Rant of the day

[cabinetman]

I'm going thru ~$100 worth of bulbs per year, They're only lasting 35% of what they promised. Would you be anal about this, too?

Keeping track would only tell you how long certain bulbs last. The across the board doesn't apply as some bulbs in a brand may not fall into the early failure list. It might pay to keep track if the bulbs were pro rated for early failure. I don't think any of them are.

So, your $100 worth of bulbs only last 35% of what they are promised...now what? Do you have any recourse? Can you carry a box of bulbs back to the store with little tags affixed to them with dates and hours? I think not. All the data will provide you is which brands to stay away from with certain bulbs.

.

[LCHIEN]

I look at it this way. I'm an engineer, we have certain methodolgy. We solve problems by taking data to prove there's a problem and give us a baseline for measuring improvement, then trying a fix to solve the problem and and take more data proving that there's an improvement.

If I have no measurements I can't be sure there is a problem. Now I know there is for sure - my best performers are only doing half the job they claim. I haven't got a fix but I know I can improve my economic performance by 66% simply by choosing the correct brand. I can't propose a fix yet. Maybe I'll send the data to GE and Sylvania, but its probably bad time since incandescent production is probably ramping down.

But I don't regard my time as wasted, as you seem to do.

[Tom Slick]

I used to keep track of florescent bulbs when I was a facility engineer. It seemed like certain fixtures went though bulbs faster so we started collecting data. When you have hundreds of light fixtures and you pay someone to change bulbs it makes sense to start tracking to diagnose issues.

We didn't use CFLs, they were all linear and bi-pin.

[cabinetman]

But I don't regard my time as wasted, as you seem to do.

You're absolutely right. For me it's a big waste of time.

.

[All Thumbs]

You're absolutely right. For me it's a big waste of time.

.

It doesn't take more than a few seconds to write a bit on a bulb.

We've done it with bulbs, and batteries, too.

If I can identify a brand/line of bulbs that lasts 20% longer, I've actually saved time and money, as I'm not chasing to the store to buy bulbs, I'm not climbing ladders, I'm putting fewer products into recycling/landfills, etc.

[cabinetman]

It doesn't take more than a few seconds to write a bit on a bulb.

We've done it with bulbs, and batteries, too.

If I can identify a brand/line of bulbs that lasts 20% longer, I've actually saved time and money, as I'm not chasing to the store to buy bulbs, I'm not climbing ladders, I'm putting fewer products into recycling/landfills, etc.

I would think if the saving of data is done it should be relatively pertinent. Marking bulbs might tell you something about that particular bulb. Another one from the same box may perform differently, so the collection of data isn't specific.

.

[LCHIEN]

I would think if the saving of data is done it should be relatively pertinent. Marking bulbs might tell you something about that particular bulb. Another one from the same box may perform differently, so the collection of data isn't specific.

.

When you have a larger qty of samples you can tell trends. I had multiples of bulbs under the same conditions so the data stats becoming quite meaningful when you have more than 10 each of two brands. You suspect a trend but prove it with data. And the GE bulbs had lot nos. and dates on the metal base, the Sylvania none. I could not tell a lot-batch trend among 3 or four lots of the GE. The Sylvania were uniformly poor.

[cabinetman]

When you have a larger qty of samples you can tell trends. I had multiples of bulbs under the same conditions so the data stats becoming quite meaningful when you have more than 10 each of two brands. You suspect a trend but prove it with data. And the GE bulbs had lot nos. and dates on the metal base, the Sylvania none. I could not tell a lot-batch trend among 3 or four lots of the GE. The Sylvania were uniformly poor.

That's exactly what I'm referring to. Each bulb in a brand in a lot# are actually individual bulbs that may or may not give similar service to the one next to it in the box. As a result of the individuality, I have to admit that I have better things to do than try to make responsible deductions from evaluating bulb performance. If it's a $100 that I should worry about, I'll start packing my lunch instead of enjoying the break in the day by eating out.

.

[All Thumbs]

If it's a $100 that I should worry about, I'll start packing my lunch instead of enjoying the break in the day by eating out.

.

There is an old Chinese proverb that roughly translated means, "if you watch the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves."

[cabinetman]

There is an old Chinese proverb that roughly translated means, "if you watch the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves."

Here's a few perspectives. If...by not keeping track and there is some unnecessary costs, I would consider it a payment not to get involved in mundane minutia.

Or, by my random selections of brands and types, I get lucky and they become the most efficient over ones I didn't pick.

.

[woodturner]

I look at it this way. I'm an engineer, we have certain methodolgy. We solve problems by taking data to prove there's a problem and give us a baseline for measuring improvement, then trying a fix to solve the problem and and take more data proving that there's an improvement.

I do the same - it's just like tracking car mpg or anything else, we need objective data to draw accurate conclusions.

Tracking the bulbs by the box is a great idea, since bulbs from the same manufacturing lot (e.g. same box) are likely to have very similar characteristics and failure rates and modes.

Do the floodlight CFLs have lifetime warranties? Many of the regular bulb replacement types do - so you would only have to buy them once and the store will provide free replacements.

[cabinetman]

I keep track because the darn bulbs cost $5.50 apiece (BR40 65W flood) and they last less than half of what they should.

if you estimate you can make a good approximation. For example we run the lights in our living room from about 6PM to midnight, say six hours a day when we're home, probably 5 days a week. Longer in the windter, shorter int he summer, so it evens out. If we're out they'll still be on a couple of hours when we get home. So in a week, that's say 34 hours. 50 weeks a year, allowing for a couple of weeks on vacation, then we're talking 1700 hours per year.

Kitchen lights are on probably 2/3 of that (1100 hr/year). Bedroom lights are on probably 2 hours or 1/3 of that so 550 hours/year.

I have 5 65-watt cans in my living room. So 325 watts. In a year at 1700 hours, 552 KW-hours. at 12 cents per KW hour, it costs me $66 to light the living room.

I keep records of the floods in the cans, since they cost around $5.50 apiece and I have 11 in the high usage area. I started marking bulbs upon replacement in 2009. Altho I've lived here since 1992.
Using the estimated usage above, I get an average of 832 hours per bulb, which is about 42% of the claimed 2000 hours on the package.
FWIW I get 52% of service life from GE, and 35% of service life from Sylvania. Guess which bulbs I'm not buying anymore.

I've tracked 21 bulbs from installation to burnout.
Actually its probably worse than I've stated... I use a dimmer on the living room lights so its often less than 100% which should greatly extend the life of the bulbs.


Continuing with my rant, i have four 13W/65W CFL replacements in my bedroom. They claim to last 11 years at 3 hours per day (=12,000 hours)... Like I said, my bedroom lights are probably on 2 hours a day. I've replaced 6 of them, they're not in a enclosed fixture to where they get too hot. I know they aren't in there for anywhere near 11 years... maybe 3 or four. Sylvania, again.

I would think if the saving of data is done it should be relatively pertinent. Marking bulbs might tell you something about that particular bulb. Another one from the same box may perform differently, so the collection of data isn't specific.

If you only get a percentage of use when there is a claim for a certain number of hours, that must tell you that the source of data differs. If all the test/marked bulbs came from the same box and they have their own lot numbers, does not mean that they will all perform the same. Thinking they will is just wishful thinking. No two bulbs can be expected to be free of the same defects, or OTOH have the same type of defects.

There are too many variables, ambient temperature, vibration, power surges, times on and off, relative humidity, etc. Other effects could be a simple as insects landing on the surface, dust levels, or factors inhibiting the bulb from maintaining its operating temperature. An interesting result would likely be tell tale by an accurate hourly usage of the same lot numbers. If all the marked bulbs are from the same lot, that would represent a basic test batch. And, if the testing is to be somewhat conclusive, the bulbs should have been bought in case quantities for each size in the test. This brings up the fact that the brand choice could be pot luck to find the best performers. And, this would be important to the very purpose of keeping track, as all brands would have to be marked to find the best performers.

The manufacturers know their claims are generalizations. If the claims permitted replacement at a failure rate less than claimed life expectancy, or a percentage thereof, there would be more people standing at customer service counters with burned out light bulbs wanting replacements. I wonder if anyone here has scored in doing that.

.