, causing them to sputter and lose their emissivity. Zaereth (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Spectral Plots

The spectral plots in Section 'Phosphor Composition' contain in their captions measured wavelengths vs nominal ones, and the difference is blamed on spectrometer calibration. First, this is user-generated science, perhaps inappropriate for wikipedia. Next, the so-called actual wavelengths are vacuum wavelengths (see eg this NIST table of Hg lines), not air wavelengths. A spectrometer is presumably calibrated for the wavelengths it actually sees (air wavelengths), not to correct vacuum to air. By converting to air wavelenghts using a standard formula better agreement is obtained between the measured fluorescent lamp lines and their nominal wavelengths. I suggest the correct way to do this in an encyclopedia should be to leave out the user-measured lines, and use the nominal ones, mentioning that they are vacuum wavelengths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.75.38 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

lamp life cycle

This is an impressive article! But there is so much to cover, that the most important practical aspects can get lost.

This type of lighting is extremely common and extremely important in the US in commercial settings. It would be good to have some facts and figures about this: most common lamp types, sales per year, total power consumption in US per year...

The bulbs are supposed to last about 10,000 hours. But how long are they typically lasting in the real world? In particular, in a pair, usually both bulbs are replaced, even though one is bound to be more worn out than the other. In commercial settings, bulbs are usually replaced in bulk, due to access and convenience/practical aspects? So therefore what is the average/typical real-world life of these standard work-horse bulbs, essential US infrastructure?-96.233.20.34 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The "average hours" number is pretty off for any fluorescent lamp due to how they are used. Lamps that are turned on and off regularly last 25% to 75% less than bulbs that are perpetually lit. The hardest thing you can do to a fluorescent tube is start it, once started, it does fine. Starting voltages for modern ballasts are often 600 volts, which powers them more efficiently, but slams them at start up. Also, every brand of lamp may have radically different average life spans, depending on construction....even if they are the same size and wattage. As for one lamp burning out before the other and replacing both lamps, that might be true of older ballast designs, but many modern designs don't make other lamps go out if a single bulb fails. (ie: ones that use shunted or jumped holders and treat one end of the lamp as the cathode, and one end as the anode, rather than each end having a cathode/anode set). Many of these ballasts are designed to push a fixed number of feet of lamp, not just a fixed lamp type. Fulham is a good example, they have several ballasts like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The installed base of fixtures is immense, many with older ballasts that may linger in use for decades. In the US today, a significant percentage of ballasts are still pre-electronic. (Are there any good sources of facts about this?)-96.233.20.34 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

government regulations

The article seems to be missing a section about government regulations. There may be regulatory pressure to phase out older ballast types, on the grounds that newer types are more efficient. There may be regulatory pressure to use fluorescent lighting rather than incandescent because it is more efficient.-96.233.20.34 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, new LED fixtures can be even more efficient, without the inherent environmental hazards of mercury. Government regulation can be complex, and varies by jurisdiction, with some rules prescriptive and others performance-based. I agree that adding coverage would be useful, but expertise in finding proper references is needed. Reify-tech (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You would require an entire article just for regulations of UV fluorescent tubes alone, as each country has different regulations for output, etc. Also, regular fluorescent tubes put out a little UV and that is being regulated as we speak. In short, there are mountains of regulations on them, but gathering and organizing them in a coherent fashion might be daunting, unless we are willing to only do it for a few countries, which seems biased. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Fluorescent lamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Newer Flourescent Lights Have Not "Essentially Eliminated Flicker"

... Many of them still noticeably flicker. And the linked source also claims "humans cannot see fluorescent lights flicker," when I often have to shield my eyes from the pain/from the flicker. I personally don't have trouble with compact flourescent lights, though I sill have trouble with traditional ones regardless of the ballast, and much worse trouble with burning-out lights. I suppose I could be seeing some lower-frequency out-of-sync effect, because the burning-out lights don't seem to be flickering much faster than some advertisements flash. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic ballasts give a 120Hz (or 100Hz) flicker, as the AC voltage crosses zero. Electronic ballasts run a ferrite core transformer at 20kHz or so, giving a 40kHz flicker. If you have very fast moving objects you might notice 40kHz, but otherwise it should be pretty hard to see. Gah4 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Snap-start

