Efficiency of Fluorescent Lights

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrjeffy321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Efficiency Lights
AI Thread Summary
Fluorescent lights are more energy-efficient than incandescent bulbs, but a common misconception is that turning them off and on frequently wastes energy. In reality, while there is a brief surge of current when starting a fluorescent lamp, this spike lasts only about 1/10th of a second and equates to roughly 5 seconds of normal operation. Therefore, turning the light off and on more often than every 5 seconds actually consumes more power than leaving it on. Additionally, the discussion clarifies that this misconception may stem from confusion with HID lamps, which do require more energy to start. Overall, the original claim about energy consumption when switching fluorescent lights is inaccurate.
mrjeffy321
Science Advisor
Messages
876
Reaction score
1
I read in a science question/answer book that it is takes as much energy to turn on a fluorescent light as it doesn to run it for 1 hour. So if this is true, it would mean that if you plan on using the light again within an hour, it is more efficient to leave it on, rather than turning it off and then back on again.
Fluorescent lights are aleady much more efficient than incandecent light bulbs, but why not take the time to save an extra 10 of a cent.

So has anyone else heard this before, or seen it somewhere else? I have only seen it in that one source, so I don't know if it is true, or if it is by how much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I heard this on the grape vine, but thought it only applied to 'strip-light' style fluorescent tubes, rather than the 'energy saving' replacement light bulbs for domestic use. Will look it up properly when I get a spare minute...
 
Ok, here we go:

http://lightingdesignlab.com/articles/switching/switching_fluorescent.htm

Misconception #1: It takes more energy to start a fluorescent that it does to run it, so leave the lights on all the time to save money on your electric bill.

Reality: When you turn on a fluorescent light bulb, there is a very brief jump in current when the ballast charges the cathodes and causes the lamp to start. This inrush of current can be many times greater than the normal operating current of the lamp. However, the spike of current draw normally lasts no longer than 1/10th of a second, and draws the equivalent of about 5 seconds of normal operation. So, if you turn your fluorescent lamp off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, you will use more power than normal. So, normal switching of fluorescent lamps has very, very, very little effect on a power bill.



The article also explains how long burns extend the lamp life, but since they use more energy, there's a trade-off point. The calculation needed is shown.
 
Last edited:
brewnog said:
but thought it only applied to 'strip-light' style fluorescent tubes, rather than the 'energy saving' replacement light bulbs for domestic use.
Yes, those were the ones I was referring to.

So really, that book was wrong, or atleast very inaccurate.
So, if you turn your fluorescent lamp off and on more frequently than every 5 seconds, you will use more power than normal
5 seconds, not even close to 1 hour.

OK, thanks, I thought it sounded a little hokey.
 
This misconception may come from people thinking HID lamps (those big lamps at stadiums or in parking lots) work the same as fluorescents. An HID takes several minutes to heat up before operating and likely does use as much power in those few minutes as in the rest of the hour combined.
 
russ_watters said:
This misconception may come from people thinking HID lamps (those big lamps at stadiums or in parking lots) work the same as fluorescents. An HID takes several minutes to heat up before operating and likely does use as much power in those few minutes as in the rest of the hour combined.

I work on HID ballasts. A 100 Watt arc tube would use 200 Watts for
maybe one minute. This is only twice, not 59 times the running power.

If it used as much power to start (in one minute) as it did to run for the
rest of the hour, then it would have to use 5900 Watts for the one minute.
I assure you, it does not.

What does take a couple of minutes is for the lamp to reach peak temperature
and emit maximum light. The power by then is usually at the constant burn
power even though the light is getting brighter.
 
Last edited:
Hi all I have some confusion about piezoelectrical sensors combination. If i have three acoustic piezoelectrical sensors (with same receive sensitivity in dB ref V/1uPa) placed at specific distance, these sensors receive acoustic signal from a sound source placed at far field distance (Plane Wave) and from broadside. I receive output of these sensors through individual preamplifiers, add them through hardware like summer circuit adder or in software after digitization and in this way got an...
I have recently moved into a new (rather ancient) house and had a few trips of my Residual Current breaker. I dug out my old Socket tester which tell me the three pins are correct. But then the Red warning light tells me my socket(s) fail the loop test. I never had this before but my last house had an overhead supply with no Earth from the company. The tester said "get this checked" and the man said the (high but not ridiculous) earth resistance was acceptable. I stuck a new copper earth...
Thread 'Beauty of old electrical and measuring things, etc.'
Even as a kid, I saw beauty in old devices. That made me want to understand how they worked. I had lots of old things that I keep and now reviving. Old things need to work to see the beauty. Here's what I've done so far. Two views of the gadgets shelves and my small work space: Here's a close up look at the meters, gauges and other measuring things: This is what I think of as surface-mount electrical components and wiring. The components are very old and shows how...
Back
Top