Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?
Robert Green
news:HxCHm.141327$8m4....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have
> essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by
hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process,
say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your
reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I
think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to
create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into
spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with
mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking
a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important
issue.
Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means
increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to
enter the world at large. It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good
on paper but turned out not to be so good when all costs are computed, just
like biofuels.
While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million CFL's
were sold in the United States last year (or so says the New York Times in a
Feb. 17, 2008, editorial). But what worries me is the even more staggering
figure that CFL's are currently used in only 10% to 20% of the fixtures in
residential home. That could extrapolate into perhaps 3 *billion* CFL's
getting deployed after the mandate's phased in. Even when you talk about
micrograms per bulbs, that's a lot of mercury going into landfills,
incinerators and eventually, the bloodstream of newborn babies.
> That Lumform 4W MR16 LED gets too hot to touch, and is a very strong
> radiator of 121KHz powerline noise.
Both technologies have shortcomings, agreed, but fluorescent technology has
been around for a much longer time than LEDs and if such CFL problems had
solutions, one would expect them to be uncovered by now. Some say
fluorescents began in 1856 when Heinrich Geissler created a *mercury* <g>
vacuum pump that was much more efficient than any other of the time. When
current was applied through the "Geissler tube", it glowed. Commercial
fluorescents didn't really hit the market in force until after their debut
by GE at the 1939 World's Fair.
Either way, that's a long head start for fluorescents to just now be almost
neck and neck with LEDs, a nascent technology that's only really been a home
lighting contender for 10 years at most. Because it's difficult to sustain
an arc in a fluorescent tube at low power levels, CFLs will probably never
equal tungsten or LED lights when it comes to smooth, linear dimming.
My contention is that these subtle, but persistent CFL flaws (size,
incompatibility with existing timers, photocell-controlled lamps, dimmers,
X-10 and the like) mean that LEDs *have* to rule to roost, eventually.
Competition is a fascinating thing, summed up by the old joke punchline: "I
don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!" Even very
slight-seeming advantages can add up to a killer blow over the long haul.
The CFL is running hard, but true LED "cold light" will win the race, even
over a characteristic as lowly as higher resistance to breakage. All the
studies I've seen say LEDs have much greater "room to grow" in both
efficiency and cheaper production costs than CFLs and should surpass them
very soon in both categories.
> I read a lot about LEDs before trying those initial 12V MR16 landscape
> lights. The DOE CALiPER reports on Solid-State Lighting indicate that
> reliability and brightness fall-off are major problems for LED lighting.
I agree completely. The current landscape of LED offerings is hauntingly
reminiscent of the introduction of CFLs. Cheap, crappy products and
hyper-expensive products dominated the landscape; the early adopters who
tried them rejected them and developed long-lasting negative attitudes
towards them. This has acted as quite a drag on their acceptance.
The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people who try
them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much more reluctant to
try them a second time. My wife hates both the occasional very spectacular
stinky burn-up and the frequent flickering and has had me stock up on
incandescents for her sewing room and all the hallway and critical short
on/off time lights that never last as long as the makers claim.
As for reliability, that's not so clear cut. Take for instance an LED
traffic light. Made up of many LED elements, they are far more reliable on
the whole than the tungsten bulbs they replace. CFL's are so wimpy, they
need not even apply for this job! An LED element failure in a stop or tail
light still leaves a lot of other LEDs elements to continue to shine. Since
the LEDs can produce incredibly pure red light, there's no energy loss
involved in filtering white light to get the red color.
> Progress is being made, and eventually another technology will supercede
> CFLs. From my limited testing, the LEDs aren't there yet.
Agreed. But they're close enough that the mercury element should make the
decision between the two a no-brainer, at least if someone *really* cares
about the environment. It's bad reasoning to believe that putting mercury in
perhaps 3 billion consumer bulbs will magically offset mercury in smokestack
exhausts. That's especially true now because the Feds are finally getting
off their butts and invoking the *right* solution: enforcing mercury
emission laws. Once that happens, the tradeoff fails.
Far worse, we've created a brand-new mercury dispersal system that reaches
every corner of the country, even areas where they get most of their
electricity from dams or other non-coal sources and there was never any
value to the trade-off to begin with. Do you really want grandkids with
lifelong neurological problems because you want to save on your electric
bill? Or your light bulb costs? Or because the color of the light isn't
quite right? I don't.
What worries me the most is the cost of remediation if we eventually find
that many more than 630,000 newborns a year have mercury levels way above
recommendations. Lots of folks here know the incredible costs and issues
involved in removing asbestos or lead paint from a home. Mercury abatement
has the potential to make removing those two hazards look like child's play.
Who will pay for the care of kids born with brain damage because we didn't
realize CFL's were such a hazard? We will. With yet more tax dollars.
