Premature failure of compact fluorescent lights
Last Post 09 Jun 2013 11:34 AM by kogashuko. 22 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
snoslidr74User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:27

--
28 Jan 2013 12:03 PM
I have noted that many or even most of the CFL's I've installed in my current house and my previous house have failed in a short amount of time. I've been writing the install date on the body of the lights and have had many fail in less than a year, compared to the rated/advertised 7 to 10 year life. I'd estimate I've had a 50% premature failure rate for all of the CFL's I've installed. These lights are in various types of fixtures. Some were 15W (60W replacement I think) in a bathroom vanity fixture. Others were R30 style floods in recessed ceiling cans in the kitchen, living room, etc.

None of these were on dimmers. These weren't locations that saw many many hours of continuous use, but rather intermittent use. I haven't paid attention to who the manufacturers were.

Is this evidence of sub-par products? I suppose some environmental factors such as high heat, high humidity, or frequent on/off cycling could contribute to premature failure. However, these were used in a manner typical of how most people would use them.

I wonder if the environmental impacts of disposal of failed bulbs and the total energy (production of the lights and energy usage) still make sense from a green perspective given the observed premature failures. Certainly the advertised payback isn't there.

I'm curios to hear the experiences and feedback of others.
AltonUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:2157

--
28 Jan 2013 03:39 PM
I have had a few CFL's to fail prematurely over the years.  Also some LED's have failed, regardless of price.  I take the CFL's to Home Depot for recycling.  Trash the LED's until I know where to recycle them.
Residential Designer &
Construction Technology Consultant -- E-mail: Alton at Auburn dot Edu Use email format with @ and period .
334 826-3979
snoslidr74User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:27

--
28 Jan 2013 04:31 PM
Alton,

It would be expected to have a certain premature failure rate for some products, but the failure rate (again I'm guessing 50%) at less than 15% of their rated life is ridiculous. I too am collecting the CFL's for recycling, but I wonder how many end up in the landfill.

The frustrating part is, the failures seem to be occurring over a variety of manufacturer's, bulb types, and usage locations. So, it's not like there is a specific brand that is poor, or overheating occurring, say only in my recessed light fixtures.
AltonUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:2157

--
28 Jan 2013 07:23 PM
I do not think that big brand names mean much anymore since most products are made in China.  My guess is that quality control is not what it used to be when products were made in America.  Low cost of production is more important to some companies bottom line than quality.
Residential Designer &
Construction Technology Consultant -- E-mail: Alton at Auburn dot Edu Use email format with @ and period .
334 826-3979
Lee DodgeUser is Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:714

--
28 Jan 2013 10:38 PM
I have CFL lights throughout a house that I purchased in June 2010, at least 40 bulbs. After 2 1/2 years I have had one CFL bulb fail, and it was outside and did not work very well in the cold weather since it put out very little light until it warmed up. I replaced it with an incandescent bulb. I have a nightlight in one bathroom that is a 4 W incandescent, and I have replaced it at least 3 or 4 times over 2 1/2 years. The CFLs have shown excellent lifetimes so far.
Lee Dodge,
<a href="http://www.ResidentialEnergyLaboratory.com">Residential Energy Laboratory,</a>
in a net-zero source energy modified production house
ICFHybridUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:3039

--
29 Jan 2013 12:26 PM
On occasion, I've bought large numbers of CFLs when a special is offered that is nearly too good to be true. It is often in conjunction with some kind of immediate "Utility Co. Rebate" (taken at time of sale). Without question, those discounted bulbs are the source of my abnormally high failure rates. I'm not counting every hour of "estimated life", I am talking about when entire strings of them fail within a few weeks of each other and after only being installed for half the estimated lifetime, not to mention only burning a fraction of that.

Also, if you put them in a place where they experience temperature swings, they will go much faster. Even the ones you place inside, near an exterior door that gets opened and allows the bulb to get hit with outside air for a minute or two will go faster than others placed farther indoors. I have to assume it's the cold air, or at least the larger temperature differential as the bulbs get hotter than ambient every time you turn them on. Have also noticed that outdoor CFLs go more quickly, and seem to fail in the Winter, as do ones installed up near uninsulated roofs where they experience consistently higher temperatures and fail in the Summer.
sharterUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:77

--
29 Jan 2013 01:43 PM
I have this problem. Two years I'd say is average. I believe the ballast goes out (not the bulb).

The next house I build I'd like to have DC lighting to avoid the ballast issue, and to get improved perfomance as the AC CFLs don't convert AC-->DC as efficient as a dedicated, common converter.

This issue seems to be well-known (quality problems) -- a quick search found this New York Times article
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
29 Jan 2013 02:49 PM
Posted By sharter on 29 Jan 2013 01:43 PM
I have this problem. Two years I'd say is average. I believe the ballast goes out (not the bulb).

