Compact Fluorescent Noise
Jeff Volp
deal with nose generated by compact fluorescent bulbs. A photo of CF noise
in the X10 passband can be found at:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/cfnoise.jpg
Zero crossings are at dead center of the trace, and 8.3mS on either side.
As you can see, these CF bulbs generate a burst of noise in the X10/Insteon
passband centered around each zero crossing. This is exactly when Insteon
and X10 signals are transmitted.
This testing was done in my workshop, which is on a non-X10 circuit powered
through an ArcFault breaker, and has 4 unfiltered CF ceiling lights. The
pulsating seen in the waveform is due to beating between the noise generated
from the different bulbs. As the noise pulsates, I measured up to 800mVpp,
which lighted up two solid bars on the ESM1.
The reason this noise is difficult to deal with is that it does pulsate. So
the point that the AGC samples the noise can be near a null, and the noise
can rise to a peak in the middle of the X10 reception window. In fact I can
see extra "1"s received when that happens. It results in a reported
collision, and a rejected message.
While the AGC in the XTB-II works fine for line transients and relatively
constant background noise, it does have a problem with noise that pulsates
in this manner. I'm not sure there is a way do deal with it, and that is
probably why some CF bulbs cause so many problems.
I thought I would share this info with you.
Jeff
Jeff Volp
It must be that CF noise...
I forgot to point out my friend the transient right smack in the middle of
the center X10 reception window.
This signal was monitored after the bandpass filter in the XTB-II. So this
is what is sent on to the envelope detector.
Jeff
Dave Houston
When you posted recently about the CFL noise I was going to ask you to get a
picture but wasn't sure you had a way to do it automatically. This is a case
where the ISA Digital Sampling Oscilloscope I use would really be handy,
allowing you to zoom the horizontal axis to show more detail.
Is the spikey burst just past center screen part of the CFL noise? It
resembles a triac switching transient.
How are you determining the frequencies in the noise? Are you just relying
on the passband of the ESM1?
Since X-10, Insteon and UPB have chosen to do their signalling in the time
around ZC, this is sure to be an ongoing problem. It would be interesting to
know how well an Insteon lamp module would function in this environment.
It's also another factor to consider when considering CFLs. For those into
HA the cost of filtering CFLs really changes the economics of switching from
incandescents.
BTW, now that I have my web page up, I published several screenshots from my
scopecard showing how X-10 does gated AGC in the CM15A. Just click on the
CM15A link at the bottom of the page.
http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-...@yahoogroups.com
Dave Houston
Your postscript and my questions crossed in the ether. I should have
realized you were relying on the XTB passband when discussing the frequency
content. It would be interesting to see the noise through a wider passband
such as through the scope adapter circuit shown in Appendix C (Figure C-3)
of Microchip's AN236.
Jeff Volp
(answering both posts)
Yes, a digital scope would be nice, but this is my old friend Tektronix 7603
that I used for 30 years. I bought it when I left the lab. They were
probably happy they didn't have to calibrate it anymore.
The XTB-II bandpass filter is not high-Q to prevent too much ringing, but it
does attenuate out-of-band signals. What I think is happening is that the
high-frequency chopper in the CF bulb varies its frequency over each half
cycle, and it enters the X10/Insteon passband as the voltage approaches
zero. Higher frequency noise in the middle of each half cycle would have
been rejected by the XTB-II bandpass filter. I'll try to take a look at it
with just a high-pass filter to knock out the 60Hz.
Thanks for the pointer to your info on the CM15A AGC.
Jeff
"Dave Houston" <nob...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:4548cbd6....@nntp.fuse.net...
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> It's also another factor to consider when considering CFLs. For
> those into HA the cost of filtering CFLs really changes the
> economics of switching from incandescents.
Another thing that I've found changes the equation is that none of the CFL's
I've purchased have come anywhere near lasting their rated lifetime. It
seems that the early "lifetime" guarantees given when CFL's first hit the
market have been slowly replaced by ten and then five year guarantees and
some packages I've seen have no warranty at all.
FWIW I've experienced far more CFL failures in fixtures where the lamp base
is pointed up. Probably the heat from the bulb contributes to the early
deaths.
Also annoying is most CFL's inability to be dimmed.
A secondary, but still non-trivial annoyance is the lengthening amount of
time it takes for a bulb to reach full intensity. That seems to occur far
too early in the life cycle of the bulb and makes it hard to compare costs
accurately. My wife insists that they be changed when the delay becomes
hazardous, as in stairways, hallways, etc.
One plus: CFL's have never burned out and taken an X-10 switch along with
them, something that I can't say for incandescents. We've ended up using
CFL's in the summer, where the rates are higher because they are so much
cheaper to run. The cooler running means less A/C used, too, so it's a
double benefit. In the winter, the waste heat helps warm the house and the
electrical rates are lower so the benefits aren't as spectacular. We're
also far more likely to use dimmers during the darker winter months so it
works out quite well.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>Another thing that I've found changes the equation is that none of the CFL's
>I've purchased have come anywhere near lasting their rated lifetime. It
>seems that the early "lifetime" guarantees given when CFL's first hit the
>market have been slowly replaced by ten and then five year guarantees and
>some packages I've seen have no warranty at all.
