# LED Home lighting closer to reality?



## bitslammer (Nov 5, 2007)

Wohoooo!!! Let's hope a viable fixed LED solution for home lighting is closer now.


*http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9810938-54.html?tag=head*


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 6, 2007)

bitslammer said:


> Wohoooo!!! Let's hope a viable fixed LED solution for home lighting is closer now.
> 
> 
> *http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9810938-54.html?tag=head*



What's the benefit to buy that thing? 54.2lm/w is absolutely lousy. Even the now illegal F40T12 cool white did just as well or better. 

Newest fluorescent setup is approaching 100 lumens per watt using a high efficiency electronic ballast in conjunction with the state of art rare-earth phosphors lamps. 

Depending on the system package you choose with the manufacturer, some even offer 3 year warranty, that includes electrician visit to your site to replace failed lamps. I believe Osram-Sylvania and GE are among those.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 6, 2007)

Myself i get better results from LEd than Florescent.
Here is why:

1) Florescent has a hard initial start, that uses much power, leds dont.

2) Florescent doesnt get working good till its warmed up, Outside that florescent bulb is at 50% for the first minute, and by the next minute i didnt need that light anymore, whats the efficency at 40*F ? 1/2 what it once was till warmed. 

3) CFLs might last 1500+ hours, but they only last like 200-300 when you only have them on for a MINUTE.
Yes that Same minute that they arent even running at full yet, and the startup that sucked up all the power.
examples a CFL will last a whole year , if you never turn it off, mabey 6 months on a 5 minute motion sencor.

4) cfls and Florescents of the consumer cheap variety, dont dim, and the price on dimmables makes LEDs look cheap 

5) i use many Motion sencors, and the worst thing i ever put on a motion sencor was any of the consumer florescent bulbs. Although some are lasting quite a while. Because hall lights are only on for 10 seconds, and other lights are on for 2m to 5m at a time, depending on if the human is in the "zone" the florescent gets Destroyed from starting up.

6) florescent BULBS are rated for the bulb wattage, NOT the total curcuit wattage, your average "13w" bulb with 120V power actually uses 16-17W of power, They lied  42s use 45, and 2x4 foot 40W bulbs with the ballast with 120v ac power use 94watts not 80watts. you gotta calculate the Loss not just the bulb

7) florescents when AIMED or turned into aiming or spot lights loose much of thier efficency, MANY round tubes are 150degrees against something that doesnt put the light back foreward of what they are against. even added reflectors behind tight fitting long tubes cant recover the lost light. lighting the back of a fixture is not efficent.

8) florescents take longer to go ON, i walk out in the garage, and the Incan bulb is on boom instant, the florescent takes an extra 250miliseconds , so One side of the garage is light up as soon as the motion sencor sees me, i keep thinking the other side has died  but it goes on eventually.

so because i live in "Paper Man" house with controllers and automation, which saves More power than anything (and fingerprint marks around switches) the CFl and Florescent lights suck bad, and have been more of a money vaccume.

even halogen desklights (on often) we were replacing bulbs WAY to often, have now operated for some 4-5 years non-stop without wasting money on short lived bulbs. on one desklamp i was loosing about $15 a year on bulbs the other one had the bulb go out more often.

Led is the Answer to Home automation, because florescent doesnt like automation (continual on/off switcing) 

that is why i like Low efficency leds over florescent. course i still use all 3 , florescent, halogen and led. it helps that CFLs are not $7-10 anymore , but they still dont cut it.
the lifetime of a "white" led is going to be phosphor based, not die based, with high efficency leds, there is often less overall phosphors, that allow more light to escape, it is unknown what the phospor 50% rating will be on high efficency phosphor coating, when there is less overall phosphors in general. so the inital testing might not be as vaulable as the added phosphors.


----------



## jtr1962 (Nov 6, 2007)

I wonder why they're only getting 54 lm/W? Using something like a Q2 bin Cree they should be getting over 80. Even allowing 10% for driver losses you're still in the low 70s.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 6, 2007)

warm "white" leds only put out 1/2 the lumens than the blue stuff.
i dont know if that is what they are using, but the Lemnis light uses warm leds instead of cool ones.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 6, 2007)

VidPro said:


> Myself i get better results from LEd than Florescent.
> Here is why:


I don't think you're being fair. You can only compare state of the art LEDs with state of the art fluorescents.



> 1) Florescent has a hard initial start, that uses much power, leds dont.


Perhaps in the days of glow start, nonethless, how long does that last? "power usage" = watts over time. The 21st century fluorescent lighting technology is much different. 



> 2) Florescent doesnt get working good till its warmed up, Outside that florescent bulb is at 50% for the first minute, and by the next minute i didnt need that light anymore, whats the efficency at 40*F ? 1/2 what it once was till warmed.


You're exaggerating negatively of the fluorescent technology. 



> 3) CFLs might last 1500+ hours, but they only last like 200-300 when you only have them on for a MINUTE.
> Yes that Same minute that they arent even running at full yet, and the startup that sucked up all the power. examples a CFL will last a whole year , if you never turn it off, mabey 6 months on a 5 minute motion sencor.


Are you pulling all this out of your butt? Do you have any sources or actual experience to substantiate your absurd values? Where are you getting these values? CFLs are rated for 8000-12,000 hours. If you are short cycling them on a motion detector switch, you should be running an incandescent. 



> 4) cfls and Florescents of the consumer cheap variety, dont dim, and the price on dimmables makes LEDs look cheap


Why not compare CFLs of the $130/6pk type considering the cost of this new thing? What you're doing is trying to say Kirby vacuum should last longer compared to a Wal-Mart special that cost $25. 



> 5) i use many Motion sencors, and the worst thing i ever put on a motion sencor was any of the consumer florescent bulbs. Although some are lasting quite a while. Because hall lights are only on for 10 seconds, and other lights are on for 2m to 5m at a time, depending on if the human is in the "zone" the florescent gets Destroyed from starting up.


 Read the manual. Consumer grade motion sensors aren't designed for use with CFLs, period. If you're using them on 10 seconds to 5min cycle, there's no compelling reason to not use incandescent. Return of investment period over 5 yrs is usually excessive.



> 6) florescent BULBS are rated for the bulb wattage, NOT the total curcuit wattage, your average "13w" bulb with 120V power actually uses 16-17W of power, They lied  42s use 45, and 2x4 foot 40W bulbs with the ballast with 120v ac power use 94watts not 80watts. you gotta calculate the Loss not just the bulb


CFLs are ballast integral lamp and the rated wattage is indeed the actual wattage. A 94W input 40W x 2 fixture? Come on, that was true in the 70s, but not now. A 2x32WT8 fixture draws around 55-60W. The lamps are not driven at 100% power and when they're driven at 10s of KHz, the efficacy is improved. 



> 7) florescents when AIMED or turned into aiming or spot lights loose much of thier efficency, MANY round tubes are 150degrees against something that doesnt put the light back foreward of what they are against. even added reflectors behind tight fitting long tubes cant recover the lost light. lighting the back of a fixture is not efficent.


 I'll give you this one. Fluorescent lamps are not fit for spot lights.



> 8) florescents take longer to go ON, i walk out in the garage, and the Incan bulb is on boom instant, the florescent takes an extra 250miliseconds , so One side of the garage is light up as soon as the motion sencor sees me, i keep thinking the other side has died  but it goes on eventually.


You obviously haven't acquitanced instant start electronic ballast. 



> so because i live in "Paper Man" house with controllers and automation, which saves More power than anything (and fingerprint marks around switches) the CFl and Florescent lights suck bad, and have been more of a money vaccume.
> 
> even halogen desklights (on often) we were replacing bulbs WAY to often, have now operated for some 4-5 years non-stop without wasting money on short lived bulbs. on one desklamp i was loosing about $15 a year on bulbs the other one had the bulb go out more often.



There's a problem somewhere if your bulbs aren't lasting >1000 hrs



> Led is the Answer to Home automation, because florescent doesnt like automation (continual on/off switcing)



Wrong. For restrooms and such, there's programmed rapid start, which can handle 10s of thousands of starting and still have the lamps last >10,000 hours. 

40W light bulb = 1,000 hrs life and 25 cents each
12W LED = supposedly 50,000 hrs w/o warranty and $26 each
If the location calls for 1 hour of lighting a day and you pay 30 cents/kWh (about 3 times nat'l average) 

Assuming no LED lamp failure period, payback period is 3095 days, but realistically like 16 yrs at more reasonable 15cents/kWh. 

Conclusion: not economically feasible. 



> that is why i like Low efficency leds over florescent. course i still use all 3 , florescent, halogen and led. it helps that CFLs are not $7-10 anymore , but they still dont cut it.
> the lifetime of a "white" led is going to be phosphor based, not die based, with high efficency leds, there is often less overall phosphors, that allow more light to escape, it is unknown what the phospor 50% rating will be on high efficency phosphor coating, when there is less overall phosphors in general. so the inital testing might not be as vaulable as the added phosphors.



Newer fluorescent lamps are rated for something like 36,000 hours and 90+% output after some 15,000 hours and 3 year fixture + lamp warranty with labor to back it them up.


----------



## bitslammer (Nov 6, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> What's the benefit to buy that thing? 54.2lm/w is absolutely lousy. Even the now illegal F40T12 cool white did just as well or better.
> 
> Newest fluorescent setup is approaching 100 lumens per watt using a high efficiency electronic ballast in conjunction with the state of art rare-earth phosphors lamps.
> 
> Depending on the system package you choose with the manufacturer, some even offer 3 year warranty, that includes electrician visit to your site to replace failed lamps. I believe Osram-Sylvania and GE are among those.




I think you're missing the main point Handy which is that LED tech is being given serious financial consideration which will push it to limits and uses we can't currently see. 

Certainly the CFL is king now because of the wide availability and ever decreasing costs, but they have issues. The use of mercury is one MAJOR drawback. 

Give it a few years and more investment like this and it's pretty clear we're going to see some great LED products.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 6, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> .


 
yes i pulled it all out of my REALITY, which is my LED units have survived and put out more light WHERE i need it for less power, and about the same money as the florescents, with far less troubles, and that was before they got all extreeme efficency. (not the 5mm leds, they are still junk)

it aint gonna work in wall mart, but then i aint wallmart 

mabey somone can figure out how about 40W (varies a lot) of leds is lighting the same kitchen that they put 3x2x40w florescent bulbs into that drew about 282 watts, nobodys complaining, and i actually have not had to replace the florescents yearly like before. me i am just loving it  because i was the one replacing the bulbs

ok so how about some supporting evidence beyond reality?

-----------------------------------------
http://articles.directorym.com/Outdoor_Lighting_Glossary-a800155.html
Manufacturers use *3 hours per start for fluorescent lamps* and 10 hours per start for HID (High Intensity Discharge) lamps when performing lamp life testing procedures. Every lamp type has a unique mortality curve that depicts its average rated life.

ok so 1 minute on , and 3 hours of life, sounds about realitive to reality.
This data can often be found ON the manufatures site, so the 10,000 hour rated life becomes about 166hours EVEN if the specs are correct, on a good life it might last that long before the starter ends fail.

umm yes do the math, the thing wont last 7 days doing the same thing that an led can last 3-5 YEARS doing.

----------------------------
ok so get the RIght ballast for the job, and tune the entire lighting , just like you would have to do with any efficency or electronic stuff
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/eep_fluor_ballast.html (more efficency specs of ballasts)


Only electronic ballasts meet the recommended efficiency levels. However, in rare applications where sensitivity to electromagnetic interference is a particular concern, magnetic ballasts may be preferred; several Federal agency guide specifications provide guidance on appropriate applications for magnetic ballasts.
*The most efficient ballasts for four-foot T8, 32 watt lamps are "instant-start" ballasts, which may shorten lamp life in applications where lamps are turned on and off* frequently; slightly less efficient "rapid-start" ballasts are preferable in these applications. Electronic dimming ballasts can be used to vary light levels.