The next house I build I'd like to have DC lighting to avoid the ballast issue, and to get improved perfomance as the AC CFLs don't convert AC-->DC as efficient as a dedicated, common converter.

This issue seems to be well-known (quality problems) -- a quick search found this New York Times article

That's so you could have a single power supply that could fail taking down ALL of your lights at once!

The problem isn't that Edison-base CFLs and LEDs are ballasted, but that they have tiny ballasts, and are screwed into Edison base sockets that are designed to thermally isolate the bulb from combustible building materials, which offers very little cooling for the electronics. 

In new construction you can use ballasted fixtures and pin-based CFLs or LEDs, which have a lot more room for better electronics & cooling, and are designed to shed heat rather than concentrate it.

DC lighting isn't really a solution, since any CFLs or LEDs would still have internal ballasts for controlling the voltage & current to the illuminating elements. LED assemblies, whether DC or AC are controlled by constant-current sources which will vary the voltage at the LED to compensate for temperature, otherwise both it's color and intensity would drift.  The complexity and operating temperature of any decent DC operated LED assembly is not very different from an AC powered solution.

With a rectifier/converter taking AD line voltage down to 12VDC or something you'd be looking at both the efficiency loss of your DC power supply, plus that of the internal controls of the LED or CFL assembly- it's less efficient as a system to make the extra conversion, when the ballast/power supply is in the fixture rather than crammed into an Edison base assembly.

That said, I have plenty of Edison base CFLs and cold-cathode CFLs with more than 5 years on them, with many of them looking at a decade. When I've experienced failures it's typically been within the first 3 months, sometimes the first 3 days.  In a bad year I might need to replace three, most years it's zero.
sharterUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:77

--
29 Jan 2013 05:18 PM
Dana, a properly designed DC system will have a battery backup, and ideally even a backup converter. Also for those off-grid, using DC in this manner is the best solution as their is no need to perform a DC->AC->DC lossy conversion.

Yes, the pin-based bulbs and ballasts like GU24 are much more reliable (or should be) than the edison-based ones. IMO that is definately the way to go now for new construction unless you want to future proof and add additional future wiring for DC, or try an existing whole-house DC lighting solution such as LumenCache although I'm not crazy on using the current-weak Cat6 wiring. IMHO there is a huge business potential there, especially if they can coordinate with bulb manafuctures (to produce turn-key bulbs) and other smart home solutions (for home automation\control, instead of having their own).

FWIW a DC LED "ballast" is really just a current limiting resistor, which will have a super long life and is not really even comparable to a GU24 or CFL ballast.
RosalindaUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:353

--
31 Jan 2013 12:23 PM
The first CFL I ever had was given to me by my local utility in one of the very early "energy audits" conducted by the utilities. That bulb lasted 30+ years. Now that CFLs are ubiquitous a couple of years is about all one can expect, with some going much more quickly. Since the price of CFLs has also come down drastically, around $1 or less a bulb, I guess I can accept the shorter life.

-Rosalinda
Sum total of my experience - Designed, GCed and built my own home, hybrid - stick built & modular on FPSF. 2798 ft2 2 story, propane fired condensing HWH DIY designed and installed radiant heat in GF. $71.20/ft2 completely furnished and finished, 5Star plus eStar rated and NAHB Gold certified
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
31 Jan 2013 05:42 PM
Posted By sharter on 29 Jan 2013 05:18 PM
Dana, a properly designed DC system will have a battery backup, and ideally even a backup converter. Also for those off-grid, using DC in this manner is the best solution as their is no need to perform a DC->AC->DC lossy conversion.

Yes, the pin-based bulbs and ballasts like GU24 are much more reliable (or should be) than the edison-based ones. IMO that is definately the way to go now for new construction unless you want to future proof and add additional future wiring for DC, or try an existing whole-house DC lighting solution such as LumenCache although I'm not crazy on using the current-weak Cat6 wiring. IMHO there is a huge business potential there, especially if they can coordinate with bulb manafuctures (to produce turn-key bulbs) and other smart home solutions (for home automation\control, instead of having their own).

FWIW a DC LED "ballast" is really just a current limiting resistor, which will have a super long life and is not really even comparable to a GU24 or CFL ballast.

As someone who has designed the power and control electronics for several DC-powered LED illuminators for medical equipment and scientific devices, with DC input power ranges from 5-30 watts, I assure you that's absolutely NOT the way it's done, nor should it be!

Using ballast resistors for any high-current LED array sufficent to light up rooms/house would be GROSSLY inefficient in comparison to current-control switching power-supply type electronics, and would have significant intensity/color-drift issues with voltage & LED temperature.

