Take apart a Compact Fluorescent Bulb

 by westfw
Featured
Compact-Flourescent-Bulb.jpg
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) are increasingly popular as a way to save some energy. Eventually, they do burn out. Some seem to burn out annoyingly quickly :-( Even if not burnt out, CFL bulbs have become very cheap, especially if you live in an area where they get subsidized by your local electrical utility.

Are there any hobbyist usable electronics parts inside a CFL? How do they work, anyway? And when they burn out, why have they burnt out?

Let's take some apart and see!

(This Photo by PiccoloNamek from Wikipedia. Hopefully this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the license; I didn't have my lawyer review the Gnu Free Documentation License)
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up

Step 1: Take it Apart 1: cut a pry-slot

PICT9677.jpg
PICT9678.jpg
Most of the CFLs I've seen have a seam where they can be pried apart without too much difficulty. Sometimes the seam is glued or "welded" together, other times it's just where two pieces have been "press fit" together.

Unfortunately, even if only press-fit, the two pieces are usually too securely attached to just pry them apart with your hands, if only because one of the halves has only the glass tube to get a grip on. Sometimes the joining seam is loose and/or large enough to fit in a flat-blade screwdriver, but it is easiest (assuming you don't want to re-use the bulb casing) to cut a shallow slot at the seam with a hacksaw. Just hold the housing securely (in a small vise as pictured, or not), and saw a slot just barely through the casing - about 4mm.

Caution

Try REALLY hard not to break the glass fluorescent tube. Aside from sharp edges, fluorescent lights contain phosphors of unknown and possibly dangerous composition, and a small amount of mercury that you'd rather not have released in your home or workshop.
james34602 says: Nov 1, 2012. 12:50 AM
I use this circuit for my flyback transformer driver
ilovegm says: Jul 16, 2012. 10:40 PM
Darn, my buddy gave me a blown out bulb he had, looked like a CFL, he thought it was one too.
When I opened it, all I got was a capacitor wired to a glass glow bulb starter.
Is the starter useful for anything other than lightbulbs?
Inducktion says: Jan 9, 2011. 4:29 PM
what can you do with the spaghetti stuff? :0
Itchyzombie in reply to InducktionJul 4, 2012. 12:47 PM
You eat it.




Just kidding ;D
Juxe in reply to InducktionMay 4, 2011. 10:00 PM
It's a flexible, heat-resistant insulator. It's convenient for big capacitors on small boards, to spread out the components.
ParagonShepard says: Apr 13, 2012. 8:15 PM
So could you put a correctly sized capacitor in parallel with the flourescent tube and correct the terrible power factor in these?

iamdarkyoshi in reply to ParagonShepardJun 26, 2012. 2:30 PM
no because fluorescent tubes have to have ac current, or the mercury gathers on one side.
ginbot86 says: Nov 12, 2011. 11:44 AM
When it comes to harvesting components from CFL bases, be sure to test those transistors. I cracked one open that burnt out in my bedroom and found that the E13003 power transistors were short circuited (reading 0 ohms on a multimeter) between the base and collector, base and emitter, or all three pins.

Higher-wattage bulbs have a (somewhat) greater chance that their transistors would have survived the lamp failing; I have some nice E13007 transistors, and some really nice MOSFETS of which I can't remember the part number right now.
westfw (author) in reply to ginbot86Nov 13, 2011. 1:16 AM
yes, you want to be careful harvesting components from bulbs that have actually burnt out in one way or another. The usual failure modes seem to take out several components. But these days the (subsidized) prices of CFLs are low enough that you can think seriously about harvesting brand new CFLs. (I think I've seen 4-packs for less than $5)
dan_moran says: Jan 4, 2009. 10:11 AM
I had my first CFL die (early in my opinion), so as I do with incandescents, I wiggled and tapped on it to make sure it was getting a good connection in the socket. It was screwed in tight but it will light up for a couple seconds when I tap on it. What do you think is going on inside this bulb and is it salvageable?
westfw (author) in reply to dan_moranJan 4, 2009. 1:04 PM
One of the failure modes I've seen is that a positive-temperature-coefficient (PTC) thermistor (think of it as an inrush limiter, I think) will apparently overheat (perhaps due to other problems?) and have one of it's leads unsolder itself from the component body...
gordzooks in reply to westfwMar 6, 2011. 4:42 PM
The PTC is what Chrysler used to use in the 60's as an ignition ballast resistor. It's not so muchan inrush item as limiting current once a circuit is in operation. When it's cold ( startup, or colder conditions ) the resistance is low allowing more current. Once the circuit starts operating, current warms the PTC, raising the resistance and lowering the current. This allows the PTC to cool, lowering the resistance. At some point it will reach an equilibrium state based on demand (varying in a car, stable in a CFL) and ambient conditions.
laci37 says: Nov 8, 2008. 12:09 PM
Mercury is very toxic, but its not so dangerous in small amounts like this if there is no strong airflow it stays near the ground.
rcisneros in reply to laci37Sep 1, 2010. 4:12 PM
True. Also it's not that much mercury. There are higher level of mercury it some fish.
dawp in reply to laci37Aug 28, 2009. 11:42 AM
I think some concern borders on hysteria and lack of common sense. If i should accidentally drop a fever thermometer (there i really dated myself) i don't think i would call the men in the space suits. The XEROX company tried to make a dental imaging machine based on xerographic principals. They found out that the residual mercury in the dentist's carpets "poisoned" the drum. The project was eventually dropped. The same also is said to hold true if somebody breaks a fluorescent tube in a room where a XEROX machine is installed. For us hoomons It is the mercury compounds that are dangerous and that is what accumulates in fish organs, etc. Mercuric chloride is a deadly poison. Years ago our chemistry teachers in high school would pass liquid mercury around the classroom. Now they fire a teacher if he even has a vial of the stuff.
bricabracwizard in reply to dawpMar 1, 2011. 9:21 PM
Yes, I remember being allowed to roll it around on our hands - that's really going back some!! I'm almost 60 - phew!!
DELETED_Noah feasey-kemp in reply to laci37Mar 24, 2009. 2:42 PM
(removed by author or community request)
laci37 in reply to DELETED_Noah feasey-kempMar 25, 2009. 8:02 AM
Mercury is dangerous if you work with it for years, becasue it won't leave the body
xerxesx20 in reply to laci37May 1, 2009. 11:05 AM
That's right, it's an accumulative poison. The odd amount won't kill you though, the same can be said for radiation -- within reason Rumour has it that in the past it was used as to "cure" many ailments and made your teeth both translucent and green, wish I could remember where I read that.
SKYNET 2.0 in reply to xerxesx20May 14, 2009. 5:43 PM
People in the Victorian era put Thorium and other radioactive things into toothpaste and cosmetics, they thought that anything as energetic as radiation would have to be good for the body. Mmmmmm...Thorium.
sml156 in reply to SKYNET 2.0Aug 27, 2009. 9:28 AM
Since we are on the subject of toxin's substances and unseen radiation has any ever done a study of the effects of WiFi `s . I think that someone should see if pumping all those 0``s and 1 `s into our environment have any ill effects
BOOM5601 in reply to sml156Sep 5, 2009. 10:01 AM
The 0's are not a concern. It's the deadly 1's we gotta watch out for.
xerxesx20 in reply to SKYNET 2.0May 15, 2009. 11:01 AM
Yes, indeedy. Watchfaces were often treated with tritium, the "tritium girls" as they were known (I think that's right anyways)(the lasses who applied it to the hands and faces of said watches) didn't live long and sometimes put it onto their hands or teeth as a practical joke. Mercury is still poisoning people today in one of OSRAM's facilities in China -- I read about this recently in the press -- though you can't always believe what you read!
BOOM5601 in reply to xerxesx20Sep 5, 2009. 10:04 AM
Tritium is a more fun isotope of hydrogen. Not only does i still go boom, it's also radio-active! And it was radium on the watch faces. They were tought to put the brush in their mouth to straighten it out for more delicate painting. Mmm, radium.
rexmo in reply to xerxesx20Aug 27, 2009. 10:03 PM
it was not tritium, it was Radium.
1BigKid in reply to xerxesx20Aug 27, 2009. 8:29 PM
I often wondered about the Tritium. The Night Sites on my work gun, a Sig Sauer p220, are manufactured by Trigicon and use Tritium as it's power source. They are encased in metal and what appears to a thick plastic dot (maybe glass) I don't know how long these sights have been in production or their intended shelf life but I was issued this firearm about 5 years ago and they still glow very brightly in low light situations! I suppose it is like everything else though, they sell it and say it is safe but 20 years later they will tell you it causes cancer or something! I know we strayed off topic a bit but it is interesting anyway. A true conversation piece of an Instructable!
rexmo in reply to 1BigKidAug 27, 2009. 10:04 PM
tritium is not nearly as dangerous as radium and has a much shorter half life
barrywilliams in reply to xerxesx20May 18, 2009. 2:01 PM
Watch faces were treated with radium not tritium and they were "radium girls".
xerxesx20 in reply to barrywilliamsMay 18, 2009. 2:29 PM
Aye, thankyou. I realised my mistake after posting, it just didn't sound right if you know what I mean. :-) Hence.. radium jaw -- NOT tritium jaw. lol
westfw (author) in reply to SKYNET 2.0May 14, 2009. 5:58 PM
Isn't there still thorium in gas lantern "mantels" ? And don't forget that lovely "uranium glass" and "Fiestaware" pottery containing uranium and produced up through the early 1970s... Of course, the resulting radiation poisoning wiped out the entire American upper middle class during that time period. So sad; they should have known better!
SKYNET 2.0 in reply to westfwAug 27, 2009. 10:19 AM
I remember the infamous fiesta ware. My grandmother kept a set in here bunker-like basement, on day my uncle took a Geiger counter down there to see if we had a radon problem, and the thing crackled away when he set it on the bow of fiesta wear. The offending box was promptly encased in concrete.
SKYNET 2.0 in reply to SKYNET 2.0Aug 27, 2009. 10:20 AM
Her* not here
xerxesx20 in reply to westfwMay 15, 2009. 10:59 AM
Actually uranium glass may still be made, any radioactivity is contained within the glass. It occurs mostly in the green glasswares you see, though many other doping compounds (colourants) are used. As for flame-mantels (I know the ones you mean) i'm reasonably sure they aren't made any with thorium any more, though I could well be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time!
Peeet in reply to xerxesx20Jun 18, 2009. 3:55 PM
Radioactivity is definitely NOT contained by glass. The uranium itself is but not the radioactivity. Danger from radioactivity is measured by 3 factors: level of dose, proximity and duration. Some old wrist watches had alarmingly high levels of radioactivity as tested by my scientist brother. This is of concern as proximity is obviously very close and duration of exposure is potentially very long. Old green transparent glass can be radioactive.
xerxesx20 in reply to PeeetJun 19, 2009. 12:26 PM
Thanks for filling me in there! I suppose the level of (alpha is stopped by pretty much everything that's thicker than paper, so we'll un-complicate things and forget about alpha for now) gamma, or beta recieved depends upon the thickness of said insulating material also how long the person is within range/proximity to the not-very-well entombed source. Interesting that old watches and some glasswares are still radioactive, "uber" long half life I suppose -- difficult to decide how long the half life would be without knowing exactly what radioisotope of uranium it is. I have seen recently a boost in sales of a small transparent quartz/glass/plastic chamber that has a minute amount of tritium gas inside, a so-called "long life" light source without a switch. They are generally traded as keyrings, but are quite costly. £6-8. ($10-15) I was considering buying one, but I have to be careful of my money at the moment, Leadpumper is becoming rather in need of a good service/rebuild. So that's got most of my dosh for the minute!
dawp in reply to xerxesx20Aug 27, 2009. 7:20 PM
Hi: Over 10 years ago i got a Mb Microtek watch. It had tritium numerals and hands. It glowed beautifully in the dark; try it in a cave when they turn out all the lights. The guides get mad about that:) In any case, i haven't died of radiation poisoning and it is still glowing in the dark, but not as bright as new. The half life of tritium is around 10 years. The only watch i know of that currently advertises these lights is in Cabela's catalog. I forget the exact name of it. People and regulatory agencies have a fear of the N word and it is generally difficult to get light capsules. In space they are called "Beta Lghts". I think they have also been used in nautical buoys.
Peeet in reply to dawpAug 27, 2009. 8:14 PM
"i haven't died of radiation poisoning" I'm glad to hear it. There is always a chance that some people will be unaffected by general risks. The fact is that less exposure (which is determined by intensity, proximity & duration) to radiation equals less risk of cell mutation. It is not an irrational fear by regulatory bodies just to make life difficult for us. Some smokers live to ripe old ages, but the vast majority have health effects.
DIY-Guy in reply to PeeetOct 18, 2011. 5:42 PM
On the original thread:
Kudos to WestFW for a nice -ible on CFL parts.