----------------------------------------------

Crasy city tests (cree) leds in parking garage of all places
http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2346-22_11-54558.html
but what, they want MORE too? 

------------------------------

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.p...ould_reduces_power_consumption_by_12_percent/
(beware popups)
Mackintosh computers , is going to start using Cree leds instead of florescent in thier displays, thinks they will SAVE 12% power? and have better color too?
now we all know how long a backlight in a laptop can last, how long will the led? sure its all about Direction, because with the cold cathode they use, most of it is Wasted not getting to the screen. 
http://www.welovemacs.com/6614342.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

gee geuss what lighting the PDAs use? florescent tubes? after all how are you going to run it off of battery? 6 white poor efficency leds is how. why not a CCFT?

-------------------------------------------

naw there isnt a start up problem
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901500.html?hpid=topnews
. . . Still, the bulbs, with their initial flicker, slow warm-up . . . era is that fluorescent bulbs still seem to be flunking out in most American homes.
hmm and that artical was publishes in the 21st century , even though things have changed SOOO much since the advent of CFLs

---------------------------------------
where did i get the Wattage specs? I have a meter  and a calculator, just bad at math  
But when questioned about that data previously, i showed 3 DIRECT From manufature data sheets From Phillips, that directally stated higher wattages than even i was reading. in the PDF data sheets for the bulbs they have input wattage ratings, and ALL were higher than the rating on the package. they stated thier 27W bulb used 32W input, which it did not, but that is thier data.

i could not find again the data sheets on the actual input wattage, but here is thier TIME sheets
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/catalogs/marathon_brochure.pdf
10,000 hours , not even 20,000.

do the math again, if the light stays on for 16 hour days, and is not going on and off as NEEDED, that is less than 2 years of life, for bulbs rated at 7 years often, hmm sure seems like less than the 5 years a led puts out sufficient light, and the led doesnt warble and blacken , and strobe when dying, it just fades out the quantity of light.

mabey at 220V power there is less waste in the balasts?
---------------------------------------------

price, i purchaced 57 1 Watt led luxeon emitters for only 1$ a piece , came out to about $60 bucks with shipping, have plunked down $13 and $7 for florescents that are now in the trash on that Same year. somewhere around the 21st century too  $60 still working , $45 bleeding mercury in some landfill now.

for some strage reason, the LEDs are still working, the CFLs went back to the manufacture (wonderfull warrenty) and they sent back ones that lasted 1/2 the time of the ones i sent them, heck they werent worth screwing in the socket, some totally defective hunk of overpriced trash. warrenty was as usefull as the product was to begin with, WHEN the product was improperly made.

--------------------
as usual there is plusses and minuses and ramifications to every form of anything, but LED does have a good chance of being usefull for energy efficency in home area lighting. even using low efficency leds. my 80W cheap china led light, would blow away a pair of 40W florescents, in home area lighting, not to mention the halogen, and i can prove it, ipso facto, and i will just ignore the extra 14W the ballast looses , and present it running head to head, with pictures.


----------



## David_Web (Nov 7, 2007)

I can back up Handlobraesing on most of what is said.
VidPro you can't compare apples to oranges. Especially if the apples are over 30 years old.
And by the first post I can see that the fluorescent lighting isn't used properly. It is this lack of knowledge and improper use that has given fluorescent lighting a bad name.
If you read up on temperatures and how they affect fluorescent lamps you would understand why they did not work well for you.
Run a led at 200*C and see if they keep up as well.
Again it is lack if understanding that created the problem in the first place. However I do understand it is a little known of problem and the same mistake is made in many places today.
The new HF drivers are even more sensitive when it comes to temperature.
I do wish that I could bring you up to speed with everything I know but I just don't have time.

Don't get me wrong tho. I love LEDs and they can do a million things a fluorescent light can't. Just don't misrepresent fluorescent for something they are not today.

BTW there are fluorescent tubes with Ra index of over 90%
Show me a LED with that and I would buy it!

BTW2 why does it have to be so late when I try to write up informative replies?
So beforehand I do apologies for any spelling errors or other errors that may have slipped in.

And as a side note on that mercury thing.
In Sweden we recycle over 90% of all bulbs with mercury in them. The recycling of the bulbs are handled by a company for non profit. The company actually makes a profit by recycling the bulbs so they pay the environment fee for mercury in every light bulb. That means that here the consumer does not have to pay that fee.
We also have the infra structure for HF ballasts that you don't meaning the cost vs a conventional ballast is not that much higher.

Ok good night. Ill drop in tomorrow and reread what I have written, hope it wasn't too bad.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 7, 2007)

VidPro said:


> yes i pulled it all out of my REALITY, which is my LED units have survived and put out more light WHERE i need it for less power, and about the same money as the florescents, with far less troubles, and that was before they got all extreeme efficency. (not the 5mm leds, they are still junk)
> 
> it aint gonna work in wall mart, but then i aint wallmart
> 
> ...



Again, you're comparing the state of the art LEDs against fluorescent system from the 70s. How about you compare them against the LEDs from the 70s, or compare the newest latest fluorescent technology with the newest LEDs?

Second question is is your LED setup putting out the same amount of light as the 3x 40Wx2 fixtures, which is 15,000 lumens+ ?



> -----------------------------------------
> http://articles.directorym.com/Outdoor_Lighting_Glossary-a800155.html
> Manufacturers use *3 hours per start for fluorescent lamps* and 10 hours per start for HID (High Intensity Discharge) lamps when performing lamp life testing procedures. Every lamp type has a unique mortality curve that depicts its average rated life.
> 
> ...


It's not fair to compare specific literature that applies to specialty type LEDs against general fluorescent literature.
Show me where you got the 166 hours figure. 



> umm yes do the math, the thing wont last 7 days doing the same thing that an led can last 3-5 YEARS doing.


To go with your reality idea, show me an application where a general lighting where the lamp is left on for a minute, turned off for 5 seconds, back on for a minute around the clock.



> ----------------------------
> ok so get the RIght ballast for the job, and tune the entire lighting , just like you would have to do with any efficency or electronic stuff
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/eep_fluor_ballast.html (more efficency specs of ballasts)
> 
> ...


You critique the ballast loss, but how about the LED driver loss? swith mode LED drivers gives off EMI as well and linear drivers have a lousy efficiency.

General Electric UltraMax system (UltraMax ballasts wtih preferred GE lamps) offer a system efficacy(inclusive of ballast loss) of 90+ lumens per watt and the setup gives off as much as 10,000 lumens for a 4 lamp setup.
http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...wnloads/UltraMaxInstantStartBallasts11x17.pdf

Osram-Sylvania Quicktronic QTP-PSX programmed start electronic ballast can make the lamp last through 100,000 starts.
http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003687364

Philips' latest long life lamp maintains 93% output after 40,000 hours and though it contains mercury, the amount is only 1.7mg per lamp. 
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5415.pdf

Where's the data that shows the LEDs you speak of not only lasts supposed 50,000 hours, but holds 93% or better output after 40,000 hours of use?



> http://www.macdailynews.com/index.p...ould_reduces_power_consumption_by_12_percent/
> (beware popups)
> Mackintosh computers , is going to start using Cree leds instead of florescent in thier displays, thinks they will SAVE 12% power? and have better color too?
> now we all know how long a backlight in a laptop can last, how long will the led? sure its all about Direction, because with the cold cathode they use, most of it is Wasted not getting to the screen.
> http://www.welovemacs.com/6614342.html


I thought the topic of the discussion was general lighting? I didn't say fluorescent is superior to LEDs. Fluorescent is superior to LEDs for general lighting in both performance and cost perspectives.




> gee geuss what lighting the PDAs use? florescent tubes? after all how are you going to run it off of battery? 6 white poor efficency leds is how. why not a CCFT?


That's not general lighting either.



> where did i get the Wattage specs? I have a meter  and a calculator, just bad at math
> But when questioned about that data previously, i showed 3 DIRECT From manufature data sheets From Phillips, that directally stated higher wattages than even i was reading. in the PDF data sheets for the bulbs they have input wattage ratings, and ALL were higher than the rating on the package. they stated thier 27W bulb used 32W input, which it did not, but that is thier data.


Input voltage and such affects power. What about data to support your LED system is not using more wattage than it should and is providing superior performance to fluorescent equivalent?



> i could not find again the data sheets on the actual input wattage, but here is thier TIME sheets
> http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/catalogs/marathon_brochure.pdf
> 10,000 hours , not even 20,000.
> 
> do the math again, if the light stays on for 16 hour days, and is not going on and off as NEEDED, that is less than 2 years of life, for bulbs rated at 7 years often, hmm sure seems like less than the 5 years a led puts out sufficient light, and the led doesnt warble and blacken , and strobe when dying, it just fades out the quantity of light.



Well you're talking about ballast integral CFLs, not a permanently installed CFL fixture. If LEDs fade in quantity of light, then it means you need to over-design the system, so that the quantity of light does not fall below the illumination output specified by the lighting engineer.



> mabey at 220V power there is less waste in the balasts?
> ---------------------------------------------


And where are you getting this non-sense? Many ballasts today can operate anywhere from from 120 to 277v on one unit and the efficiency remains about the same.



> price, i purchaced 57 1 Watt led luxeon emitters for only 1$ a piece , came out to about $60 bucks with shipping, have plunked down $13 and $7 for florescents that are now in the trash on that Same year. somewhere around the 21st century too  $60 still working , $45 bleeding mercury in some landfill now.
> 
> for some strage reason, the LEDs are still working, the CFLs went back to the manufacture (wonderfull warrenty) and they sent back ones that lasted 1/2 the time of the ones i sent them, heck they werent worth screwing in the socket, some totally defective hunk of overpriced trash. warrenty was as usefull as the product was to begin with, WHEN the product was improperly made.



I have had premature failure issues too with screw-in CFLs, especially the $0.99 variant. Now, try a T8 fixture with brand name lamps and a commercial grade ballast. They're very reliable. You'll see a few dead in stores, but like LEDs, anything can fail prematurely. The number of dead fluorescent lamps on the ceiling at major stores and such are statistically insignificant.



> as usual there is plusses and minuses and ramifications to every form of anything, but LED does have a good chance of being usefull for energy efficency in home area lighting. even using low efficency leds. my 80W cheap china led light, would blow away a pair of 40W florescents, in home area lighting, not to mention the halogen, and i can prove it, ipso facto, and i will just ignore the extra 14W the ballast looses , and present it running head to head, with pictures.



A two lamp 32W T8 fixture with standard instant electronic ballast drives the lamp to 88% output(called ballast factor) and uses about 60W. High end lamps are rated at 2900 lumens (after some 40% of useful life) which yields around 85 lumens per watt.

I really doubt your 80W cheap China LED light will ever produce 6800 lumens, let alone after 20,000 hours of use.

32W T8 is 4' long and are mostly used for commercial buildings and work shops, but it's also available in U shape. 