Well, I didn't mention that because every time I've mentioned it in the past
it has triggered a lengthy harangue from the local village idiot. ;)
It's hard to get reliable statistics but a Google search will turn up enough
reports of short lived CFLs from reputable sources to indicate this is a
real problem. I've read that the quality of the phosphors available in China
are the problem.
I think the economics are marginal but I have to qualify that somewhat
because I've recently had a rash of sort-lived incandescents. Either the
change in ownership of Cinergy (now Duke) came with a change in power
quality or the bulbs I've been getting in the past year are much lower
quality than those I got in the previous 8-9 years.
Dave Houston
>What I think is happening is that the
>high-frequency chopper in the CF bulb varies its frequency over each half
>cycle, and it enters the X10/Insteon passband as the voltage approaches
>zero.
Why would it do that? It would seem to be more difficult to accomplish than
a steady frequency. Ort is the frequency of the chopper related in some way
to the sine wave?
Jeff Volp
> It would be interesting to see the noise through a wider passband
At your suggestion I monitored the line with just a high-pass filter to
reject 60Hz.
Unfortunately, there seems to be some sort of audio communication device on
the line now because I see apparent audio modulation of a 100mVpp 120KHz
carrier that is there whether or not the CF bulbs are on. So it is
difficult to determine how much more noise is added by the bulbs.
I did confirm the noise pulsation is due to beating between the bulbs by
removing all but one. The CF bulb causing this havoc is the TCP ESN18.
Bottom line is that if you use CF bulbs in an automation environment, it is
a good idea to isolate those circuits with the Leviton 6287 noise block. We
have those on all X10 controlled lighting circuits, and have never had a
problem with any of those CF bulbs.
One other thing I noted while looking at the scope photos is that timing of
X10 bursts at other than the zero crossing is not well defined. Please look
at the following two photos:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/linenoise1.jpg
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/linenoise2jpg
Notice how the X10 bursts move from one sample to the next. Also note the
zero crossing burst is fixed as is the line transient just after the center
zero crossing. That third burst moves just about 1mS, and I don't see how
it could hit the reception window in a three-phase system. Signals were
transmitted from a RR501 in response to a palmpad.
Jeff
Jeff Volp
Jeff Volp
> "Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >What I think is happening is that the
> >high-frequency chopper in the CF bulb varies its frequency over each half
> >cycle, and it enters the X10/Insteon passband as the voltage approaches
> >zero.
>
> Why would it do that? It would seem to be more difficult to accomplish
than
> a steady frequency. Ort is the frequency of the chopper related in some
way
> to the sine wave?
The base of these bulbs is very small, so there isn't much room for an
electrolytic. They might just rectify the line and feed it directly into
the chopper circuit.
Jeff
Dave Houston
>One other thing I noted while looking at the scope photos is that timing of
>X10 bursts at other than the zero crossing is not well defined. Please look
>at the following two photos:
>
>http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/linenoise1.jpg
>
>http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/linenoise2jpg
>
>Notice how the X10 bursts move from one sample to the next. Also note the
>zero crossing burst is fixed as is the line transient just after the center
>zero crossing. That third burst moves just about 1mS, and I don't see how
>it could hit the reception window in a three-phase system. Signals were
>transmitted from a RR501 in response to a palmpad.
I've never seen that and I've looked at a lot of scope traces from various
X-10 devices. In fact, I've always been rather impressed that the 120kHz is
really 120kHz and other timings are near right on using 30 year old LC
technology. For some examples, take a look at the screenshots in this
link...
http://davehouston.net/x10-sig.htm
My pseudo-scope measures frequency and amplitude of a signal, making some
measurements fairly easy.
I suspect either that you have an erratic RR501 or there's something amiss
in your setup or that your scope has rheumatism.
It sounds like a neigbor has an intercom or baby monitor.
Dave Houston
>Unfortunately, there seems to be some sort of audio communication device on
>the line now because I see apparent audio modulation of a 100mVpp 120KHz
>carrier that is there whether or not the CF bulbs are on. So it is
>difficult to determine how much more noise is added by the bulbs.
If you could gate your AGC to measure only between the 1st & 2nd X-10
windows, as I suggested before, it should let you deal with the continuous
noise.
Robert Green
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> >Another thing that I've found changes the equation is that none of the
CFL's
> >I've purchased have come anywhere near lasting their rated lifetime. It
> >seems that the early "lifetime" guarantees given when CFL's first hit the
> >market have been slowly replaced by ten and then five year guarantees and
> >some packages I've seen have no warranty at all.
>
> Well, I didn't mention that because every time I've mentioned it in the
past
> it has triggered a lengthy harangue from the local village idiot. ;)
I didn't realize we had selected a leader among the many highly qualified
candidates for LVI. ;-)
> It's hard to get reliable statistics but a Google search will turn up
enough
> reports of short lived CFLs from reputable sources to indicate this is a
> real problem. I've read that the quality of the phosphors available in
China
> are the problem.
It's a real problem for me, despite any chewing out, declamation, diatribe,
jeremiad, philippic, screed, sermon, spouting, tirade or harangue to the
contrary. I write the date of installation and the alleged warranty period
on each bulb base. While I don't keep actual "hours used" statistics, I
know that I've replaced a lot of "ten year" bulbs in less than three years
of ordinary use. The worst offenders are the ones mounted base-up that
allow the bulb's heat to rise into the bulb's electronics. That's a failure
mode quite similar to the small lamp socket modules that X-10 sells.
> I think the economics are marginal but I have to qualify that somewhat
> because I've recently had a rash of sort-lived incandescents. Either the
> change in ownership of Cinergy (now Duke) came with a change in power
> quality or the bulbs I've been getting in the past year are much lower
> quality than those I got in the previous 8-9 years.
I've noticed the same thing and went Googling a while back when you first
reported premature failures on bulbs connected to an LM14. We're not the
only ones to notice lightbulb longevity ain't what it used to be. Still, an
incandescent bulb costs me a quarter and most CFL's cost at least 10 times
that amount. Whether it's bad voltage spikes, bad manufacturing processes,
bad QC or just plain ol' bad luck I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Comparison_of_electrici
ty_cost
Claims that: "The average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs is about
750–1000 hours. It would take at least 6-11 incandescent bulbs to last as
long as one compact fluorescent, which have an average lifetime between
11,250 and 15,000 hours. This causes an additional total cost of using
incandescent bulbs. Another additional (potential) cost may be incurred if
the bulbs are not in a readily accessible location and special equipment
(e.g., cherry picker) and/or personnel are needed to replace it."
That and a number of other paragraphs illustrate that the tradeoffs between
the two types of bulbs involve a number of disparate factors and that no one
solution fits all situations.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>> I think the economics are marginal but I have to qualify that somewhat
>> because I've recently had a rash of sort-lived incandescents. Either the
>> change in ownership of Cinergy (now Duke) came with a change in power
>> quality or the bulbs I've been getting in the past year are much lower
>> quality than those I got in the previous 8-9 years.
>
>I've noticed the same thing and went Googling a while back when you first
>reported premature failures on bulbs connected to an LM14. We're not the
>only ones to notice lightbulb longevity ain't what it used to be. Still, an
>incandescent bulb costs me a quarter and most CFL's cost at least 10 times
>that amount. Whether it's bad voltage spikes, bad manufacturing processes,
>bad QC or just plain ol' bad luck I don't know.
Since replacing the LM14A with a Smarthome 2000STW, I've had two more
failures. Both came after the lamp had been on for a few hours. Most of my
other failures came when a lamp was first turned. It may be that the LM14A
going loco was not a factor in the premature lamp failure but was merely
coincidental.
Marc_F_Hult
wrote in message <UPmdnWxE76m5mNTY...@rcn.net>:
>"Dave Houston" <nob...@whocares.com> wrote in message
>news:4548e504....@nntp.fuse.net...
>> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >Another thing that I've found changes the equation is that none of the
>> CFL's
>> >I've purchased have come anywhere near lasting their rated lifetime. It
>> >seems that the early "lifetime" guarantees given when CFL's first hit the
>> >market have been slowly replaced by ten and then five year guarantees and
>> >some packages I've seen have no warranty at all.
>It's a real problem for me, despite any chewing out, declamation, diatribe,
>jeremiad, philippic, screed, sermon, spouting, tirade or harangue to the
>contrary. I write the date of installation and the alleged warranty period
>on each bulb base. While I don't keep actual "hours used" statistics, I
>know that I've replaced a lot of "ten year" bulbs in less than three years
>of ordinary use. The worst offenders are the ones mounted base-up that
>allow the bulb's heat to rise into the bulb's electronics. That's a failure
>mode quite similar to the small lamp socket modules that X-10 sells.
There are now compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) that are designed to be used
base up in recessed fixtures. Using lamps intended to be used base down will
not provide optimum longevity. See my discussion below of just such an
application.
>> I think the economics are marginal but I have to qualify that somewhat
>> because I've recently had a rash of sort-lived incandescents. Either the
>> change in ownership of Cinergy (now Duke) came with a change in power
>> quality or the bulbs I've been getting in the past year are much lower
>> quality than those I got in the previous 8-9 years.
ROTFL. I am on the edge of my chair waiting to learn whether CFLs make sense
globally and universally based on a future assessment of whether the quality
of AC power delivered to Dave's apartment has changed ;-)
But wait! The global economics of CFLs may instead depend on the quality of
the incandescent light bulbs that Dave buys. Thar's shore a whole lot riding
worldwide on the quality of them thar bulbs what Dave gits ...
>I've noticed the same thing and went Googling a while back when you first
>reported premature failures on bulbs connected to an LM14. We're not the
>only ones to notice lightbulb longevity ain't what it used to be. Still, an
>incandescent bulb costs me a quarter and most CFL's cost at least 10 times
>that amount. Whether it's bad voltage spikes, bad manufacturing processes,
>bad QC or just plain ol' bad luck I don't know.
I replaced the seven Philips Halogena (Halogen) 90watt flood lamps ($6 at Home
depot) in our kitchen ceiling cans with Philips R40 CFL Marathon Classic 85
(930 lumens 2700K CRI=82 $12 at Home Depot).
Neglecting entirely the fact that Philips rates the CFL as lasting four times
longer than the halogen, and even at the low cost of $0.9/kWh, the savings
after the first year (4 hrs/day) is $22.
After 3 years (the bulbs are rated and warranted 100% replacement for six
years by Philips) the savings is $151 assuming that the halogens and the CFL
both last 3 years. (The halogens most definitely will not, and the CFL's are
warranted to last twice that long.)
Assuming that I continue to experience the same burn out rate with the
halogens as in the past eight years, and assuming that the CFL only last 2/3
as long as Philips claims, the savings will comes out to ~$257 after four
years.
The arithmetic seems to speak for itself for the quantitatively inclined, and
the reasons and explanations that Dave gives continue to be the source of
amusement. Keep giving us them hoots!
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc_F_Hult
wrote in message <vh4ik29kbbjlk4inm...@4ax.com>:
I should add that these CFLs are rated by Philips as dimmable and by my actual
measurement meet Philip's claim that they dim to 10% of full. They are rated
at 2700K which is near optimum for my wife's preference and have the same CRI
(83) as the halogens that they replace. Nice, well diffused lamp face and
light to boot.
http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/LightSite/Whirlwind.aspx?eca=
LNPPLA&cpf=USNPUS&stg=ACT&lan=US&ecu=LMP|PLC|NP&cnt_key=CI_Refl+|PLC|150425
++++++++++++&t=3&tree=0&scr_md=1111&leftnav=1_1&nav=Null&loc=us_en
Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Jeff Volp
> "Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >One other thing I noted while looking at the scope photos is that timing
of
> >X10 bursts at other than the zero crossing is not well defined. Please
look
> >at the following two photos:
> >
> >http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/linenoise1.jpg
> >
> >
> >Notice how the X10 bursts move from one sample to the next. Also note
the
> >zero crossing burst is fixed as is the line transient just after the
center
> >zero crossing. That third burst moves just about 1mS, and I don't see
how
> >it could hit the reception window in a three-phase system. Signals were
> >transmitted from a RR501 in response to a palmpad.
>
> I've never seen that and I've looked at a lot of scope traces from various
> X-10 devices. In fact, I've always been rather impressed that the 120kHz
is
> really 120kHz and other timings are near right on using 30 year old LC
> technology. For some examples, take a look at the screenshots in this
> link...
>
> http://davehouston.net/x10-sig.htm
>
> My pseudo-scope measures frequency and amplitude of a signal, making some
> measurements fairly easy.
>
> I suspect either that you have an erratic RR501 or there's something amiss
> in your setup or that your scope has rheumatism.
>
> It sounds like a neigbor has an intercom or baby monitor.
That 120KHz is everywhere - even pick it up with the scope probe floating.
Sometimes the modulation looks like music. While I had seen it
intermittently in the past, it has been on all day today.
Looking further into the wandering pulses, it seems to be data related. I
had thought it might be due to the RR501 power supply sagging, but that is
not the case. Dim commands are stable where they should be. F-ON or OFF
commands from the Palmpad causes misalignment of the bursts, usually in the
"ON" or "OFF" portion. The center burst moves about .5 mS, and the third
burst jumps 1mS. It doesn't slew, it jumps. It is not an erratic RR501
because both Powerhouse and Leviton versions purchased years apart exhibit
the same characteristic. It is not scope triggering because the zero
crossing burst is always where it should be, and the background line
glitches also remain stable in the trace.
Jeff
Jeff Volp
> "Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, there seems to be some sort of audio communication device
on
> >the line now because I see apparent audio modulation of a 100mVpp 120KHz
> >carrier that is there whether or not the CF bulbs are on. So it is
> >difficult to determine how much more noise is added by the bulbs.
>
> If you could gate your AGC to measure only between the 1st & 2nd X-10
> windows, as I suggested before, it should let you deal with the continuous
> noise.
I could put the gate anywhere, but between the 1st & second bursts wouldn't
work for:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/cfnoise.jpg
Setting the threshold between the 1st and 2nd windows would cause that burst
on the right to be detected as a "1".
There doesn't appear to be an effective way to deal with the randomness of
this kind of noise on a cycle-by-cycle basis. But then a longer term
average has its own set of problems. Eliminating this kind of noise at the
source may be the best answer.
Jeff
Joerg
>
> There doesn't appear to be an effective way to deal with the randomness of
> this kind of noise on a cycle-by-cycle basis. But then a longer term
> average has its own set of problems. Eliminating this kind of noise at the
> source may be the best answer.
>
Have you tried narrowing the LC filter? Several kHz wide might still be
ok from a ringing point of view.
The other trick is what radio engineers refer to as a "noise blanker".
If the spike is short enough versus the channel information a riding
threshold detector is set. This detects sharp peaks above a slower
signal and then notches out that portion of the receive phase. The good
ones work remarkably well in muffling irregular spike noise.
While the LC filter should be an easy one the noise blanker does tend to
increase uC workload to the point where one has to tap the cost brakes.
--
Regards, Joerg
Jeff Volp
news:0Fb2h.26109$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Hello Jeff,
>
> > There doesn't appear to be an effective way to deal with the randomness
of
> > this kind of noise on a cycle-by-cycle basis. But then a longer term
> > average has its own set of problems. Eliminating this kind of noise at
the
> > source may be the best answer.
>
> Have you tried narrowing the LC filter? Several kHz wide might still be
> ok from a ringing point of view.
I've been back and forth on LC ratios and damping. After countless
simulation runs and many hours of testing actual hardware, what is in there
now seems to provide the best tradeoff.
> The other trick is what radio engineers refer to as a "noise blanker".
> If the spike is short enough versus the channel information a riding
> threshold detector is set. This detects sharp peaks above a slower
> signal and then notches out that portion of the receive phase. The good
> ones work remarkably well in muffling irregular spike noise.
>
> While the LC filter should be an easy one the noise blanker does tend to
> increase uC workload to the point where one has to tap the cost brakes.
I used that technique to blank impulse noise back in my ham days, but that
would not help here. The waveform I captured this morning showed beating CF
noise almost mimicking X10 data.
The PIC was added to the original XTB design to just gate off the
superfluous 3-phase bursts so transmitted energy is concentrated in the
essential zero crossing burst. Once the PIC was on board I decided to
include TW523 emulation for little additional cost. Then I added complete
error detection, the ability to receive sequential dims, extended messages,
and now AGC. Lurking in the future may be even a repeater capability built
into the XTB-II. This is WAY past what the hardware was originally designed
to do.
Since most X10 transmitters cannot develop the signal levels produced by the
XTB, I made the receive channel as sensitive as possible. Unfortunately,
that gets it down into the noise level. The simple solution is to just
stick thumbs in its ears and ignore low-level signals. AGC gives it the
ability to recognize low-level signals in a low noise environment while
still allowing it to function well in a high noise environment.
Unfortunately, there will always be noise sources that can cause errors.
Jeff
Robert Green
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
<stuff snipped>
> Since replacing the LM14A with a Smarthome 2000STW, I've had two more
> failures. Both came after the lamp had been on for a few hours. Most of my
> other failures came when a lamp was first turned. It may be that the LM14A
> going loco was not a factor in the premature lamp failure but was merely
> coincidental.
That seems like a reasonable analysis. I suspect the standard manufacturing
mantra of "how can we make it a little bit cheaper" is coming into play.
Reducing costs by using cheaper materials (and often less of them) coupled
with "innovative" ways of assembling them results in parts that often have
correspondingly higher and higher failure rates until market feedback forces
the manufacturer to backpedal a little. A glass envelope a few microns
thinner doesn't seem to be a big change, but as you well know from your
industrial days, even very fractional costs add up when you're making 10's
of thousands of something. I've had a number of bulbs that have cracked at
the base recently so I assume something's been "economized" in the
manufacturing process.
Of course, there are always plain old manufacturing defects, which I expect
to be rising as fewer workers are expected to do more and more as companies
strive to satisfy investors first and customers last.
Even if a CFL has a good warranty, there's a cost associated with having a
manufacturer make good on it. A defective incandescent bulb costs a quarter
and goes into the trash if it fails. A defective CFL that has to be
returned involves postage costs, time costs, etc. Usually it means the bulb
gets dumped because it costs just as much to screw around with warranty
replacement as it does to go out and buy a new one. As you pointed out
earlier, X-10 users of CFL's have to factor in the cost of filters so the
equations have lots of hidden inputs.
The most serious defect in relatively simplistic equations like Wikipedia's
for predicting bulb costs is neglecting the spill heat produced by
incandescents and the effect that has on heating and cooling bills. In many
cases, it could be a wash, but that's not guaranteed, especially in my case
where I use more CFL's in the summer than the winter. We're more willing to
deal with the problems of CFL's in the summer where they keep the house
cooler and the electrical bill down during peak rate hours.
In addition, it's hard to put a dollar value on things like:
the nuisance of slow warm ups,
shifting color temperatures,
inability to work properly outdoors in very cold weather,
buzzing,
flickering,
interference with HA devices,
bulbs too big to fit in standard reflectors,
bulbs that extend beyond standard reflectors
and some of the other issues involved with replacing incandescent bulbs with
CFL. They all factor into the decision of whether to use a CFL bulb or a
incandescent. So does something as simple as how many times a day a bulb is
cycled. We still use incandescents in places like the bathroom where lights
can be turned on and off 20 or more times a day. CFL's positively wither
under such usage while long-life bulbs seem to take it in stride.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>As you pointed out
>earlier, X-10 users of CFL's have to factor in the cost of filters so the
>equations have lots of hidden inputs.
Insteon users will also need filters with noisy CFLs.
And there are opportunity costs. LED lights are improving and becoming
competively priced with CFLs. Sandia Labs has a method of converting more of
the heat from an incandescent into visible light, greatly improving the
efficiency. People who've invested $$$ in CFLs may regret it when something
more economical (and less polluting) comes along, not to mention the
possibility of "free, clean and constant energy."
Of course, we all know that the DOE programs to encourage (and subsidize)
CFL development don't cost anything. ;) Well, maybe Ph. Ds who've spent
their life in government funded programs don't realize that but the less
exalted do.
Oh, and the cost of returning a warrantied CFL is likely to approach or
exceed the purchase price even using the mail with free pick-up. If you
choose to just dispose of it, it constitutes hazardous waste.
http://www.northwestenergystar.com/index.php?cID=168
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/06/16/lightbulbs/index.html?pn=3
http://www.electronicproducts.com/ShowPage.asp?SECTION=3700&PRIMID=&FileName=julOL2.jul2002
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidState/index.asp
http://www.pge.com/003_save_energy/003c_edu_train/pec/info_resource/pdf/COMFLUOR.PDF
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx
Steve
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
>>As you pointed out
>>earlier, X-10 users of CFL's have to factor in the cost of filters so the
>>equations have lots of hidden inputs.
>
> Insteon users will also need filters with noisy CFLs.
That is why I tentatively decided to go with Z-Wave
> And there are opportunity costs. LED lights are improving and becoming
> competively priced with CFLs. Sandia Labs has a method of converting more
> of
> the heat from an incandescent into visible light, greatly improving the
> efficiency. People who've invested $$$ in CFLs may regret it when
> something
> more economical (and less polluting) comes along, not to mention the
> possibility of "free, clean and constant energy."
Damn I home so. The initial owner/builder of this house had a recessed
light fetish...42 of them in the house, each with a 65 watt R30 in it. The
CFL equivalents work quite well except that they need to warm up for about
15 seconds to reach full brightness. Thats not a good idea in the kitchen.
LED based bulbs are not quite up to that level of lumens and format yet, and
may not be for some time. For now I am faced with using CFLs, larger power
bill, or retrofitting surface mounted long tube floursecents. Given the
WAF, I think its the wallet issue for now.
> Of course, we all know that the DOE programs to encourage (and subsidize)
> CFL development don't cost anything. ;) Well, maybe Ph. Ds who've spent
> their life in government funded programs don't realize that but the less
> exalted do.
Prop 87 in CA is more of the same for reaseach money. So. Cal Edison is
really pushing CFL, giving them away/exchanging bulb for bulb.
> Oh, and the cost of returning a warrantied CFL is likely to approach or
> exceed the purchase price even using the mail with free pick-up. If you
> choose to just dispose of it, it constitutes hazardous waste.
I had missed that part of CFLs until recently. Local trash company does not
seem to care.
Our story is that we bought (vice built) our new house. Could not pass on
the the $200K price savings. I had planned a hardwired HA installation to
rival Bruce. However, I am now faced with retrofitting a large single story
house on a slab with a hip roof. It has no security or network wiring,
only 6 RG-6 drops, no provision for the cable modem/router, and the phone
wiring is daisy chained. This in a 6 month old home high end home!
802.11n, Elk, and Zwave and here I come. Going to open the walls in the
finished garage to mount the cans and get some wiring into the attic.
Dave Houston
>> Insteon users will also need filters with noisy CFLs.
>
>That is why I tentatively decided to go with Z-Wave
Depending on how your house is wired, you might be able to isolate the CFLs
on their own circuits with minimal filters. If I understand what he's
saying, that's what Jeff Volp has done. It does mean you cannot automate the
CFLs using PLC methods but can use PLC on all the other circuits.
I'm not a fan of Z-Wave so haven't thought through how they might work in
this scenario - dimmers may still have problems with the CFL noise but
relays are probably OK. Despite its being around much longer than UPB or
Insteon, there have been very few (aside from dealers and one nincompoop who
apparently is unaware that we signed an extradition treaty with Brazil in
the '60s) who have posted here in favor of Z-Wave. I'm sure there are people
who will want to hear about your project as it progresses.
>> "free, clean and constant energy."
>
>Damn I home so. The initial owner/builder of this house had a recessed
>light fetish...42 of them in the house, each with a 65 watt R30 in it. The
>CFL equivalents work quite well except that they need to warm up for about
>15 seconds to reach full brightness. Thats not a good idea in the kitchen.
>LED based bulbs are not quite up to that level of lumens and format yet, and
>may not be for some time. For now I am faced with using CFLs, larger power
>bill, or retrofitting surface mounted long tube floursecents. Given the
>WAF, I think its the wallet issue for now.
Given that Steorm is an Irish company, I worry that their process may
involve leprechauns and fairies but, since for all we know, 96% of the
universe could be strawberry jam, I'm willing to wait and see. ;)
On your CFLs, the PDF from PG&E which I cited earlier has a pretty good list
of CFL Dos & Don'ts.
>> Of course, we all know that the DOE programs to encourage (and subsidize)
>> CFL development don't cost anything. ;) Well, maybe Ph. Ds who've spent
>> their life in government funded programs don't realize that but the less
>> exalted do.
>
>Prop 87 in CA is more of the same for reaseach money. So. Cal Edison is
>really pushing CFL, giving them away/exchanging bulb for bulb.
My first (and last) CFL was from a similar program from ConEd (Chicago) more
than 20 years ago. It died in a matter of weeks so I've been more leary (and
less green except around the gills) since.
Hmmm, I wonder what So. Cal Edison does with the incandescents they trade
for?
>> Oh, and the cost of returning a warrantied CFL is likely to approach or
>> exceed the purchase price even using the mail with free pick-up. If you
>> choose to just dispose of it, it constitutes hazardous waste.
>
>I had missed that part of CFLs until recently. Local trash company does not
>seem to care.
The greenies are just starting to get organized on this so I'm sure that
will change. It's more of an issue with commercial buildings which may have
lots of CFLs than with a single family residence.
>Our story is that we bought (vice built) our new house. Could not pass on
>the the $200K price savings. I had planned a hardwired HA installation to
>rival Bruce. However, I am now faced with retrofitting a large single story
>house on a slab with a hip roof. It has no security or network wiring,
>only 6 RG-6 drops, no provision for the cable modem/router, and the phone
>wiring is daisy chained. This in a 6 month old home high end home!
>802.11n, Elk, and Zwave and here I come. Going to open the walls in the
>finished garage to mount the cans and get some wiring into the attic.
Good luck and send us periodic progress reports.
Steve
> "Steve" <nob...@nothere.notthere> wrote:
>
>>> Insteon users will also need filters with noisy CFLs.
>>
>>That is why I tentatively decided to go with Z-Wave
>
> Depending on how your house is wired, you might be able to isolate the
> CFLs
> on their own circuits with minimal filters. If I understand what he's
> saying, that's what Jeff Volp has done. It does mean you cannot automate
> the
> CFLs using PLC methods but can use PLC on all the other circuits.
>
> I'm not a fan of Z-Wave so haven't thought through how they might work in
> this scenario - dimmers may still have problems with the CFL noise but
> relays are probably OK. Despite its being around much longer than UPB or
> Insteon, there have been very few (aside from dealers and one nincompoop
> who
> apparently is unaware that we signed an extradition treaty with Brazil in
> the '60s) who have posted here in favor of Z-Wave. I'm sure there are
> people
> who will want to hear about your project as it progresses.
I have not heard anyone blasting it either. Have to see how it works.
Going to start small and move things around the house to see how well they
work. It also has the widest assortment of parts tright now as well. We
are going to EFX in a few weeks to verify WAF for the control panels. I've
done X-10 in a prior home and it has made me cautiious about PLC, espcially
with CFL. Had we built we were going with Centralite and Omni.
>
> Good luck and send us periodic progress reports.
I shall
Dave Houston
>We
>are going to EFX in a few weeks to verify WAF for the control panels. I've
>done X-10 in a prior home and it has made me cautiious about PLC, espcially
>with CFL. Had we built we were going with Centralite and Omni.
Is ETX the show in Long Beach? Long, long ago I lived about 6-7 blocks down
the beach from the Convention Center. I believe Bruce Robin plans to attend.
Were I building I'd look hard at Square D's C-Bus line. They have a proven
line of RS485 and wireless devices.
Dave Houston
>I have not heard anyone blasting it either.
You may not have been looking in the right places. Some of the other HA
forums that have sprung up in the past few years have a lot of negative
posts - most related to the weaknesses I pointed out here when it was first
introduced.
Jeff Volp
> Depending on how your house is wired, you might be able to isolate the
CFLs
> on their own circuits with minimal filters. If I understand what he's
> saying, that's what Jeff Volp has done. It does mean you cannot automate
the
> CFLs using PLC methods but can use PLC on all the other circuits.
We use CFs in almost all our ceiling cans. Each switch controls a string of
up to 5 of them. One small Leviton 6287 noise block is installed between
the X10 switch and the lighting string to isolate all CFs on that circuit.
It fit behind the X10 switches in each of those electrical boxes. The 5 amp
rating means those circuits will also handle normal incandescent lights.
The Ocelot has access to all of these lights.
We do have one circuit isolated by the large 20A XPF filter. That circuit
is on the non X10 phase, and feeds most electronic devices, computers, etc.
It was intended as an emergency power circuit, but also serves to isolate
all potential signal suckers from other household circuits. We also have a
couple of "private" X10 devices on that circuit that are locally controlled.
