In article <kmvbgn$iou$
1...@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <
dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <
avgphn...@mid.individual.net> Greg Goss <
go...@gossg.org> writes:
>
> >Snidely <
snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I still don't expect a big drop in LED lighting prices until the OLED
> >>panels come out, but we are seeing some benefits from increased volume
> >>of production.
>
> >At a family dinner in 2002, I predicted that the fluorescent lamp
> >would be dead in ten years. Now that they had perfected the blue LED,
> >the inevitable semiconductor evolution would drive the more efficient
> >LED lamps into ludicrously cheap territory. Incandescents would hang
> >on for nostalgia reasons, but effeciency applications would dump
> >fluorescents for more-efficient LEDs.
>
> >I was way wrong on the timing of these.
>
> Still overpriced, but I've been replacing tubular fluorescents
> with LEDs. Part of the payback calc is that I can usually
> retrofit a four-up 40 watt (nominal) fixture which, depending
> on ballasts and exact lamps, will be somewhere around 200 watts,
> with just two 25 watt (50 total) LED tubes.
How much electrical jiggery-pokery needs to be done to swap out fluoro
for LED tubes? Is it as simple as "remove the ballast & wire in the
LEDs"? I would have loved to do that at the old house bathroom, and
the situation may arise again.
> Even if it needs all four (which I've sometimes done to increase
> the light otput) it's still less electricity (100 vs. 200 watts).
Also LEDs tolerate on-off cycles with aplomb, whereas fluoros have a
problem with them.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP
royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al