There's a 25W 3' version and 17W 2' version that offers not quite as good, but very competitive efficacy. 

basic two lamp F32T8 fixture with 5,000 lumen output from 60W is around $60 retail including the lamps. Show me an LED solution with a comparable initial cost. $60 initial cost to setup, then $7-8 retail cost to relamp the fixture some many years later.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 7, 2007)

hey Handlobraesing, show me your home area LED lighting.
we have many people in the forum doing it, lets see yours.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/174996
there is mine, cause i did it, instead of talked about it.
pluss i have 4 others, that were Culled from the forum, that have been in place gee must be before the 21st century 

gee does that mean that LED HOME lighting is a "Reality" :twothumbs
just mabey it could be. and its output surprised ME, being an advocate of CFL and florescent.

well i will put my light head to head, with cheap leds to a florescent in a few days, you show us your unit head to head too, ok?
i can also show you my led kitchen which has been in play for 4-5 years, with declining output indeed, but still completly functional and doing the job.
so what do you have, got a few under the counter leds even? mabey a desk light in leds, ANYTHING?


the house here employs:
12 long tube florescents bulbs and 7 balasts, most electronic, 4 on relayed motion sencors, 2 on triac motion sencors 6 obsoleted (at least temporarily)
5 Round tube circle lights florescent, 2 on relayed motion sencors, 3 manuel operated
29 CFL bulbs many very low power ones because of vanity fixtures, some huge 45W (150w output) about 8 are screwed out because they are too bright. 19 on motion sencors, and 5 on delayed turnoff, 4 manuel
12 reflector incadescents , 8 on motion sencors 
5 regular incadescents , 2 on dimmers
25 candelabra halogens all on dimmers , 3 Also are on motion sencors too, 8 obsolete (temporarily)
2 regular halogens 
47 high powered leds, and 178 5mm leds on motion sencors 10 of them on dimmer.

ALL of them in the HOME, so i guess if i had a bias, i must be messing up 

i dont doubt that lumens per watt, florescent blows away leds, not to mention COLOR. the lumens dont LAND anywhere usefull, great light in the back of the fixture , lets look into the fixture to find it. or its 10 feet up in a vaulted ceiling showing off the cobwebs  while us humans are down here. isnt it amasing how bright the roof is in stores , mabey they should invert the store.

you gonna tell me that 80 1 Watt flashlights wont light up the same thing as 2x40w bulbs in ya home.

where is a long tube florescent gonna work in ya average home, with these style designers now days? in a quansit hut.


----------



## David_Web (Nov 8, 2007)

VidPro said:


> isnt it amasing how bright the roof is in stores , mabey they should invert the store.



I'm sorry but I just had to quote that.
I don't have time right now but I will explain later exactly how it works and why they do that. The point is not to debate but show you how it works.
And again I am not here to do fluorescent vs LED. Just to straighten the facts out.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 8, 2007)

VidPro said:


> hey Handlobraesing, show me your home area LED lighting.
> we have many people in the forum doing it, lets see yours.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/174996
> ...



I don't do LED general lighting. What are you trying to accomplish? 

The efficacy merit between incandescent and fluorescent is great and the life difference is also great. Improving 15lm/W of incandescent six fold to 90 LPW is significant, but remember once you approach cost difference becomes less and less significant.

8mpg to 35mpg would have a lesser gain factor than 35mpg to 250mpg, but the actual saving is greater.

Just what do you hope to merit from using LEDs for general lighting?

Do you anticipate performance merits at the same cost?
Do you anticipate substantial total cost of ownership merits?

Do you anticipate it to offer cost benefits that outweighs the high initial cost?



> gee does that mean that LED HOME lighting is a "Reality" :twothumbs
> just mabey it could be. and its output surprised ME, being an advocate of CFL and florescent.
> well i will put my light head to head, with cheap leds to a florescent in a few days, you show us your unit head to head too, ok?


I could put a 1975 2 x 40W fixture head to head with a 75W light bulb and say that they can both light up the same space to an acceptable level. That doesn't show anything about the ability to bring up the area to same illumination level.



> i can also show you my led kitchen which has been in play for 4-5 years, with declining output indeed, but still completly functional and doing the job.
> so what do you have, got a few under the counter leds even? mabey a desk light in leds, ANYTHING?


Many fluorescent fixtures are not very efficient, because they're still the same 1970s fixtures. Doesn't that say something about their reliability? 

Fluorescent - doesn't do well when cycled frequently on motion detector.
Incandescents do very well at that.
LEDs are more efficient than incandescents at that.

Well, if you're cutting down usage to 25 minutes of on-time a day, such as in the case of a laundry room on motion sensor, quadrupling the efficiency won't yield any gain. 



> the house here employs:
> 12 long tube florescents bulbs and 7 balasts, most electronic, 4 on relayed motion sencors, 2 on triac motion sencors 6 obsoleted (at least temporarily)
> 5 Round tube circle lights florescent, 2 on relayed motion sencors, 3 manuel operated
> 29 CFL bulbs many very low power ones because of vanity fixtures, some huge 45W (150w output) about 8 are screwed out because they are too bright. 19 on motion sencors, and 5 on delayed turnoff, 4 manuel
> ...


And when you break out your calculator,does your 5 year total cost of ownership of this complex setup come out ahead on the book compared to doing it the traditional way?

If not, does it offer substantial OUTPUT advantage over the traditional way? 




> ALL of them in the HOME, so i guess if i had a bias, i must be messing up
> 
> i dont doubt that lumens per watt, florescent blows away leds, not to mention COLOR. the lumens dont LAND anywhere usefull, great light in the back of the fixture , lets look into the fixture to find it. or its 10 feet up in a vaulted ceiling showing off the cobwebs  while us humans are down here. isnt it amasing how bright the roof is in stores , mabey they should invert the store.


Many architectual lighting uses this to advantage. The fixture is slightly suspended from the ceiling and the light from top provides indirect lighting, light from bottom provides direct lighting to provide a good mix. 

LED would cast a strong shadow, not desirable at home.



> you gonna tell me that 80 1 Watt flashlights wont light up the same thing as 2x40w bulbs in ya home.



No. If 1W LED gives off 40lm, you get around 3200 lumen. That's around half the output of 2 x 40W system and if you think that's adequate, then the answer is 2x F32T8/25W ES on a low ballast factor ballast only consuming some 45W. 



> where is a long tube florescent gonna work in ya average home, with these style designers now days? in a quansit hut.



There's also ceramic metal halide, D shaped, circline and U shaped fluorescent lamps in addition to CFL dedicated fixtures.


----------



## jeffosborne (Nov 8, 2007)

Wow, what an inspiring debate!

Hey Handlobraesing, are you a lighting salesman? You sure seem to have many lighting statistics at your fingertips. Or are you researching as you go? I am an electronic design engineer, we make electronic voting systems (don't EVER trust electronic systems for voting for elections, by the way) What do you do for a living?

VidPro, I too have many LEDs lighting my home, mostly in a secondary way. I have 12 lights currently, with battery backup and a solar panel on the roof charging the battery. I admire the work you have done. Thanks for taking the time to share it with us!

Namaste,

Jeff O.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 8, 2007)

what do i hope to gain, hmmm. playing with leds, proving concepts like direct drive (well almost), and reducing inefficiencies, testing led longevity vrses data sheet uselessness. 

hey i got a plan, show me the 4 foot florecent tube that is 120-180* instead of 360*. that might be a brillinat patent idea, make a florescent tube that is one half the power, and only puts out 1/2 the light in a more directional way. the same thing could be used for spirals that crash into themselves. it would be brilliant , make billions.

if you dont have a LED home lighting, then WHO is comparing apples and oranges? you have no oranges 
who is pulling data of the reality of home LED lighting out of thier buttox? Mwa?

*And when you break out your calculator,does your 5 year total cost of ownership of this complex setup come out ahead on the book compared to doing it the traditional way?*

what the heck are you talking about? the house is built, that is how many frickin bulbs it uses, the designer designed it to be "traditional", all i have ever tried to do was convert the bloody mess they made into more efficent, *WITH florecents*, and NO the CFLs werent worth the money i spent, vrses the power saved nor were incadescents when they had to be replaced so often, the Long tube florescents were. the halogen was, and the led is, the halogen doesnt save any power.

and what is this stuff about 1970s florescents, Hello the house was built post 1998 , and mostly had incadescent in it. ya cause THAT is the tradition.

what the heck is the complex setup? the stupid house designs they use, its not a quansit hut, its a home, i have said that. its not a grocery store, its not a storage area. its average for most of these homes, i can look in the windows of all of them, and i dont see a 4 foot tube dangling off the ceiling 

CLFs were rediculously priced when they first came out, i used them because they worked and saved microbes of energy. we paid $7-$25 for them then, none of those are operational now.
the COST of Led bulbs now is rediculous, dont you think it will eventually go down like everything?

the multiarrays that they put in "Style" houses are not ameniable to ploping 4 or 8 foot florescent tubes into, cause i would be the first to do it. shove a 4foot tube into a hanging light would be great 360* light comming out, it just isnt done.

multi candelabra bulbs in normal incadescent dont last very long at all, continually they die.
Halogen candelabras worked wonderfull compartitivly but they cost a lot
CFL candelabras that are available in 7W which can compare to the 25W of incan, fail miserably, and cost a lot, tried both brands, they were completly useless waste of money.

Multi arrays of lighting like vanities, and candelabra, which are trying to mimic the 1700s candles are likley to exist, i am surprised in some style house they arent trying to mimic Gas lighting 
IF a proper LEd bulb was made for these multiarray devices , it would be reasonably practical, especially at the cost of $2 a bulb. and it could be about the right light output, and it would far outlast the present small florescent candelabras. you show me a USEable candelabra florecent that dims, and lives even 1 year.

the bathroom Vanities, with the multi array of Incan (originally) can easily be replaced with a gaudy florescent tube, the "utility" bathroom already uses that method.
when i put multi arrays of USABLE CLFs into the vanity, its to bright, and they have to be unscrewed.
in THAT situation, Many 4-5W Quad cree run below spec (lasting for many years) globes , would be usable. the lower power vanity bulbs died, they arent made well. besides being doubble frosted, our term for putting a soft bulb behind a soft difusser.

in the bathroom again, are these "artsy" brass and beveld glass fixtures, CFLs Fit into the fixture, but they get hit with a lot of heat up there, one actually died a smokey sparkey death, multi array 5mm lights also cant take the heat. but the SAME fixture, is a perfect heatsinc for flat laying 120-180* high powered leds. potentially without changing the fixture or the artsy garbage, a person could put an efficent long lasting light in there.
sure there is the clunkey gaudy buzzing strobing large tube ROUND florecent fixtures that would replace it, problem is we seen them in the motel6  that is bad.

Multi array 5mm leds are useless junk, although they do fit the situation of the multi-bulb stuff, they dont last, they are dull, and usually use garbage leds, 5mm leds have a lifetime that is rediculously short compared to even ya old crusty luxI high powered leds, or even cheap china high powered leds.
the only practical way i can figure to replace multi-array BULB items, not fixtures is with multi underdriven high powered leds. underdriven they will last much longer. 

anyone who TRIES multi array 5mm leds would figure that led is useless for home lighting, the ones i tried are , just like the CFLs we plunked down huge sums for when they first came out.

LEDs DO cast a strong shadow, AND they dont bounce light off of things like wood colored items, making for even more shadowey areas, but they can be pointed. like in the kitchen, an array had to be aimed slightly so you could see into the cupboards, now i can see what is In the cupboard, better then with the stupidly designed florescent array. you know the ones 500,000 lumens stuffed in a box up in the ceiling, with a 30% light killing diffuser.

then houses use these "recessed lighting" stuff, bulb stuff up into a can, CFLs overheat in the cans unless you can get the ballast above the can, like they do with the industial ones, but it still doesnt solve the fact that they are still recessed in a can, reflection or not, the magic lumens dont leave the can, and when they do they slam the floor. fixing the recessed lighting with proper usable florescent means replacing the whole fixture. which i am sure would be a worthy adventure , but ya data sheet lumens will have no value still, because the thing is stuffed.

hey i dont design the house, cause i would be the first one to prefer living in a quansit hut. but houses are not Shops or garages, some person spends $3000-9000 on a sofa, and they wont have trouble spending $40 on a light, any more than We here wont have trouble spending $500 on a surefire.

guess your preaching to the wrong crowd, $300 flashlight anyone 

ya and by the way i DO pay more then 30c per kilowatt for the overusage of power the first few kilowatts are at mere 11 cents , but 200% of basline costs .317 cents. every microbe of energy SAVED is the power that didnt go over the baseline. PLUS if i can save 20% power for the previous year, i get one more reduction. because i run electronics based business out of home, its always over baseline. every kilowatt saved here is 31.7Cents i think it was about 35c for a few years during and after the enron scandal.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 9, 2007)

VidPro said:


> what do i hope to gain, hmmm. playing with leds, proving concepts like direct drive (well almost), and reducing inefficiencies, testing led longevity vrses data sheet uselessness.