On the divergent thread:
Tritium is fine IF it's encased safely. Watches with tritium hands have been designed to keep it inside. Regulatory agencies are not always driven by science but often are driven by public outcry and ignorance. Ask a n* physicist who works with those things and they'll tell you the gas lantern mantles and watch hands scare is pretty much just that, scare tactics. Moral- don't grind up any of those things and eat them.

What a great spelunking tool to bring on the tour, a watch face that won't stop glowing no matter how dark it is or how long it has been in the dark!
westfw (author) in reply to xerxesx20Jun 19, 2009. 2:06 PM
Don't forget that common potassium is radioactive too.
xerxesx20 in reply to westfwJun 19, 2009. 5:43 PM
Surely not all forms of it are? There's more than I thought: "There are 24 known isotopes of potassium." -- According to Wikipedia (I'm too tired for "proper" research. lol It's also got a Moh's hardness of just .4 ! Talc(um powder -- it's the same stuff at the end of the day, just smashed and crushed up.) is 1.
laci37 in reply to xerxesx20Jun 27, 2009. 10:25 AM
Common potassium(atomic weigth 39) is NOT radioactive. About the hardness of the alkali metals, they are very soft, I have cut sodium with a knife, and it's said that potassium is even softer. But aren't we a little off-topic?
xerxesx20 in reply to laci37Jun 27, 2009. 2:10 PM
Thanks for that,and yup, off topic happens to be what makes the world go round. A little disorder is good for the soul, a lot like genuine Chinese chicken noodle soup. "A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men..." :-)
junits15 in reply to laci37Nov 23, 2008. 9:22 AM
u do realize that the amount of murcury in one of these is not nearly enough to kill you, it wont even make u feel sick
tragical217 in reply to junits15Apr 24, 2010. 12:31 PM
 are you super sure? I just broke one and I'm freaking out

junits15 in reply to tragical217Apr 24, 2010. 1:13 PM
read below
Peeet in reply to junits15Aug 27, 2009. 9:20 PM
Not the point--heavy metal contamination is cumulative. It accumulates in the body. If you eat shark too many times a week it can be hazardous for the same reason--them being near the top of the food chain we get the end results of their build-up. There are a lot of hazardous inputs that won't make you feel sick immediately.
junits15 in reply to PeeetAug 28, 2009. 6:18 PM
oh i didn't realize it was accumulitive
virtualground says: Jul 27, 2010. 1:00 PM
What a great instructable! This is the best information on CFLs I found so far, most pages "informing" about them don't mention the electronics inside at all. The comments were great too. I have a couple CFL questions, maybe someone here knows: Taking macro photographs and using a 30 watt cfl as light source made me wonder; Is the light from a CFL more damaging to the eyes than a "normal" incandescent? And does it depend on the color of the light (2700k vs 6500k for instance). I had one quit on me with a popping sound, could that have been the electrolytic capacitor exploding? I have a little fan connected to my computers USB, I notice I can make it stop by pointing the CFL close to it. Magnetic field?
Marshal Banana says: Jun 19, 2010. 10:19 PM
I never thought about the caps overheating and dying. I have several lights in my ceiling, and the CFL's only last a few months. Whereas the CFL's in normal lamps which get plenty of ventilation have never died on us. I was originally interested in taking these bad boys apart in order to make them into LED bulbs.
zack247 says: Mar 21, 2010. 12:08 AM
your mention of the mercury reminds me of a time when one of my friends accidenally bumped a cfl bulb. when it didn't turn on, he just threw it out. a couple days later, his mom was throwing up because of the mercury and other toxic gases that were just floating around
tragical217 in reply to zack247Apr 24, 2010. 12:29 PM
 omg was she okay? I just broke one and I'm freaking out cuz I slept in the room all night and I didn't know it was broke D:
zack247 in reply to tragical217Apr 24, 2010. 2:40 PM
yeah, she was okay, she just felt a little nauseous for about a week or so. dont worry, you arent going to die
Computothought says: Feb 4, 2010. 9:42 PM
I took apart a broken one and could not believe all the electronics on the little board. I can see whey people said they could make radios and all kind of stuff with one. When you learn about science, you look at things so much differently. So glad I took physics in college.
virgo says: Nov 8, 2009. 1:54 PM
Thanks , instructable was very educative.
OBar says: Nov 8, 2009. 1:21 PM
That is where they get the term, Mad as a Hatter, (yes Dawp, I dated myself too) 
 
joinaqd says: Jan 15, 2009. 5:56 PM
how much voltage would you say the CFL needs to operate?can it work with 330 volts from disposable camera?
westfw (author) in reply to joinaqdJan 15, 2009. 6:12 PM
Now THAT's an interesting question. CCFL inverters like the one shown tend to provide more than 330V, at least for "ignition", but they don't need much more than 110V to actually run. (The whole "startup" thing is complex in fluorescents.) Disposable camera inverters are not very efficient, and don't put out very much power overall, but it WOULD be neat to get any light at all out of a CFL from a 1.5V battery!
thermoelectric in reply to westfwJan 15, 2009. 9:14 PM
I've tried to use a CFL off a capacitor, It won't work unless you can have a higher voltage to strike it, I used a piece of wire connected to the trigger transformer to light the CFL.....
qwertyboy in reply to thermoelectricNov 8, 2009. 11:45 AM
i've seen joule thief circuits built to power a CFL from a 1.5 volt battery. it's sweet.
12V says: Oct 27, 2009. 2:43 PM
a ccfl inverter will light even a dead tube providing it has vacuum(800v)!
gnuoy says: Oct 26, 2009. 10:04 PM
Awesome, I took apart some of those things and didn't know what I could do with them yet; thanks a lot ^^
SinAmos says: Mar 21, 2009. 1:15 PM
Three little buggers, but now comes the hard part; utilization.
CFL1.jpgCFL2.jpg
magicdust in reply to SinAmosJun 8, 2009. 7:31 PM
Very nice, but I couldn't help noticing the chicken leg bones... May I ask what's in store for them?
SinAmos in reply to magicdustJun 8, 2009. 9:22 PM
I usually tell fortunes for anyone willing to throw the bones, but most are afraid of what the bones will tell me. I cooked them, bleached them, and processed them the best I could, and they now sit in a baggie waiting to be used for a million costumes I need to finish making. Oh, if you could see the dismantling heaven/hell I have going on now. Two digital cameras being harvested for parts after their plastic gears were thrashed by lens slams. I have bags of material and skinned stuffed animals also waiting to be processed. To many things going on, but maybe, just maybe I'll instructisize something. Peace.
rexmo in reply to SinAmosAug 27, 2009. 10:11 PM
I boil skeletons and bones, remove the meat with a nail brush, bake it really low in the oven for about an hour then dip it in polyurethane. Makes nice assembled skeletons and necklaces etc...
magicdust in reply to SinAmosJun 9, 2009. 7:34 AM
Hahah...Thanks for indulging my curiosity! Sounds similar to my play space. Don'tcha distrust neat freaks? They lack creativity IMNSHO. I also have some bones. Except I drilled them and gave them the magic of the compass...
PICT0293a.jpgPICT0294.jpg
dawp in reply to magicdustAug 28, 2009. 11:34 AM
Hi: I used to take rib bones. Cut them to about five inches, drill and tap to 8/32 at each end, and use them as drawer pulls and carrying handles. They last forever, unlike what was once on the bones:). I had some neat antique glass knobs on some drawers and cabinets in a house i sold. I wanted to keep the knobs, so guess what is maybe still on the drawers and cabinets:) Interesting what forgotten kluges this site brings to mind.
joinaqd says: Aug 26, 2009. 5:36 PM
i got 2 small tube lights from an LCD monitor but i couldnt power it with the circuit board on the monitor..will the tube lights blow off if i powered them from normal 120V CFL? (like if i connected them to the 4 wires on the CFL?)
westfw (author) in reply to joinaqdAug 26, 2009. 6:46 PM
Hmm. It's probably a bad idea. The tube lights tend to be "CCFL" (Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp) technology rather than CFL (Compact ...), and the drivers are rather different. Also, the tiny tubes tend to be much lower in power (~4W) than a normal CFL (11W?) You might try the CFL inverter from one of the tiny candelabra-base bulbs. Carefully. While wearing eye protection...
joinaqd in reply to westfwAug 27, 2009. 7:39 AM
ohh ok..thx for tellin me, otherwise i woulda connected them to the CFL and probbly it woulda exploded in my face.
12V says: Aug 8, 2009. 9:39 AM
i made a 12v cfl but looks like a normal one i put the home-made inverter inside the base!
cfl 2 011.jpg
MadBricoleur says: Jun 11, 2009. 10:43 PM
just how safe is it to take apart these things anyway? no danger of poisoning? if there is, how would i avoid it? O_O i dunt wanna dye myself with mercury and die. lol. and im a young teenager too so idk... :P any1 help? i just want the toroid for a joule thief.
Derin in reply to MadBricoleurJul 6, 2009. 12:18 AM
This is not very safe.You could also take apart an ATX for large torroids.
Peeet in reply to MadBricoleurJun 18, 2009. 4:05 PM
I really think this is not a safe thing to do. Mercury is a very seriously toxic metal.
Why don't we play a bit safe here?
Take a look at "The crippled hand of a Minamata disease victim":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Even if it is not hugely risky there are a lot safer things to play with it would seem to me.
bigclive says: Jun 18, 2009. 4:52 PM
The little torroidal core that provides drive to the transistors is ideal for making a Joule Thief with. The amount of mercury vapour in a CFL is low. Ignore the hysteria that the media and eco-hippies are trying to whip up. In most instances you're probably not going to break the tube anyway.
lbrewer42 in reply to bigcliveJun 18, 2009. 6:55 PM
Boy, I don't know - all my neighbors, myself, and all living organisms within a 10 mile radius of my house died last week because I dropped a CFL and exposed all of us to the mercury. It was sad.
Stoday says: Jan 11, 2009. 10:47 PM
Get the mercury content into perspective:

Typical mercury content of CFL = 4mg.

