Pin-base vs. screw-base or whatever?

[Victor Roberts]

I've been working on a project for the past week or so and
have not have time until today to get back to
www.cflfacts.com, but a recent discussion here has made me
rethink one of the answers on the site.

The issue is, what is the best way to distinguish between
CFLs that use external ballasts and CFLs with integral
ballasts?

Unfortunately, the basic term "CFL lamp" is used for both.
(Putting aside for the moment the fact that people outside
the lamp industry would refer to each as a "CFL bulb." )

When I was at GE we used the term "CFL" to refer to the
version without a ballast and "integral CFL" to refer to the
one with. I don't think I ever used the terms "screw-base"
and "pin-base" to distinguish between the two types until I
started working at the LRC.

However, as our European friends have pointed out,
integral CFLs used outside the US can have a non-screw base
so the use of "pin-base" and "screw-base" to distinguish the
two types is not sufficient. The naming issue has also
become complicated even inside the US since the GU24 base
used on integral CFLs uses pins, though large pins. Also,
as I say on the site, Energy Star even refers to these lamps
as "self-ballasts pin base lamps."

I can use "self-ballasted" or "integral" or
"integrally-ballasted" to refer to those with a built-in
ballast, but what name can I then use for those without a
ballast other than "non-ballasted CFL? This will certainly
not go over with consumers.


--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[[email protected]]

The issue is, what is the best way to distinguish between CFLs
that use external ballasts and CFLs with integral ballasts?

Maybe looking at it from the other end would help - what happens when
the lamp burns out?

(Note: free interchanging of the common and technical meanings of
lamp, tube, etc follows)

With your garden variety "3/$8 at Wal-Mart" CFL, you unscrew the whole
thing and toss it. With a fluorescent fixture whose tube is bent into
a funny shape instead of being linear or circular, you take out the old
tube, toss it, and put in a new one. The ballast (inside the fixture)
stays put.

If you don't like the 3/$8 kind, that would make them a "disposable
ballast CFL" and the other kind a "retained ballast CFL" or "fixed
ballast CFL" or something like that. (The idea being that the word
"disposable" is bad; it might imply that you're throwing away something
that you might be able to use further.)

Maybe a more neutral way to say it would be something like
"ballast-in-lamp CFL" vs "ballast-in-fixture CFL", or "base-ballast CFL"
vs "fixture-ballast CFL". The idea is that there has to be a ballast
somewhere, so the term should specify where it is.

Matt Roberds

 

[Victor Roberts]

The PHILIPS (US) catalog seems to label the two kinds as:

"Compact Fluorescent Integrated" and
"Compact Fluorescent Non-Integrated"

Please look at the left column of this page:
http://tinyurl.com/fv587

On the other hand the term "self-ballasted" is already in use (for high
pressure mercury self-ballased lamps), so it might create some confusion to a
non-specialist.

Well, Energy Star uses "self-ballasted" so that might be the
way to go, at least for that variety.

"Screw base" and "pin-base" are good characterizations as well, since they
seem to be into one-to-one correspondance (respectively) with "self-ballased"
and "not self-ballasted", as far as I know. At least so far, I haven't seen
any pin-based CFLs WITH an integrated ballast (excepting whole luminaires and
floodlights which may contain both the lamp and its ballast wired together
under the hood) or any screw-based CFLs WITHOUT a ballast. I may be wrong
though.

Here is the serious problem. The new GU24 base, used on
self-ballasted CFLs, is a pin-base, though the pins are
much larger than those used in "normal" pin-base CFLs, /and/
Energy Star has started to call these lamps "self-ballasted
pin base lamps."

The only discrepancy with the above correspondance is of course the fact that
"screw-base" as you mention can be also a B22 bayonet base instead of the more
common E27 and E14 bases. But in a sense the B22 types are also kind of
"screw-base" since the physical movement needed to mount these into their
sockets *does* involve a certain amount of "screw-in"

I can deal with the B22 bayonet base more easily than the
GU24 "pin base."

