There is a third option - higher temperature emitters.

Thomas Paterson wrote:

That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.

What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

On Mar 3, 7:13 pm, Victor Roberts wrote:
[snip]

I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Regards,

DS
--

On Mar 3, 7:13 pm, Victor Roberts wrote:

We set up four table lamps in a room. Three had CFLs
of different color temperature and one had an incandescent
lamp that produced just about the same light output.
The participants had no idea what types of lamps were
in the portable fixtures. The lamp chosen by the majority
of the people was not the incandescent. If I remember
correctly, it was the 3000K CFL.

I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time. Now, I am particularly attuned to qualitative
aspects of light that many people seem not to notice or mind, so I am
probably going to wind up creating outliers in the dataset of any
blind lamp preference study in which I might participate (I have never
done so, BTW). Nevertheless, my apparently particularly keen
sensitivity to light quality implies there are others -- maybe plenty
of others -- with similarly-keen sensitivity.

I would like to read the writeup of the study you mention. Having seen
a huge range of light quality from different CFLs sold as "3000K", my
initial reaction based on what you've told me of the parameters of the
study is that different results could easily be obtained with
different "3000K" CFLs.

Regards,

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Can I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you don't
wear glasses of any sort

1) Eyeglasses, which show a mini copy of the spectrum of any source when one
looks around the edge of the lens,
2) Unfocused vision, which allows the eye to make a pretty safe guess on the
color temperature of the source.

The two tools can be used to create "mini-analyses" of hundreds of light
sources, while one is travelling, provided one is not driving (combining
driving with this process is dangerous).

Dave Dayton did some very interesting research
some years ago, with positive results, on increasing the efficacy of
filament lamps by doping the filaments with welsbach mantle material.

Is there any data on such a lamp maintaining lumens and color for a
decent amount of time? How much was overall luminous efficacy increased?
If such data exists and is favorable, did the lamp run into problems for
being greenish?

On Mar 5, 6:32 pm, "Ioannis" wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Can I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I
make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

Based on the above description, I can immediately infer that either you
don't
wear glasses of any sort

Wrong. See http://u225.torque.net/LJ/070213/DanDadsSpecs.jpg . I'll
wait while you stop laughing and catch your breath!

Regards,

DS
--

Well, sure, but that'd be cheating! The object of my little game is to
try and discern CFLs from incandescents without using any visual aids,
passive or active.

Well over 90% of the time, I need no tricks or tools to discern the
light source being used in vehicle forward illumination devices.
Tungsten, tungsten-halogen, tungsten-halogen with coloured envelope,
HID...

Regards,

DS
--

We should find a server to place mugshots of all the members of s.e.l. A most
valuable resource.

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:26:22 +0200, "Ioannis"
morpheus@olympus.mons> wrote:

[snip]

We should find a server to place mugshots of all the members of s.e.l. A
most
valuable resource.

I'm setting up a new web site for CFL Q&A. see
cflfacts.com. We can set up a subdomain off there for
photos of s.e.l members

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
--

In article <1173137524.20830@athnrd02>, Ioannis wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1173134756.594633.93650@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 3, 7:13 pm, Victor Roberts wrote:
[snip]

I wonder if you could really detect which fixture had a CFL
if you didn't know from the start and didn't see it start
up. Have you ever participated in a blind lamp test?

I frequently play this game when encountering lighting devices in
which upon first glance the light source cannot be seen directly: Can
I correctly identify the type of source, CFL vs. incandescent? I make
up my mind what I think it is, then I go check. I don't keep formal
track of my results, but it seems like I am right about 75 to 80
percent of the time.

===============================================

One more thing: If there is a room where some lamps are more-greenish
and some are more-purplish and they all have the same CCT and apparent
brightness, it appears to me that the more-greenish ones appear "uglier"
unless known to be incandescent sharing the room with CFLs. I sense that
this has made erring slightly towards pinkish-purplish more tolerable than
erring towards greenish for "warm color" fluorescents.

Any comments on this one?

==================================

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.
What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The problem that they are inherently using dirty power currently. The
offset to the problem is that all parts of the problem may be
addressed, unlike more efficient petrol engines, which will always be
a a problem.

Thomas Paterson wrote:

That said, even with "dirty"
electricity, the fact is that power stations are under pressure to
become cleaner, both new-build and in operation, so that path of
development is not a dead end. I have the same problem with electric
cars, for now.
What problem? Sorry if I'm not reading clearly...

The problem that they are inherently using dirty power currently. The
offset to the problem is that all parts of the problem may be
addressed, unlike more efficient petrol engines, which will always be
a a problem.

Ah, OK. As I understand it, electricity generation benefits greatly from
scale - power stations are a lot more efficient than small generators.
Whether this is offset again by losses in teh batteries, motors, etc., I
don't know. I imagine not, or the whole concept of electric and/or
hydrogen-fueled cars would be pointless.