pauljmccain
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2014
- Messages
- 24
removed
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't realize such a vague rule would be applied to what I do. Dangerous? There's a whole forum about lasers on here, you know!
... but I get it. I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Paul
The majority of what I do in HID is in OEM HID replacement and power supply. Lots and lots of people have factory ballasts go out. I agree, without a properly designed housing, HID bulbs cannot be safely substituted for halogen, and can be dangerous.
Philips does not have an LED that replicates the focal point of an incandescent bulb. No one does. It is optically impossible. Philips does have dozens of LED bulbs for signaling and interior applications, that are similar to what I design. However, the LED products I design are more reliable and brighter than Philips bulbs, and are much more omnidirectional.
Scheinwerfermann, if I have overstepped your instruction, please delete this post. I apologize, don't want to get banned my first day here.
Paul
The majority of what I do in HID is in OEM HID replacement and power supply. Lots and lots of people have factory ballasts go out.
I agree, without a properly designed housing, HID bulbs cannot be safely substituted for halogen, and can be dangerous.
Philips does not have an LED that replicates the focal point of an incandescent bulb.
No one does. It is optically impossible.
(Philips) that are similar to what I design.
However, the LED products I design are more reliable and brighter than Philips bulbs, and are much more omnidirectional.
"beam pattern measured fulfills the requirements as stated in the SAE standards."
WAY different than a similar focal point.
SAE standards deal with the beam pattern- the light that is actually coming out of the housing, not the focal point.
Headlamps have to meet those standards too.
Philips is just trying to do it backwards, by taking a "standard" reflector (those listed on their site) and designing an LED so that it works with that reflector.
They are not going to design an LED with the same focal point as an incandescent, it just cannot be done.
This just means Philips has spent the money to test their LEDs in those housings, and SAE says they're good enough.
They are not some uber-special LED design.
I'd guess if they are able to get more tested, they'll then lobby for regulation to monopolize against anyone like me who can't throw money at the SAE.
Thank you. It's very profitable since the OEMs want so much for replacements, and they usually die after 3-4 years. Same power output. No nonsense "55W" or anything like that.
("HID kits") only makes up around 10% of our sales right now, we deal in primarily OEM HID replacement (bulbs and ballasts) and LED products. Probably not staying in the retrofitting industry much longer for the reasons you've described.
(Philips LED bulbs working properly) I'll believe it when I see it! I have talked to Philips employees about this at trade shows, and they said it wasn't a big priority.
(Osram LED retrofits)Link? That's news to me. They're much more into bulbs than Philips though, I could see this happening.
What Philips LED products are you looking at? They use standard 5050-packaged LEDs and some products use their Luxeon chips, put onto a standardized base connector. Have you bought Philips LEDs? Disassembled Philips LEDs? They're nothing special.
How is that not similar to what we do?
We've been using a basic DIY sphere for comparison testing for years, but finally got a real integrating sphere and full spactroradiometer setup about a month ago. Those descriptions are being changed right now (literally, our marketing team was working on it yesterday) to include the newly-measured information. I'd be happy to post some reports but our company name is all over them.
Oh, I know. That's our competition. They have no idea how lights even work.
It was a generalization of their product development strategy. Yes, I am guessing. That's all either of us are doing.
I didn't know I needed to be so technical about my word choices....
Obviously SAE does not do any testing. I meant "throwing money" at the SAE standards.
Geez, give me a break.
It's obviously not the cost of the standard docs, it's the cost of the equipment needed to conduct measurements to determine whether or not those standards are met. We could do color right now, but we still need all kinds of equipment to see if the products meet the standards for photometry, vibration, waterproofing, corrosion, dust, all kinds of fun stuff. 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.Mmm...really? If your company cannot afford a one-time $70 for an official copy of a technical standard, then is it really a viable company? Even if we generously count up all the SAE standards you could conceivably want to have on hand for the applications your bulbs will be used in, that's eight standards, for a one-time total expenditure of $560 if you're not a member of SAE, $448 if you're a member. The question still stands: if you can't afford this, is your company really viable? And more than that, if you choose not to buy the basic technical standards that apply to the product you're developing, on what basis are you determining or certifying that your products work the way they're required to?
You're making many assumptions here. I work in a well-equipped electronics lab. I spend all day, every day working on electronics and lighting. It's not a hobby.
"Output maintenance with prolonged operation" is a pretty basic qualification.
I'm not sure what kind of operating timeframe you're referring to
Philips' current Xtremevision offerings exhibit very average or below average flux maintenance over a normal warmup.
Their 194 bulbs are actually pretty bad at it, because in my opinion, they are running them at a slightly high current for most applications, leading to excessive heat. I think they need to dial them back a little bit, but that's really just my opinion.
I'm just saying, try calling a random company out there... ask them something like "do your LEDs have P-N junctions?" 99% will have no clue what you're saying.
It's obviously not the cost of the standard docs, it's the cost of the equipment needed to conduct measurements to determine whether or not those standards are met. We could do color right now, but we still need all kinds of equipment to see if the products meet the standards for photometry, vibration, waterproofing, corrosion, dust, all kinds of fun stuff. 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.