Ok, that's great as a hobby. Practicality, total cost of ownership and warranty aren't a factor for hobbies. 



> hey i got a plan, show me the 4 foot florecent tube that is 120-180* instead of 360*. that might be a brillinat patent idea, make a florescent tube that is one half the power, and only puts out 1/2 the light in a more directional way. the same thing could be used for spirals that crash into themselves. it would be brilliant , make billions.


Who came up with 1/2 figure? Again, you can't compare the best LEDs against any fluorescent system. You choose whatever LED system, I choose whatever fluorescent system. I'll try to be fair and let you use the best commercially feasible LED solution. Not counting the most basic, most light sources are intended to be used with a fixture. 
How about 82.7%*1 source-to-output ratio for fluorescent system?

I'm a strong fluorescent advocate and I had to research that on the spot, but that's data to back up my claim. What I ask from you, data, data and more data. 



> if you dont have a LED home lighting, then WHO is comparing apples and oranges? you have no oranges
> who is pulling data of the reality of home LED lighting out of thier buttox? Mwa?


Since when is ownership a requirement? I have a computer. I have an internet connection and I have research skills. I even put an effort to make sure I spell things right. 



> *And when you break out your calculator,does your 5 year total cost of ownership of this complex setup come out ahead on the book compared to doing it the traditional way?*
> 
> what the heck are you talking about? the house is built, that is how many frickin bulbs it uses, the designer designed it to be "traditional", all i have ever tried to do was convert the bloody mess they made into more efficent, *WITH florecents*, and NO the CFLs werent worth the money i spent, vrses the power saved nor were incadescents when they had to be replaced so often, the Long tube florescents were. the halogen was, and the led is, the halogen doesnt save any power.


Philips' T8 Alto Plus gives around 3,000 lumens new and more or less holds around 2800 for the most of its life as shown in the previous data source I provided. Combine with the most efficient ballast system and you can get around 90 lumens per watt. Put it together with an 83% fixture and you get 74 lumens output from the fixture for every watt from the power line.

It isn't direct drive, but the latest electronic ballast would maintain constant wattage within +/- 10% of fluctuation. You're using some of the best available LED figures, I'm using figures for high end commercial grade ballasts.



> and what is this stuff about 1970s florescents, Hello the house was built post 1998 , and mostly had incadescent in it. ya cause THAT is the tradition.


The T12 technology you mentioned hasn't really changed much since the 70s, they're CHEAP fluorescent setup.



> what the heck is the complex setup? the stupid house designs they use, its not a quansit hut, its a home, i have said that. its not a grocery store, its not a storage area. its average for most of these homes, i can look in the windows of all of them, and i dont see a 4 foot tube dangling off the ceiling


Slippery slope. I can say the same about LED fixtures. 



> CLFs were rediculously priced when they first came out, i used them because they worked and saved microbes of energy. we paid $7-$25 for them then, none of those are operational now.
> the COST of Led bulbs now is rediculous, dont you think it will eventually go down like everything?


Is it that much of a burden for you to put an ounce of effort into making your writing presentable? 



> the multiarrays that they put in "Style" houses are not ameniable to ploping 4 or 8 foot florescent tubes into, cause i would be the first to do it. shove a 4foot tube into a hanging light would be great 360* light comming out, it just isnt done.
> 
> multi candelabra bulbs in normal incadescent dont last very long at all, continually they die.
> Halogen candelabras worked wonderfull compartitivly but they cost a lot
> CFL candelabras that are available in 7W which can compare to the 25W of incan, fail miserably, and cost a lot, tried both brands, they were completly useless waste of money.


Uh. Say waht?. 1



> Multi arrays of lighting like vanities, and candelabra, which are trying to mimic the 1700s candles are likley to exist, i am surprised in some style house they arent trying to mimic Gas lighting
> IF a proper LEd bulb was made for these multiarray devices , it would be reasonably practical, especially at the cost of $2 a bulb. and it could be about the right light output, and it would far outlast the present small florescent candelabras. you show me a USEable candelabra florecent that dims, and lives even 1 year.


Justify the initial cost of LED setup with a 5 year cost of ownership calculation assuming it's used in the same usage pattern as the incandescent setup. Further, show me an LED setup backed with a 3 year or better warranty to ensure that the large initial investment is protected. 



> the bathroom Vanities, with the multi array of Incan (originally) can easily be replaced with a gaudy florescent tube, the "utility" bathroom already uses that method.
> when i put multi arrays of USABLE CLFs into the vanity, its to bright, and they have to be unscrewed.
> in THAT situation, Many 4-5W Quad cree run below spec (lasting for many years) globes , would be usable. the lower power vanity bulbs died, they arent made well. besides being doubble frosted, our term for putting a soft bulb behind a soft difusser.
> 
> ...


LEDs do have their place in decorative lighting, but efficiency isn't a huge question on them.

"buzzing strobing large tube round fluorescent fixtures"? Again, you're comparing old school design fluorescent with modern LEDs.



> hey i dont design the house, cause i would be the first one to prefer living in a quansit hut. but houses are not Shops or garages, some person spends $3000-9000 on a sofa, and they wont have trouble spending $40 on a light, any more than We here wont have trouble spending $500 on a surefire.
> 
> guess your preaching to the wrong crowd, $300 flashlight anyone


a $10K sofa offers them status and looks luxurious. What aesthetic advantages do the LED fixtures offer? What economical advantages do they offer?(economic advantage as in 5 yr ownership cost, including the initial cost) 



> ya and by the way i DO pay more then 30c per kilowatt for the overusage of power the first few kilowatts are at mere 11 cents , but 200% of basline costs .317 cents. every microbe of energy SAVED is the power that didnt go over the baseline. PLUS if i can save 20% power for the previous year, i get one more reduction. because i run electronics based business out of home, its always over baseline. every kilowatt saved here is 31.7Cents i think it was about 35c for a few years during and after the enron scandal.


And some people trade-in their cars to get a Prius for gas mileage over the illusion of cost savings or they're affluent tree huggers.

Again, as I said before, justify and demonstrate the alleged savings with a cost chart. The package most likely claims 50,000 hrs, but if it doesn't have good warranty and have history to backup it likely won't be non-existent five years later, you can't assume it will be trouble free. 

http://led.section9tech.com/led.html
There are products like what they offer, but they're marketing gimmicks. All they offer are high prices, claims after claims and illusion of savings like the typical 3AM infomercials. 

50,000 hrs life claim, 1 year warranty and they are targeting both residential and commercial customers. I'm not sure if you knew, but the big three lamp companies (GE, Philips and Sylvania) are offering something like 36mo/10,000 hr warranty on LAMPS even though the rated life is something like 20 to 36K hrs and these lamps are $1.50 to $3.00/ea depending on type. 

They don't say anything about the lumen output or power input. The lamp is over $60+ each and it takes a weird wiring, so when you consider the cost of rewiring, that thing is nothing but a waste of money for buyers. 



1. http://www.hew.com/specification/42824.PDF


----------



## VidPro (Nov 9, 2007)

well 2 more of 5 CFLs are dead in the bathroom (6 total because one is incadescent, same incan that came with the house).
guess a data sheet isnt going to save them.

here is the sound of a 2006 45 watt CFL that costs me $8 model ES42
http://home.comcast.net/~trivalvid/45WCFLsound.wav
this bulb ballast has a few hours runtime on it, and uses a relayed motion sencor, so it is FULL on. the other similar bulb does NOT make this sound, it is on half wave motion sencor, and is of a different brand

its out in the garage, so i could frankly care less what it sounds like, and the dead CFLs in the bathroom arent needed anyway. 

i ONLY noticed the stuff because i am wondering "*what the heck is going on*" that is the only reason i notice , but its so funny how were discussing this this week, and it was this week that i ran headlong into it AGAIN.

the bathrooms doubble frosted CFLs in the vanity fixtures are 11W and 14W put out tons of light , are from 5-6 different manufactures, as purchaced at different times, and every brand and type so far has died a very early death. You see i would KNOW if one had lasted, and its brand, because it would still WORK, it would still be up there doing what it does. 
i dont understand what kind of science and data sheet is required to look at a fixture of 6&8 CFL bulbs and see 3 are still running. 
like i mentioned 1/2 of them get unscrewed because it is to bright, then as One DIES another is screwed in, in eventuality i have to go buy more and start all over again. a dead bulb in a functional socket, doesnt seem to require rocket science or a PDF to figure out.

the power consumption on startup and run, does require a meter, so will people with meters do a little testing? i know what i read, and my meter is fairly accurate.
Electrical contractors know that about 10TIMES the power of the curcuit is required at the startup MOMENT of florescents, you can hear the Crack across your switch when you turn them on. 
There are Graphs of the startup power vrses the run power, that plays into the efficency of very short turn-ons for florescents, this stuff is completly meterable, if somone thinks i am pulling info out of my butt, it would help if somone who has a scope or a meter, or knows what a 10amp crack across a switch sounds like would speak up.

i cant verify or quantify a data sheet to a reality, when the reality isnt even listed in the data sheet, you dont believe my testing, which was ONLY done for my own purposes, and was only done because i couldnt figure out "What the heck is going on".


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 10, 2007)

VidPro said:


> There are Graphs of the startup power vrses the run power, that plays into the efficency of very short turn-ons for florescents, this stuff is completly meterable, if somone thinks i am pulling info out of my butt, it would help if somone who has a scope or a meter, or knows what a 10amp crack across a switch sounds like would speak up.
> 
> i cant verify or quantify a data sheet to a reality, when the reality isnt even listed in the data sheet, you dont believe my testing, which was ONLY done for my own purposes, and was only done because i couldnt figure out "What the heck is going on".



You're speaking of inrush current from when the capacitor charges. Do you know what the input end of a CFL is like? It's exactly like your LED system. bridge then cap, makes 170V DC rail. 

The inrush lasts how long? 1/30 seconds or so. 1/30 secs * 1,000kW = how much energy? around 33 joules or 33W light bulb for one second. You have to do it 3,600 times before you'd match the energy usage of a 33W bulb for an hour.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 10, 2007)

yes, my LEd light has capacitors that have to charge up too, exacally like your saying, and when you turn it off, it slowly declines in output.

i was just mentioning that because they do hard start, and there is a chart IF i could find it that shows exactally what that hard start costs, i just couldnt find it. it was not neglagable for short runs, it was significiant.

again, in an HOUR , what hour? i am not IN the rooms or need the light for an hour, so the Hour is not a concideration. i am trying to gain overall efficency , and Playing with the ideas of that. if the light is on for an hour, and needed for 8 minutes, what is the efficency percentage on that?


----------



## dirckj (Nov 10, 2007)

Is there some honest data about the reduction in brightness/life of CFLs for typical home use? Of course, the operative word is typical, but for me, typical means several on/off cycles of only a couple minutes plus a few cycles of maybe half an hour. Specifically, in my kitchen the daily use probably amounts to:

10 cycles of 1 minute
5 cycles of 5 minutes
3 cycles of 1 hour

How would this compare to 1 cycle of 3 hours and 35 minutes per day?