Like climate change, these processes take time and I suspect that mercury is
only now entering the environment from pre-ban alkaline batteries that went
into dumps years ago. What happens when the CFL bulbs start getting to dumps
in big numbers? We just don't know, and so we should consider how deeply we
get into something that could make the US one giant Superfund site. We put
deposit requirements on innocuous glass soda bottles but not on "special
needs recycling" hazardous material bearing CFL's. That's idiotic. When the
choice was just CFL v. incandescent, the tradeoff worked, but now there's a
serious new contender, the LED, and it's far greener than the CFL because it
uses no mercury.
On the whole, people have a hard time evaluating the threat of materials
like mercury and carcinogens like asbestos and TCE because the cause and
effect are sometimes years, even decades, apart. But the cancer statistics,
state by state prove that certain areas produce statistically meaningful
clusters of deaths. Sadly, those clusters tend to be in areas with large
manufacturing operations.
http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/new.html
We already know that trace amounts of mercury can be very toxic, especially
to the fetuses of pregnant women. They have been told each year that it's
increasingly less safe for them to eat any fish at all. As far back as 2004,
the EPA raised a red flag:
"E.P.A. Raises Estimate of Babies Affected by Mercury Exposure - More than
one child in six born in the United States could be at risk for
developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb,
according to revised estimates released last week by Environmental
Protection Agency scientists. The agency doubled its estimate, equivalent to
630,000 of the 4 million babies born each year, because recent research has
shown that mercury tends to concentrate in the blood in the umbilical cord
of pregnant women." Source:
> There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as
the Feit
> CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20
LED
> having unknown longevity.
It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the
next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been
increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by
Carnagie Mellon:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/matthews_chicago09.pdf
They concur that LED lighting still has a long way to go, but that it's
closing ground fast and it's going to very rapidly overtake CFLs in nearly
every category when those eventual improvements arrive. That only makes
sense since commercial fluorescent technology is at least 70 years old.
CFL's may be a new form factor, but the technology is considered by some to
outdate the tungsten filament bulb.
Stokes at Cambridge discovered electrical fluorescence in 1852, which by
some accounts makes it well over 150 years old. That's a lot of time for the
damn things to remain so buggy compared to a simple incandescent bulb. And
it's precisely why they'll fail against LEDs. One of the most cynical
touches in the film "Blade Runner" is Harrison Ford having to flick the
glass bulb of a future fluorescent bulb to get it to come on. It's a
prediction that even in the future, those damn fluorescent bulbs will not
have improved very much.
> People harp on the mercury used in CFLs. Mercury has been used in
> fluorescent lighting for decades.
Yes, that's true. Asbestos also saw incredibly widespread use before people
realized it was a potent carcinogen. Use for decades really doesn't mean
safe. It takes a long time for waste in dumps to percolate. It takes even
longer for experts to "put it all together" as in the case of asbestos,
whose use continued many years after its lethal effects were *very* well
known. There's already a lot of mercury seeping into the ground in
landfills. While most of the environmental mercury currently does appear to
come from power plant emissions, those are relatively easy fixes. Why didn't
Obama and Congress spend the stimulus money on scrubbing dirty power plant
stacks and not on million dollar "retention" bonuses for fat cat bankers?
While most mercury in CFL's appears just a trifling few milligrams, some
sources claim that 5mg of mercury can contaminate 6,000 gallons of drinking
water. This site talks about some of the common sense things we so easily
overlook:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/
"It's kind of ironic that on the one hand, the agency [EPA] is saying, 'Don'
t worry, it's a very small amount of mercury.' Then they have a whole page
of [instructions] how to handle the situation if you break one . . ."
When you start to talk about 2 or 3 billion light bulbs, that 5mg (or even
1mg in the newer bulbs) becomes a significant amount in the aggregate.
Couple that to Americans and their incredibly low recycling compliance (last
I checked it was 6% or so), it's very likely to spell serious trouble,
especially if the conclusion that only 5mg of mercury can contaminate 6,000
gallons of water proves true. I haven't read the paper they're referring to,
but based on EPA's schizoid recommendations on CFLs, I have no reason to
doubt it.
> One report I read said the mercury used in fluorescent bulbs is much less
than the
> amount that would have been released into the environment by burning coal
to
> produce an equivalent amount of incandescent light.
That's only because the EPA under Bush was basically prevented from cleaning
up the dirtiest of the coal plants. Didn't the "indirect approach" of the
Feds giving money to the banks that created the financial meltdown have
little effect on the foreclosure rate? That should tell us that indirect
methods tend to be political creations that can't be relied upon. Clean up
the stacks and the alleged tradeoff that people so frequently tout turns
into nothing more that a new vector for getting toxic mercury into every
garbage dump in America.