Crack open a CREE LR4 or LR6 (or other better quality commercially available LED assembly) sometime- the rectifier and down-conversion to a more reasonble DC voltage is the least of it. These assemblies are temperature compensated to keep color and intensity  well controlles, and designed for high efficiency to avoid thermal runaway issues.  Simply chucking the AC and starting with a more appropriate DC level is the least of the problem of getting high quality light at high efficiency out of them.  The efficiency hit from starting out with AC line voltage is less than 5% of the total efficiency loss budget.

(Yer damned right a resistor isn't really comparable to at GU24 or CFL ballast!   I wouldn't count on the long life aspects either.)
sharterUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:77

--
31 Jan 2013 08:13 PM
Dana, you are correct that with anything other than a trivial LED will need something more than a resistor.

However, my main point is that the electronic ballast\driver\resistor doesn't have to be *in* the bulb like CFLs today, or even *next* to it like the pin-based bulbs, if instead we run DC to each bulb. Instead the electronics are in a power distribution module, as it is in the case of LumenCache. This helps keep the electronics from baking in the heat of the bulb (which I think causes most ballast failures) as well as any humidity, vibration, temperature extremes or other local factors that can also cause the electronics to fail prematurely. Now you would have to match the bulb (or string of bulbs) to an appropriate LED driver (for voltage, dimming support, etc), but again that driver is not in or next to the bulb. The driver can still fail but I would anticipate much more robustness.

That said, in my next house I plan on wiring for DC (maybe Cat6, not sure yet) but will probably still wire for AC pin-based lighting because the DC support just isn't there today and I don't want to take that much of a risk on proprietary technology like LumenCache; at least not yet.

Also, the electronics per bulb (or string) are DC->DC, not AC->DC also helping reduce chance of failure. There would just be one AC->DC converter. Running 14-2 wiring for every circuit as is done today is so much overkill for DC. The newer LEDs are very efficient -- 100+ lumens per watt. For example, a typical computer power supply (say 600 watts) could drive half of all lights in an LED-only house.

Also LEDs don't have the start-up voltage issues like CFLs so the electronics are much simpler. I'm not an expert by any means in this area but I know enough to comment
sharterUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:77

--
31 Jan 2013 08:42 PM
Perhaps I should address Dana as Tesla.

Regards, Edison.
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
01 Feb 2013 11:59 AM
At the switching frequencies used by the high efficiency LED controls or CFL ballasts, you definitely don't want to introduce the parasitic inductances of long wiring runs.

I'm tellin' ya from direct experience of designing them the electronics for LED controls are definitely NOT AT ALL simpler than switching ballasts for fluorescent technology!

Yes, a 600watt PC power supply can run a houseful of LED lighting, but 600W at the 3.3V main power output is about 180 amps, a current which would light up CAT6 wires like a flash bulb!

If you run it at 12V DC you'd be looking at 50 amps, which would still smoke 14/2. A more sensible approach would be 24VDC and 14/2 wiring, if you're really stuck on DC.

It's the distribution wiring voltage and the power dissipation at the load, not whether it's AC vs. DC, as well as the length of the wiring run that determines how fat the wire has to be. Yes the power load from lights has dropped by 80% by going from incandescent to LED, but if you're dropping the voltage by 80% (120V>>24V) you'll need the same thickness of wire, since it's the same amount of current.


ANdadUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:91

--
08 Feb 2013 02:50 PM
Dana's point about heat dissipation is well borne out by an observation noted by the OP:

Bathroom vanity lights tend to be a big part of the problem here.

My home is now 4 yrs old. I've replaced about 7-8 CFL lights - and all but 2 of there were bathroom vanity lights.

Bathroom vanity lights are of course upside down so the heat rises and cooks the ballast. Although I have about 30 horizontal CFL lights I have only replaced 1 or 2 of these in 4 years of occupancy. The other ones that burned out were CFL can's - which of course are also upside down.

FWIW - I have never had to replaced an LED light. I have about 12 of these and 2 are X prize bulbs which will outlast me. Even upside down LED's seem to do OK. The X-prize bulb was tested in the upside down position and so has been verified to do well this way.

Bathroom vanity lights are also on-off-on-off-on-off another way to fry a bulb (and another thing that does not bother LED's)

So until all the above technical issues get worked out my advice is:

LED for upside down bulbs - CFL for everything else.

whirnotUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:186

--
12 Feb 2013 08:35 PM
I must be the exception, we installed all of our cfl's in 2007. We had one fail about a month ago and were so surprised at first we couldn't figure it out?

So in six years we have had one, out of probably 60 fail, and they were always the Big box multi pack or whatever was on sale.
Bill NeukranzUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1103

--
13 Feb 2013 10:30 PM
Posted By whirnot on 12 Feb 2013 08:35 PM
I must be the exception, we installed all of our cfl's in 2007. We had one fail about a month ago ...