----------



## VidPro (Nov 10, 2007)

dirckj said:


> Is there some honest data about the reduction in brightness/life of CFLs for typical home use? Of course, the operative word is typical, but for me, typical means several on/off cycles of only a couple minutes plus a few cycles of maybe half an hour. Specifically, in my kitchen the daily use probably amounts to:
> 
> 10 cycles of 1 minute
> 5 cycles of 5 minutes
> ...


 
reduction in brightness, would be based on time, the 8-10,000 hours, because that is the life of the phosphors. phosphor degridation is only ever a time ON issue 

life of the bulb  and its curcuit garbage.
i put a CFL outside with a dusk to dawn sencor, so it runs 8-12 hours every night, and it lasted more than a year, that is a good 4000+ hours some 3000 hours longer than a incan, and 2000 hours longer than a halogen in an incan bulb shape. depending on the bulb type and all of course.

put one where is it switched on and off 20+ times a day, for a few minutes, and its good for 3 months or so, shorter than any incan or halogen, cept mabey those small incans.

so your leaving the light on for 3+ hours, instead of all the short cycles , the whole bulb item itself would last as long as it would need to. switch it on and off throughout the day, and it will die sooner, not get Dimmer, cause it will DIE long before phosphor degredation is an issue.

so then all you have to do is calculate how much you pay for power, how much power it uses, and how much it cost. 

and of course the quality of the bulb makes a difference, but i cant guess which one is quality, Lights of america big round tube 32w bulb replacement was wonderfull, the same companies tight spiral and quad stick tube bulbs were trash.
you can get a Phillips and it will die a short death, and turn around and get a $1 spiral and it could last for a year. its a roulette wheel, not even a crap shoot, at least in craps you get 7-1 odds  there is no pattern that i can figure other than Long Tube and Faux longtubes like circles and half circles last MUCH longer when switched on and off. it must have to do with the curcuit on the CompactFL and how its jammed together and small. the doubble frosted, or "encased" spiral and short tubes i have tried have more problems than open spirals.


----------



## Daekar (Nov 10, 2007)

I hate to interrupt the love-fest that's going on here, but I had a few small items to contribute... certainly nothing on the technical level that you guys are talking about but it might be interesting nonetheless.

1) VidPro - you do seem to be getting very poor lifespan out of your CFLs, and it seems to me that you're aware of why - they're constantly switched on and off (please correct if I'm wrong). It is my feeling that with the kind of experience you have, you should be able to calculate whether it is worth the cost of a CFL or incan based on the comparative lifespan of CFL/Incan and their energy consumption during predicted use. I have no numbers to back it up, but I would suspect that LED technology may not have matured to the point the energy savings would offset the initial investment as compared to an incan over a reasonable period of time. If I am incorrect and you have specific examples, please post the technical/cost data as others would no doubt be interested in their own applications of that technology.

2) I was trying to account for the poor performance of light fixtures as experienced by VidPro in a way other than the ratio of on/off cycles to runtime, and the only things I could think of were some kind of weird grounding issue, or dirty power. But I don't think those are it as there might be other symptoms to both. Comments?

3) I have... let me count... 8 CFLs (down from 10) I bought when they first become mainstream about 5 years ago, and their survival rate has been exemplary. I lost one 100W equiv. to overheating issues (the tube actually cracked and showed charring) when placed in a lamp which should've been OK for it. One 60W equiv. burned out a month or two ago. That's it, the rest are still ticking, with (as far as my eyeball-o-meter can tell) no significant loss of brightness. My usage pattern tends to be for longer periods of time than VidPro has posted however, with the shortest time one would _usuall_y be turned on landing somewhere in the 10-minute area, and most of the time far longer. It should be noted that the technology was still relatively new at that time and the bulbs were of corresponding refinement and price - as in, unrefined and expensive.

4) I recently bought some CFL replacements for some of the pointy-ellipse type bulbs that you see in light/fan combination fixtures, and noticed that they don't come on at full brightness - they come on maybe half-dimmed and over a period of maybe 10-15 seconds increase in intensity to full. It annoyed me at first but now I like it because its easy on the eyes. Could this be a recent implementation to alleviate both the possibility of overloading a small-wired decorative fixture and the damage of hard-starting?


----------



## VidPro (Nov 10, 2007)

yup. you see nobody ever turns a light on or off around here. so there is not the standard manuel delay  associated with a human, who might get around to turning it off if they think about it, and always turns it on when needed. you know the human who figures they turned off that light after a few minutes, when it really was 4 hours, those humans 

the "house" thinks it knows what it is doing, and literally, you walk through the house, and lights turn on before you get there, and turn off behind you. didnt anybody watch "the paper man" that is always my referance to it.
every sencor has been calibrated and gets "masked" off and the most approprite sencor was chosen for the room or area.
in so much, that a Bed (for example) will be masked so the second you step off the bed, the light turns on, but it wont turn on when your in the bed.
even the bathroom fans automatically turn on and after the person leaves, airs out the bathroom and shuts itself off. i am still working on the autoflusing terlit  people are alwasy surprised when they walk through, but they Never try and reach for a light switch.

then of course there are dimmers for the lights that sencors dont or wont or wouldnt want to be on.

because of that the Halls and "walkthrough" areas (10 second on/off) are still stuck with halogen lighting, then the half wave rectification of motion sencors and controllers reaks havoc on the CFL. but they arent ALL on half wave, some are on relay based.

and that would be exactally why the next trick will be LEDs. while leds would love to turn on and off, i still would wonder about the bloody curcuit stuff. the low voltage led motion sencor i designed for the leds work ok non stop, has light sencor, only turns on when needed, but has minor issues. if the same people who make CFLs , make LED bulbs, then i better figure out how to make more AC curcuits for leds.


----------



## hank (Nov 10, 2007)

VidPro, what's a "sencor" -- is it a motion sensor? microwave? infrared?


----------



## VidPro (Nov 10, 2007)

hank said:


> VidPro, what's a "sencor" -- is it a motion sensor? microwave? infrared?


 
it must be something i spelled wrong 
i think most of them are "passive infrared" long ago you could get them to replace a normal wall switch, they have many styles now.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00032ATV0/?tag=cpf0b6-20
like that thing

then some stuff requires a full on relay and different placement, or much wider coverage, so i use stuff like
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HM9L7Y/?tag=cpf0b6-20
that thing.

simple electrical tape will mask out dogs, specific areas or to set the zone


----------



## VidPro (Nov 11, 2007)

http://www.eaglelight.com/c=iYIZaEP...M-24-120V/4_Foot_Fluorescent_Replacement.html

here is another one of them florescent replacement things $85 in a 4 foot.
it doesnt explain much about it, 8 watts
in fact what they do say, is incorrect mostly, but it beats the price on the $600 one 
because it uses multi 5mm, i would be the last one to get one, but its interesting.

they also have mondo heatsink designed for Can lights 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000YIWAOC/?tag=cpf0b6-20
funny how they call them CAN lights, when that is what they ARE, and we call them that as an insult


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 11, 2007)

VidPro said:


> http://www.eaglelight.com/c=iYIZaEP...M-24-120V/4_Foot_Fluorescent_Replacement.html
> 
> here is another one of them florescent replacement things $85 in a 4 foot.
> it doesnt explain much about it, 8 watts
> ...



They're full of crap. The range of available color temperature just doesn't make sense 
"Color Temperature 4000-45000K"


"Lumens 1000"
That's around 1/3 the output of a 4' lamp.

8W... well that translates to 125lm/W. Unrealistically high. 

"Life Span 50,000 hours"
This means little when they won't back it with a multi-year warranty like they do for fluorescent.

"Length 60 CM" that's equivalent to 2', not 4'

Currently, fluorescent lamps are capable of around 100 lumens/watt, $3-4 ea, and 26,000+ hrs life even with relatively frequent starting. 

It will be hard to justify the cost of buying an LED equivalent to produce 3,000 lumens 

Let's blow it out of reality and assign 200lm/W for LED and assume they will last 50,000 hrs

3,000 lm output fluorescent, 100lm/W $3 ea, 36,000 hrs
0.03kW x 36,000 hrs = 1080kWh used per lamp =$64.80+$3 per 36K hours of use @ 6cents/kWh.
$67.80/36,000 hrs of use

3,000 lm output LEDs, 200lm/W $60 ea, 50,000 hrs
0.015kW x 36,000 hrs = 640kWh used per lamp 
$32.40+$43.2(72% of $60, to represent 36k hrs of use) 

$75.60/36,000 hrs of use. For commercial installation where $57 additional cost per lamp would significantly affect the cost of project, add $8/lamp for interest expense.

$75.60-$67.80 = loss ($7.80)/lamp
$83.60-$67.80 = loss ($15.80)/lamp, initial cost difference between LED & fluorescent financed @ 7% APR for 2yrs

Realistically a small business owner with 60 lamps can probably pay $180 + labor on the spot, but $3,600 + labor...hmmmm financing more than likely. 

If we're talking about commercial property, it's even less effective. $57 ea (the difference in cost between LED vs fluroescent lamp) x 60 lamps (number you'd see in something like classroom)

$57 x 60 = $3420 extra cost for lamps. 

$3420 financed for two years at 7% APR = add $8/lamp for cost of financing.

Conclusion. Even at 200lm/W, the LED does not prove to be economically viable at 6 cents / kWh.


----------



## Juctuc (Nov 12, 2007)

I think that those fluorescent replacement with 5mm leds are not answers to home lighting!.Its not going to last very long!...

But anyway..You will get high lm/w from the fluorescent,but part of the light is going to wrong direction.At least in the under cabinet lighting...

The lumenoutput is with 360 angle,but you will need about 180 or less in the lighting at home, so you dont need 100lm/w to get light what you need.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 12, 2007)

Juctuc said:


> I think that those fluorescent replacement with 5mm leds are not answers to home lighting!.Its not going to last very long!...
> 
> But anyway..You will get high lm/w from the fluorescent,but part of the light is going to wrong direction.At least in the under cabinet lighting...
> 
> The lumenoutput is with 360 angle,but you will need about 180 or less in the lighting at home, so you dont need 100lm/w to get light what you need.



They have T5 fixtures for under cabinet these days which uses 0.63" diameter tube. It's easier to make more efficient reflector with a smaller light source and the T5 allows lower profile.

Under cabinet is one of the places LED is pretty good for. 

For ceiling fixture, even though the light comes out 360degrees, the fixture data I showed earlier says the 83% of total tube light is directed down. The fixture is not painted black, ya know.


----------



## knabsol (Nov 12, 2007)

Right now it feels like they are two different things. On one hand we have the flourescent lightsources which were made for space lightning in homes and industries. And so have we created our home lightning demands out of them and incandescent ones.
LEDs on the other hand was and still is and indication light. At least most packages that they come from is from that, except the high power ones maybe.
I dont think LED will be much of home lightning until the technology is more efficient and cheaper and gets adapted to home lightning instead of adapting the home lightning to the LEDs because that is too much work and money for not much gain(?) for the average consumer.


When they make larger dices with more light and power that works good without having to change the current setup I think we´ll see the rush.
Those who change it now are those who is interested in new technology and get a kick off it as myself  
Ofcourse it interests me and its a hobby for me. That´s my reason for running leds. And there are places that are ideal for them, light outdoor garden lightning where they are on mostly in the winter when the temp is below the freezing point.


Anyway, what LED lightning may give us is that we can create lightning for our needs instead of what lightsources we have. Like we probably created our lighting solutions for a buld or tube light. Soon maybe we can create the lightsources depending on how we use them.
It´s just my thoughts and hopes 
Cheers!


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 12, 2007)

There is no reason for using LED general lighting when the end result is not consistent with our final goal, that is long life, long lumen maintenance, low purchase cost and efficacy. 

For highly diffused light, fluorescent is leading

For focused high output lighting, metal halide is leading and its ballasting technology as well as the lamps are rising. They have 400Hz electronic HID ballasts(with less loss than coil and core) and ceramic tube lamps with higher color rendition and better lumen maintenance.

LEDs are strong for colored lights, such as signages and traffic lights.

I don't know why die hard LED advocates can't just move on and accept the fact LEDs have their perks, but aren't for general purpose illumination.