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Maybe looking at it from the other end would help - what happens when
the lamp burns out?

(Note: free interchanging of the common and technical meanings of
lamp, tube, etc follows)

With your garden variety "3/$8 at Wal-Mart" CFL, you unscrew the whole
thing and toss it. With a fluorescent fixture whose tube is bent into
a funny shape instead of being linear or circular, you take out the old
tube, toss it, and put in a new one. The ballast (inside the fixture)
stays put.

If you don't like the 3/$8 kind, that would make them a "disposable
ballast CFL" and the other kind a "retained ballast CFL" or "fixed
ballast CFL" or something like that. (The idea being that the word
"disposable" is bad; it might imply that you're throwing away something
that you might be able to use further.)

Maybe a more neutral way to say it would be something like
"ballast-in-lamp CFL" vs "ballast-in-fixture CFL", or "base-ballast CFL"
vs "fixture-ballast CFL". The idea is that there has to be a ballast
somewhere, so the term should specify where it is.

Good thoughts, but I would like to avoid creating more
confusion by making up a whole new set of names.

I plan to use either "self-ballasted," "integral" or
"screw-base" for those with a ballast. I'm really stuck
on a name other than pin-base, for those without.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Andrew Gabriel]

I plan to use either "self-ballasted," "integral" or
"screw-base" for those with a ballast. I'm really stuck
on a name other than pin-base, for those without.

To throw in another one, remote-ballasted, as in remote
from the lamp? Externally-ballasted might be another.

 

[James Hooker]

Within Sylvania we just have two very simple terms:
CFL-NI Non-Integrated
CFL-I Integrated

We used to have the same problem, referring to them as Pin-Ended or Retrofit
lamps. But this term also became confusing when we introduced the GX53 and
GU10 bases for CFLs with integrated ballast.

The CFL-I and CFL-NI terminology makes things a lot clearer now. Philips
and GE use the same classification in their new catalogues, but still write
it the long way without abbreviation.

James.

 

[Victor Roberts]

[snip]

Here is the serious problem. The new GU24 base, used on
self-ballasted CFLs, is a pin-base, though the pins are
much larger than those used in "normal" pin-base CFLs, /and/
Energy Star has started to call these lamps "self-ballasted
pin base lamps."

Ok, I performed a quick Google search and saw these for the first time. I
admit I haven't seen them before. My question is, is this base popular enough
so that it starts competing seriously with self-ballasted "screw-base" CFLs?
If that's the case, I agree that's a problem. If these are relatively rare and
unknown compared to the other CFLs, then perhaps no confusion will arise.

Of course there's no guarantee that one day these won't become as popular as
the other CFLs, so I can see your point. But at least here I've never seen any
publically.

Both Energy Star and the State of California require that
fixtures designed for self-ballasted CFLs and that are to be
certified as "energy efficient" NOT use the normal Edison
(screw) socket. They do not want these fixtures certified
with a self-ballasted CFL and the used with incandescent
lamps.

The GU24 base is allowed, and even recommended, for these
fixtures, and is currently the most popular. However, note
that there is no law that prohibits anyone from making
incandescent lamps with a GU24 base, or even a GU24 to
Edison base adapter.


--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

Within Sylvania we just have two very simple terms:
CFL-NI Non-Integrated
CFL-I Integrated

We used to have the same problem, referring to them as Pin-Ended or Retrofit
lamps. But this term also became confusing when we introduced the GX53 and
GU10 bases for CFLs with integrated ballast.

The CFL-I and CFL-NI terminology makes things a lot clearer now. Philips
and GE use the same classification in their new catalogues, but still write
it the long way without abbreviation.

James.

Thanks.

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[Victor Roberts]

I've been working on a project for the past week or so and
have not have time until today to get back to
www.cflfacts.com, but a recent discussion here has made me
rethink one of the answers on the site.