Do we really want to condemn 10's of thousands or more children to living
with birth defects because we want lower electric bills or we want a
slightly warmer-colored light no matter what the environmental cost? Not me.
It's bad enough that we're laying the cost of the bailout, two failed wars
and a fraud-riddled Medicare system on them. Must we poison them, too?
> As we move away from carbon based fuels, that tradeoff will diminish.
>And it is even better with LEDs. But do we know for sure that trace
> elements used in LED production will not also turn out
> to be harmful to the environment?
The Mellon study referenced above, among others, looked at those very
questions by examining every step of the process and how much power it used.
Look on page 25 for the graph that compares production costs of CFL,
incandescent and LEDs. Scientists are a lot better at accounting for the
real costs of items these days, looking at the entire life cycle of a
product to determine what it costs, money and environmental hazard-wise, to
produce items like LEDs and CFLs.
A lot of Pacific ocean mercury comes from the stacks of the Chinese coal
plants powering the manufacture of CFL bulbs. The US stood poised to lead
the world in developing LED technology, but instead, we're shoring up banks
that caused the mess we're in.
Ironically, those banks, with lots of help from the same Congress that's
mandating the new bulbs, have turned that wonderful, "seems like a good
idea" invention called the credit card into the near downfall of the world's
economy. Not every new idea is a good idea and some of them, like giving
women estrogen to prevent breast cancer, turned out to be EXACTLY the wrong
thing to do. Actual studies, rather than "feel good, should work" guesses
showed that the treatments actually increased the risk of breast cancer and
they were stopped.
Nothing I've seen in the literature so far suggests that LED bulbs contain
anything as near as toxic as mercury. In the past LEDs contained arsenic
compounds, but most of the newer diodes do not. Because the world is
generally awakening to the idea that little amounts of poison add up, Apple
stopped using arsenic in its LCD panels in 2008. Remember, LEDs fulfill the
same promise as CFLs of reduced power plant emissions, but they do it
without the insane tradeoff of involving a known deadly poison whose levels
are so high pregnant women are told not to eat tuna.
> There are companies working on a new generation of lighting. One is still
> based on CFL technology. Only time will tell whether one of these becomes
> dominant in the marketplace.
Sometimes, the marketplace isn't the best determiner of what's good for
society. That lesson seems abundantly clear in the aftermath of the current
financial mess we're in. If we know that mercury is toxic and that
scientists believe great improvements in LEDs are coming, does it make sense
to push a bad technology like CFLs forward by government mandate? This is
toxic stuff and George Orwell wouldn't be surprised at how easily we now
swallow big lies like "adding mercury will take away mercury." Here's how
the indirect solution is working out in the real world:
<"MONDAY, Aug. 24 (HealthDay News) -- A study involving more than 6,000
American women suggests that blood levels of mercury are accumulating over
time, with a big rise noted over the past decade.
"Using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a researcher from
the University of California, Los Angeles, found that while inorganic
mercury was detected in the blood of 2 percent of women aged 18 to 49 in the
1999-2000 NHANES survey, that level rose to 30 percent of women by
2005-2006."> Source:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_88506.html
From two to thirty percent in just five years is an OUTRAGEOUS jump and it's
a clear indication that something's very, very wrong with the current way of
doing business. But we never seem to learn that some problems can mushroom
incredibly quickly and go way out of control. Human mercury levels in women
of childbearing age has jumped from nearly insignificant to nearly 30% of
all such women.
Pretending that adding more mercury in the form of CFL's to every home and
garbage dump in America will reverse that trend is just not credible. I'm
very sadly *not* surprised, though, because what I've seen pass for truth in
the last ten years is pretty scary. Rumor becomes instant fact, especially
when people want to believe something's true. There was an article in the
news the other days about how Congressmen from both parties put items in the
record that had been written by lawyers working for the drug lobby.
I believe that instead of counting on CFLs we should clean up the mercury
spewing coal power plants (here and in China) and put some serious DOE
research money into improving LEDs to the point where they easily surpass
CFLs. I just saw an item about Sharp's new dimmable AND color tunable LED
light bulbs, two areas where CFLs fall pretty short.
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/090611_2.html
"The models DL-L401N/L LED Lamps offer extremely economical operation, and
can be run for approximately 11 hours at a cost of only one yen!" (-:
(That;'s $0.011 US)
It just doesn't make sense to so fully embrace a poisonous technology when a
very close substitute is available, and its cost is dropping almost daily as
light output is increasing. It would drop even more if people's dollars went
to supporting a rapidly evolving technology with great promise like LEDs
instead of buying into the mostly bottomed-out CFL technology that requires
toxic materials to operate.