----------



## knabsol (Nov 12, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> There is no reason for using LED general lighting when the end result is not consistent with our final goal, that is long life, long lumen maintenance, low purchase cost and efficacy.
> 
> For highly diffused light, fluorescent is leading
> 
> ...




I agree though there are ofcourse special purposes for LEDs, where you need a less amount of light or maybe where you´re not allowed or possible to have high voltage or heat.

The die hard led advocates burns for this and thinks is the future, and maybe it is, and with their energy and passion we´ll move this technology forward. If we didnt have all passionate people testing new things we would still be at stone age 
If we preach about jesus or other religions we can sure preach about leds, though leds have more diagrams and charts 

Tomorrow we´ll wonder why the die hard flourescents people dont give up their technology and go to leds or whatever may come.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 12, 2007)

knabsol said:


> If we didnt have all passionate people testing new things we would still be at stone age



That's true, but the difference is that we're much much closer to theoretical limit than before.

If we could only purify certain compound to 20% purity in 1800, but can purify to 30%, the difference is significant. Now, if we can purify the same thing to 99.999% in 2007, being able to purify to 99.99999999% in 2020 wouldn't have that much of a merit w/o an application that would merit from it. 

It's the whole folding in half theory. You're still halving it, but the difference between steps becomes smaller with each fold.


----------



## knabsol (Nov 12, 2007)

Yeah you´re right. 
But trying to drive it as far as we can we have to try new things and that leads to new ideas that changes everything. One thing leads to another. We cant just stop and sit back and just say "well, it´s stupid to develop it more because it wont be better than that." but that´s just looking at the present horizon.
Instead of purifing things more maybe something completely different gives an whole new ground.

But I really agree on what you say, we cannot look at one solution, then we will just keep folding it smallen and smaller and lock us up.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 12, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> I don't know why die hard LED advocates can't just move on and accept the fact LEDs have their perks, but aren't for general purpose illumination.


 
well remember i have that slight problem of it being installed for 4-5 years now, and it working fine. then i just added one more to see if it could possibly work as well.
it really would have been weird if i had started with doubble efficency leds too.

where do all the old luxeons go to die when people trade them for crees?


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 12, 2007)

VidPro said:


> well remember i have that slight problem of it being installed for 4-5 years now, and it working fine. then i just added one more to see if it could possibly work as well.
> it really would have been weird if i had started with doubble efficency leds too.
> 
> where do all the old luxeons go to die when people trade them for crees?



Probably the same place where old fluorescent lamps go when the building is demolished or when they retrofit them with newer T8 or T5 system.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 12, 2007)

from 100W to 16W , another florescent to led
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/179301

led lumens maintanace chart
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/ledlife.jpg
shows how worthless 5mm leds would be to any "investment" unfortunatly this isnt the BS data sheets from the led sellers but an operating led instead, and OLD one, because this chart has been being updated now for YEARS.

it also shows basically the same thing were getting here. with the 2 multi high powered led ,desk area lamps, which are on almost constantlly for 5 years now, but are often run at VERY low drives, because they can be dimmed down to needed light, my desk light actually be dimmed down to any level one would desire. using 1/2 the power of the halogen, putting out more visable light than the halogen did, but not as good of colors as the halogen.

my kitchen florescent here is not removed, the people here COULD turn it on ANY time they want, could you explain why they have never done that in 4-5 years?

looks like some people want More crasy color for thier home lighting
http://www.thevospad.com/gallery/gallery.htm
the wifey would proably have a fit, having to take a bath in a soft light lavender tub, with violet bubble bath 

http://www.mr-resistor.co.uk/products.aspx?g=20
Up lights down the hall, strange
http://www.mr-resistor.co.uk/products.aspx?g=10

heres a good one, a bathroom mirror
http://www.lunahomestore.com/acatalog/Solar_LED_Illuminated_Mirror.html
that gets its power from the florescent  by using solar.

wonder if florescent will fit in this fixture
http://www.allupandon.co.uk/images/page/wofi543824010000-500.jpg
mabey a T .007 ?


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 13, 2007)

VidPro said:


> from 100W to 16W , another florescent to led
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/179301


100W of fluorescent light figure was a wild guess, which he made clear and he also stated 16W of power was IGNORING wall-wart loss.

A T8 fluorescent fixture yields about 70 lumens out the fixture per power line watt. If we apply the 83% fixture efficiency factor, you'll get around 84 lumens/watt for lamps + ballast, which is a reasonable figure.

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightingAnswers/lat5/study1101.asp

RPI is a well respected institution in the lighting industry. 

Now that was from couple years ago. 

From 2001 Philips, catalog, their flagship 32W T8 lamp provides 3100lm out of the box, 2950 lm after 40% of rated life has been used. 
A typical ballast drives the lamps to produce 88% of the rated output. I don't know why, but it's just the way it is. See ballast specs from the lighting big three.

Premium efficiency ballast (latest Sylvania catalog) uses 55W to drive a pair of 32W lamps to 88% of their rated outputs.
http://dafnwebpd.sylvania.com/idmweb/doccontent.dll?LibraryName=ecomcspd^dafnctpd&SystemType=2&LogonId=24336eb12e8434055d6b0581cef0ad3d&DocId=003678734&Page=1

New lamps:
2(3100) x 0.88 /55 = 99.2LPW
After the lamps have seen about 10,000 hours:
2(2950) x 0.88 /55 = 94.4LPW

If you use the economy 25W lamps, you can break 100lm/W. 

If you assemble this setup into a 83% efficiency fixture, you will get 78 to 82 lumens of light leaving the fixture for every watt going into the fixture from the power line. If you use the latest, best T8 lamps, you'll do even better. I just happened to have a 2001 catalog, so I used that. 




> led lumens maintanace chart
> http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/ledlife.jpg
> shows how worthless 5mm leds would be to any "investment" unfortunatly this isnt the BS data sheets from the led sellers but an operating led instead, and OLD one, because this chart has been being updated now for YEARS.


See P31. T5 & T8 stomps on high power LEDs. 

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/ASSIST-LEDLife-revised2007.pdf



> it also shows basically the same thing were getting here. with the 2 multi high powered led ,desk area lamps, which are on almost constantlly for 5 years now, but are often run at VERY low drives, because they can be dimmed down to needed light, my desk light actually be dimmed down to any level one would desire. using 1/2 the power of the halogen, putting out more visable light than the halogen did, but not as good of colors as the halogen.


Fluorescent lights can be dimmed down too. These days, they can be dimmed below 1% of full output. Down to about 50%, the energy usage goes down proportionately. Consult Lutron Electronics if you have questions about this figure.

It's also proven from statistically significant samples that they live well over 20,000 hours with <10% failures in 24/7 operation. 

Wal-Mart, 4,500 samples from 1995 installation. >90% survival after 37,000 hrs
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/casestudies/p-5472.pdf

University of Washington, 4,000 samples from 1997 installation, >90% survival after 24,400 hrs 
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/casestudies/p-5479.pdf

And those lamps were technologies from 10-12 years ago and the data is from REAL world use of ~5 yrs. 
Got any proof of the similar kind on LED lights?



> my kitchen florescent here is not removed, the people here COULD turn it on ANY time they want, could you explain why they have never done that in 4-5 years?


They could, but would that make you feel good? The foundation of your argument is that people haven't used fluorescent and used your LEDs instead, therefore the LEDs must be better. 

This doesn't support anything on cost superiority or statistical reliability.



> wonder if florescent will fit in this fixture
> http://www.allupandon.co.uk/images/page/wofi543824010000-500.jpg
> mabey a T .007 ?


Is it that hard for you to put an ounce of effort to spell things correctly and use spell checker? We've agreed that LEDs are superb for decorative lighting. 

Remember "homes" isn't just houses. There are many renters. Programmed-start 46,000 hour lamp with the latest ballast is a very attractive option for property owners operating rental units on "utility included" basis. Program start + 46,000 hours means hardly any maintenance cost for lighting. High efficiency means reduced expenses.

So, until proven otherwise with credible case studies and data showing longevity, LEDs have no chance against linear fluorescent at this point in general purpose lighting in peformance, not even close in cost. 

The availability of Osram-Sylvania lamp-ballast 5 year warranty and a mere 1 year warranty on LED system makes them a complete joke for commercial general lighting.


----------



## uk_caver (Nov 13, 2007)

Whether or not LEDs start getting used for mainstream internal lighting (rather than in expanding niches), since LEDs are a growing business with competing manufacturers, they'll still have a load of money shovelled into improving their efficiency (and their colour rendition).

Eventually there may come a point where with improvements, someone sees a market for LEDs in mainstream lighting, starts making products, and consumers start buying them in volume.
However, other than the LED manufacturers doing what they'll be doing anyway, I'm not sure that that day would actually be advanced by anyone.
Once someone thinks they can make money from building consumer-level lighting products that enough people will want to buy, they'll make them.

However, on the point of diminishing returns from increased efficiency, while it's true that the actual power savings from future incremental efficiency improvements might not be great, that's not the only angle to look at things from, at least for compact light units.
To the extent heat can be a problem in design, it's worth remembering that for every improvement in efficiency, the reduction in heat generation per unit light output is always greater than the reduction in power consumption. That can have some definite implications for both simplicity/cheapness of design, and LED lifetime.
Excluding heat losses in the driving circuits, increase LED efficiency from 10% to 50%, and power consumption for the same output drops by a factor of 5, but heat output drops by a factor of 9.

All kinds of cheap designs could become practical as manufacturers drive efficiencies upwards.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 13, 2007)

uk_caver said:


> Whether or not LEDs start getting used for mainstream internal lighting (rather than in expanding niches), since LEDs are a growing business with competing manufacturers, they'll still have a load of money shovelled into improving their efficiency (and their colour rendition).
> 
> Eventually there may come a point where with improvements, someone sees a market for LEDs in mainstream lighting, starts making products, and consumers start buying them in volume.
> However, other than the LED manufacturers doing what they'll be doing anyway, I'm not sure that that day would actually be advanced by anyone.
> ...



Huh? A lighting fixture that uses 50W adds 50W of heat to the building, less the radiometric power of light escaping the windows to the outside world. 

If you reduce the power by half, heat output reduce by half, law of conservation of energy.


----------



## jtr1962 (Nov 13, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> Huh? A lighting fixture that uses 50W adds 50W of heat to the building, less the radiometric power of light escaping the windows to the outside world.
> 
> If you reduce the power by half, heat output reduce by half, law of conservation of energy.


I think he means heat that the fixture must deal with. Right now a 28-watt, 1680 lumen CFL emits perhaps 6 watts of energy as light. The fixture must deal with the remaining 22 watts. An LED fixture with an overall efficiency of 120 lm/W (twice that of the CFL) will be emitting the same amount of light energy, assuming a similar spectrum. However, it will only be using 14 watts of power. Hence, the heat the fixture has to deal with will only be 14-6, or 8 watts, not much over a third of the heat from the CFL. Get the overall efficiency up to 200 lm/W, which is the goal of the Solid-State Lighting Initiative, and you're only using ~8.5 watts of power to produce 6 watts of light energy, again assuming a similar spectrum. In reality a 200 lm/W LED would probably use RGB emitters, so the luminous efficacy of the emitted spectrum would be a little higher than the CFL or 120 lm/W phosphor LED, perhaps close to 400 lm/W. Therefore, you would actually have about 4.5 watts of light energy, not 6, to produce the same number of lumens. The heat the fixture has to deal with would only be 8.5-4.5, or 4 watts. If we can get emitter efficiency closer to 100%, then heat production _in the fixture_ would trend towards zero even if total heating in the room would equal the light energy minus the light escaping from the windows.

