Are you still using halogen bulbs?

an illuminating post, thanks alex

That was the second attempt, Alex. When I posted the first one the Conversation had gone – as bad as a failed bulb. 🙁

Hi Alex: I like that image for this article and was wondering if you could tell me who owns the copyright? I’d like to use something like that for a project I’m working on. Thanks

part 2….. to light and decorate my home with light I want to choose from appropriate light sources. Halogen is currently an important one not easily replaced, so no, I don’t want it banned. The industry has worked hard on low voltage versions with Infra red coatings on the bulb to iincrease their efficacy.

Next we’ll have the EU dictating how many private miles (kilometres) a week (semaine, woche) we’ll be allowed to drive to save energy. Far more worthwhile than light bulbs.

Some time ago I worked out that the unecessary EU requirement for daytime running lights consumed enough energy to light a small town of 300 000. No joined up logic in EU legislative thinking, is there? Just a lot of Sir Humphreys occupying their time.

Perhaps, but daylight running lights are mainly necessary because so many drivers forget to use their headlights when the visibility is below par, forgetting that the main purpose is to be seen.

If we look at the cost of running the daylight running lights and offset that against costs of hospital treatment, days off work, insurance claims and simple inconvenience I’d be willing to bet they’ve saved money and almost certainly lives.

The trouble I find with daytime running lights is they can cause glare and obscure something else you should be seeing, and they are quite unnecessary in normal daylight. I did once work out that you could power a town the size of Burnley on the energy wasted on DRLs.

I can see both sides of the argument here and maybe the glare could be avoided by better design of DRLs. What I find far more of a problem is high intensity headlights. Automatic levelling headlights don’t cope with speed humps so it is easy to be blinded by an oncoming motorist. That’s not clever if there are pedestrians or cyclists around.

The problem we have in the mountains up here is we need to be able to see vehicles all the time. Now, I agree that if some use them and others don’t that can obscure those not using them. The trouble is the non-users often don’t use them when it’s almost dark, so something has to be done to make sure it’s a level playing field in safety terms. Forcing everyone to use them has been standard in most European countries with our latitude and higher for many years and if everyone does then it improves overall safety significantly.

I believed that the transition from incandescent lighting (old fashioned bulbs and halogen lamps) should have been done by encouragement and helping people appreciate the energy savings to be made, rather than wielding a big stick. There is still time to do this.

The smaller halogen capsules used in many decorative light fixtures should certainly be given a stay of execution. Why allow fixtures to continue to be sold when there are plans to ban the sale of the lamps?

Now that LED lamps are available with a choice of colour temperature (not everyone wants 2700K), work is being done to improve the colour rendering index, and prices are falling, LEDs are becoming more attractive for lighting. No doubt it will become possible to have LED lamps that become more yellow as they dim – for those nostalgic about the loss of traditional bulbs.

I think you are right about non-residential buildings, John. If you are not paying the bill then there is no encouragement to switch off. It’s time to have another go at Lidl, which has gone back to leaving all the lights on at night, even though the store closes at 8pm and is always deserted when I have looked through the windows.

“helping people appreciate the energy savings to be made”. We should not be single minded about energy savings but remember it is simply one aspect of living. in the case of lighting its primary job is to light a task, provide a safe environment and to decorate a space with light to make it as attractive as possible. The right tools – lamps and light fittings – need to be chosen to do those jobs for their appropriateness, not with energy saving as the first priority.

If we want to save energy then don’t take foreign holidays, live in the smallest house you can find, walk don’t drive….Ridiculous isn’t it? Live life properly, enjoyably with sensible responsibility and don’t become obssessed with a single “populist” mantra.

here endeth….

Dee111, I’d be concerned about the basis for much of this document. Discharge lamps generally – of which CFLs are an example – have been around for decades and all emit EMF and impose distorted waveform on the mains – along with many other electrical appliances. Fluorescent lamps abound in workplaces (and have since pre-war) and I know of no authoritative work that has shown a significant health risk. The same applies to flicker – earlier lamps had 100 hz flicker; later ones operate at much higher frequency and have done for many years without, apparently, health problems.

Most discharge lamps emit UV. It has been demonstrated in the past that you would need to be very close to a CFL lamp for long periods to suffer any significant UV effect – generally conditions not normally experienced.

These sorts of claims have been made for years. Were they backed up by definitive studies we should be worried. So far they have not been.

However, keep off sunbeds – this is an extreme case where you will suffer for your vanity!

Dee111 – You have found a very biased article containing errors and exaggeration. I support Malcolm’s comments. I am strongly affected by flickering light and have no problems with even the older fluorescent lamps except when they are faulty and flickering at half the normal frequency. Modern CFLs (made after about 1990) operate at far too high a frequency to affect humans.