Typical mercury content of amalgam tooth filling = 100mg
Peeet in reply to StodayJun 18, 2009. 3:59 PM
This might not be a valid comparison as the amalgam is intended to lock up the mercury whereas these lights were never intended to be taken apart and played with. I am not convinced that it is safe to open these things. What if the mercury gets about the place and a baby ingests it someday, from the carpet or somewhere?
DELETED_Noah feasey-kemp says: Mar 27, 2009. 11:29 AM
(removed by author or community request)
SinAmos says: Mar 21, 2009. 1:06 PM
I barely needed a screwdriver to get to the guts of the ones that burned out on me. Bulbstar SCE-23W 2700K 120V 60Hz 0.39A Lot No. 0702 Made in China - they had all the goodies on the baby mobo.
JVC-Force says: Mar 3, 2009. 2:01 PM
Very educational post. I want to see following posts with the parts harvested.
junits15 says: Mar 1, 2009. 11:47 AM
can i use the ferrite transformer to make another flourecent driver? http://www.instructables.com/id/A_simple_low_voltage_inverter_for_fluorescent_lam/
Derin says: Feb 14, 2009. 12:09 PM
I think the ignition magic is the starter.The starter consists of a film cap and neon bulb(whatever it does).I shall get some pictures.
westfw (author) in reply to DerinFeb 25, 2009. 4:11 PM
Electronic CFLs don't have a traditional "starter." I think the cheap varieties do something like run the filaments off the voltage drop across the tube; as the tube warms up and its contents get more conductive, that voltage goes down and the filaments cool down as well (but I don't think they go off all the way.) Other designs seem to arrange for a high-voltage starter signal (like the filament-less CCFLS) and use the discharge through the tube itself to (eventually) vaporize the mercury...
imakethings says: Feb 24, 2009. 8:47 PM
is the wire around the toroid enameled?
westfw (author) in reply to imakethingsFeb 25, 2009. 4:06 PM
Yes. In some of the CFLs I've dissected, there is actually "traditional" (plastic) insulated wire used for the toroid windings...
Gjdj3 says: Feb 10, 2009. 1:14 PM
The ballast from the CFL I took apart has four pins on it. How can I figure out what each pin is for? On biotele's instructable he just says to use the two inside pins, but my pins must have a different layout (2 on each side).
petercd says: Jan 24, 2009. 5:57 AM
Apparently the CFL bulb can be lit from a common 12V car coil fed by an oscillator, so the bulb can be kept too. There are quite a few videos detailing the procedure on Youtube. I took apart a light sensitive version that stopped switching on and boy! quite a lot of parts to harvest. Of note were the 2 high voltage, high speed, 13003 transistors in the middle, these are way better than the old 2N3055 which I've been using for oscillating circuits, even though the 2N3055 can take more amps, it doesn't take kindly to the high volts from the BEMF in the coils. Nice instructable with great photos.
CFL pieces1.JPG
alexhalford says: Dec 19, 2008. 12:46 PM
Suggestion: Get a HV PSU (an OBIT or NST is perfect) and you can ionise the gas (thereby causing the tube to fluoresce) without touching it... It's dangerous as hell but pretty interesting and it normally impresses electronically - incompetent friends :-) Great 'ible.
mspark400 in reply to alexhalfordJan 10, 2009. 7:50 PM
when my cfls fail i scavenge parts and use the tubes as demos for my tesla coil and other high voltage electronic displays. High voltage electronics are always fun! cheers, mspark400
Big Bwana says: Nov 24, 2008. 1:23 PM
westfw where did you find the CFL with the circuit board in the tube ?? just wondering because I'm wondering how in hell it got a UL approval....
hammertong in reply to Big BwanaNov 24, 2008. 2:55 PM
I think he made that one.
westfw (author) in reply to Big BwanaNov 24, 2008. 2:09 PM
That wasn't purchased, it was MADE, so as to create a battery-powered CFL.
You take One of these surplus ccfl inverters, and you can JUST barely insert it into that particular spiral. After which you have a 5V CFL; you just have to remember not to put it in a 110V socket! (and having the inverter visible reminds you.)
laznz1 says: Nov 24, 2008. 1:40 PM
in the country i live in there banning all traditonal bulbs in favour of Energy savers
Rishnai says: Jun 16, 2008. 10:23 PM
I tried replacing several of my most used regular light bulbs with CFLs. I've had two quit in the past two months, both with a very disturbing smell of electrical fire. At this rate, I'll just use normal lightbulbs come hell or high water. I've got a lot of flourescents in the house, but they're all the big kind, in places that I'd rather not have to go except twice a decade. The only CFL I plan on keeping is in my hanging shoplight, since then I can get 100 watts of light out of a 60w-rated fixture. That's worth the cost of the damn replacement bulbs every two months to me. Glad to see I'm not the only one who has had these little buggers up and quit for no apparent reason.
slurp812 in reply to RishnaiJun 22, 2008. 8:45 AM
Really? I have probably 25 or more in my house, been using them for nearly 20 years. So far, only several have even burnt out. Most are still in use today. Of course YMMV.
junits15 in reply to slurp812Nov 23, 2008. 9:24 AM
i've noticed that as they age they take longer to turn on. do yours take a while to turn on?
slurp812 in reply to junits15Nov 23, 2008. 10:43 AM
I have newer ones that seem to take MINUTES to turn on. I have some older ones that turn right on. I guess there are many brands, and variances...
junits15 in reply to slurp812Nov 23, 2008. 2:31 PM
i wonder why they would change the type of ballast if one clearly works better?
slurp812 in reply to junits15Nov 23, 2008. 6:38 PM
probably making them cheaper. you know its all about the $$$$
junits15 in reply to slurp812Nov 24, 2008. 12:50 PM
exactly
westfw (author) in reply to junits15Nov 23, 2008. 2:40 PM
Tradeoffs. The CFLs that gradually reach full brightness tend to put less stress on the tube (and perhaps other components) than the versions that go to efforts to achieve instant full brightness. And then there are cost issues, and component availability...
Big Bwana in reply to westfwNov 24, 2008. 1:20 PM
And to reduce the size and weight some the older CFLs don't fit in many sockets or if they do the tubes stick out and this doesn't look the best and I have a few that I wouldn't use in a table lamp because of there weight... But the new small 13 watt ones are great and they fit in any thing built for a A-19 style light...
Rishnai in reply to slurp812Jun 22, 2008. 7:44 PM
If you've had 'em for twenty years, from what I'm reading that means that they have magnetic ballast instead of electronic. It seems like it's the electronics that fail (annoyingly fast) in all of the ones available now. Some of the ones I have have been working for two or three months so far, but the striaght-out-of-the-box failure rate is so high that considering the per-bulb price and my general aversion to having things smell like they're about to light my house on fire, I'm not impressed. The magnetic ballast like yours probably have, and all regular flourescents have, seems to not like to fail at all. The fixtures in my house are all almost 50 years old, and haven't failed electrically. The bulbs themselves also tend to last an insanely long time, and apparently the previous owners staggered replacing them so that we still get to replace one or two bulbs in the basement array every 1-5 years. We still have some bulbs, though, that have been working through at least 15 years (if not more; they came with the house), so I hold out hope for CFLs to meet that again sometime. Even if that means lickering. That never really bugged me.
Big Bwana in reply to RishnaiNov 4, 2008. 10:21 AM
the older magnetic CFL ballasts are great, and they last forever I have a few you can remove the tube from and replace it, (( designed that way by GE but they don't seem to sell them anymore )) and the ones that do fail normally have a old glow tube type starter inside them which fails and they are easy to replace and then your good for another 10 years...
penorama says: Jul 14, 2008. 4:05 PM
I've opened a CFL circuit of a table lamp (here the circuit is not enclosed in the bulb). Trying to repair it, I've messed up the coils while removing from the PCB. Can you advice me how to wind the toroidal transformer? It has three coloured wires wound to it. I can measure the length of the wires, but would like to know the order of winding, etc. I do not have technical background (being a retired accountant), so request you to tell me in lay-man terms. Thanks.
junits15 in reply to penoramaNov 23, 2008. 9:26 AM
just wind them again and solder them in the appropriate holes.
The Lightning Stalker in reply to penoramaOct 11, 2008. 2:40 AM
If anyone else is curious, the only requirement is that the two feedback windings are attached to the bases (or gates if they're MOSFET) of the transistors opposite one another. It depends on the ballast, but it's done either by winding them in different directions or just connecting one of them backwards. It's one of those spatial things that's difficult to explain with words or pictures unless you have experience winding transformers.
westfw (author) in reply to penoramaJul 15, 2008. 5:09 PM
I don't know. I'm not really an expert on CFL internals. I think the best bet would be to find a CFL bulb of identical wattage to the tube in your lamp, dissect it (carefully, so as not to damage AND to remember which wires from te ballast go to which wires on the tube) to extract the electronic ballast (the circuit board), and drop that in to your lamp as a module; replacing the old ballast. Be careful, because the old packaging may not be compatible with all those bare wires poking out of the board (other broken fluorescent fixtures I've dissected tend to have the inverter embedded in a solid block of plastic gunk.)
Pazzerz says: Nov 14, 2008. 7:15 PM
Hey- I ordered the 9volt power supply... MY problem with these little nasties? The glass is SO thin that the welded plastic packaging (spot welded, mind you) broke the glass as I opened a 2 pack. Both lights were toast. Also, I find the light from most of these things to be obnoxiously white. A fix is a bulb shaped Ivory colored cover that gives you the warm incandescent glow.
sypher says: Oct 20, 2008. 4:13 PM
the light cathode contains elemental mercury, enough to cause personal harm. I personally would not take apart any florescent light device.
Big Bwana in reply to sypherNov 4, 2008. 10:11 AM
If you cut the ballast apart with a dremel or similar tool , you can remove the tube, and recycle it at most big box stores or recycle programs, the mercury is only in the tube, and with a little care you won't break the tube ( I've cut apart about 40 of them and have yet to break a tube... And why throw out a perfectly good ballast full of useful parts....
sypher in reply to Big BwanaNov 5, 2008. 1:34 AM
i got the idea you were just tearing them apart, props if you can do it with out breaking the bulb.
The Lightning Stalker says: Oct 11, 2008. 2:24 AM
Here's how to get the wires out of the base: The center contact is just a blob of solder. Pull on the wire while heating the bottom and it pulls out when the solder melts. I use a burner on the stove because it's quicker than a soldering iron, unless you have a very big soldering iron. To get out the other wire, get a flat blade screwdriver and push down on it where it's attached to the inside of the outer contact. Down as in further down into the base. If you push hard enough it slips out and you're golden.
wolfy_9005 says: Sep 2, 2008. 7:35 AM
Depends, mine has 2 wires(i think) wrapped around it. One lot has 13 wraps, the other has 6. Maybe 13, 3, 3.
mad english dude says: Jun 13, 2008. 4:29 AM
hi Having taken apart an above mentioned bulb i looked to see what components there were . and bingo !all discrete components ,how wonderful this is a list of those i found. 3.3uf 400v two transistors 1 transformer(perfect for small tesla coil makers) 7 diodes 1 choke 5 poly cap 6 resistors 1/2 watt and 1/4 watt basicallt this adds up to a multivibrator connected to a small tesla coil , I was wondering if it was possible to make it work on 12 volts and will be pursuing this .the one i took apart was a 15 w one bought in the uk , surprisingly as you get two for $2 here if i was to buy the components it would have cost me ten dollars or more . so id advise any mad scientist to stock up on these early bulbs as they are so full of goodies (thats geek for discrete components ) well have fun see my you tube site (sinclairresearch ) or just type in EASY HYDROGEN PRODUCTION and you will hear this mad english dude getting really exciteed over some bubbles all the best keith
ravebot in reply to mad english dudeJun 16, 2008. 6:47 PM
what are the specks on the transistors? max voltage max current and pins? also I can't find the High-voltage, High-temp "spaghetti" where is it at?
puffyfluff in reply to ravebotAug 3, 2008. 8:22 PM
It may or may not have spaghetti. It is an extra layer of insulation over some of the wires.
ravebot in reply to puffyfluffAug 21, 2008. 8:01 PM
oh ok thanks
puffyfluff in reply to ravebotAug 21, 2008. 9:14 PM
You're welcome.
westfw (author) in reply to mad english dudeJun 13, 2008. 2:08 PM
Typically the "transformer" is more of plain inductor, possibly with feedback windings. It's hardly ever much of a "step-up" transformer of the sort that you would want for a Tesla coil. However, This Clever Instructable points out that the high-frequency AC output of the CFL inverter is particularly easy to step up further using relatively small flyback transformers...
jon123321 says: Aug 4, 2008. 8:16 PM
(removed by author or community request)
nerys in reply to jon123321Aug 20, 2008. 12:43 AM
Mercury is poisonous and can kill you but it takes QUANTITY to do this. its cumulative. SO 1 CFL will do absolutely nothing harmful to you but mess with 100 or 500 of them and who knows. SO safety says treat EACH one as lethal so you do not ever hit your "lethal dosage" its cumulative so it "builds up" inside your body till it reaches lethal levels IIRC.
bob.smitty in reply to jon123321Aug 7, 2008. 10:16 AM
really? care to back that up with a reference? i doubt very much that a single tube rupture would even injure you, let alone kill you. I wouldn't go sniffing the residue of the tube or licking it of the tools, but if you exercise due caution it should be safe enough. and truly, this won't kill you, unless somebody hurls it at you at very high speeds.
jon123321 in reply to bob.smittyAug 7, 2008. 10:19 AM
(removed by author or community request)
Hellchild in reply to jon123321Aug 18, 2008. 7:27 PM
haha, yeah.
puffyfluff says: Aug 3, 2008. 8:19 PM
That's interesting. I've done some research on regular fluorescent lights, and these seem to be quite different from them. I like how you got it to run 5V and 3W. How bright is it when running like this?
will1947 says: Jun 22, 2008. 3:18 PM
Shortly here in the UK incandescent Light bulbs will be withdrawn from sale, this will in itself cause more waste as a lot of light fittings will not take CFL's, They are getting smaller but still take up more space than say a candle lamp.
slurp812 in reply to will1947Jun 23, 2008. 6:09 AM
well some don't get used much at all....
mad english dude says: Jun 13, 2008. 4:36 AM
hi correction to last statement . not transformer but a choke transistors are hp 130026/md703 have fun keith
mad english dude says: Jun 13, 2008. 4:00 AM
hi i really like that , im a tottally mad english inventor , with loads of old monitors about , lol in england our books are wrong in saying that current goes from positive to negative when all the world knows that it goes from negative to positive . this came about as they made a mistake in the text books and could not afford to change ,its crazy is england but you get used to it . real cool project though !!! how about doing one where a mad scientist can make my wife get twenty years younger and more frisky , now that would be a great project , need a lot of current to do that one though . have fun
greg_garriss says: Jun 5, 2008. 5:02 PM
Cool... I haven't dissected a CFL in a few years. They don't appear to have changed much so I guess the design is stable. CFLs have a few nice features but for our latest remodel, we converted to low voltage halogen " task " based lighting. Ignoring most manufacturer lifetime claims and based on testing a lot of different CF lamps under various conditions for my previous employers , a typical CFL has about 1000 on/off cycles. You want long life, leave them on all the time in a fixture where they stay at an optimal temp. Unless I'm asleep, I'm rarely in one place for long ( maybe an hour or two ) and I turn my lights off when I leave a room. With that life pattern , I used to replace a lot of CFLs. Most of the room lights lasted a year or so. ( worse than what I was getting with incandescents ) The identical indoor 24/7 lamps are still going strong after 5 years. When CFLs first came out, they sounded great but one of the questions I had was concerning their environmental footprint. Yep, on the front of the box it shows they save electricity but... They contain mercury; they require the mining and manufacture of rare earth phosphors; they require relatively complex ( compared to a tungsten wire and glass envelope ) electronics; They use oil to produce the plastic housings... All of the above takes a lot of energy to manufacture and assemble. I have a pretty good idea about what it takes to produce and operate an incandescent bulb but I haven't seen a comprehensive balance sheet on CFLs yet. Given the way I use lighting, would energy savings over the life of the lamp beat energy and impact of manufacturing ? I don't think so. ( But it's getting better here.. I'm over .40/kwh now. ) Though LEDs have the color temp and directionality I like, the output isn't there yet for me. But I just got a couple of 100 lumen/watt samples from Cree this week and can hardly wait to see how they compare to the rest of the pack. I'm glad to see the dissection and discussion here to give folks a view of what's inside the box. Great instructable!!
metalinspired says: May 20, 2008. 3:28 AM
Nifiy instuctable. I have one question here. How high is voltage on output?
westfw (author) in reply to metalinspiredMay 20, 2008. 8:19 AM
I believe that a standard CFL circuit has normal line voltage (converted to DC, so 115 * 1.414 or so) at its output; it's more of a frequency converter than a voltage converter. There may be some step-up that happens during start-up of the bulb, but most of the circuits seem to do startup by manipulating the filaments.
westfw (author) says: Apr 28, 2008. 1:48 AM
Edit: fixed a typo in the link to The Roman Black Switching regulator in "step 7"