In short, going from 20% efficiency (typical of CFLs) to 50% can mean a drastic reduction in the amount of heat being dissipated in the fixture. We're already starting to see this in our flashlights, where up to one-third of the power is coming out as light. The 22 watts of heat from the CFL in an enclosed fixture is definitely a problem. However, the 4 or so watts from the 200 lm/W LED can easily be dealt with. That's about the same amount of heat as a nightlight bulb. As heat goes down, so do ballast failures. That is one thing which will make lower power LED ballasts more reliable. Frankly, I'm amazed CFL ballasts work as well as they do given how hot the base gets sometimes.


----------



## uk_caver (Nov 13, 2007)

That's what I was talking about - even once the point is passed where future efficiency changes have much real impact on electricity consumption, the waste-heat implications of efficiency changes can still make for cooler running (longer lasting) and/or simpler (cheaper) fixtures.

For a 5% efficiency improvement in absolute terms, the smallest drop in waste heat production for constant light output is ~18%, (which happens around 50% efficiency), and it's better than that at both ends of the efficiency range, since at the low end, the gain in relative efficiency (and hence the drop in necessary power) is high, and at the high end, the small absolute efficiency gain is also a relatively large bite out of the remaining inefficiency.

For constant light output, going from either 10% to 15% or from 85% to 90% efficient, the drop in problem heat in the LED is 37%.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 13, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> Huh? A lighting fixture that uses 50W adds 50W of heat to the building, less the radiometric power of light escaping the windows to the outside world.
> 
> If you reduce the power by half, heat output reduce by half, law of conservation of energy.


 
which then only goes to prove further, that the less power used *however* that is done, and the less power that goes where it has no usefull value, is less heat. 
the less heat a lighting setup uses, the less air-conditioning is needed during the summer, in places like california. which is where i live and that is all i care about, beings i am not selling anything.

talk about inefficient stuff, the average home heat pump air conditioning is what was spinning our meter the worst.
when we stop wastes, and lower the total output by dimming, the air conditioner does not have to be on as long.
the huge saving not only come from the tiny bit of lighting power, but from the huge air-conditioning power.

some of the biggest savings from reduced power therefore came from reduced losses where inefficency is par, and consuption outweighs the lighting by huge quantities. in some other locations a nice incadescent heater would be adding to the general heat of the building.
but here, the total cost of the GAS used for heating anything is only $9 a month, a joke compared to the electrical.

dimming for percieved visual human light, has to go way down to like 4%, from the 100%, if it cant do that, it cant serve all purposes.

Ballast, led driver, dimmer, losses anywhere , are usually in the form of heat, anything that fixes that, fixes both.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 13, 2007)

when it comes to "rental" homes, the owners around here could frankly care less about the humans they rent to. the homes are full of incans, and the renter pays not only the electrical bill, but the cost of bulb replacement. the last thing they would do is spend 2cents changing anything around to deflect a cost that is not thiers.

with the excessive costs of energy , it is rare to find a rental location here, that offered up magic free power to anyone, on the sides of even large apartment complexes is a meter for every unit.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 13, 2007)

light in a CAN, here is how we partly solved the issues of resessed lighting.





the outputting item is stuffed up there in the ceiling, and only some lossy reflector can get it back out. and of course slammed into the ground, where its useless.




so we found these extreemely high dome Reflector items, that do the same basic thing as a RAW bulb hanging from the ceiling, without looking like a raw bulb hanging from the ceiling.
then we adjusted the socket level to put the light output area just below the trim, so as much light as possible could depart unobstructed.




and there is the proof, again. lots of the light now shoots out the side. you can see it hitting the side of the walls, that is something i didnt even notice, all we care about is that the light gets OUT of the can. Proof is in the pudding.

unfortunatly the CFL reflector bulbs 




end up with multiple reflections internally , because the size of the outputting device gets in the way of the reflection, so a big tube stuffed in the same hole, and the light from that tube bounces around and crashes into itself a lot.




this bulb purchaced sometime in the 21st century, about the time we were messing with the leds
is one of the worst examples of lumens lost, the larger Par floods they make now, at lease give a chance for light to escape the containment.

the CLF DOES output more usable light in this situation anyways, because of its efficency, but the curcuit burns up in the CAN. 
because these lights are only on for 10 seconds, it doesnt matter anyways, and so the halogen works fine.

but a LED light that sent light to this high dome Directally, without lossy reflection, would be very usefull.
i think someone should make them with quad crees and huge heat sincs that would wedge up there.
also it could be usefull for them Shaded lights so light can depeart from the lossy shades 

no bulbs were ever harmed in the making of this, almost every item ever replaced in the home was because the item there had Died, nobody here is throwing away usable lighting devices, they die, they get replaced with something.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 13, 2007)

as far as my spelling, your grasping at straws there.

*"Head assembly tear down. hat greyish green paper is part of the light. It sits between the aluminum base and the driver circuit. It's like film coated paper."*

you mispelled *that *, in the taskled thread, where you posted an Excellent set of pictures , that was most usefull.

so we can stick with the subject of the thread, HOME LED LIGHTING, or go over to the english language forum to worry about ability to communicate.
everything you posted in that thread, and all the pictures was excellent, and i knew what you were saying, so it still does the job.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 14, 2007)

here is the last survivor of the candelabra bulbs, and what is inside it.
these things have heavy frosting on them, and we hacked it off, to see if it would output some light with the frosting gone.





see it says 3Watts on it 
a most useless piece of junk, ticked off everyone when i put them in




luckily they died a short death so the moaners could get thier ugly incan light back again.




there is the stuff that is wedged inside, do you think that they can make an LED driver with less parts and pieces, and have it survive longer?


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 14, 2007)

VidPro said:


> light in a CAN, here is how we partly solved the issues of resessed lighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reflector lamps are commonly used in homes over a mushroom type fixture to direct light towards the ground. Part of the design. 


> so we found these extreemely high dome Reflector items, that do the same basic thing as a RAW bulb hanging from the ceiling, without looking like a raw bulb hanging from the ceiling.
> then we adjusted the socket level to put the light output area just below the trim, so as much light as possible could depart unobstructed.
> 
> 
> ...


Arguably, the same could be done with fluorescent. 
[


> unfortunatly the CFL reflector bulbs end up with multiple reflections internally , because the size of the outputting device gets in the way of the reflection, so a big tube stuffed in the same hole, and the light from that tube bouces around and crashes into itself a lot.
> 
> the CLF DOES output more usable light in this situation anyways, because of its efficency, but the curcuit burns up in the CAN.


Perhaps the screw-in retrofit replacement and there's the same issue with screw-in LED retrofit as well. 

How do LEDs fare, cost and performance to new installation fluorescent setup like this? http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/library/cpg/documents/specsheets/L7XF RECF.pdf



> because these lights are only on for 10 seconds, it doesnt matter anyways, and so the halogen works fine.


Cumulative energy usage is so low that energy cost is not a big deal anyways in that case.



> but a LED light that sent light to this high dome Directally, without lossy reflection, would be very usefull.
> i think someone should make them with quad crees and huge heat sincs that would wedge up there.
> also it could be usefull for them Shaded lights so light can depeart from the lossy shades


How's quad Cree superior to the best fluorescent technology?


----------



## VidPro (Nov 14, 2007)

http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/Library/Brands/LL/Residential%20Recessed/Residential%20Trims/5''%20Aperture/5%20Series/5%20Series.400.jpg

yup take this pic, with the Full reflector in the whole housing, like the first one in this pic, the florescent doesnt bash into everything to get out as much. the industrial quad folded tubes the goverment uses in recessed are plenty bright, but slam straight down

The Last one , bottom right, can allow light to go somewhere usefull, so then all i would need is a 4inch round florescent that sits in the drop down, and handles on/off cycles. otherwise the magic lumens dont get out anywhere, what value is any vast lumens, stuffed in the can boucing around hoping to get out somewhere.

all to often its the corner turning, reflecting and difussing, not the total lumen output.
a RAW led emitter, isnt going to pass anymore than a raw screw in bulb hanging down, so they are going to frost/diffuse them to death too.

which is better? the one that can get its light where you need it.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 14, 2007)

VidPro said:


> http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/Library/Brands/LL/Residential%20Recessed/Residential%20Trims/5''%20Aperture/5%20Series/5%20Series.400.jpg
> 
> yup take this pic, with the Full reflector in the whole housing, like the first one in this pic, the florescent doesnt bash into everything to get out as much. the industrial quad folded tubes the goverment uses in recessed are plenty bright, but slam straight down



That's a matter of fixture selection, not the fluorescent technology.



> The Last one , bottom right, can allow light to go somewhere usefull, so then all i would need is a 4inch round florescent that sits in the drop down, and handles on/off cycles. otherwise the magic lumens dont get out anywhere, what value is any vast lumens, stuffed in the can boucing around hoping to get out somewhere.
> 
> all to often its the corner turning, reflecting and difussing, not the total lumen output.
> a RAW led emitter, isnt going to pass anymore than a raw screw in bulb hanging down, so they are going to frost/diffuse them to death too.
> ...


LEDs or fluorescents, the fixture makes a big difference. 

You haven't produced any reliable data with numbers. Just anecdotes and photos. Cameras adjust shutter speed, ISO and aperture to get as close as possible to EV of 0. Cameras don't quantify brightness, unless you have two differently lit areas within the same frame. 

People will not notice gradual decrease of output by 20%, but that is not a valid excuse for LEDs to produce less light by 20% or more to begin with and call it "lighting up the same space". I can pull 4 out of 6 lamps in a 6 lamp fixture, increase the camera exposure time by 3 times and produce anecdotal argument "it's lighting up the same space". 

LEDs have not met the same lighting criteria until they light up to same luminance level just as efficaciously as fluorescents. 

I want complete numeric data. "not counting power supply loss" will not cut it. 

I also would like to see case studies showing >90% of LEDs from thousands of samples of will survive after 20,000 hrs + and lose no more than 5% of initial output.


----------



## VidPro (Nov 14, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> I also would like to see case studies showing >90% of LEDs from thousands of samples of will survive after 20,000 hrs + and lose no more than 5% of initial output.


 
hey and i want a Chromed Deloren.

LEDs lose 5% quick, the 5mm ones faster, you think you need thousands of samples to know what already happens? 
you think that USER data is going to be magically making LED lumen maintance look BETTER than the manufactures data sheets?
LOL i think its safe to say that isnt going to happen
there is data on 5mm leds Thousands of them, they all die and they all die soon.

there is data on the LED jumbotron, just drive past one of them LED signs, or look at 500 signal lights with leds in them.
why are you trying to make believe that leds havent been tested?
5mm and 10mm leds are failing miserably all over.
and so to are florescent lights, that you say we should ignore the few here and there in the arrays that are out.

this is a USER forum, you have some problem with me supplying user experience? then mabey you should be in a Lab testing forum, or a manufactures forum. you can make up little PDFs and read them and think that they can light homes. you have proved that LEDs have no value to you, i swear i will never force you to use them  feel better now?

your acting like sombody who hates surfires, what did you come into the LED forum for? miracles? looks like you have your miracle, the mighty 360* emitting 100+ lumen per watt florescent. hey i am sold, going to go buy one.

But i also want to buy Cree replacement Candelabra bulbs, and Cree replacement vanity bulbs, and Cree replacement rescessed lighting that doesnt blow most its lumens out . and i eventually will buy them or make them for myself.
Then
i will go buy a Chromed Deloren


----------



## SemiMan (Nov 14, 2007)

I must say I am getting a great laugh at reading this forum. LEDs are better, no flourescents are better, no LEDs are better, no flourescents are better.

First thought: This is an LED forum, hence bashing LEDS really does not make sense.

Second thought: LEDS are not perfect, so why make them so. They are very new technology. Give them time....they will get there.

Qualifier: I work with LEDs, I do not work with flourescents. That said, virtually my whole house is lit by a combination of compact flourescents, linear flourescents and incan with the exception of my home theatre which is done with LEDS as I wanted near invisible cealing lights with well directed beam patterns. They light up the seating and put very little light on the screen.

