I design LED bulbs! Hello!

[RetroTechie]

They are not going to design an LED with the same focal point as an incandescent, it just cannot be done.

Yes, it really can. And it really has, by Osram.

Person saying it cannot be done, should not interrupt company doing it. :laughing:

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[pauljmccain]

If you're not able to do the tests in-house, and you're not willing to farm it out to a lab...what are you basing your claims on, when you say your bulbs are good/awesome/super/better-than-Philips/etc?

How well they practically function for the consumer.

 

[-Virgil-]

If you're not able to do the tests in-house, and you're not willing to farm it out to a lab...what are you basing your claims on, when you say your bulbs are good/awesome/super/better-than-Philips/etc?

How well they practically function for the consumer.

So...customers' completely subjective impressions having nothing at all to do with objective measurement.
You do see the problem this makes for your argument, right?

Right now we are just testing to get good quality and output. We don't have the equipment necessary to test to SAE standards... yet!

And yet you're apparently happy to sell your completely untested bulbs to the public for use in the legally regulated, safety-critical lighting system of their cars. You really don't see anything wrong with that? I hope you've got very good lawyers on retainer; you are exposing yourself to enormous liability even the possibility of DOT enforcement (civil penalties, recalls, etc.) is disregarded.

(7443 bulb)This was low power, a little too bright.

Er...a lot too bright. The dim function of the 7443 needs to produce 35 lumens. To bring it all together in one place, the 7443 needs to produce 440 lumens in bright mode, 35 lumens in dim mode. Your 329-lumen test result fits neither category.

I am not sure if you mean the total expected lifetime, or the performance over a specific operating cycle, etc.

Again, if you'd read the SAE standards that apply to the products you make, you wouldn't have these question marks hanging over your head.

I test to a 1% stable operating output and temperature in a 1m sphere. That's my timeframe right now. That's generally how you test LEDs.

That's not what's specified in the applicable technical standards.

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[-Virgil-]

What argument am I making?

In this thread, you've said the Philips LED automotive bulbs are inferior and yours are superior. When pressed for details on how you know your bulbs work acceptably, you said you're basing it on customers' reactions.

(7443 dim functon) More like 40

The spec for the 7443 dim function is 35 lumens +/- 20% (that is 28 to 42 lumens) at 13.5v.

I made it clear that it was a work in progress, and that it was too bright, did I not?

Fair enough -- I was assuming (see what happens when we assume!) that you were showing something ready or almost ready for prime time.

Just the only report I had easily accessible.

OK, that makes good enough sense -- though data of this nature for bulbs that are ready for prime time would go a long way towards silencing objections like mine.

There is no practical reason to even make a white 7443 LED replacement.

I can think of practical reasons to make a white 7443 LED bulb. Apparently so can people at your company, because you offer it for sale -- I just checked, and your website says it's in stock for immediate shipment. Are those the bulbs that are a little (like 10x) too bright on the dim function, and are still under development? Or are they some other 7443 white LED?

What specific standard are you referring to?

I already mentioned them specifically in post 22 of this thread.

Are you just talking about lab life? Seasoning?

No, and no.

I have read most of the ground lighting standards and I don't recall some big section about operating cycle of bulbs.

Perhaps you were not reading the standards applicable to LED vehicle signaling and marking lamps.

You asked me a very general question about "operating cycle," and I told you the answer.

Er...no, sir. I didn't. If you'll carefully review this whole thread, you'll see you are the only one who has used the phrase "operating cycle". I did, however, ask you a specific question about whether your products are tested for output maintenance over prolonged operation in accordance with the relevant SAE standards. It took awhile, but thank you for answering (no).

LEDs don't work the same way as incandescent bulbs.

Is that right? H'm. Are you sure? ;-)

LEDs need to be tested to stable operation

Automotive LED lamps need to be tested in accordance with certain protocols. They're in those SAE ground vehicle lighting standards you read most of.

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[-Virgil-]

Interesting! Either I'm reading different versions of J1889 and J2938 than you are (I'm reading the current versions) or there's been a miscommunication or misunderstanding of some kind. You say you "test to a 1% stable operating output and temperature in a 1m sphere." That's fine, but it doesn't address the requirements for output maintenance with prolonged operation, which was the question all along.

I think what might be causing part of the misunderstanding is that you sound like you might be looking at your product only in context of regulations and standards that apply to light sources (bulbs), not realizing that your product is designed to convert an incandescent-bulb vehicle lamp into an LED vehicle lamp. There are requirements for output maintenance with prolonged operation that apply to LED vehicle lamps, so those requirements are relevant to your product. Specifically, they (alongside the more obvious photometric requirements) are key to determining whether or not your product, when installed, takes a vehicle out of compliance with the applicable Federal safety standards.

