Comparison |
Fluorescent Tube |
||
Average Rated Life |
Compact: 60,000 hrs |
8,000~10,000 hrs |
8,000~12,000 hrs |
Separate: 100,000 hrs |
Electrode exerts electro and wears
out so as not adapt to circuit, life reduced. |
||
Energy saving |
Excellent |
Good, low power consumption |
Bad, high power consumption |
Effective Light efficacy |
150 Plm/W |
85 Plm/W |
69 Plm/W |
Tube design |
Neat design, lumen output is shown
on the working surface mostly. |
3U or spin structure is more
complicated, 20-40% of lumen output is not shown on working surface. |
Neat design, lumen output is shown
on the working surface mostly. |
Lumens Depreciation(%) |
5% @ 2000 hrs |
30% @ 2000 hrs |
25% @2000 hrs |
Flickering |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Glare |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Eco-friendliness |
Yes |
No |
No |
Comments for Induction Light vs. CFL
There are no comments yet.