Fading & 'New' Lightbulbs

Create a Post
Shayla

Shayla

WOW Framer
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Posts
35,839
Loc
Washington State
In the past week, when I've told them that the
sun and flourescent lights cause fading, two
people have asked me if the new (halogen?)
bulbs do, too. Word is that in a couple years,
the old kind of lightbulbs won't be sold, and
we'll all have to convert. For all I know, this
has been discussed here, but I'm curious what
the answer is.
 
Do you mean the compact florescent bulbs? The spiral ones?

I would assume they fade the same as regular florescent lights...which is quite a bit.

Experts?
 
I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm curious as well about how LED's stack up against the older technologies. Here is an interesting article that compares incandescent against CFL: http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leaflets/2The_Environment/04ProtectionFromLight.php

They probably mean the NEWEST ones that are moving in fast (LED lights). They're finally becoming mainstream and we have many of them in our house. They have them at home improvement stores, etc.

CFL was the big thing in the 90s, but LED are all the rage now. CFL's are down in the free - $1 range now, often covered by the the electric company as a free after rebate thing. The LED technology can still be pricy.

Incandescent and halogen will be outlawed in the not so distant future, as they have been already in some countries. They suck a LOT of power inefficiently, and make a lot of HEAT as a result. (about 80% of the power creates heat, 20% light)

These are all approximately the same 1700 lumens of output (similar to 100w bulb):

100w Incandescent lasts about 750 hrs at 335f temperature (hot/cheap to buy)
26w CFL lasts about 10,000 hrs at 179f temperature (cooler/twice the cost/lower power but may outlive 13 incandescent bulbs)
18w LED lasts about 50,000 hrs at 87f (lowest fire risk/highest cost/lowest power but may outlive 67 incandescent bulbs)

CFL and Halogen can be harsh for UV, and should have filters. Our shop has 100% CFL lighting, and we have noticed slight fading for items that have been exposed for 5+ years.

Hopefully Hugh or someone with experience in this will chime in with a real answer.

Mike
 
Let's review what causes fading:

LIGHT
Heat
Changes in relative humidity
Ozone (and other atmospheric/environmental pollutants)

I will also toss another factor into the mix - inherent vice. Meaning that some things will fade due to what they are made from - as we are seeing in a significant number of photographs, especially color photographs from the 60's.

Note that I did not say UV light. All light causes fading. Halogen bulbs produce light. They also produce heat. So, yes, halogen bulbs do contribute to fading. Remember that intensity of light levels is also a factor. Halogen bulbs can also produce a more intense, focused beam of light so the intensity can also be greater.

Halogen bulbs are NOT CFL's (compact fluorescent) - they are completely different technologies just as LED's are completely different than the other two.

I follow lighting technology very closely and have yet to find cost effective LED lighting that is suitable for lighting artwork.

I have found retrofit R-30 type fixtures for ceiling illumination that look great and are dim-able. The problem is that they are running about $200 per fixture.

One also needs to understand the concept of DARK fading - those factors that cause fading that are not triggered by light waves. And, DARK fading occurs simultaneously in the LIGHT, not just in drawers or while things are not exposed to light. That is one of the reasons that people are saying that UV filtering glass "doesn't work." Nonsense.

The causes of fading include ALL light.
 
Wow. Thanks for your responses, all. :thumbsup:
 
Fading of colors is photo oxidation. It is caused by light and/or oxygen and that means all wavelengths of light. The UV has the most energy and is most damaging, but even infra red will heat things up and cause chemical changes. Remove the oxygen, and much of the fading stops, but Prussian Blue and similar colors can turn white, without oxygen, which complicates this possibility. There are more problems that we may be aware of, since it turns out that even cadmium reds are not light stable. The energy of all light causes physical change in the color, which is transformed to chemical change by the oxygen. Florescent light is made by sending ultraviolet down the tube which casuse the coatings on its interior to glow, but it begins with UV and that will get out.
UV = most energy = most change
Visible = moderate energy = change
IR = low energy = heat change
Dark = good.


