ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area CFL's in incandescent fixtures

We did change the design of MH fixtures over this issue. Either the fixture is enclosed - or the bulb needs additional protection built-in. This is 'enforced' by having slightly different bases on the bulbs. A 'protected' bulb will fit in any mogul socket, but the sockets in open fixtures will not allow the unprotected bulbs to fully seat.

This all came about because a bunch of teachers at a conference got severe sunburn- caused by the bulb in the fixture over them having lost part of the glass envelope.

HID bulbs - unlike ordinary incandescents - do not require a vacuum to operate. I replaced one perfectly operating mercury vapor fixture that had been lighting up just fine for at least two years- even though the outer bulb was completely absent.

The finer points of HID design aside .... and getting back to CFL's ... I admit that the yellowing and brittleness I ascribe to UV is only a theory of mine. I am not able to actually go out and make measurements.

What also seems clear is that there is no point on any CFL that gets nearly as hot as incandescent it is intended to replace. That, I suspect, is why UL is so comfortable in telling you it's OK to use these bulbe- even though the fixtures were never evaluated for use with CFL's.

Doesn't really specify strongly either way; some excerpts are that UV is less than 1% of transmission, and that shielding is not required/recommended for all QH products. The ones that immediately came to mind are MR16s, although they are available in both sealed and unsealed (exposed envelope) versions.

Having witnessed what happens when a QH lamp explodes, I'd prefer there be at least something there for protection. Some fixtures use a screen instead of glass to prevent shards of 1200F glass from flying all over. Of course, aside from the MR16s in my kitchen most of the QH lamps I use are minimum 500W, up to 2kW. A 25W MR16 may not be as susceptible to a violent explosion like the big boys.

Also, the sealed ones are much easier to replace up high with the suction-cup re-lamping pole :P

Reno, I read that article, but I'm wondering if that actually qualifies as an offical statement from UL, since it's not on an offical letterhead or other type of offical UL document. Do you know if there is any other documentation available from UL on this subject?

Thanks.

No, a press release is not an official document. If you want / need one of those, your area is sure to have a local UL rep who can get you one!

Let's get real, though. The PIO at UL isn't going to say 'good morning' without official sanction.

Reno,
i was wondering if there's any access to this UL statement ?

~S~

thanx Reno

~S~

That article does not address the "reflector" issue.
These CFLs, even most of the ones that look like "R" bulbs, still have the ballast above the reflector so the heat is not radiated out of the can.
I know a CFL 65w equivalent R bulb died an early death in an H-101 in my yard. The ballast was chocolate colored.

Just a reminder that the presence of a UL lable, and use as intended, does not suggest that the product is not a complete piece of junk.

I also suspect that the UL response will be applicable with LED's, or whatever the next gee-whiz replacement for the ordinary light bulb is created.

Reno:
I just read the article thru your link. Interesting that they say a fluor. lamp emits less heat than an incandescent. NO mention of that pesky self-contained ballast.

There also is no mention of the luminaire (fixture) being 'approved/listed' for CFL self contained devices.

Alas, reading kinda between the lines the jist of reading the CFL 'instructions' is mentioned.