Popular Mechanics Puts Efficient Light Bulbs to the Test
Popular Mechanics just tested seven common energy-efficient, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for brightness, color, and power use. Can they compete with the traditional incandescent light bulbs that most of us use?
They sure can. Although the old-fashioned incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, the test subjects in the Popular Mechanics study couldn’t see any significant difference. In fact, when it came to the overall quality of light, every single CFL scored higher than the incandescent: “In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren’t just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.”
To track the results, PM used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts Up?
The N:Vision Soft White bulb got the highest score of an “A.” The study found it to be “one of the top bulbs for reading and illuminating faces, the best-in-test N:Vision was noticeably ‘slow to warm.’ Still, it was ‘nice, pleasing and good overall.” The N:Vision has an average cost of $5.97 each.
CORRECTION: I had previously noted that the Sylvania Double Life Soft White was the lowest rated CFL. This is incorrect: The bulb is not a CFL but the incandescent against which the other CFLS were measured. It received the lowest score of all bulbs.
The lowest rated CFLs were the GE Soft White (which produced “accurate” color but made details hard to distinguish) and the Westinghouse Soft White (which was an average scorer overall but hurt one person’s eyes while reading). Both bulbs earned a B+.
I regret the error.
See a comparison of all the CFLs tested here.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I was disappointed to see this study did not take into account CFL flickering. CFL’s turn on and off many times a second to produce “light” and this is the most undesirable feature in them. I would like to see CFL’s that operate at higher (less noticeable) frequencies. It is possible some already do this - but the study does not address it at all. I strongly favor more solid LED lighting. Unfortunately the price does not make it feasible for home use for everyone at this time.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Yes, the flickering is bothersome for some people, like my wife. She can’t read with a CFL in the room. I also don’t like the way it takes at least a second or more for the light to come on after you flip the switch. And once it does come on, they take 5 to 10 seconds to reach total brightness.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The cheap CFLs I pick up at CVS don’t seem to flicker to my eyes, and they’re typically at full brightness after a second or less. In fact, when I replaced some overhead lights in our house with these, it took a while before my wife even noticed the delay.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I don't notice the flickering either… maybe it's just me (or the CFLs I've bought). I have noticed the very short lag in turning on (like a second), but don't see that as a major drawback… James, I agree (yes!) that LEDs are ultimately more promising in the long run… but until they come down in price, CFLs will definitely be the best option for most folks…
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
April 25th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Purchased 12 cf13el mini twist 2700k 120v and have thoroughly enjoyed them flicker free thus far. Am familiar with the history of this technology and am pleased to see them affordable to the consumer while maintaining high energy efficiency.