Hugh
 
Once we get the LED, down (give it another year or maybe two), we will see some very exciting stuff.

First and foremost, the LED is a diode not a filament or hyper reactive coating. So it doesn't emit in the "wasted" spectrum of UVA & UVB (200-400 nanometers) nor does it "emit" in the IR, except the ceramic base tends to warm up, but doesn't "emit".

What LED does do, and is getting much better at is flooding the lumen's range, which is the visible light range. or what the human eye perceives. People hated the "blue ultra white" of the originals, so the manufactures heard and simply toned the resistance of the diode to resonate to the warmer kelvin.

There is a lot deeper stuff here to understand, but I was trying to keep it lite.

Funny how I worked yesterday on a connected post for my blog, and never saw this thread.... freaky how life is.
 
As new light sources are developed, the most useful will be those that have the hignest output at the blue, green, red, peaks where our eyes see most and which leave out as much of other wavelengths as possible.


Hugh
 
Wow, really great information from this thread. Thanks for starting it Shayla. I learned a lot today. Now my question, why do they market these bulbs saying they will last up to 10 times longer some up to 2 years, yet I seem to be changing them just as often as the old types. Has anyone had a bulb that actually lasted 2 years?
 
Before the incandescent and halogen bulbs are eliminated, I hope they come up with some alternatives in traditional form factors that have decent CRI, enough lumens, and are dimmable.
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick

When should we begin hoarding incandescent bulbs? ;)
 
GhostFramer said:
Has anyone had a bulb that actually lasted 2 years?
Click to expand...

I switched to CFL Floods whe we did a remodel about 7 years ago, this year i have started to switch some out because they burnt out. Probably abround 25% of them though.

Rob, according to my lighting company, the retrofit kits for LED conversion may not be needed in 2 years as there is a company that currently makes LED floods that will fit into current sockets, the problem is that the bulb runs around $60-70 each. 2 years they should be in the $10-15 range according to them, the only thing that you may want to do is put dimmers on your switches
 
Baer Charlton said:
First and foremost, the LED is a diode not a filament or hyper reactive coating. So it doesn't emit in the "wasted" spectrum of UVA & UVB (200-400 nanometers) nor does it "emit" in the IR, except the ceramic base tends to warm up, but doesn't "emit"....

....There is a lot deeper stuff here to understand, but I was trying to keep it lite.
Click to expand...


Thanks for keeping it lite:shrug:
 
Sam, although I believe the memo to have merit over all, I would note that as of Dec 2009, the best consultants in the LED manufacturing and controlling said that we were probably 2-3 years away from a "dim-able" LED with any kind of lumen out put close to 1,200.
By May, dim-able at 2,000 was on the general market for under $200 a unit.

So with that in mind, may I point out that the memo was publish back in April, which means it was researched late 2009.....

But its the reference citing that gives me cause to question:

REFERENCES
 COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE L´ECLAIRAGE. Control of Damage to Museum Objects by Optical Radiation 157:2004
 CUTTLE, CHRISTOPHER. "Damage to Museum Objects Due to Light Exposure." International Journal of Lighting Research and Technology 28, no. 1 (1996): 1-10.
 HARRISON, L.S. Report on the Deteriorating Effect of Modern Lighting Sources. NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1954.
 KROCHMAN, JÜRGEN. "Beleuchtung von lictempfindlichen Ausstellungsstücken: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Objektschädigung durch optische Strahlung" ("Illumination of Light Sensitive Exhibition/Art Objects: with Particular Examination of Object Damage from Optical Radiation”). Restauro. Vol. 3. 1988. 227-234.
 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Preservation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. NBS circular 505. Washington, D.C.: NBS. 1951.
 SAUNDERS, D. AND KIRBY, J. Wavelength-dependent fading of artist's pigments, in Preventive Conservation: Practice, Theory and Research. London: IIC, 1994, 190-194.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Charlton- Some data really don't go out of date. Your comments and doubts lead me to suspect that you did not read the article as thoroughly as you might have; there is a section of it titled 'Potential Risk and the Rapid Emergence of LED Technology".
 
yes... and talk about "spot burning" from focused light blah blah blah....