"Snap Start" may be a brand name for the 'quick start' mode of starting. I don't know - other than it says Snap Start on mine and there's no removable starter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.3.232 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't list specific brands, manufacturers or even models. Do you have a question, or are there any other additions you'd like to make? Zaereth (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Inventor of Fluorescent lamp

Why did not recognized Agapito Flores, a Filipino who was invented this fluorescent lamp, and named it after him...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumark27 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Because our reliable, cited sources do not credit Flores with the invention of the fluorescent lamp. We do not discuss theories that are not supported by reliable sources. In addition, see here. General Ization Talk 15:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, the word fluorescent has nothing to do with Flores. It is derived from fluorite, which is itself derived from the Latin word fluo. This is discussed at Fluorescence. General Ization Talk 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Also http://www.edisontechcenter.org/WhoInventedFluorLamp.html and a http://www.edisontechcenter.org/Fluorescent.html#inventors Glrx (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, see the discussions ~ 10 sections up. I was curious, and did my best to find reliable sources. I searched and searched and could only find one, but it was not very encouraging. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fluorescent / Phosphorescent

I think some of the terminology in this page may be incorrect. With the electronic excitation of Mercury, the gaseous Hg does indeed fluoresce, with an allowed transition and a near instantaneous LUMO --> HOMO transition emitting a UV photon. Striking the phosphor however, I believe the correct term would be phosphorescence, as the timescale is MUCH longer (the lamps glow for a bit after current is disconnected) and this process proceeds via a technically forbidden transition into a degenerate triplet state, which is stable for up to a few seconds, though the average half life of such a state is short. That said, if these terms were adjusted it would mead A LOT of work on this article. It's an important article though, so it might be worth it. I'm not sure. Is it too pedantic a distinction? what are people's thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheMVR (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't create, alter, nor enforce the terminology that a particular field uses. It's not our place to alter the language. Even dictionaries only follow the language, but do not enforce it, or else we'd still be speaking Old English right now. Language rarely catches up with science very quickly, and the distinction was far less understood back when these were created. The same thing can be found in terms like "glass" (which now include much more than glass), or "alloy steel" and "alloy wheel," (of which steel is now also considered an alloy, but wasn't always). The public calls them "fluorescent" and so do we. It may add to some confusion, but then we just need to explain the difference better (provided that the difference is really relevant to the general reader.) Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly not calling for them to be called "Phosphorescent Lamps," or for the page to be named such. What I did note was that the section "Phosphors and the spectrum of emitted light" makes the distinction while the section "Principles of operation" does not, referring to both as "Fluorescence." My concern is simply self consistency between these two sections, wherein a user will read details about phosphorescence without being introduced to the term in an overview. The overview does mention the term, and describes the phosphors as being "slightly phosphorescent" but there is no citation as to the relative magnitudes of these two effects. Again, this may be too nitpicky of a distinction. It is frankly unlikely that even 1% of readers will have the background in physical chemistry to understand the distinction, while the others will already be aware of the terminology. That said, I notice that this article has been flagged for needed improvement, so it may be worth it to add these details, or simply reduce confusion by harmonizing the terms or inserting a few brief lines about the distinction.CheMVR (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry I misunderstood. You seem to know quite a bit about it. Personally, my field lies more in the realm of arc lamps and flashtubes, but not too knowledgeable about phosphors. I've never heard of plasma described as fluorescent, as it's emission is usually from ion/electron transitions rather than the absorption and re-emission of light, but I suppose it may be possible to some extent. If you have any reliable sources that you can cite, you are most welcome edit the article to clarify the distinction. That is usually easiest, since you know exactly which sentences are misleading or confusing. A well cited, neutral edit will rarely be challenged, as long as others have a source they can verify. We encourage people to be bold and simply make constructive changes, and if someone reverts your change, a discussion here about the specific sentences will usually be very productive. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As well as I know it, fluorescence is the general term, and phosphorescence for those with a very long time scale. Many fluorescent lamps have a small afterglow due to a small amount of phosphorescence. This is enough to cause problems in photographic darkrooms using fluorescent lamps. Gah4 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fluorescent lamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

High quality article

I have just read most of this article as I needed a quick revision on florescent lights. I have to say that the article is written to a very high standard: informative and good to read. Some nice work here! CPES (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

How does a tube deteriorate with use?