DIY Dave says: Apr 23, 2008. 7:40 PM
I took one apart earlier
heltones says: Apr 7, 2008. 7:42 PM
Personally, I'm typically happy with decent CFL's that I have in my house. I have some that take forever to turn on or have crappy light, and I hope they die early deaths. Otherwise, all is happy and good. It's worth noting that there are several metrics for lighting warmth/color and color rendering. The color temperature tends to describe how warm or cool white the light is. I think the 2,700 Kelvin temperature CFL's are similar in warmth to incandescent bulbs. However, I tend to like the brightness of the 3,000 K better. The other metric is color rendering index (CRI). I don't buy CFL's that have lower than 80 CRI. An incandescent bulb nominally defines a 100 CRI. Most decent CFL's have 80-90 something CRI. So, the color rendering is not quite the same as incandescents. I agree with some of the commenters that it is somewhat subjective. There are certainly situations where incandescent technology is the best choice, but I think genera, ambient lighting is more than adequately served by fluorescent lighting (and possibly LED's). Task and art lighting are really a case by case and personal aesthetic sort of situation, imho. For the folks that are really just revolting against change I say, get over it. Open your mind. This doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing sort of situation. Start where it makes sense. Don't get so emotional about it. It's just a light bulb. There are probably a billion people in the world that'd love to have a light to see at night...
heltones in reply to heltonesApr 7, 2008. 7:58 PM
Well, I was a little incorrect on the definition of CRI. 100 is technically for a blackbody radiator light source. Evidently, incandescents are close enough to still result in 100(%) CRI. Also, I didn't address the somewhat complicated mercury issue. Yes, it's bad to release the mercury in your house or the landfill or the street when you smash a CFL. However, more mercury is released into the atmosphere (depending on your source of electricity) from the burning of coal to make electricity. Generally, here in the US, the mercury in a CFL is much less than this value. That is why most states have advisories on how much of any type of fish you can safely eat, as the mercury ends up in them, and then in the fish-eaters. The manufacturers are learning how to reduce the amount of mercury in their products. As a nice sidenote, all of the mercury in CFL's is from recycled sources, unlike the mercury that comes out of the coal-burning process in a power plant...
heltones says: Apr 7, 2008. 7:43 PM
BTW, great instructable. Thanks for posting!
greengiant1298 says: Mar 29, 2008. 9:59 PM
I really liked the Instructable and never really knew so many thing were in a CFL. But what really interested me was how you were able to get the bulb working with only 5 volts. I, not being very good with circuits, am wondering if this bulb could then be powered by a DC battery? if so, it would make a great instructable.
Prometheus in reply to greengiant1298Apr 1, 2008. 7:46 PM
There are portable battery-powered CFL's that have been available for over a decade. In any case, it requires an inverter to use a transformer, or a multiplier circuit, just to start the tube. CFL's will run on DC, but they run cooler with a rippled current.
triggernum5 in reply to greengiant1298Mar 30, 2008. 3:14 PM
You'd polarize the bulb and it wouldn't work as well in an a/c socket if at all.. You may be able to get away with switching the polarity each time, but you'd still get Hg accumulations.. Also, fluorescent lights need to be current limited (ballasted) to stop them from sucking infinite power.. The efficent way to do that is with induction via a transformer, but transformers need A/C to function since current is a result of a changing magnetic field, not a static DC field.. If you do try it, wire it in series with a soldering iron or something (eg wire goes in one prong on the plug, through the soldering iron, and continues out the other prong before going to the light..) Better yet, do some research on ballasting first so you don't blow fuses and start electrical fires..
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Apr 1, 2008. 10:23 PM
"polarize the tube"???? I'd like to hear about how to do this, since I have never heard of this before. As it has been understood since their creation, fluorescent tubes are simply bipolar capacitors that emit light at saturation.....I'm all ears on your theory on how to polarize a CL tube....
Big Bwana in reply to PrometheusNov 4, 2008. 10:36 AM
I know if you run a tube on DC, It's not that it won't work again on AC or it will be hazardous, it will work fine and all that really happens when you run a tube on DC is you shift all the mercury to one end of the tube, causing it to blacken.. The fix for this is simple turn the tube around and the mercury will shift to the other end of the tube... (( The only true DC driven tube I've seen was in an old elevator and the power supply would alternate it's output every couple of hours )) other wise it was the same as a 4 foot 34 watt tube running on AC well ok it was just a wee bit shorter then a 34 watt 4 foot tube and it used 40 watts and cost about 20 times as much and it had a silicone shatter coating ))
westfw (author) in reply to triggernum5Mar 30, 2008. 8:47 PM
The 5V CFL I mention uses an off-the-shelf CCFL inverter module (such as you find powering your laptop backlight.) While the CFL tube has filaments at each end for pre-heating, they're not absolutely necessary if you can generate higher start voltages, and not even all CFL circuits end up using the filaments for startup. (The inverter only runs about 3W, so regardless of what sized tube you have, you get about 3W worth of light out of it.)
Prometheus in reply to westfwApr 1, 2008. 7:43 PM
The only purpose for the electrode heaters is to lower the breakdown current to start the tube. Once the tube is lit, less current is required to keep it lit. To generate that higher start voltage would necessitate you dropping that once the tube started, or risk an excess current running through it, frying the source due to a relative short-circuit. Some cheaper circuits use a start capacitor to spike the voltage to get the tube to start, but this is a weak and unreliable method.
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusApr 1, 2008. 8:44 PM
Really? Heat lowers resistance? Thats rockin cool, I'm going to go get rich off that notion tomorrow.. Here I was thinking that heat increased resistance, and that the purpose of the filament heaters had to do with facilitating thermionic electron emmision at the cathode.. Google could have prevented that one..
westfw (author) in reply to triggernum5Apr 1, 2008. 9:15 PM
Heated filaments in a CFL lower the overall tube resistance because:
  • the heat vaporizes (and perhaps ionizing) more of the mercury.
  • hot filaments emit electrons.
Prometheus in reply to westfwApr 1, 2008. 10:27 PM
finally a more intelligent version of the truth....Keep in mind those elements are not active beyond starting as the main excitation has already commenced....
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusApr 1, 2008. 11:32 PM
Ok, I digress, you aren't an idiot, but this is an internet hobby site, now atleast readers will understand that electron emmision ionizes the gas.. Ppl who aren't atleast halfass educated in this already are just going to be mislead.. Honestly it was the length of your posts that made me doubt you.. Seemed like over compensation.. When you make your point in 20 lines or less its much clearer..:)
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Apr 1, 2008. 9:13 PM
Hey, stop being silly. If you understood simple fact, heat lowers the breakdown voltage of a gas to initiate electron flow. Before you go and post a half-arsed comment like that, be sure you know what you are talking about and stay out of a field you have no experience in. Heat increases resistance in a static conductor, but decreases resistance in a dynamic conductor, such as a gas. Before you prove yourself a moron, study high-voltage theory and especially ion-saturation principles of a reactive gas. In your ignorance, you proved me right at the same time. Take more time to rehearse your comments before you post them, if you even remotely understand what you are talking about. WTF do you think thermionic electron emission is caused by and principled on when it comes to excitation of a gas, Mr. Einstein? Perhaps you have a new theory on a cold vacuum tube? I suppose the vacuum tubes of a previous era had heaters just to keep the cabinet warm? Perhaps to light the cabinet to make a serviceman's work easier? Maybe just out of a compassion to give a cat something warm to sleep on? Maybe you should google "basic electronics" for your next search....Stay out of this discussion, your ignorance is not welcome.
Big Bwana in reply to PrometheusNov 4, 2008. 10:42 AM
<> that was in the days before nocat thats why they where so warm
JoelDude in reply to PrometheusJun 17, 2008. 7:55 PM
pwoned!
triggernum5 says: Mar 20, 2008. 5:02 PM
Just for the record, the phosphors in white fluorescents is primarily Antimony, Manganese, and fluorapatite (Naturally occuring substances).. The mercury probably doesn't exceed a milligram.. They aren't really that hazardous in reality, save the fact that they are thin glass under vacuum, which tends to shatter into dangerous shards..
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Mar 24, 2008. 1:54 AM
Actually, the way the glass is formed makes it break more like a beer bottle than an incandescent bulb. For the most part, if a tube (called bulbs only because of a crude transitional terminology from incandescents) breaks, it breaks into chunks, not shards.

All lighting devices use glass of a higher quality than plate glass, if using glass at all. Plate glass, such as that used in older home windows, breaks into shards of any size, due to it being extremely brittle. Modern glass has some "give" to it, which largely reduces breakage to severance with minimal particulation and slivering. While thinly-blown glass, such as that for incandescents or long fluorescent tubes can still sliver, CFD's are not made that thin.

The mercury level is far less than a milligram, and it is only used for the gas it expels, to aid in starting the tube by lowering it's initial breakdown voltage. Mercury is dangerous, but the levels from a CFL, even if every trace is ingested fully, will not kill you outright. The levels of mercury are made as low as possible, down to as little a 20 micrograms, and are often deposited on the heater elements.

To further the argument, the 99.998% pure mercury required in manufacture of CFL's is so expensive, it is natural that they don't want to waste it. It is about $1 for 5.3 grams of mercury that pure, per my last query, but that is still expensive, especially when you consider how hard it is to keep it that pure. You have well over 100,000,000% more mercury to fear if you break a traditional glass thermometer.

Again, I don't advocate breaking CFL's on purpose for any reason, as some elements will stay aloft in the air for many years before eventually being settled, but mercury, despite my warnings which may have spurned a small paranoic dispute, is not the largest danger of CFL's....The biggest danger from any CFL is electric shock, from being stupid enough to touch the still-active starter-circuit after one has been broken but is still "live".