I did, and yes, there are some things that don't go out of date.... a lumen is a lumen, the spectrum hasn't changed (appreciably) etc etc...

In 1954, everything we knew about producing light hadn't changed in 37 years. (oops, sorry... arc lights were more controlled by 54... but would radically change after the Royal fire in Chicago and again in 74 with the Levison death in LA, to the "safety arc" we have had until recently).

You might say that since 1995, how we produce, use, and protect against light has been changing at . . . well, the speed of light.

I have some friends in the silicon forest who are (depending on which day of the week it is) on the cutting edge of LED, and CLED (cold light emitting diode). Six months ago we were talking about a 2,000 watt ceiling matrix with a diode every inch on grid for $30,000 including the computer controller. Last night he said "remember that ceiling? Forget it.... XYZ just made it obsolete this afternoon"..... he was talking about a rolled out membrane....

At the Christmas party, I will not be surprise to hear that he's thinking about starting a "paint company".....

I also won't be surprised if at his 40th birthday in a few years, he's making noises about retiring because he "just can't keep up with the kids anymore".
 
GhostFramer said:
Wow, really great information from this thread. Thanks for starting it Shayla. I learned a lot today. Now my question, why do they market these bulbs saying they will last up to 10 times longer some up to 2 years, yet I seem to be changing them just as often as the old types. Has anyone had a bulb that actually lasted 2 years?
Click to expand...

Thats my biggest complaint! I use CFL's because I notice the reduction in heat and they consume less energy, but they do not last any longer than regular light bulbs. In fact, I've been testing a few of them side by side (regular vs CFL) and the CFLs have died first 9 out of 10 times
 
Also, back to the original question...a few years ago I had customers asking the same thing, I called Phillips, a major producer of CFL bulbs and they told me the bulbs have a coating on them that reduces UV light rays.

Now that was just over the phone with a tech rep. I've never been able to find specs in writing, nor do I know just how much that protection/coating helps
 
conversion may not be needed in 2 years as there is a company that currently makes LED floods that will fit into current sockets, the problem is that the bulb runs around $60-70 each. 2 years they should be in the $10-15 range according to them


sorry! been hearing this tune for the last 2-3 years---we can always 'hope', BUT I'm a Missouri boy and you'll have to SHOW ME!

about 9-10 yrs ago My little gallery at the time had black ceiling/walls(not MY choice!) and used all spots for light---the spots had an alarmingly brief life(they were very HOT in those little enclosures and I was replacing stuff every week...not to mention how all that heat did wonders for my A/C bill) so I tried CFL's(less 'flash' but much coooler) but was sorely disapointed that the lifetime, while usually 'longer' than the normal spot's, was nothing to get excited about and wasn't worth the trouble/reduced brightness.
lot simplier to go to COSCO and lay in 10 cases of 75-150 incandescences(while they still have them)!!!! should last most of us until death!(after that---who'll care???)
 
We find that they last a LOT longer than incandescent bulbs. Some of the originals installed in 2004 or so are still going, on all day. Before we converted our track lights to CFL, we were replacing bulbs regularly. Not all brands are created equal.

On a related note, our original 2002 T8 bulbs (the back room has energy efficient T8 tubes in ceiling fixtures) are still going, and we have NEVER replaced a single bulb in 8 years. However, we had the plaza re-done for free by the electric company in 2004. They replaced all the fixtures in the plaza with T8, except ours (because they were already T8). Most of the the electric company provided T8 bulbs died within 4-5 years, while ours are still shining strong. For us, they replaced all of our track floods with CFL. Most of those are still going today.