There is some risk from UV, but that is if you are very close to a lamp. Halogen bulbs used in desk lamps can be a problem, so it is essential that the glass cover is in place over the bulb. It will block most of the UV. If you use a CFL in a desk lamp, the ones with the outer glass envelope will block UV (as stated in the article) and help avoid the risk of breakage.

I believe that LED lamps can emit some UV light but have no idea how they compare with halogen or CFL lamps.

The danger of mercury in CFLs has been vastly exaggerated. They should last for years and the only problem is if they get broken, in which case it is recommended to ventilate the room and clean up the pieces carefully.

Halogen lamps run at extremely high temperatures and it is well established that they can break even without touching the capsule. Someone posted about the same problem in an earlier Conversation.

If it has happened more than once with the same brand of bulb it is worth contacting the manufacturer and informing Trading Standards.

The capsule in halogen lamps is usually protected by an outer cover to prevent fragments from an exploding capsule causing harm.

Jmay, you should not touch the small clear quartz bulb that encloses the filament; as you say, natural oils can cause the quartz to stain so handle them with tissue or similar. Many halogen lamps used in place of GLS filament lamps have a second enclosing bulb for protection; this is glass and can be handled normally.

Halogen capsules are sometimes supplied with a cardboard sleeve to allow them to be installed without touching them. Sadly, it is becoming common to package the capsules in a display pack, without a protective sleeve.

It’s often recommended that fingerprints are cleaned off with solvent (e.g. methylated spirits, but not the medicinal brandy!) before use, but rubbing them with tissue or a soft cloth should be sufficient.

A protective envelope does not guarantee that a halogen lamp will not explode or disintegrate and most of the examples I have read about are with downlighters, probably because they are very common. I presume that the envelopes are made of heat resistant borosilicate glass (think of Pyrex ovenware), but even that might break if hit by extremely hot pieces of quartz capsule.

Search for “halogen bulb explosion” for some reports. My guess is that most relate to substandard products but there is a small risk with all types.

I totally agree about the problem of claims for long life backed up only by short warranties. I never had a problem the claims for CFL lifetime, though others have. It’s as laughable as Miele saying their products are tested to last 20 years, yet providing a warranty that can be as little as two years. There have been rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority against Miele for making this claim in respect to vacuum cleaners and dishwashers.

Another problem is that to qualify for an advertised warranty, some companies require you to register your purchase. Why on earth should it be necessary to register the purchase of a lamp? If my own experience with a kettle is anything to go by, it might have something to do with marketing. I was asked some interesting questions, including my annual salary.

Which? did not report any problems with reliability when they tested LED lamps recently, but the ones tested were a very small sample of what is available and did not even include any by Philips, a fairly well known brands. Maybe the labs they use don’t have voltage spikes in their mains supply and the lamps are reasonably ventilated so they don’t overheat, or perhaps they have still to test the ones that you and others have had problems with.

In the meantime it’s probably best to ignore the claimed lifetime and focus on the length of the warranty.

I appreciate that Philips and other well known manufacturers do EMC tests but the Conversation I mentioned above contains posts about radio interference by Philips LED lamps. Radio interference is a difficult problem and weak radio reception will not help.

The best approach is to try one LED lamp and see if it causes radio interference, or stick with CFLs for the time being.

wavechange, this was not a response to your appropriate comments. It was to draw people’s attention to the general LED problem and uncontrolled sub-standard imports. We should not each of us have to use trial and error to get satisfactory LEDs – we should be able to buy with confidence. Time the importers of sub-standard product were found out and penalised.

It was certainly not meant as a criticism, Malcolm. I have suffered a lot of radio interference over the years and learned about the complexity of the issue, so I wanted to emphasise that buying well known brands is not a sure way of avoiding the problem.

I absolutely agree that we have to address the problems of cheap imports. It’s not so much durability or radio interference that concerns me but whether or not they are safe. Are the casings fire-retardant and do they contain fuses or other over-current devices to protect against fire?

It amazes me that many people will buy unbranded products from unheard of companies advertising on websites.

terfar, ordinary incandescent were phased out first because they are only half the efficiency of halogens. However, halogens could at the time give a lighting effect that other lamp types could not, and it should not be only about efficiency. You couldn’t make a decent spoltlight out of a CFL. LEDs are good if you buy reliable makes (who knows which they are?) but in many cases you’ll have to buy new, expensive light fittings and probably have to pay for them to be installed. In their mania for energy saving the EU forgets the consequences.

Malcolm – I thought halogen lamps designed to replace incandescent bulbs were – at best – 30% more efficient than the incandescent bulbs they were designed to replace. Obviously it depends on the power because a 100W bulb is (was) significantly more efficient than smaller sizes.

I can see that a bare capsule would be more efficient than a bulb replacement but as you pointed out earlier, these are often used behind glass.

That’s very encouraging and I wonder if there is scope to improve the efficiency of mains voltage halogen bulbs that have been used as direct replacement for old fashioned bulbs.