So far as the argument about what is a "more attractive light", it is purely subjective. In a common light shade, most of the blue light is eliminated or deferred to a different spectrum. If anyone finds the blue light output of a CFD too blue for them, it is either because they are completely exposed/not diffused correctly, or they are having a vitamin deficiency making them more sensitive to the wrong light spectrum. My eyes have unprecedented vision for my age, and I can see how some think the light is a blue-grey.....but also remember, when it comes to sheer intensity, a CFD's light travels better through air than a filament-bulb's does.

For outside lighting at night, my multiplex owner previously used incandescent spotlights. The visibility quickly faded by distance, and hardly lit the lot well enough...I convinced him to switch to CFD's, and not only is the lot clearly lit, it lights the driveway to the street as well as it does from 10 feet away. Furthermore, CFD's far improve the visibility of a CCTV system overall.

An incandescent light degrades almost statically by distance; the blue level in CFD's carries that light to a range, until it finally degrades quickly at the limit of that range. While the light level from an incandescent will fade as you become more distant, much like a flame (which is also an incandescent light form), a light generated from an ionic discharge (such as fluorescent) will carry for a greater distance, but will lose intensity rapidly once the ideal range is exceeded.

Sure, you can use a primitive light for that warm effect, or if you are going to use the heat dispersed by the lamp at the same time, such as lighted incubation or keeping hot food fresh, it does have it's place as the best form of an "electric fire" as you can get, but when you need light when you shouldn't be picky, such as outside/bathroom/closet/hallway/security/background light, a CFD or LED is not only environmentally responsible and intelligent, but less costly in terms of cost-of-operation and maintenance.

The weakness of incandescents is obvious if you've thought that your high-beams in your car would give you greater visibility in a deep fog while driving. The observant would realize that this not only ruins their visibility, but is detrimental to the visibility of others in range coming in the other direction. Contrary to initial sense as it may sound in such a situation, turning your headlights off can actually increase your visibility in some foggy situations. (Don't be a retard and think that turning your headlights off means turning your lights off altogether, that is what the "parking lights" position is for on your car's headlighting switch is for...It's a three-position switch stupid....yes, if you paid more attention, you would realize that there is turning on the marker lights, and then the headlights. If you didn't already know this, get more aquainted with your car before you drive again, for the sake of the lives of others).

Incandescents are far inferior to CFD's, and LED's produce nearly the same light spectrum by a visual observation, but proper diffusion of the light makes a big difference in how you see it. With paper shrouds, less blue light is blocked. With cloth shrouds, more blue is blocked, and more red light comes through, making the similar visual light emitted from an incandescent bulb. CFD's rely on the diffusion of phosphors, LED's rely on them to produce the light in the first place. To see an undiffused fluorescent reaction is nearly blinding, due to it's sheer intensity of nearly pure white light. Undiffused fluorescents have often been used for Xerox-style copier machines, because the diffusion blocks the UV component needed for the toner to react with the substrate.

