4

Do burned-out CFL or LED light bulbs consume power when the switch is on?
Is it safer to keep them in their sockets, removed or slightly unscrewed so the bottom center contact isn't touching?

I replaced some dead CFLs with brighter LEDs with roughly the same wattage and thought keeping the other old bulbs in their chandeliers will provide coverage preventing short circuit if a grasshopper or a nail choose to go inside one of these roof facing sockets and the chandeliers look better when not missing some bulbs.

USER249
  • 661
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11

1 Answers1

11

There's different way these things can fail, and in most, they might still be using power.

I've seen all three:

  • failure modes where the bulb "shut down" and used totally insignificant amount of powers,
  • failed bulbs that used way less power, since they had no emitter to drive, and
  • failed bulbs where the built-in supply was constantly trying to drive a shorted, failed emitter (array) and got hot and probably used more power than when it used to work.

They should be pretty safe to leave mounted, otherwise they not generally safe to begin with.

Typically, countries have electronic product regulations that say something like "user-exchangeable devices mustn't pose a risk at the end of their life", but it's usually a bit more complicated and depends on the country.

Marcus Müller
  • 88,280
  • 5
  • 131
  • 237
  • Danke for the fast answer herr Müller. I'm going to remove the circuits and wiring from the lamps or put 3 watts bulbs instead – USER249 Feb 15 '20 at 00:14
  • 1
    Amr, I am glad you got an answer you seem to be satisfied with. If you don't see a better answer in the next day or so, please remember to mark this answer as accepted for "bookkeeping" purposes. Thanks! – user57037 Feb 15 '20 at 02:11
  • The third case sounds not safe at all! – rackandboneman Feb 15 '20 at 11:50
  • @rackandboneman but it was: the bulb's supply was switching itself periodically when it got too hot. – Marcus Müller Feb 15 '20 at 11:59
  • Something relying on a tthermal safety device as a thermostat is one mushroom short of a cloud! – rackandboneman Feb 15 '20 at 20:52
  • The takeaway from that is "accept an answer when it seems right, as long as you wait long enough for people to raise other answers or objections", and you've done that. – Marcus Müller Feb 15 '20 at 21:20
  • Honestly, what would need to happen that you wish you didn't accept this answer? Is that going to happen? You should accept an answer *at some point*, why not now? – Marcus Müller Feb 15 '20 at 21:21
  • @AmrBerag it seems I may have offended you. I apologize.I upvoted this question and this answer because I thought both were good. It was not my intention to give offense. – user57037 Feb 16 '20 at 08:23
  • I agree with @rackandboneman that relying on the thermal shutdown is a bad idea. If it fails, it might cost you more than you're willing to lose. And they're probably not designed for long-term use like that. It's not likely to be a problem while waiting for the right moment to replace them (but that's not the question) and you're *probably* okay in the long term, but it's definitely the question if you want to take that risk – Jasper Feb 16 '20 at 11:28