I am aware that the CRI of CFL and LED lamps is lower than that of incandescent lamps, and I understand the reason. Both have improved significantly and with the ongoing development of LED lighting, no doubt we will see further improvement.

Though there was much talk of poor light quality when CFLs came in, they seem to be generally accepted and those who don’t like them have moved to LEDs. Interestingly, there seems to be a greater demand for higher colour temperature lighting, maybe because many of us are familiar with its use in the workplace.

I started to replace my incandescent bulbs in the mid-80s, more out of interest in the developing technology than for energy saving. I’m happy with the light quality and can have bright lighting at little cost. Halogens have never appealed to me, especially since I’m no fan of downlighters. I particularly dislike the dazzling brightness of halogen lamps.

My last old fashioned light bulbs are a reflector bulb in a reading lamp and a ceiling fixture with 60 watt golf ball bulbs. CFLs get to hot because the shade are unventilated. Halogen replacements have the dazzling brightness I mentioned.

Improvements in mains voltage halogens are more limited as they need longer filaments, and because a filament still produces a good deal of red and infra red they will never achieve what we regard as a high efficacy (you cannot run the filament at too high a temperature as it would be very weak). So I reckon there will be incremental improvements, and low voltage lamps with their shorter, thicker and more thermally-efficient filaments will be the best choice.

They do, however, achieve excellent colour rendition because they emit a continuous spectrum. This is a problem with LEDs which generally use a blue (narrow spectrum) LED with a phosphor that generally gives a mix of continuous and high colour spikes. However for most purposes these are adequate.

As I said earlier, choose the light source for the job. I have two ceiling lights in a living room used occassionally (the lights, that is!) when I want overhead lighting (normal lighting is CFLs in table lamps). These are small halogen lamps in a modern branched light with thick glass shades. It looks good on, is dimmable, and sparkles a little without glare. I don’t want to be forced to replace these because the EU bans me from using halogen lamps. It would cost around £300. This is one knock-on effect they have overlooked, as has been repeatedly pointed out by both industry and user groups.

The fragility of mains halogen lamps is particularly obvious with G9 capsules, which can fail or short if knocked when lit. The bulb replacements seem better. Low voltage halogens are much better but obviously are not direct replacements of mains lamps.

I am familiar with the type of modern light you mention and like the ones that have shades that enclose the halogen capsules and are sufficiently opaque to reduce the glare. But for me, halogen lamps get too hot and use too much energy for my liking. LEDs seem the way to go and if may have a look at LED-based light fixtures in the near future, out of interest rather than any wish to replace CFLs.

I have a small hand-spectroscope. The LED lamps I have looked at produce what looks like a continuous spectrum not dissimilar to an incandescent lamp. Disappointingly, the superimposed spikes are not obvious, even though the emission bands are very clear with CFLs.

Fully agree. And with LED equivalents costing three times the price of halogen lamps the legislators are well and truly blinkered to the main issue. Until the reliability of LED’s goes up and the price goes down dramatically it is wrong to withdraw an affordable option, especially since so many people have invested in expensive but unadaptable fixtures.

You can get led equivalents to nearly every type of bulb known to man. Try the LED Hut on line: they have at least 4 variations of E27 candles.

DT, presumably a law will be enacted to have heated headlamp lenses. Or auxiliary halogen lamps to melt the snow. What about indicators, stop lights? The law of unintended consequences often applies to keeps our minds active.

My top priority was to buy a car with a spare wheel, but I was avoiding LED lighting was another factor influencing my choice. I was aware of the problem of snow accumulating on LED lights and I regard the strings of LEDs used as daytime running lights on some models look extremely naff. I managed to get a car with conventional lighting except for a high level brake light, which is at an angle that will discourage accumulation of snow.

Perhaps temperature-activated heaters in the lenses of LED traffic lights could provide a solution to the problem, while saving energy and maintenance costs when there is no snow. I try to avoid driving in snow.

What prompted me to post the link to Electrical Safety First was reading about the recall of a Crompton LED bulb. I see that Which? has seen this too: which.co.uk/news/2015/02/safety-alert-led-light-bulbs-recalled-396288/

Please could the link to Electrical Safety First be included on this and any future pages about recalls of electrical goods.

smike, if you have gas then justifying inefficient filament lamps because they help heat your house is a spurious argument – 🙂 – as the electricity they use costs around 3 times as much as gas.

The EU has lead to developments in new light sources – CFLs and LEDs – that might otherwise have happened more slowly. Just a pity they have not got to grips with tackling the imported rubbish versions as quickly.

I agree with Malcolm. Incandescent lighting is not a sensible way of heating houses.

LEDs will probably replace CFLs but it is early days and there are still problems with the LEDs sold for domestic use. I don’t know how to distinguish imported rubbish from imported good quality products. Until I do, I’m sticking with my CFSs.