Love CFL's or leave them, but at least be smart enough to use them where only sheer light is necessary. To use incandescents for outside lighting is abject retardation for the sake of aesthetics. Get smart and learn where CFD's are sufficient for you, or you only add to the increasing cost of power in the country, as well as your republican vote has, if you were so mistaken in your beliefs for the past 7+ years.....
westfw (author) in reply to PrometheusMar 31, 2008. 8:24 PM
BTW, in California, it's not legal to drive with only your "parking lights" on.
Prometheus in reply to westfwApr 1, 2008. 7:22 PM
By standard California law, as in most states, yes, it is not legal to drive with your parking lights alone at night, but what I am saying is that in certain extreme circumstances, this can actually increase your visibility because the water vapor in fog can reflect much of that light back at you, inducing the same effect of glare as blinding sunlight does. As a professional driver of many years, there have been instances where I have discovered that my headlights were blinding me, as opposed to increasing my visibility in extreme fog, by allowing my eyes to train on lesser light sources that may be a stalled car or such, that were relatively invisible with the headlights on. The fact of the matter is, that in such conditions, your eyes should be focused on lower light levels, and having most of your headlight's emissions redirected back at you, it desensitizes your eyes to lower light levels that don't travel as well, such as the tail-lights of a car in front of you. California does not experience fog so much as the northern states, so your discretion is imperative to determining whether this works for you. Blue light is much more visible in such conditions than red light, and incandescents emit a primarily red-based spectrum. CFL's and similar rely on a primarily blue-based spectrum. If you notice a cop car flashing both, you'll notice that in heavy fog, you'll see the blue light better than the red. The higher frequency of blue light makes it more resistant to interference/diffusion by refractive diffusion.... Just based on observation myself...
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusMar 24, 2008. 12:16 PM
I'm skeptical of your light penetration obesrvations.. All light frequencies dimish equally wrt r2.. Atmospheric gasses tend to scatter more blue light than red, and cfl's produce less red spectrum, so even though the effect should be negligable incandescents should actually have more penetration power..
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Apr 1, 2008. 7:35 PM
Incorrect, not all light frequencies diffuse equally. Light spectrums even beyond our sense of sight diffuse far differently. IR light (invisible to us) hardly diffuses at all relative to light in the blue spectrum. This is partly why the red light emitted from a hot element can be felt from a substantial distance, and why sunlight feels warm. None of the light you see coming from it is making you feel warmth, it is the invisible spectrum that is transducing that heat to the surface of your skin. In the invisible spectrum, red light passes further, but in the visible spectrum, blue light seems to pass further. While the actual light output has not been totally clarified ("lumens" are a rather inaccurate measure of light output), it's a matter of testing actual visibility. It';s hard to scale eyesight, but mostly, as I have observed, CFL's seem to carry light further when visually matched in intensity to an incandescent. Don't rely on the advertised equivalent, just rely on your own sight. If a CFL seems dimmer than the incandescent you replaced it with, it likely is. Watt-for-Watt, CFL';s produce largely more light for far less power on the whole. A 60W CFL is so bright, you cannot look at it with bare eyes without risking temporary, if not permanent blindness. Take the diffusion from a common CFL, and the light output nearly triples.
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusApr 1, 2008. 8:37 PM
Hmm, I guess the carat is a funny operator on this forum.. Anyway, ALL EM radiation 'diminishes in intensity' wrt the square of the distance.. I did address the scattering differences in my last post, mentioning that the majority of lumens emmitted by a cfl are in the highly atmospherically scattered region of the spectrum.. And we are talking light-bulbs here, so I don't see how Watts are more relevant than lumens.. The difference between lumens and Watts is EXACTLY how a fluorescent creates more light/energy.. Incandescents are black bodies, they pump out a continuous spectrum from radio to whatever you can conceive probablistically. Lumens translate directly to 'light'.. Any wavelength of EM radiation will have its own number of lumens/Watt.. But wavelengths out of the visual spectrum have essentially 0 lumens/Watt.. It peaks pretty much smack dab in yellow/green.. Granted I'm not an actual prof (I'm a lab instructor), but I fill in quite often to teach university optics, and EM Theory for that matter..
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Apr 1, 2008. 10:18 PM
"All EM radiation diminishes as the square of the distance" True by scientific theory, but you fail to observe that this design does not account for interference, and is a model in a perfect fantasy of a lack of an atmosphere, and does not equate to the same effect to the light receptors in the human eye. Quote all the theory you want to until you are blue in the face, but light level is purely subjective. Simply put, it seems to me that CFL's emit more long-range lighting than incandescents do. When it comes down to it, I can see an equivalent intensity of CFL's light penetrating further into the night than an incandescent. Scientifically proven or not, CFL's are more visible to me than incandescents I never made any correlation to watts vs photonic emission. The rating of Watts on an incandescent refer purely to it's power requirement, not light output. With CFL's, an equivalency is determined based on lumen output vs the wattage of a comparable incandescent. Lumens are based on a raw generalization of light output, instead of an actual output. With no study into how humans see a light level, lumens are barely accurate, and only an estimation. Since the spectrum of light output to the human eye is different than the sensitivity of an electric eye, I find lumens to be a generalization of light output, as opposed to a realistic one. Considering that you are a lab instructor, consider the reluctance of an optic when putting the math together for a mean throughput of a given light spectrum, as well as the reluctance/resistance/refractance of any gas, especially open air. There is no such thing as a 100% efficient optic, and there never will be. The same applies for an atmosphere, unless it is devoid of any and all elements, creating a pure and sterile vacuum, which is nearly impossible even with today's technology. even an inert gas has reluctance to light. Not even in deep space is there a purely sterile vacuum. I'm sure someone in LA will argue about CFl's differently than someone living in Hawaii, due to air quality. The pollution level may seem releatively insignificant when it comes to lighting, but it does make a difference, even on a level barely perceptible by a biased observation. "EM radiation declines as the square of the distance and the cube of the reluctance of every material it passes through, when such materials are passable by such radiation" is more the quote you should be making. Complete the equation by recognizing all elements involved, instead of something fabricated in a sterile environment and called an absolute. As an assistant to a science professor, you should grasp what I mean wholly and embrace it as a congruent series of variables that add to and alter the base equation to generate a plausible result. The formulae are base equations, meant to be congruent to analysis of concurrent variables to generate an expected result. Did I mention I was doing calculus by the time I hit 2nd grade, despite an american public education system? Sure, I've suffered some head injuries since then, but I wasn't born yesterday....Open air has a relevance in laser technology, mainly because it contaminates results. With my work on such, I know the relevance of, and the overwhelming losses of an open-air discharge on the 610-660nM scale as it is. Overall, the argument is moot because it is a matter of actually-perceived light output. Even a 150W-comparable CFL will provide more light than a 60W incandescent bulb. I use an undiffused CFL that draws 30W for a spotlight....It really meets it's nickname as the "nightsun", completely blowing away HID and all other incandescents in light output by igniting the dark into fluorescence for the cost of a D-cell battery every 45 minutes. Far brighter than any incandescent light source, it is nearly equivalent to the same incandescent HID light used on police helicopters. The main competitors come from those who fear their manufacturing equipment was a poor investment, and are trying to protect their market. I can't afford to be sued out of my patent of superior tech. I feel like I am arguing the flight of an airplane on a treadmill, as seen on the discovery channel......
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusApr 1, 2008. 11:02 PM
Yea, I admit I didn't bother to read all that.. I guess we're even because if you had read, you would have noticed that I repeatedly addressed wavelength scattering, and I urge you to take a gander at scattering data by wavelength.. You'll notice that cfl's spike their energy output in the more readily scattered part of the spectrum.. Your premise of perception is knocked further.. See I'm just trying to clarify misleading statements you've made.. Its much better to understand the basics like the law of squares, then to try and pass something you just googled off as understanding.. Sure its more accurate if it isn't utter BS, (I dunno, I've never heard that).. I can't even picture how I'm supposed to envision a magnetic curcuit for light passage.. I know you're going to ream me when you learn about permittivity though.. I don't think thats what you meant, because theres no cubic relationship
Prometheus in reply to triggernum5Apr 4, 2008. 10:53 PM
Settle down....Let me pint something out however...First you say you didn't read the whole thing, and then you try to say I've made misleading statements. For the record, I haven't googled anything to generate a premise that I know what I'm talking about, nor do I believe in that. And I do, in fact read fully anything I intend to respond to, and I am extraordinarily aware that all different forms of light sources will emit strong points in certain spectrums, while weak in others. This is obvious. I'll concede "the cube of the reluctance of a material", as that was wrong, it still remains the square. I was obviously thinking of something else as I was typing. My bad on that one. Light is in the EM spectrum just as radio waves are. Now I'm not going to debate the "photons: particle or radiation" contention. I still contend however, that blue light loses less by distance on visual observation. My eyes may be jaded, and I am not implying that there is a hugely-dramatic difference, just that there is a perceptible one, at least to me. And squares are the easiest exponent to work with, there is little to no "law" governing them that is an extraordinary precedent. This is also referred to as an exponential rise or decay....nothing particularly special about it. I am dropping this issue now, if we'll agree to it, to leave room for relavance to the project. I do appreciate your candor.
Derin in reply to triggernum5Mar 23, 2008. 9:22 AM
actually they have 5 mg mercury and my friend said children were smashing them
triggernum5 in reply to DerinMar 24, 2008. 6:04 AM
Children were smashing lightbulbs? I find that a little tough to believe..
electrophobia in reply to triggernum5Mar 26, 2008. 7:58 AM
U must believe my friend ;) The people still having trouble about disposing things in Turkiye. Especially in small towns.
triggernum5 in reply to electrophobiaMar 26, 2008. 9:11 AM
Why, do the small towbs not offer trash collection services? An easy way around that is to take your garbage to the dump yourself..
westfw (author) in reply to triggernum5Mar 26, 2008. 9:18 AM
I think the implication is that not everywhere has the "recycling infrastructure" necessary to properly dispose of "hazardous" waste like mercury-containing CFL bulbs. It's all very well to sit here in California where fluorescent recycling is required by law and most sellers of CFLs will take back the dead bulbs for (hopefully) proper handling. It's quite another thing if you're in Turkey or rural Kentucky and your only practical alternative is to throw those bulbs into the local landfill or incinerator with the rest of your trash...
electrophobia in reply to westfwMar 27, 2008. 12:20 AM
I think I could not explain the situation here in Turkiye. Not just the small towns. Turkiye has more than 80 cities. I didn't make any research how many recycling infrastructure has Turkiye but i think there are just 10 or less. I know that's poor. Really poor. Something more! Don't expect a trash collection service in villages. The villages have to overcome their own trashes by putting them together in ANYWHERE! I do like Turkiye but there's so many insufficent structures. But this is not our governments failure. It's all about the people having trouble who they are. Or why are they livng together. Are they Turkish or Kurdish. Turkiye has a big terorism problem. Their name is PKK. PKK has every kind of guns bombs and living in the caves on the mountains west side of Turkiye. Theese people are all Kurdish. I'm not saying Kurdish people are all bad. I have many Kurdish friends. They are just like me wanting PKK to be gone. They also want peace all over the world but life is always a game for the politicians and people are just some chess pawn in their hands. In conclusion when our government trying to overcome the terorism, forgetting to do it's real job. Making people happy... I am sorry if I had writing mistakes ..
Derin in reply to electrophobiaApr 14, 2008. 9:22 AM
well I located one that will soon accept cfl and fl lights and for mercury containing a23 batteries we have TAP battery boxes
triggernum5 in reply to westfwMar 26, 2008. 12:07 PM
If you're going to care about quantities like that, then you're probably all up in arms at these recent drugs in drinking water stories too.. Nothing in reality has changed in the last hundred years except the quality of the detectors.. The compounds in the phosphors of the variety of white tubes are naturally occuring, and rather benign.. Its not like its white phosphorus or anything.. Their biggest threat is probably their particulate nature.. As for the mercury, if 1000 households were to properly dispose of every tube for 10 years, their work could probably be undone by a single person breaking a thermometer..
Derin in reply to triggernum5Mar 27, 2008. 9:53 AM
please stop the subject!I am a very sensitive person and this poses a danger to my mental health not my physical health!
spectre9 says: Mar 25, 2008. 10:20 AM
Another refinement -- cover the bulb with a sandwich bag and a ankle sock while you work on it. Might prevent a break, but more importantly, will contain most of the pieces in event of a break you can dispose of it easily. You can put the sock around it before closing the vice jaws.
lordguildor says: Mar 20, 2008. 6:08 PM
Saving electricity and therefore greenhouse gasses is a very commendable idea. However don't be fooled into thinking that you will save any money in the long term !!!! Think about it the less power we all use the less money the electricity companies will make, less money equals less profit. Neither the companies, nor the shareholders will accept this so they will put the price up. Basically the less power you use the more it will cost therefore not saving !!!!!
stasterisk in reply to lordguildorMar 21, 2008. 3:25 AM
..that's a ridiculous statement. maybe you'll see an initial price jump in a small system, but lightbulbs aren't going to cause any massive decrease in energy consumption by themselves. A lightbulb outputs ~20W? ~60W? A computer uses ~450W. And I count 9 of them in the room I'm in right now without even turning my head (a normal bedroom, typical of my area.) It's completely commendable to encourage a lower-energy lifestyle. Everything you can do reduces the energy drain on the planet's resources. Or, you can continue to recommend not caring and being excessively wasteful and consumptive, because it 'costs you more' and 'isn't saving'.
triggernum5 in reply to stasteriskMar 22, 2008. 1:54 PM
Actually, the average home wastes more energy on light than anything else from a user's perspective.. (Not counting major energy inefficient appliances).. Its usually the little things that add up, and nobody notices.. The average coffee drinker has no idea they drop a few thousand dollars a year at the donut shop, but they do..
lordguildor in reply to stasteriskMar 21, 2008. 7:22 AM
If you read my comment you will see that I do not say light bulbs ! I said saving electricity. If only half of the average households in any city cut their electricity consumption by 33%, e.g. By turning heating down, turning off items instead of leaving in standby, changing on average 16 to 20 100W bulbs to 22W, using energy saving Items like washing machines, fridges, doing the washing up by hand and not a dishwasher, reducing the hot water temp by 2 - 3 degrees, e.t.c. Over the full city this would be equivalent to a reduction of about 18% consumption add this to the reduction in consumption from the commercial sector, e.g. turning off office block lights overnight when they are not needed, reducing heating e.t.c. The reduction in consumption is now about 22 - 25%. That is also a reduction in PROFITS of 22 - 25%. I stand by my original comment. I also did not recommend not caring I was simply pointing out that in the long term your energy bills will remain about the same (allowing for inflation). Your comment seems to be advocating don't bother it's not worth it !!!!
Johnny Forehead says: Mar 21, 2008. 6:34 AM
I counted thirty plus parts as compared to maybe 10 in an incandescent bulb. How do you even begin to assess the environmental impact to the world. The mining for the raw materials the chemicals to extract the raw materials the electricity to produce each of the electronic components. The health impact on third world slave labor with sub-human health standards producing these cheap components. I like the cost savings of these bulbs but the rest doesn't seem to warm and fuzzy to me.
triggernum5 says: Mar 20, 2008. 5:12 PM
And regarding their light quality, technology has improved their spectrum greatly since the early days.. But they will never achieve as true a spectrum as a black-body radiating incandescent light.. With the true broad spectrum of an incandescent comes the catch-22 of energy loss via the radiation of alot of non-visible light waves.. A 60W incandescent bulb works great as a 55W heater..:) They are much more efficent heaters than they are lights.. A 14W CFL pumps out as much 'visible light' measured in 'lumens'.. Basically a lumen is a light meaurement unit that compensates for the fact that we see equal wattages of different colored light as different brightnesses..
westfw (author) says: Mar 18, 2008. 12:20 AM
I suppose as the author of this instructable, I should weigh in my opinion on using them as intended, as light sources. OK, then:
  • My house is almost entirely fluorescent and CFL these days. It's a big house.
  • I don't find the "color" of CFLs to be offensive. Perhaps because I have so much traditional fluorescent lighting (and I don't spring for the expensive kitchen&bath tubes, either.) This is a matter of personal taste and what you're used to, of course.
  • I have found CFL lifetime to often be much shorter than claimed. This is also true of circline fixtures with electronic ballasts; basically the lifetime claims are based on assumptions about the BULB life, and it's assumed that the ballast doesn't fail (a holdover from tube fixtures with magnetic ballasts.) In reality, the ballasts fail more frequently than they ought to. (This is a real PITA for those circllne fixtures, since they don't have "replacible" ballasts. It means installing a new fixture, and you may or may not find one that matches the old fixture. grr.) I think things are better now than they were in the past.
  • Brightness is annoying. Yeah, things are labeled with what they are supposed to be equivalent to. But they lie; sometimes a lot. And even when they're close to the truth, they seem to assume that you think a 60W incandescent was "bright." Bah. The "300W equivalent" that replaced my real 300W halogen torchiers are pretty pathetic; they only come close because they went part direct lighting instead of completely indirect. Three fluorescent torchiers and an ott-light are reasonably adequate replacement for the two halogen versions I used to have (and still consume less power), but every time I turn on the one remaining halogen lamp I am reminded of the lies... (and I was SO happy that I could replace the 40 to 60W candelabra base things I had around with 4W ("20W equiv") CFLs. Not! (Things are slightly better now. I think I've seen candelabra based bulbs up to about 15W - nearly enough, perhaps, if only they worked with a dimmer switch and didn't look like crap.) (OTOH, I have reasonable luck loading up a candelabra fixture with part incandescent and part CFL...))
  • Likewise, I don't have a happy replacement for my favorite 200W reading lamp that used to illuminate the master bedroom. I'm using a "300W equivalent" floodlight; it's a good thing I go in for "techno" decor!
  • Also likewise, the track-lighting pendant fixtures don't match well with CFLs. And enclosing the bulbs ups the ballast failure rate, so I have pretty much bare CFLs hanging from the tracks, sometimes with hand-modified fixtures to even allow such a thing. PITA. (kudos to Ikea, BTW. They're one of the few companies I've seen that actually designs fixtures to accommodate the strengths and weakness of CFL bulbs...)
  • A curse on X10 folk and CFL vendors for not coming up with a "lamp switch" combination that will work (it doesn't have to dim, it just has to WORK. Grr.)
hydrnium.h2 says: Mar 17, 2008. 4:22 PM
Um, isn't mercury used in these to make light? Therefore causing all who attempt this to contract mercury poisoning?
westfw (author) in reply to hydrnium.h2Mar 17, 2008. 5:30 PM
Yes. No. See the other comments on the subject.
dsandds2003 says: Feb 16, 2008. 8:37 PM
And to think our government says in a couple years we will ALL have to use these enviromentley polluting bulbs and get rid of our regular light bulbs that you can actually see with and use compact fluorescentize....
Prometheus in reply to dsandds2003Mar 3, 2008. 1:42 AM
Incandescents are highly wasteful on energy because it requires the heating of a tungsten element to generate light...this is technology over a century old and should be considered obsolete. If you want to talk about environmental pollution, consider all these incandescent bulbs in landfill as opposed to the compact fluorescents still in their sockets a decade past the inferior incandescent. If you somehow cannot see when switching from incandescent to fluorescent, it's more likely your lack of vitamin A and D in your diet than the bulb itself. I apologize for your lack of proper nutrition and the lacking public-education system you were tought under, but this is far more efficient and the logical update to incandescent lighting. It's like these same people who buy disposable alkaline batteries, instead of getting smart and using rechargeable batteries, simply because a battery is more expensive to them than the fact that the same battery can be recharged over 1000X at only 125% the cost of a disposeable's initial cost. $10 for one set and one charge, is somehow more costly than $15 for one set and 1000 re-charges with no re-investment. Basic math gives that a 1500% return on your cost, but americans aren't known for their mathematical skills or the most basic levels of general IQ. If you have insufficient lighting with one bulb, you can always use a few more, and still use less energy than with a single incandescent, and at the same time having much more light for less electrical power required. If you still can't see, consider auditing your diet as opposed to calling them unsuitable for lighting.
DavidRobertson in reply to PrometheusMar 12, 2008. 10:00 AM
I absolutely hate compact fluorescent bulbs. they are so dim and are bluish white instead of yellow.
steven123654 in reply to DavidRobertsonMar 17, 2008. 2:34 PM
there not dim they are really good nice bright light not like yellow dim incandescent
NRen2k5 in reply to DavidRobertsonMar 14, 2008. 3:59 PM
I'm seeing dim alright....

1) CFLs are not dim.
They're rated as they compare to incandescents. So if the manufacturer isn't blowing smoke up your ass, their "60W" CFL puts out the same candlepower as a 60W incandescent. And the "60W" CFL actually is only drawing about 23W to make the same amount of light.
So if for some odd reason a CFL seems dimmer than an equivalent incandescent to you, then get a more powerful CFL! You'll still be using less than half the electricity the incandescent would!

3) You can buy "warm" CFLs which are yellowish instead of bluish.

Not that I really expect you to read, understand and accept what I'm saying. It sounds like you've already made up your mind about CFLs and no amount of facts will change it.
Derin in reply to NRen2k5Mar 23, 2008. 9:28 AM
23 w equivalent to 60w?!Too less efficiency.In where I live a 2o w equals 1oo w
boatgoball in reply to NRen2k5Mar 15, 2008. 3:20 AM
CFLs produce an ugly light...the warm tone bulbs are rubbish and produce only a slightly less blue/grey light estimated bulb life on these bulbs is wildly overestimated added to which they are filled with mercury which IS extremely toxic even in tiny doses and like lead can accumulate in the body LED bulbs are infinately superior and more versatile
NRen2k5 in reply to boatgoballMar 15, 2008. 9:35 AM
"CFLs produce an ugly light"

That's your opinion and totally subjective.

"the warm tone bulbs are rubbish and produce only a slightly less blue/grey light"

Again, that's your opinion. What bulbs did you test, anyway? If you're buying bargain-basement ones, then it's no wonder you're less than impressed.

"estimated bulb life on these bulbs is wildly overestimated"

No, it isn't.

"added to which they are filled with mercury which IS extremely toxic even in tiny doses and like lead can accumulate in the body"

They're not filled with mercury. They have less than 10 milligrams. And the human body does eliminate lead and mercury.

"LED bulbs are infinately superior and more versatile"

You might want to learn the big words before you use them.

LED bulbs will probably take over soon, but for now, they're still to expensive to be competitive with CFL.
boatgoball in reply to NRen2k5Mar 17, 2008. 7:12 PM
I don't think anyone being objective would say that the light from CFL's is more attractive than incandescent lighting..... In my capacity as buyer for an enviromental charity I have tested just about every CFL and LED bulb on the market and the almost unanimous opinion from the data collected is that CFL bulbs produce an unattractive light Most people given the choice of a greener bulb seem to prefer a warm tone Luxeon bulb I didn't suggest that CFL's were full of liquid mercury and I am completely aware of the safe human levels of mercury the human can eliminate SOME mercury LED bulbs are already competitive and use less power than CFL's
NRen2k5 in reply to boatgoballMar 18, 2008. 4:06 AM
"I don't think anyone being objective would say that the light from CFL's is more attractive than incandescent lighting."

Well no kidding. Attractiveness is entirely subjective. Nobody being objective would say incandescent lighting is more attractive than CFL either.

"In my capacity as buyer for an enviromental charity I have tested just about every CFL and LED bulb on the market and the almost unanimous opinion from the data collected is that CFL bulbs produce an unattractive light"

Every bulb on the market. Yeah, right. If you're going to blow smoke up my ass, at least try to be believable.

"I didn't suggest that CFL's were full of liquid mercury and I am completely aware of the safe human levels of mercury

the human can eliminate SOME mercury"

Apology accepted.

"LED bulbs are already competitive and use less power than CFL's"

Okay, I'll take your word for it. I hadn't checked into LED bulbs in a couple of months.
Nico01 in reply to NRen2k5Mar 21, 2008. 9:21 PM
While I'm can't objectively say which is more "attractive," I can say that the spectrum of light produced by an incandescent bulb vs. a fluorescent bulb is completely different. An incandescent bulb produces light at all visible frequencies (and some non-visible ones), whereas a fluorescent bulb produces only several specific frequencies of light, blended to approximate white light (much like the way each pixel on a TV blends red green and blue to create most any shade of light). I should also mention that LED lights are similar to both CFL and incandescent lights with regard to spectra. White LEDs output a shade of blue and a shade of yellow, that combine to look approximately white. However, these two colours come in pretty wide frequency swaths. The exact colour they appear to be depends on the amount of phosphor added as well as the age of the diode. Subjectively and personally speaking, I dislike CFLs. They're great for some applications, but I far prefer the light of incandescent bulbs for reading and relaxing. However, I do use CFLs in closets, in the basement, etc. where I'm not to concerned about the colour of the light. I think my penchant for incandescent light might have to do with the fact that the sun is basically a giant incandescent light, only made of various molten gasses and metals as opposed to a dinky filament. Back to being objective, notice how in the spectral graphs, the incandescent light (4th down) emits a wide array of frequencies, whereas the fluorescent light (3rd) has several frequency spikes. This is also exemplified in the spectrograph image, which shows the spiked vs. smooth spectra. Ignoring the quantum dot LED (1), which is a new technology that is still being developed (and personally, I think might be rather promising), the regular LED is sort of a middle ground spectrally between the incandescent and fluorescent lights. It has clear spikes, but still covers a wide swath of frequency. I'll let you judge that as you wish.
quantumdot_led_5.jpgflash+fluoro.jpg
dsandds2003 in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 8:08 AM
I use rechargable batteries and have lots of energy saving devices around here. I also raise my own chickens for their fresh eggs. am working on running a small engine on alcohol. I am also 53 years old an we all know our vision is not as good as it used to be as we get older. The point is since they invented the these lights they have always casted shadows and when you live in the north where days are short in the winter you have to live with alot less daylight. And you get tired of poor lighting. GIVE ME THE OLD FASHION LIGHT BULB and let me provide my own power to light it. I also need the old fashion bulbs to keep my baby chicks warm after they hatch. they use these lights to keep many eggs and baby mammals and reptiles alive after birth. I should have a right to choose which bulb I want to use. and those that buy the fluorescent bulb should pay the environmental clean up of these bulbs. Why do I as a tax payer have to pay for everyone else's messes??? NOBODY helps me in my times of need!!!
Big Bwana in reply to dsandds2003Mar 12, 2008. 9:14 AM
If you look at most bulb banning laws they don't include IR Heat lamps like the 250 or 175 watt lamps used to keep animals warm, it's mainly the people useing 60 and 100 watt lights in there homes where a 13 or 23 watt CFL would be a perfect replacement for them.. or the 7 watt christmas light bulbs verses the 1.8 watt set of leds.. As for living in the North, I live in northern Canada, and I found in my shop the CFL's even the 45 watters didn't cut it when compared to a 300 watt bulb, so I went to 100 watt Metal Halide and yes the first cost seems scary to most but the power bills over 2 years have already payed for them all .... (( right now I can say the only incendesnt bulbs I use are in the oven and the microwave, and I'm not hatching this year )) And for the chickens during winter they lay eggs under CFL's but you need to get a fixture which is enclosed, and I know they don't recommend enclosed fixtures, but in an unheated chicken shed they last around 3 years .. and 26 watts verses 120 watts is over $100 per year in savings ... (( Or cheat like me and use some wire and large mason jar to cover the bulb and socket )) Paying for the Clean up, if the end user is responcable, (( Ya right )) they can take the bulbs to Home Depot, Ikea and I'm sure there is other places but thats where I take mine and recycle them ( Ok I raid all the good bits from the ballast first )
Prometheus in reply to dsandds2003Mar 3, 2008. 11:09 PM
Well, the uses you mentioned are perfectly adequate reasons to use incandescents, but the point was more that people use incandescents when they are not practical, such as porch lights or landscape lighting, etc...
hypermechanic in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 6:19 AM
Yet Americans develop amazing technology everyday. Americans produce wonderful poetry and music everyday. Americans produce sculptures, paintings, drawings, new and inventive architecture. Yes everyone has gaps.
Blanket statements on culture aside, LED cluster light bulbs are king in power use, life of product and have much lower ratio of toxic components when disposed of. The rechargeable batteries will be more viable once the new nano silicon wires are integrated in to the lithium ion battery production process. This will make your 8 hour laptop battery a 24 hour laptop battery. The battery does not degrade as the wires are to small to be pulverized by the current. This is an issue in the current design. Nicads die do to crystallization. There are a few instructables on using DC current to blasts to reclaim old NiCads. However again the new lithium ion tech is where it's at.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103105.htm
NRen2k5 in reply to hypermechanicMar 14, 2008. 4:03 PM
Agreed, though last I checked, LED lights still have a few too many shortcomings to be mainstream quite yet. One is cost, and the other is size. Until recently there was also the fact that LEDs' light is more or less unidirectional, though they seem to have gotten past that.
Patrik in reply to dsandds2003Feb 19, 2008. 11:17 AM
dkfa says: Feb 16, 2008. 4:31 PM
wouldn't this have mecery spilled all over the place
westfw (author) in reply to dkfaFeb 16, 2008. 7:29 PM
No. The mercury (and there isn't very much, so "spill" is an exageration) is confined to the glass tube, which is sealed separately from the compartment containing the electronics. As long as you don't break the glass, there's not mercury spillage. In theory, the glass tube (with no electronics attached) can be safely recycled just as normal straight fluorescent tubes (also with no electronics) can be recycled.
IMG_7975.jpg
Killa-X in reply to westfwFeb 16, 2008. 9:05 PM
Our news talked about it and said if you ever break one, you must leave the room for 10 mins for the mercury to escape b4 u can come back in to pick up the glass. they also said some require special methods to throw away at a store, not in garbage.
NRen2k5 in reply to Killa-XMar 14, 2008. 4:07 PM
This is paranoia, plain and simple. Who was "your news'" source? Without very much digging, I'll bet you'll discover that they're biased.
westfw (author) in reply to Killa-XFeb 16, 2008. 9:37 PM
Yes, all fluorescent lights are supposed to be recycled here (CA) now, and not disposed of in the trash. I hadn't heard the 10minute thing. I wonder if your risk is greater breaking a fluorescent tube or eating a can of tuna ?
technodude92 in reply to westfwFeb 20, 2008. 9:14 PM
probably the tube... But if you break the tube you'd also have glass shards to help penetrate the skin and deliver the mercury to the blood stream! And does anyone know how easy it is to get mercury poisoning as opposed to lead poisoning? And what are the symptoms of having Hg in yourr system?
crypticgeek in reply to technodude92Feb 22, 2008. 11:48 PM
The danger of mercury is more in inhaling it. While it can be absorbed through your skin, it is more readily absorbed through your lungs. While the small amount of it in the CFL isn't THAT dangerous, I would recommend venting any room where one broke and leaving it for a few minutes to let any vapors dissipate. Short term mercury exposure will cause chest pain, shortness of breath or cough, and other unpleasant things. Longer term exposure results in severe central nervous system impairments.
westfw (author) in reply to crypticgeekFeb 23, 2008. 12:32 AM
You've heard the term "mad as a hatter", perhaps? Apparently, mercury salts were used in the felting of the material to make hats, and after prolonged exposure with poor (if any) safety practices, the "severe central nervous system impairments" were visible as "madness." Now, that's a LOT of exposure compared to the tiny bit in a fluorescent bulb. Todays worries are more along the lines of subtle effects on brain development. Mercury preservatives in some vaccines has been blamed for causing autism in young children, or even for the (apparent?) increase in the incidence of autism in the US. (Actual evidence is pretty inconclusive.)
hypermechanic in reply to westfwFeb 28, 2008. 5:28 AM
(removed by author or community request)
Prometheus in reply to hypermechanicMar 3, 2008. 1:01 AM
If pure liquid existed in this case, it would be highly toxic. Liquid mercury in contact with the skin is broken down by typical acids presnt into a "peroxide", which is more easily absorbed by the skin and can still result in poisoning. As a rule, mercury is NEVER handled by bare hands, and never makes bare-skin contact. The palms are most susceptible as the acids on the skin surface and the tendency to be more absorbent into the bloodstream are very well noted. ALL forms of mercury are absorbable, including all oxides and chlorinations....some more dangerous than others. Mercury is a dangerous metal no matter what the form, you need to get on the train with this one. Please don't ever think of mercury lightly....it is one of the heaviest metals and extremely toxic to all mammals, especially humans. Mercury makes lead seem light as far as birth defects and general cancers. NEVER HANDLE MERCURY IN LIQUID FORM WITH BARE HANDS!
hypermechanic in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 5:27 AM
I totally agree with your precautions and I do not contest your data. I merely mean that testable fact is in contest right now. Sources: History channel, Dental association. Not by myself as I do not have the EPA safety training for that particular substance and I am not a chemist. As such I am not an expert and have limited facts to produce a good debate on this statement. However this information is being disseminated by resources that one would tend to listen to. I am interested in reading more on this do you have any recommended resources? Question: Haven't they filled teeth with mercury? You seem to be a mammal of knowledge and intelligence. Your in site is valued.
Prometheus in reply to hypermechanicMar 3, 2008. 11:34 PM
They didn't fill teeth with mercury (in itself it would remain liquid), but an alloy containing mercury, of which the companion metals kept the mercury atom from getting free. "60 Minutes" tried a scare tactic based on the assumption, ironically noted below.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

What minute amounts of mercury that are released are negligible, but the molecular bond with the mercury is stronger than that which can be easily broken by the heat or chemistry of the mouth. An active person will likely urinate about 45% of it out over time, due to the profoundly direct exposure to the bloodstream and being snapped up rather quickly by the kidneys.
triggernum5 in reply to PrometheusMar 27, 2008. 5:56 PM
Alot of nifty scary stuff gets found in urine.. I was reading about plutonium concentrations in urine the other day.. IIRC, ~2ppb isn't uncommon (or 0.2ppb perhaps?).. I'll see if I can find that again.. I just hope the terrorists don't read this..:)
technodude92 in reply to westfwFeb 23, 2008. 8:49 PM
I can't remember where i heard that first but when i found out what mad as a hatter meant I immediately though Alice in Wonderland. XD
hypermechanic in reply to technodude92Mar 3, 2008. 5:28 AM
Beaver skin hats use be to cured with mercury from what I understand.
nkuck says: Mar 14, 2008. 1:08 PM
Not too smart. These have mercury inside.
westfw (author) in reply to nkuckMar 14, 2008. 1:23 PM
yeah; Not much, and rather SAFELY inside. See the rather extensive comments on the subject on the main page of the Instructable, or even the warning included within the step...
Prometheus says: Mar 3, 2008. 12:41 AM
Factual warning about mercury: Fluorescent tubes only use mercury gas created when firing the tube. There is no such instruction to leave the room if one is broken The mercury gas is only created in the ionization process during which a fluorescent tube is started, the remaining mercury left in the tube will oxide instantly on contact with oxygen. There is insufficient mercury in any fluorescent tube to constitute a breathing hazard, unless 3 or more are broken simultaneously. As little as 0.003% mercury content in water is enough to contaminate another 20,000 gallons of water with a dangerous level. NEVER dump mercury down the sink or through any other means than an approved recovery method. Generally, the minuscule level of mercury in any fluorescent tube will oxide right away, making it almost harmless. In any case, try your best not to go breaking open fluorescent tubes as a habit, it is harmful to the atmosphere by releasing the Hg element into the air. It may only be a µg or so, but over time, it does add up. To say, "it's only mercury" is to say, "it's only arsenic". Mercury is one of the heaviest metals, and extremely toxic to all mammals, especially humans. NEVER take mercury lightly, and NEVER handle mercury with bare hands, always use protection.
Big Bwana in reply to PrometheusMar 12, 2008. 10:06 AM
Here's how the Leave the room idea is formed, and Yes parts of this are from OHS in BC Canada. Elemental mercury has a TWA of 0.025 mg/m3 (No STEL or Ceiling limit) The principle of excursion limits applies in this case since there is only a TWA for this substance. An employer must ensure that a worker's exposure to elemental mercury does not exceed 0.075 mg/m3 for more than a total of 30 minutes during the work period. A worker exposed to a concentration of 0.080 mg/m3 for 15 minutes and to 0.060 mg/m3 for 15 minutes, is exposed, on average, to 0.070 mg/m3. This average value is less than 0.075 mg/m3 and is therefore in compliance with section. All thats missing is the amount of mercury in the Tube, and the size of the room, air movement. But with this said a 10 by 10 room and only a 23 watt CFL will exceed the TWA for mercury with in the first 10 mins so if your an employer they have to leave the room until the levels drop, but in your own home you can do what you want.... Now as to why there is no warnings to leave well Articles don't require MSDS's, how ever if you contact sylvania they will give you a MSDS ( They don't have to so it's only done on a courtesy basis) and it will tell you the dangers and it does recommend positive pressure breathing apparatus when dealing with broken lamps. (( And a 15 watt Gemicidal flouresent lamp has several grams of mercury so don't say you need to break 3 simultaneously, and yes they are becomeing common place in housholds they are used in the Air sharks, germ guardian and other air and water sterilizers ))
hypermechanic in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 5:33 AM
EPA data to back up statement.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/regs.htm

http://publicaccess.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/publicaccess.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_lva=&p_li=&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_page=1&p_cv=&p_pv=1.233&p_prods=233&p_cats=&p_hidden_prods=&prod_lvl1=233&p_search_text=&p_new_search=1

Exposure to mercury. Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into water. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish. Fish and shellfish are the main sources of methylmercury exposure to humans. Methylmercury builds up more in some types of fish and shellfish than others.The levels of methylmercury in fish and shellfish depend on what they eat, how long they live and how high they are in the food chain.

EPA works with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and with states and tribes to issue advice to women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and parents of young children about how often they should eat certain types of commercially-caught fish and shellfish. Fish advisories are also issued for men, women, and children of all ages when appropriate. In addition, EPA releases an annual summary of information on locally-issued fish advisories and safe-eating guidelines to the public. Fish is a beneficial part of the diet, so EPA & FDA encourage people to continue to eat fish that are low in methylmercury. More information

Another less common exposure to mercury that can be a concern is breathing mercury vapor. These exposures can occur when elemental mercury or products that contain elemental mercury break and release mercury to the air, particularly in warm or poorly-ventilated indoor spaces. More information

Health effects of mercury. Mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of people of all ages. Research shows that most people's fish consumption does not cause a health concern. However, it has been demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn. More information
westfw (author) in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 1:51 AM
Why are mercury oxides "relatively harmless" ? I thought that A) mercury doesn't oxidize very easily (thus: mercury wetted relay contacts), and B) mercury compounds tend to be MORE dangerous than metallic mercury. (and you just said above that the oxides are toxic too; not like, say, barium sulfate!) You're not thinking of the other exotic metals sometimes used in vacuum tubes and such to get rid of the last bits of air, are you? Got any reference sites with sensible info? Of course, many people in my generation "played" with metallic mercury from (say) broken thermometers, once or twice in their lives, without noticeable side-effects. Nowadays, breaking a (mercury) thermometer is cause for special hazmat teams to come running, if you follow OSHA-like formulas. Assuming you didn't already invoked the hazmat teams to disposed of your thermometers for you. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.
Big Bwana in reply to westfwMar 12, 2008. 10:27 AM
Actually the mercury in thermometers is usally triple distilled and has little to no nasty oxides in it, and it was fun to play with, but when you dropped it inside your old mans Aim65 computer and smoke started to pour out you knew from that moment on that mercury was a health hazard, and leaveing the room was some thing you did in a hurry... But then again we could ride our bikes without helmets and somehow we did survive ....
smithy813 says: Feb 28, 2008. 6:01 PM
(removed by author or community request)
Prometheus in reply to smithy813Mar 3, 2008. 12:43 AM
See above before your future children have fatal birth defects.
hypermechanic in reply to PrometheusMar 3, 2008. 6:05 AM
Do you have medical degree as well, with a specialty in linguistic analysis? Perhaps a degree in psychology? What discipline Jungian Depth I hope? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. Flash Gordon
Prometheus in reply to hypermechanicMar 3, 2008. 11:14 PM
If you disagree: "However, it has been demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn." Many very heavy metals have a toxic effect on the human body, most common is damage to brain tissue. I hardly need a degree to know that.
smithy813 in reply to hypermechanicMar 3, 2008. 6:00 PM
(removed by author or community request)
hypermechanic in reply to smithy813Mar 3, 2008. 7:11 PM
Smithy, you were just fine I was inquiring as to Prometheus's skills in the area. Please speak you mind. :)
hypermechanic says: Mar 3, 2008. 6:16 AM
Thank you for this article it has branched in to many areas of research for me all entertaining.
Prometheus says: Mar 3, 2008. 12:49 AM
As a side note: Fluorescent tubes whose electronics have failed have yet another use as an H.V. detector. Connect the tube on one side to the supply, and leave the other connection shorted to the same terminal......If more than 4000V is present, the tube will "ignite" when touched by a human hand, and light as if legitimately powered. Any possible shock is purely static and relatively harmless to the normal individual, and is a safe indicator of electrical potential......great for HV projects in DC or AC alike.
Fondots says: Feb 21, 2008. 3:43 PM
i have no idea what i'm talking about, but could this maybe be used in place of a neon sign transformer to make like a small jacobs ladder?
westfw (author) in reply to FondotsFeb 21, 2008. 4:55 PM
Probably not. Except (maybe) for the "ignition magic" that I mentioned in step 4/5, there really aren't abnormally high voltages involved. I've also tried making a sort of micro-jacobs ladder out of a CCLF (which is different than CFL and does involve higher voltages), and I only succeeded in burning out the inverter. :-( (Hmm. I bet you could make a reasonable Jacob's ladder out of one of those consumer "stun gun" things...)
biojae says: Feb 19, 2008. 7:42 PM
I used to have that same type cell phone. 8-)
bob31415 says: Feb 19, 2008. 2:47 PM
Hi I'm from Ecuador. Your instructable is very funny! LOL!!!!
Patrik says: Feb 19, 2008. 11:21 AM
Thanks, Bill! Excellent tutorial for such an every-day technology.
gamer says: Feb 18, 2008. 9:27 AM
could you please post an instructable on the 3 watt 5 volt cfl? i really want to do this, and my dad is interested, too... i think it would be a nice usb lamp, hehe... anyways, nice instructable, and i cant wait to see if you are gonna do an instructable on the "usb cfl"... -gamer
westfw (author) in reply to gamerFeb 18, 2008. 1:05 PM
It's pretty trivial. You remove th guts and add one of these off-the-shelf inverters (A year or two ago, these were at nearly ALL the surplus stores and quite a bit cheaper. That's the problem with surplus.)
joejoerowley says: Feb 16, 2008. 6:04 AM
Cool! Great Instructable!
Leroy in reply to joejoerowleyFeb 18, 2008. 8:39 AM
Nice instructable! Thanks. Any idea what frequency the electroics runs the tube at? Did you actually use any of the parts you extracted?
werkzs says: Feb 18, 2008. 1:10 AM
I have been using CFL ballast for my regular FL instead of the inductor/starter combination. It lights instantly unlike the former. I don't mean I'll buy a new a new one and use only the ballast. I'll use it as is. About 75% of busted CFLs has its ballast still operable.So I'll wait for it to go out, test the ballast and use it in my regular FL if it's still good!
adamthiede says: Feb 17, 2008. 8:30 AM
what is the signifigance of this? Just learning? Or fixing it?
westfw (author) in reply to adamthiedeFeb 17, 2008. 1:42 PM
Using the parts for other purposes.
adamthiede in reply to westfwFeb 17, 2008. 7:08 PM
ok thanks
leethax0 says: Feb 17, 2008. 6:22 PM
The most common cause for these lamps go out is the filament inside the glass, it opens and the circuit burns... Not to much you can do with such lamp... So, if attempting to fix one, just test if there is a continuity between the lids of each end of the lamp.
westfw (author) in reply to leethax0Feb 17, 2008. 6:56 PM
Actually, one of the interesting discoveries was that some of the lights (especially the lower-power versions like the 60W-equiv Ikea) don't seem to even use the filaments. That ballast had space on the PCB for a PTC thermistor that would have connected the other sides of the filaments, but it wasn't "populated."
frickelkram says: Feb 17, 2008. 1:58 PM
Cool ... just a few days ago I thought of taking such a bulb apart to find out what's in it. I thank you for showing me !
Yerboogieman says: Feb 16, 2008. 11:40 PM
recent ly one burned out on me, it dimmed now and then for 3 hours sparked and turned orange then gave out.
timmy1234s in reply to YerboogiemanFeb 17, 2008. 8:50 AM
yeah! It is because if you go to wikipedia and type in mercury, it says at 3/4 of the page, about mercury's toxicity. You should look at it.
Karel Jansens says: Feb 16, 2008. 3:13 PM
I used the base of an E27 CFL to solder and glue in a GU10 socket. Most LED spots seem to be GU10 and now I can use them in any E27 socket. (USanians probably use different typings for light bulb sockets)
Naeem Iftikhar says: Feb 16, 2008. 12:40 PM
Plz Dont make a hole and trying to fil it Found the hole and fil it. I hope you will not wast the time again like this
tallest in reply to Naeem IftikharFeb 16, 2008. 2:33 PM
um what?
thearchitect says: Feb 16, 2008. 12:16 PM
Great stuff!.. Thanks for all neat info!.. K.
mechcem says: Feb 16, 2008. 12:06 PM
ive alway wonder what was inside those this is very well made +1
GorillazMiko says: Feb 16, 2008. 9:48 AM
Wow, I didn't know all that stuff was in a lightbulb... Awesome Instructable!
1up says: Feb 16, 2008. 9:37 AM
Yay! My Instructable got linked!

Nice Instructable, can we get a picture of the CFL being powered from 5v?
LinuxH4x0r says: Feb 16, 2008. 9:37 AM
Nice! You can use the ballast to power the long type of florescent tubes (the type you have in offices)
ry25920 says: Feb 16, 2008. 8:36 AM
Ya, it wouldn't be wise to break the bulb.
KentsOkay says: Feb 16, 2008. 7:55 AM
Woohoo! Mercury...
fishhead455 says: Feb 16, 2008. 7:10 AM
FLATULATIONS Fer sher---This is the way I like to see these Ibles presented. You got it goin' on Dude. I needed a metal oxide silicon field effect transistor the other day and you showed me where to find one. (Now I gotta go scrounge around in my trash collection to see where that CFL is tossed).
Brennn10 says: Feb 16, 2008. 7:07 AM
Nice job! This can come in handy some day. I just don't want to break open the wrong part and get mercury exposure.
tech-king says: Feb 16, 2008. 6:35 AM
nice. this is useful
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!