So in six years we have had one, out of probably 60 fail, and they were always the Big box multi pack or whatever was on sale.
You're not the exception.

Back in '07, it wasn't difficult to purchase from big box retailers CFLs that have almalgam technology.  You may not have even known that indeed that's what you purchased.  It's my bet that you did indeed purchase CFLs with amalgam technology.

Today it's a lot tougher to find big box retailers carrying anything except the bare bottom lowest cost CFLs.  Everyone got used to the 7 - 10 year life span of the almalgam techonology CFLs such that that's what's expected today, but, the quality of CFL now doesn't match up.

Frustrated with fast CFL burnout, consumers mistakenly think that they've got to move to LED lamps, something the big box retailers want because margin is so much better.  It's actually a very consious and creative business strategy on the part of the big box retailers.

In 2007 I too replaced 60+ incandescent bulbs with CFLs.  I used GE CFLs all with almalgam technology.  A chart showing exactly what I used is on page 23 of a speech I gave about a year ago.  It shows, for the GE line, the model numbers for R20, R30, R40, PAR38, A19, Candelabra, and Post Light.

Since I have a monitoring and logging system, it was easy to measure benefit.  Savings was 12 kWh/day, which at 10 cents per kWh, is $1.20 per day, $36 per month, or $440 / year savings.

More so, I didn't replace any CFLs until late last year (2012).  Two total so far.

Amalgam technology CFLs is really important.  The amalgam is a mercury allow, which is an up to date replacement for traditional liquid and pellet dosed mercury.  The amalgam is placed in the lamp and provides for more stable light output in all burning positions, and wider optimum operating temperature range since almalgam gets better mercury vapor control.

Nowadays, the GE CFL lamps I specify in the chart referenced above are harder to find in retail outlets.  They're easily purchased via lighting distributors and commercial distributors (like Grainger).

This is the logical explanation for why so many consumers these days are walking away dissatisfied with the big-box purchased CFL lamps.  Go mail order the GE CFLs and you'll get the 7-10 year performance commonly expected.

Best regards,

Bill
Energy reduction & monitoring</br>
American Energy Efficiencies, Inc - Dallas, TX <A
href="http://www.americaneei.com">
(www.americaneei.com)</A></br>
Example monitoring system: <A href="http://www.welserver.com/WEL0043"> www.welserver.com/WEL0043</A>
BrianUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:82

--
16 Feb 2013 10:07 PM
Im not sure where you are in this convo but My father is a arson investigator and some CFLs are not rated for inverted use and have been the source of a few house fires here. are the CFLs you have had fail inverted? Im getting a way from CFLs because so many of the codes here now require arc-faults and it makes it impossible to run CFLs
$50/hr if I do it, $75/hr if you watch, $100/hr if you help!
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
18 Feb 2013 05:11 PM
Housefire events from CFLs are extremely rare events (much rarer than incandescent bulbs lighting off stuff from unintended contact of the bulb with flammable materials), and reported incidents are with exactly one manufacturer cited (resulting in the recalls of the offending product), of exactly FOUR reported fires.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/cflbulb.asp

http://mammothtimes.com/content/mammoth-fire-dept-warns-cfl-bulb-users

There's a lot of folks blowing smoke on this subject, but it's not advisable to inhale too deeply.

I'm sure if you're fishing from the bottom of the barrel the world's crummiest CFL might trip a standard arc-fault or ground-fault breaker, but so would any number of crummy dimmers or low end switching power supplies. (More often than not illegitimate neutral connections would be the more likely candidate for flaky AFCI breaker behavior). Damning the whole class for the spitwad launched by the one rotten kid in the back corner is more than a bit silly. I'm not buying the "...impossible to run CFLs" statement, even if SOME CFLs may have compatibility issues. It's neither rocket-science nor expensive to design even an edison-base sized ballast to not have that sort of issue.
mikajones29User is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1

--
19 Feb 2013 02:04 AM
I have experience that CFL only last a few months since I added a sensor that enables the CFL to turn and and off with sudden movements on the area. I placed the sensor with cfl outside with cover on top but exposed to rain,heat and cold weather.

Inside my home, the cfl still works properly.
<a href="http://clearitwaste.co.uk/"> Waste Rubbish Clearance</a>
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>


Active Forums 4.1
Membership Membership: Latest New User Latest: hudson2000 New Today New Today: 2 New Yesterday New Yesterday: 0 User Count Overall: 34707
People Online People Online: Visitors Visitors: 113 Members Members: 1 Total Total: 114
Copyright 2011 by BuildCentral, Inc.   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement