ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade Non-US Electrical Systems & Trades Australia to phase out standard light bulbs

The last time I was in a television studio (KATU 2, Portland, Oregon, in 2003) they were using banks of CFL lights. The fixtures were panels roughly 36' x 24', that contained a row of tubes and a reflector. As far as I know, they were dimmable. They still had a couple of incandescent fresnels in there, too. I suspect that one of the motivations to use CFL over incandescent in a studio is heat, as they pack lights in there pretty tightly, and only 10' or so above your head.

On the stage, our lighting is still done with quartz-halogen incandescent lamps, partially because of the easier dimmability, faster rise time, consistency of intensity, etc. Although, a lot of big-money rigs (like concerts) have some pretty cool LED setups. Not only do they draw less power, but they can be plugged directly into the wall (no external dimming needed) and have a full 256-bit color mixing spectrum. I haven't worked with any of them personally (as I don't work in a "big-money" shop) but I've seen pictures and demos online and in print. They are primarily sold as replacement for PAR or Fresnel-type fixtures, as they have a semi-diffused beam. While these may replace some incandescent fixtures, the old quartz-halogen lamp will probably remain the mainstay for spot-type fixtures.

And others? I thought Joseph Swan standardised on 200V. The story as I know it was 110V was the highest voltage that Edison's prototype carbon filament lamp could withstand without burning out.
Regardless of the lamp efficiency; the use of 110V ia far less efficient than 200-250V used elsewhere.

Some of the earliest 3-wire DC distribution systems in the U.K. were 100/200V (or thereabouts), with 100V bulbs.

noderaser,
I was always under the impression that Metal-Halide lighting sources were favoured for TV camera's both Indoor and Outdoor Broadcasting, because of the Colour Rendering (97%)?.

Reason I ask that is because sports stadia here use this (in large amounts) as opposed to any other form of lighting.
However back to the topic of lighting in general, as mentioned over on another thread, T5 fluorescent tubes have no strobo-scopic effect, being fed from HF ballasts, this would be my option, given the choice for a workshop.

On this side of the pond, the standard "daylight" temperature that is used for NTSC television cameras is 5000K, while PAL cameras use 6500K. Fluorsecents can easily achieve either of these temperatures; not having much international experience in the studio, I can't say why they would choose to use Metal-Halide over Fluorescent, especially since they're more expensive and require some pretty fancy electronics to keep them regulated. They also emit quit a bit more UV radiation than fluorescents. But, I may infer that the Metal-Halide were used over quartz-halogen (that were used in the US) historically to get closter to the appropriate temperature for PAL cameras. I'm sure that modern European studios are using some fluorescents as well.

I do know that they use HID fresnels here for movie production (the really BIG fresnels, 3-4+ kW), and in many of the intelligent lighting fixtures, which use mechanical dowsers for dimming. They typically need color correction back towards the yellow/orange spectrum.

Metal-halide is often used for stadium and other outdoor large-area lighting here as well, probably because they can generate the required intensity to light a large area. I doubt very much that fluorescents would cut it in a stadium.

On a side note, I have 2700K CFL lamps, which are roughly equivalent (color temp-wise) to your standard incandescent. I also have a 6800K "reading lamp", which produces exteremely white light. The 6800 is nice for reading, but at times it seems as though text on the page is cutting through my retinas. The 2700's seem more "natural", like the incandescents we're used to.

noderaser,
I have 6500Kelvin lamps here.
I like the white light put out by them.
I hate the 2700K lamps on the market here at the moment, seemingly that is all you can get at the DIY stores here, they are far too orange or yellow for my liking.
In my office here I would sooner have a nice white light not something depressing like yellow or even worse orange.
That is why I moved away from incandescents in the first place.

What about the diminished light output of CFL in cold areas? I can't use them outside or unheated areas or outbuildings because when the weather is cold, they put out about 1 candlepower.
I can't believe the EU would even consider requiring them, since it gets even colder there.

The voltage of 100 or 110 as far as i have read, was originally derived from the old carbon arc lamp which strikes at 50 to 55 volts.
By doubling the voltage 2 of these lamps could be run in series and avoiding a power dissipating resistor.
Also the doubling of the voltages halves the current and thinner wires could be used.

System-wide, yes, this is true, at least from the standpoint of the amount of copper used. If incandescent lamps are the only load, it might pay to choose the optimum voltage for them. A 30V lamp would be even more efficient than a 100V lamp, but transmission efficiency would be dismal except in the smallest isolated system.

Since the early 20th century, our parallel circuits have carried diverse and ever-increasing loads, and the importance of lamp efficiency began to wane. Engineers began to agitate for higher voltages, and in many countries, they got them. Those of you who are writing on computers that run on 230VAC can thank the same bureaucracies you now complain about for setting this standard some decades ago.:D

Here in the USA, our standards are more loosely governed by a variety of competing industry groups. Decades ago, when utilities tried raising voltages, the motor manufacturers pushed back. The result is that we still have 120V for most domestic loads, fed from a transformer in the backyard rather than a substation on the edge of town!