And we didn't even get into other issues like color stability with prolonged operation, especially crucial with yellow-amber LEDs which can drift out of the color box towards red as they heat up -- that can cause big safety hazards in automotive lighting.

I'm done here.

That's a shame, to depart with so many relevant (and repeated) questions left unanswered. I suppose readers of this thread will have to decide for themselves which questions you couldn't answer and which ones you just wouldn't.

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[-Virgil-]

I've answered every question you've posed, quite thoroughly and repetitively.

Here is a partial list of questions you have not at all answered. This list excludes discussion points (without question marks) that you have not addressed:

Post 15:

- (...)you offer multiple different "LED bulbs" to replace any given kind of filament bulb. I count five different 3157-replacements, for example, at prices ranging from $30 to $90 a pair. It looks like these produce different amounts of light (can't tell for sure, no lumen output stated). However, a 3157 produces only one amount of light from the major filament and one amount of light from the minor filament. How is it that this range of different intensities can all produce compliant performance...?

- What do you mean by saying Osram is "much more into bulbs" than Philips?

Post 16:

-what should I base any confidence on? You say your products are great...but you also say you don't have the SAE standards used to assess the performance of the products you make...so where does that leave us? Am I just supposed to trust you and whip out my American Express card, just on your say-so?

Post 19:

-(…)if you're "not sure what kind of operating timeframe" is involved in the tests...how are you defining the average and judging certain bulbs as above or below it?

 

[Alaric Darconville]

I've answered every question you've posed, quite thoroughly and repetitively. Any reader of this thread will see my clear replies to your inquiries.

I've seen you respond at length, but by no means thoroughly. However, you're right that you've responded quite repetitively. Note that I use "respond", not "answer", because you've avoided the real meat of the questions and have danced around them. You've responded time and again but answered precious little.

If there is anything you think I've missed, then please question me directly. Please remember that an opinion of inadequacy or inaccuracy in my answer should not be equated to leaving questions unanswered. I am not going to treat your arbitrary positing as a question.

What you've missed is the *point*. You're saying you and your company makes LED bulbs, and that your customers love them, but the point is that you have not begun to demonstrate they do not render inoperative the lamp assemblies in which they are installed by bringing them out of compliance with the Federal safety standards. You consider the purchase of equipment and the SAE standards documents is an unnecessary expense.

Test equipment is not cheap, paying someone to do it for you is not cheap. I don't know why I am having to explain this.

It's not cheap because it must be accurate to ensure compliance to standards. The testing itself is not cheap because it takes specialized training to know how to run the tests-- and the testing company must have that test equipment. I don't know why I am having to explain this. The testing is absolutely necessary because the standards are absolutely necessary. These standards help to keep people alive on the road!

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[Alaric Darconville]

The company I work for maintains its own test procedures and requirements, which are similar, but not identical, to those as outlined by SAE standards.

The SAE standards aren't an outline-- they're very specific.

The company is not trying to meet SAE standards, so there is no particular reason to test to those standards.

So, your company is trying to introduce into inter-state commerce a lighting product that does not comply with FMVSS 108 and can render inoperative an item of regulated motor vehicle equipment. Sounds like one heck of a good plan!

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[Alaric Darconville]

Until then, we are trying to build a business so that we can get to that level. I'm sorry if you do not agree that it is a worthy venture.

The venture is worthy, but only if it's not funded by selling non-compliant products. You might as well be a pharmaceutical company selling levothyroxine and gemfibrozil that you can't prove meets FDA standards, hoping to get enough money to buy the equipment and the chemical formulas so you can produce the real stuff. Maybe your company should stick to selling legal products until they raise enough capital for their intended venture.

 

[-Virgil-]

we are trying to build a business so that we can get to that level. I'm sorry if you do not agree that it is a worthy venture.

I think the objection is more specific: it looks and sounds like you are trying to fund future developments by selling products that take roadgoing vehicles out of compliance with mandatory safety standards. Even leaving aside the legalities, that doesn't seem very ethical.

 

[pauljmccain]

-----

 

[SemiMan]

Can't be too many Paul J Mccains selling aftermarket lighting and promoting themselves as being senior in that company, so:

- Seems you also sell HID kits ... what is your excuse for that? You know good and well they will never be compliant no matter how much testing
- Most of the stuff on your site is not made by you and you are well aware it would never pass

Given that many on this thread are likely Professional Engineers, they are legally obligated to report issues of public safety that they become aware of and that they are qualified to determine. To not do so could actually be construed as professional misconduct.

I will have to look up the proper complaint channel as it appears to have been changed, but may I suggest starting here:

https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/

Perhaps if they receive enough calls they will initiate an action, ESPECIALLY since on this site there is written, and timestamped proof that the company knows they are not compliant and yet are still selling them.