The issue is, what is the best way to distinguish between
CFLs that use external ballasts and CFLs with integral
ballasts?

Unfortunately, the basic term "CFL lamp" is used for both.
(Putting aside for the moment the fact that people outside
the lamp industry would refer to each as a "CFL bulb." )

When I was at GE we used the term "CFL" to refer to the
version without a ballast and "integral CFL" to refer to the
one with. I don't think I ever used the terms "screw-base"
and "pin-base" to distinguish between the two types until I
started working at the LRC.

However, as our European friends have pointed out,
integral CFLs used outside the US can have a non-screw base
so the use of "pin-base" and "screw-base" to distinguish the
two types is not sufficient. The naming issue has also
become complicated even inside the US since the GU24 base
used on integral CFLs uses pins, though large pins. Also,
as I say on the site, Energy Star even refers to these lamps
as "self-ballasts pin base lamps."

I can use "self-ballasted" or "integral" or
"integrally-ballasted" to refer to those with a built-in
ballast, but what name can I then use for those without a
ballast other than "non-ballasted CFL? This will certainly
not go over with consumers.

The GE Lighting web site uses "self-ballasted" and "plug-in"
though these are not orthogonal. I now think we used these
same set of terms while I was at GE, though I had said
earlier that I thought we just used "CFL" for the
non-ballasted types. GE also uses "bulbs" as in "CFLs are
compact fluorescent bulbs." ugh!

The Sylvania web site list only plug-in types under
fluorescent. The self-ballasted CFLs are listed under
"general purpose" lamps along with the incandescent lamps.

I haven't quite figured out Philips yet In one place
they refer to self-ballasted CFLs as CFLi's, in other places
as "table lamps."

So - I'm most definitely going to switch from screw-base to
self-ballasted for that type, and perhaps use both "plug-in"
and "pin-base" to describe the non-ballasted type, using
lots of pictures to describe the difference. (I think the
normal user will be too confused by "non-ballasted" or
"non-integrated."

--
Vic Roberts
http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
To reply via e-mail:
replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only.
It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
site without written permission.

 

[TKM]

[snip]

Here is the serious problem. The new GU24 base, used on
self-ballasted CFLs, is a pin-base, though the pins are
much larger than those used in "normal" pin-base CFLs, /and/
Energy Star has started to call these lamps "self-ballasted
pin base lamps."

Ok, I performed a quick Google search and saw these for the first time. I
admit I haven't seen them before. My question is, is this base popular
enough
so that it starts competing seriously with self-ballasted "screw-base"
CFLs?
If that's the case, I agree that's a problem. If these are relatively rare
and
unknown compared to the other CFLs, then perhaps no confusion will arise.

Of course there's no guarantee that one day these won't become as popular
as
the other CFLs, so I can see your point. But at least here I've never seen
any
publically.

Both Energy Star and the State of California require that
fixtures designed for self-ballasted CFLs and that are to be
certified as "energy efficient" NOT use the normal Edison
(screw) socket. They do not want these fixtures certified
with a self-ballasted CFL and the used with incandescent
lamps.

The GU24 base is allowed, and even recommended, for these
fixtures, and is currently the most popular. However, note
that there is no law that prohibits anyone from making
incandescent lamps with a GU24 base, or even a GU24 to
Edison base adapter.

Correct. There is no law preventing a GU24-to-screw-base adapter (some
samples have, in fact, been made); but UL has said that they will not list
such an adapter due to potential overheating and fire safety issues.
Also, the GU24 itself is (or will be) wattage limited. There seems to be
enough industry momentum to limit the GU24 to "high efficiency" products for
the moment; but the industry will have to continue to self-police the issue.
There was talk of using the GU24 for LED lighting products too, but I
haven't seen any products yet.

I wish we could have kept the "CFL" term for non-ballasted lamps and then
added "self-ballasted" or "integrally-ballasted" for the combination
products; but it's probably too late for that.

Terry McGowan