How does a typical tube wear out/deteriorate? I have read that the emissive coatings on the heater wires become contaminated by the contents of the gas in the tube. Is this correct? Wythy (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wythy. That depends primarily on how it's used. A tube that is constantly lit can last a long time. It eventually wears out when the mercury adsorbs to the surface of the glass or phosphor coating. What happens is a slow loss of pressure and eventually it goes from an arc lamp to a glow discharge lamp, complete with faraday cones and all.
When a tube is turned on and off regularly, the start-up voltage eventually destroys the electrodes. The electrodes are coated with a barium compound that helps them emit electrons (gives low work function) The high voltage/low current during start-up causes the electrodes to sputter. Basically, the surface vaporizes and is redistributed onto the surface of the glass, until there is no more compound left; the lamp simply cannot start and so death occurs. The blackening around the ends of old tubes is a sure sign of sputter. Newer tubes such as T8s and T5s basically use the same amount of gas/vapor, but compress it into a smaller space for increased conversion efficiency (overall efficiency). Thus they require a higher start-up voltage and consequently have a shorter lifespan that T12s when used in this manner.
Other methods include things like the ballast going out. This can be enhanced by things like changing one bulb in a two-lamp fixture and not the other, which off-balances the load. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Losses" section

The text and the figure in the "Losses" section contradict each other on the question of quantum efficiency. The text says "a modern lamp" has "a quantum efficiency of 86%" and describes the Stokes Shift as a separate matter. The figure combines both concepts and says the result is a "quantum efficiency (of) 45%."

I lack the knowledge and sources to resolve this problem; would someone with the necessary expertise please make the appropriate changes? 71.197.166.72 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The losses section describes the chart quite well, but may be using the terms differently. The parenthetical "(quantum efficiency of 86%)" makes it confusing, because what that number is really describing is how much of the remaining UV light is absorbed by the phosphor compared to how much is reflected or transmitted (14%), called "transfer efficiency" in lasers. The losses due to the difference in wavelength between the absorbed (UV) and reemitted (visible) light (45%) is what the chart is calling "quantum efficiency." The latter sounds correct to me, because that's also an important thing in lasers too. Also, these percentages are in terms of electron-volts, not per number of photons. Each photon carries the same charge, but its energy is determined by its wavelength. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I look forward to seeing it in the article. :-) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll give it a few days o see if anyone objects, then make the necessary adjustments. Thanks for your help. Wikipedia needs people like you. Zaereth (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I finally had a chance to sit down and go through my books. My statement above is backwards. It's the text that is correct, although perhaps should be calling it more quantum yield than quantum efficiency, the terms are used interchangeably by the sources. To put it simply, for 100% of the photons that are absorbed (not counting those reflected or transmitted), a certain percentage will be reemitted as photons and the remaining percentage is emitted as phonons, which is the quantum version of heat. The diagram is actually using the term incorrectly. In lasers and other light-transfer devices, where the transfer efficiency and quantum efficiency can near 100%, it's the stokes shift that becomes the overall limit to the power efficiency (the overall conversion from one form of light to another, not to be confused with conversion efficiency, which is the entire shebang, from wall plug to light output). Zaereth (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. :-) If you can fix the figure, that would be ideal; otherwise it would probably be good if you updated the caption to note the discrepancy. Best, 71.197.166.72 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not too good with graphics, as most of my computer drawings are pretty rudimentary. (This for example.) That Sankey diagram was actually taken from a source, so I have to be careful where I tread. These terms may be used differently in different fields, at different points in time, or maybe just misused. Most of my sources are rather specific to lasers, arc lamps and flashtubes. I can look into fixing the text in some way so as to eliminate the confusion, but need some time to look into this deeper. (I'm usually rather busy in real life, plus I just got a new laser so I've been working on all kinds of new photos). Zaereth (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, no hurry. Nice photos, btw. I was just on the Gauge block article the other day to get caught up on the grade designations before shopping for some more blocks for my collection. :-) 71.197.166.72 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I over-simplified the captions from the original source - the original figure had multiple small footnotes on what it called "Phosphor 1 loss" and "Phosphor II loss". In the original, there are captions for "Quantum Yield" and "Quantum Energy Loss". If no-one beats me to it, I can revise the captions on the figure to better match the Kane and Sell text reference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
That would be great. I can't seem to find a copy of the ref here, but knew that there had to be something either missing or combined. The Stokes shift itself is what many other sources call "fluorescence efficiency" (ie: see http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/80A/jresv80An3p421_A1b.pdf ), but I guess it all depends on how one breaks it down. Zaereth (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Revised legends on the diagrams to more closely match what the reference had. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Types of ballasts and the countries that they are used:

Hello: There is an anonymus user that reverts my changes about the countries that some ballasts are in use. The majority of the ballasts that appears in the "Starting" section, aren't worldwide ballasts designs, and are in use only in a single or a few countries in the world: "Semi-Resonance Start" and "Quick Start" aren't in use in any part of the world except the UK. Similarity: Rapid-start and Instant start ballast are in use only in the americas. So it is important that if a non worldwide standard design of ballast appears, so that there would be mention that it is in use only it that countries. The section of "Rapid-start" ballast, deals mainly to the United States, and don't perspective worldwide view of the subject. זור987 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching, but have no idea is what you're saying is true or not. It seems illogical to me that manufacturers would spend the millions of dollars necessary in order to individualize ballasts for each country. More logical is that different countries use different names for the same ballasts, or even that the names vary between manufacturers. Most of us aren't going to travel around the world to see which is which. Since you know a lot about it, that seems to indicate that you have either traveled the world yourself, or that you have sources that you got this info from. We can't use the former, but require the latter. Do you have any sources that will confirm this information? Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
lighting-gallery.net is the main source that I know about the countries that a specific design of ballasts are used. It is a small lighting community that users shares about their lighting stuff. This is the website where it was turned out to me that Rapid-Start and Instant start in their original design are used exclusively in the US and Canada, and that Semi-Resonant Start and Quick Start in their original design, are used exclusively in the UK, and that only the americans calls an electronic ballast that uses resonance start "Rapid-start", and that elsewhere it simply called instant start, since it starts the lamp instantly. זור987 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Forum sites and anything else that features user-contributed content are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can ask the folks there for references for their claims. Jeh (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The term 'Instant start' was a trademark for a specific ballast design developed and produced by the Crompton Parkinson company in the early 1960's in the UK. If you wish to assert that certain ballast designs (or even certain terminology) are unique to specific geographical regions, you need to provide reliable sources to back up you claims. The 'anonymous user' (and indeed anyone else) is perfectly within their rights to revert claims that are unsupported by references.
Your poor standard of English strongly suggests that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Countries with 240V (or so) line voltage can run 40W (4 foot) lamps with a simple inductor ballast. 120V countries do this for smaller, desk lamp sized, lamps. For many years, rapid-start transformer ballasts, running two 40W lamps in series, were very popular in the US. (They might still be.) That design shares some of the complication of the rapid start ballast across two lamps. More recently, electronic ballasts that can run off between 120V and 277V are readily available. (277V, phase to ground for 480V three phase, is popular in US industrial settings.)

Graphic: Color temperature of different electric lamps

This has a typo reading "Cool Wite" which should be "Cool White". I can't edit it, can some graphic whiz please do so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.180.213.18 (talk)

 Fixed. Thanks for the notice. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluorescent_lamp/Archive_3&oldid=1136731966"