Jeff
Dave Houston
>We use CFs in almost all our ceiling cans. Each switch controls a string of
>up to 5 of them. One small Leviton 6287 noise block is installed between
>the X10 switch and the lighting string to isolate all CFs on that circuit.
>It fit behind the X10 switches in each of those electrical boxes. The 5 amp
>rating means those circuits will also handle normal incandescent lights.
>The Ocelot has access to all of these lights.
>
>We do have one circuit isolated by the large 20A XPF filter. That circuit
>is on the non X10 phase, and feeds most electronic devices, computers, etc.
>It was intended as an emergency power circuit, but also serves to isolate
>all potential signal suckers from other household circuits. We also have a
>couple of "private" X10 devices on that circuit that are locally controlled.
>
>Jeff
>
OK - I either didn't grasp or didn't recall that detail from your earlier
communications. So you need one filter per switch rather than one per CFL.
Steve
> "Steve" <nob...@nothere.notthere> wrote:
>
>>We
>>are going to EFX in a few weeks to verify WAF for the control panels.
>>I've
>>especially
>>with CFL. Had we built we were going with Centralite and Omni.
>
> Is ETX the show in Long Beach? Long, long ago I lived about 6-7 blocks
> down
> the beach from the Convention Center. I believe Bruce Robin plans to
> attend.
Its the EHX show and it is in Long Beach.
>
> Were I building I'd look hard at Square D's C-Bus line. They have a proven
> line of RS485 and wireless devices.
I was looking for an Omni Pro tie in if we built, thus Centralite. That's
all OBE now though.
Joerg
On really bad polluters such as the printer/scanner in the lab I often
use ferrite toroids. I leave the wire a bit longer and run it a few
times through the core. That takes care of hardcore RF noise. Of course
one has to mind the max current and limit the number of turns in order
not to saturate the core. Also, cores are conductive, they must be
isolated and mounted so they can never touch live mains contacts.
sylvan butler
> We use CFs in almost all our ceiling cans. Each switch controls a string of
> up to 5 of them. One small Leviton 6287 noise block is installed between
> the X10 switch and the lighting string to isolate all CFs on that circuit.
That's how I was going to suggest wiring it up. :)
I assume you are using X10-compatible switches WITH a neutral? (As
opposed to the typical X10-brand with no neutral, which must pass PLC
thru the device under control.)
> It fit behind the X10 switches in each of those electrical boxes. The 5 amp
Wow, must have DEEP boxes. :)
I'm in process of trying to track down and exterminate a nasty X10 PLC
gremlin. Tracking noise sources, adding filters, adding signal
suckers... Painful doesn't begin to describe it... But someday I hope
to automate CFLs again, and my boxes are not nearly deep enough for a
filter, much less two or three. :(
( Something changed about 18 months ago (no, I don't work fast ;) and
pretty much stopped all the X10 PLC on my property. Prior to that I had
no problem with phase coupling and signal strength was fine from
anywhere in the house or barn (over 400ft away). Now I've got all the
plug-in modules working fine, but still the 'installed' stuff isn't
working to any degree of predictablity. I'm about to order a leviton
6284 or X10Pro PZZ01 because external cause is nearly all that remains,
and this really needs to be working before Christmas this year!)
sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
Jeff Volp
news:slrneknku1.p3a.Z...@sdba64.internal...
>
> I assume you are using X10-compatible switches WITH a neutral? (As
> opposed to the typical X10-brand with no neutral, which must pass PLC
> thru the device under control.)
Yes, they are all the older Leviton "red line" switches (now discontinued).
> > It fit behind the X10 switches in each of those electrical boxes. The 5
amp
>
> Wow, must have DEEP boxes. :)
Yep. All boxes are 3 1/2" deep, and oversize metal boxes are used for all
X10 dimmer switches. For the few cents saved per box it didn't make any
sense to put in smaller ones. Metal boxes are expensive, but they solve the
dimmer heat problem.
> I'm in process of trying to track down and exterminate a nasty X10 PLC
> gremlin. Tracking noise sources, adding filters, adding signal
> suckers... Painful doesn't begin to describe it... But someday I hope
> to automate CFLs again, and my boxes are not nearly deep enough for a
> filter, much less two or three. :(
It doesn't have to be at the switch. The boxes on our ceiling cans have a
lot of room left inside. If you can identify which light fixture is first
in the string, you can probably add the filter into its box.
> ( Something changed about 18 months ago (no, I don't work fast ;) and
> pretty much stopped all the X10 PLC on my property. Prior to that I had
> no problem with phase coupling and signal strength was fine from
> anywhere in the house or barn (over 400ft away). Now I've got all the
> plug-in modules working fine, but still the 'installed' stuff isn't
> working to any degree of predictablity. I'm about to order a leviton
> 6284 or X10Pro PZZ01 because external cause is nearly all that remains,
> and this really needs to be working before Christmas this year!)
If you have access to a scope, it can be very helpful. The ESM1 is great
for its price, but only a scope showed what was really going on with that CF
noise. You might also give the XTB a try. Good luck!
Jeff