Why: Kitchen, workroom and bathroom have linear flourescents, high-CRI (90+) full spectrum 5000K. They are efficient and put out a ton of very nice light. Realistically I can not replicate this with today's LEDS. Yes there are finally 100 lumen per watt LEDs, but I would have to run them at 350mA and hence would need a ton of them to get the same efficiency. If I wanted the color temp and CRI, then I am out of luck with LEDS if I want the same efficiency.

Compact Flourescents where they fit. The light is good, they are cheap, efficient and last. However, I would gladly replace with LEDS when the price gets reasonable. For me that would be in the $5-20 range. I qualify as some bulbs that are hard to get at, i.e. Garage roof (which is also cooler) I would gladly pay more money for. Other locations I can not justify the cost until I see a large efficiency increase.

Incans: Still have some 50W halogen track lighting and the odd flood. Tried the flourescent floods and most take forever to reach full brightness. The halogen track lighting, just a matter of getting that much light in the same size currently. Again, I will gladly replace when LED or any other technology is a reasonable replacement.

LED manufacturers like to "toot" super high efficiencies for LED fixtures claiming 100% efficiency versus 40%-50% for other fixtures. For one, the best LED lenses are about 90% efficient. They make this claim based on lighting an area of interest. Not even directed LED fixtures put 100% of the light where you want it unless you are willing to live with darkness on the edges of your intended lighting area. Yes, for spot and purely small area directed lighting applications, LEDS potentially are superior. However, for wide area lighting where multiple fixtures are used, the reality is that linear flourescent fixtures, HID fixtures, etc. are 80%+ efficient as all the light that gets out tends to light up the intended area.

....we will not even get into the fact that LED manufacturers can not turn out high efficiency LEDs in volume that last and have the consistency in color temperature of other technologies (please do not make comparisons to 20 year old flourescent technology....some of those bulbs are still running!). 

So as opposed to bashing our heads against the wall trying to fit LEDs into applications they are not quite ready for yet, why not work hard to get them into locations where they are good...

- Getting rid of incans! Now that the efficiencies are up there, even for the warmer colors, we can start getting a reasonable amount of light out of something that will fit into existing fixtures. Work on the cost and I am sold as will many institutions that use a ton of these. The market for that is likely orders of magnitude bigger than the current LED market.

- Directed lighting: Do highway lights really need to light up the whole country side? ...currently they do because that is the way the reflectors work, but imagine a world where only the road is lit up (with something other than orange!)... or only the road and sidewalk, not my bedrorom and sky! When you take into account the directional ability and efficiency of current LEDs they are competitive. A bit costly, but what does it cost to replace a bulb in a highway application?

Obviously there are numerous applications where LEDS are superior. Heck, we can not even get a stable supply of a consistent color of Cree's top bin, or Rebels.

LEDs can already be competitive with flourescent for efficiency but only at lower current levels, i.e. 350mA. Hence an efficient implementation takes a lot of LEDS. Of course that will improve, perhaps not in the next 6-12 months that many think on here, but it will and at point this discussion will be moot.

...so, as opposed to us deciding what is better, lets let the customer decide...as they always have.

Semiman

...oh, on the issue of should incans be banned? Well this is sort of like the argument of smoking in enclosed public places isn't it. It should be obvious to the smokers that it is plain rude to the non-smokers (not to mention unhealthy to them), however, if you let them, their personal interests will take over and they will smoke in enclosed public places and hurt all those around them.

The planet is starting to cook. Unfortunately, we love our energy and are using too much of it (me included). Yup, I probably need a slap on the wrist too to make changes.

That said, we have to look at technical feasibility:

1) Banning "Incans" is stupid. Banning bulbs with a nominal "efficiency" below X-lumens/watt makes sense. This could be a sliding scale to make the transition easier.

2) We need to consider technical feasibility which can include packaging. I.e . appliance bulbs are not easy to replace.... and really do not use much power. Candelabra bulbs I would probably put into that category. The replacements do not look remotely similar and dimming is an issue.

A ban today is probably premature, but one by 2012 may be much more reasonable.

3) However, one thing I would do relatively quickly is ban fixtures designed for incandescent lights. If you are going to do a new installation, then it is time to take the plunge.

Time to come to the realization it is not a right to pollute the planet. We have only one and our ability to create green house gases has drastically outstripped any technology to get rid of them. In the western world we complain about China and India building massive numbers of nasty coal plants, but it is pretty hypocritical when you are using old inefficient lighting technology and driving a big SUV.

Oh, I do support nuclear energy! Yes nuclear waste is nasty, but I would gladly give up a few hundred square kilometres in somewhere remote to store all the worlds nuclear waste if it meant shutting down all the coal plants and eventually the natural gas plants. We get far more energy out of natural gas heating homes than generating electricity.

...ok, there is my contentious few cents and a couple dollars added in.


----------



## jtr1962 (Nov 15, 2007)

Great post, Semiman! More or less my thoughts, exactly. LEDs are indeed a maturing technology. Will they eventually replace all other types of lighting? I'll say yes to that, but not for at least another 15 or 20 years. Also, I'll add the caveat solid-state to what will eventually replace gas-tube and filament lighting. It may not be the LEDs we think of now which take over, but rather flat panels of OLEDs or something similar.

Are LEDs suitable to replace all types of lighting now? Not by a mile. I still love my linear tubes. It's going to be a long time before LED can match them in terms of either cost or color rendering or efficiency. Can LED replace at least some types of lighting? Definitely, incandescent being tops among them. Those chandelier bulbs you mentioned for which we currently have no suitable fluorescent replacements would lend themselves very well to LED, even in its current state of development. Three Crees can replace a 60 watt bulb. The driver circuit can be made to work with a standard lamp dimmer. The result may not look exactly the same, but it will look better than the CFL replacements currently being sold. And in a few years easily I think we'll be able to have a single emitter capable of putting out 1000 lumens while consuming only about 6 watts. This will make total replacement of incandescents feasible.



> Banning "Incans" is stupid. Banning bulbs with a nominal "efficiency" below X-lumens/watt makes sense. This could be a sliding scale to make the transition easier.


Agreed. And a sliding scale is an excellent idea. Start now maybe at 40 lm/W minimum for any lamp putting out over 150 lumens. Increase that to 60 lm/W a year later, then 80, 100, 125, perhaps 150 by 2012. You can be more or less aggressive depending upon the state of LED development. Add in minimum lifetime requirements starting now at perhaps 6000 hours, gradually increasing to 100,000 hours by 2015 or so.



> We need to consider technical feasibility which can include packaging. I.e . appliance bulbs are not easy to replace.... and really do not use much power.


Oven bulbs are really the only thing I can think of which cannot effectively be replaced by anything. You can make sure such bulbs will only be used for their intended purpose by perhaps limiting the wattage, and also giving the glass a tint so as to make the color something which wouldn't be appealing for general lighting (green?). Longer term you can easily design new ovens where the light is thermally isolated via multipaned glass so that you can use LEDs. For refrigerators/freezers LEDs are a natural as they actually work better in the cold.



> However, one thing I would do relatively quickly is ban fixtures designed for incandescent lights. If you are going to do a new installation, then it is time to take the plunge.


Probably the best suggestion of all, and something I mentioned several times myself. The sooner we get rid of the bulb mentality the better.



> Oh, I do support nuclear energy! Yes nuclear waste is nasty, but I would gladly give up a few hundred square kilometres in somewhere remote to store all the worlds nuclear waste if it meant shutting down all the coal plants and eventually the natural gas plants.


Ditto. And I'd put more money into fusion research for the longer term.


----------



## James S (Nov 15, 2007)

> 3) However, one thing I would do relatively quickly is ban fixtures designed for incandescent lights. If you are going to do a new installation, then it is time to take the plunge.



This is actually a really good idea. My mother in law just had a new little family room put on her house, and the guys charged her a ton of money for the electric work and I was shocked at how poorly done and backwards it was. Lots of recessed cans with 75 watt incandescents in it. I wish she had consulted me ahead of time. But these guys just slap in the same crap they have been doing for 25 years. It's time to make some progress on the new construction angle!



> Oh, I do support nuclear energy! Yes nuclear waste is nasty, but I would gladly give up a few hundred square kilometres in somewhere remote to store all the worlds nuclear waste if it meant shutting down all the coal plants and eventually the natural gas plants. We get far more energy out of natural gas heating homes than generating electricity.



And here you and I are again in total and complete agreement! I think we need a thread somewhere here in which we can discuss the various new designs being bandied about out there as I think there are some excellent alternatives to the old steam generator turbine plants that we designed in the 40's and 50's. And definitely we need more smaller plants with less material in them running more advanced designs spread out more than single point of failure HUGE multi gigawatt plants... A gas turbine plant capable of running your entire suburb and all the ones neighboring you would only need a core about the size of the desk you're sitting at. SO building a bunch of them is a no brainer! And we can stop worrying so much about overloading the interconnect network that way too.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Nov 17, 2007)

VidPro said:


> 3) CFLs might last 1500+ hours, but they only last like 200-300 when you only have them on for a MINUTE.
> Yes that Same minute that they arent even running at full yet, and the startup that sucked up all the power.
> examples a CFL will last a whole year , if you never turn it off, mabey 6 months on a 5 minute motion sencor.



Some CFLs do not like frequent cycling, but to say "CFLs are" is like saying "LEDs are" to bundle up 5mm cheapos and the latest Cree XR-Es together. 

CFLs can deliver satisfactory life with motion sensors. The answer: commercial grade programmed rapid start ballasts. They're computer controlled to heat the electrodes to proper temperature before striking the lamps ensuring long electrode life. 
Not all CFLs are ballast-in-base type. 






Although it can take 1.25 to 1.5 seconds, you get 50,000 cycles. Unfortunately, you can't have best of the world for everything. 







> 4) cfls and Florescents of the consumer cheap variety, dont dim, and the price on dimmables makes LEDs look cheap


nor the LEDs of comparable prices do well. 



> 5) i use many Motion sencors, and the worst thing i ever put on a motion sencor was any of the consumer florescent bulbs. Although some are lasting quite a while. Because hall lights are only on for 10 seconds, and other lights are on for 2m to 5m at a time, depending on if the human is in the "zone" the florescent gets Destroyed from starting up.


It's not the consumer grade CFLs fault you're misusing them. 



> 6) florescent BULBS are rated for the bulb wattage, NOT the total curcuit wattage, your average "13w" bulb with 120V power actually uses 16-17W of power, They lied  42s use 45, and 2x4 foot 40W bulbs with the ballast with 120v ac power use 94watts not 80watts. you gotta calculate the Loss not just the bulb


The bulb wattage only represent the lamp wattage under lab conditions anyways. Doesn't the same concept apply to LEDs? You need to include power supply loss. 

Fluorescent ballast/lamp system includes the ballast loss into calculation most of the time. 



> Led is the Answer to Home automation, because florescent doesnt like automation (continual on/off switcing)


Again, that is thing of the past and only true for residential grade stuff. CFL or linear lamp programmed rapid start ballast provides 50,000 to 100,000 start capability before the lamp fails. These are not cheap, but commercial grade ballasts have a great warranty.


----------



## James S (Nov 18, 2007)

cycling just isn't a major problem with modern CFL lamps and ballasts. I am pretty heavily into automation here at the house since I write automation and security software for a living. I have lamps that are cycled literally dozens of times a day that have shown no noticeable degradation in years. But then I tend to buy a higher quality of bulb from major makers that cost in the $6 to $9 dollar range. Perhaps the really cheap bulbs are more sensitive to it. But I no longer consider this a valid argument.


----------



## bhvm (Jul 24, 2009)

Excellent discussion....

People forget that LEDs are their rated LM/W only at t'J=25.c which is impossible in real world.

After converter,Optics,Thermal losses... they're only 50 LM/W


----------