Mike
 
I replaced all the T8s in my back room in 2004, and have only had one burn out since then. However, fluorescents do lose brightness as they age, so I'm thinking of replacing them again soon. My aging eyes are needing more light.
:cool: Rick

A while back there was a discussion about lighting on the main forum and someone (Rob or Jim, I think) had statistics on the dimming of fluorescent tubes. My current ones are 3500°K, but I'm thinking of going to 4100°K for replacements. Anyone have any insights into pros/cons of this?
 
Rick-

Have your read the white paper that Sam posted a link to? Very interesting reading regarding the effective damage from higher levels of Kelvin temperature.

Have you sleeved your lamps? Changed your diffusers to filter the UV? As Jim Miller has pointed out, light damage is cumulative- and the higher the light output, the more potential damage......also it now appears that higher Kelvin temperatures may also be a factor.

Also Rick (and others) - we need to be careful with our terminology as it may become confusing-

When I (and others) refer to "dim-able" for a lamp, we are referring to its ability to have its light output reduced through the use of an electronic device (a "dimmer"). Some compact fluorescent and LED lamps are not capable of being dimmed.

Rick - when you refer to the "dimming of fluorescent tubes" I think you mean the reduced light output from natural age - which is not "dimming" in technical lighting jargon.
 
Thanks, all, for continuing to post here. I really
appreciate it, and obviously others do, too. Sam,
I see that you just joined in May, so I'll take this
chance to say welcome to the Grumble! I hope
you stick around, as it's a good bunch. :smiley:

Baer, if they've done what you said and improved
the warmth of the lights, I'll be so happy. I can't
stand that bluish white light, and the worst place
of all is with car headlights. I just can't stand 'em!
It's like they go into my brain and jangle it around
and I can't keep seeing right. Will be very glad
if the lights in houses are warmer, as I was dreading
that nasty cold light.
 
I don't know if this is helpful, but it is from an article from the Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 24, Number 1, Winter 1995 - UV Emission From General Lighting Lamps, by Bergman, Parham, and McGowan. It includes a chart of permissible exposure times of various light sources at 1000 Lux. The exposure rates were charted for concerns about UV A, B, and C emissions in regards to biological safety, with applications to the museum and retail industry for fading.

If my feeble brain understands this chart, a F40T12CW lamp would reach the same amount of UV emission as 6 minutes of sunlight at 30 degrees from zenith after 8 hours. A 12V65WH1 quartz halogen capsule would reach the same amount of emission in a little over 1 hour. A PAR38 90W glass halogen takes significantly longer to reach the permissible exposure times (like maybe 300 hours).

Of course, this is a very old article, and there are probably more recent ones comparing the more recent lighting technologies.
 
That study was interesting, although it focussed mainly on LED sources. I'll be curious to see what is actually available (at a reasonable cost) as the halogens and "standard" incandescents are phased out, and how they stack up. So far it sounds as though the current LED sources are reasonably useful and relatively safe.

As you pointed out, I was referring to the decreasing output of aging fluorescents. I realize that most of these cannot be adjusted for output using a dimming device. (Too bad, as I'm a fan of dimmers). I hope that an effort is being made to produce energy-efficient lamps that are both pleasing and useful in terms of their color temperature (for ambience-- avoiding the cold feel) and rendering of colors for our purposes-- as well as being controllable by a dimmer.

For my current purposes, while there may be some correlation between increasing color temperature and fading potential, I'm thinking (not scientifically) that a slightly brighter-feeling ambient light in the workroom might be worth some degree of trade-off in fading potential, considering the fairly short time during which any particular piece being worked on would actually be exposed to this light.

It's interesting that they consider a "daylight" fluorescent to be 7000°K. I always thought it was more like 5000°K. I would never consider those anyway.

:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick

Caution: Frankenjoke>>>In this case, it's a bit tricky to refer to this research report as a "white paper", since its apparent "whiteness" might depend upon the CRI of the light source under which it is read (or in our case the calibration of the reader's computer monitor). ;)

 
Create a Post
Back
Top