Fortunately, the "deal with the devil" involving CFL's is getting more and
more exposure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cfl+mercury+problem
and I believe that the mercury issue alone will be enough to doom CFL's and
in very short order. If the EPA finds it to be a serious source of human
mercury contamination (something they may be forced to do should the trace
amounts of mercury in Americans continue to climb) they could easily ban the
sale of CFLs just the way they are banning incandescents. I don't believe
that's a very far-fetched scenario based on experience with chemicals like
chlordane and DDT:
Installed my first set of Philips LED "stumble lights" today! They are
surprisingly warm white and put out almost enough light to light up the
stairway with a single four diode strip. I'll probably use two or even four
since they can be slaved together, run off very low voltage and have built
in motion sensors. It's qualities like these that will spell doom for
CFL's, the eight-track of home lighting.
Sorry for the length, but there's a lot about CFLs and mercury that people
need to consider.
So, Jeff, how will your XTB products help me overcome the issues I'm going
to doubtless face in switching from CFLs to LEDs? (-: I made an
interesting discovery the other day. One of the nVision CFL bulbs that had
been flashing madly when off when connected to an X-10 module suddenly
stopped flashing.
--
Bobby G.
xpost to comp.home.automation,alt.home.repair
Bob Villa
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffV...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > There is a brighter 12V MR16 LED available now, but it costs 3X as much as
> the Feit
> > CFLs. It is hard to justify replacing an inexpensive halogen with a $20
> LED
> > having unknown longevity.
>
> It's not hard to justify if there's a hidden downside to CFLs: poisoning the
> next generation of Americans. Efficiency and longevity of LEDs has been
> increasing greatly in just the past few years. Here's a study done by
> Carnagie Mellon:
>
>
> Installed my first set of Philips LED "stumble lights" today! They are
> surprisingly warm white and put out almost enough light to light up the
> stairway with a single four diode strip. I'll probably use two or even four
> since they can be slaved together, run off very low voltage and have built
> in motion sensors. It's qualities like these that will spell doom for
> CFL's, the eight-track of home lighting.
>
> Sorry for the length, but there's a lot about CFLs and mercury that people
> need to consider.
>
> So, Jeff, how will your XTB products help me overcome the issues I'm going
> to doubtless face in switching from CFLs to LEDs? (-: I made an
> interesting discovery the other day. One of the nVision CFL bulbs that had
> been flashing madly when off when connected to an X-10 module suddenly
> stopped flashing.
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
> xpost to comp.home.automation,alt.home.repair
Why not write a book while you're at it! 8^)
bob_v
Chuck
exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
ultra violet light like the sun does.
ShadowTek
just to make a simple reply.
Josepi
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01385353-8908-4e7e...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Why not write a book while you're at it! 8^)
bob_v
On Nov 20, 3:02 am, "Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Volp" <JeffV...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
<huge post snipped out>
Josepi
fluorescents, of the right colour.
How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
statistically reduced, big time.
The flickering of fluorescents was always blamed for some problems but the
sun doesn't flicker at 120Hz.
"Chuck" <cbac...@attt.net> wrote in message
news:he643p$h5d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Percival P. Cassidy
> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
> ultra violet light like the sun does.
I have arthritis, and my rheumatologist has never suggested that I avoid
fluorescent lighting.
Nevertheless, I am trying to replace CFLs by LEDs -- but for the energy
savings, not for anything related to health.
Perce
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"ShadowTek" <Shad...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnhgdaik.m...@shadowtek.localdomain.
xxxx xxxxxxx xxx, you people don't have to quote every xxxx
Kurt Ullman
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
> How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
> affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
> statistically reduced, big time.
>
Was wondering the same things. About the only thing I could think of
was that some medications make you more sensitive to UV radiation and
thus more susceptible to sun burn. But I haven't seen anything in 25
years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning
booths.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Stormin Mormon
cost of the bulbs. I doubt there is any real savings. Either
to your wallet, or to the planet, by converting to LED light
indoors.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message
news:he6an3$vmj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Bob Villa
> Good fucking god, you people don't have to quote every damn line of text
> just to make a simple reply.
ESAD, FH
Josepi
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6bb3$4o6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Josepi
Thanx for trimming.
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a181d3c4-1aa1-4f93...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
ESAD, FH
Josepi
bulbs. On top of all that the more efficient ***white*** LED bulbs are made
with phospours, similiar to CFL bulbs. I beleive the mercury is not there as
the electrical energy is converted, the first time, by LED technology.
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he6bfq$5vi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
DGDevin
> The reports of CFL penetration say time and time again that people
> who try them and have issues like a smoky, stinky burnout are much
> more reluctant to try them a second time. My wife hates both the
> occasional very spectacular stinky burn-up and the frequent
> flickering and has had me stock up on incandescents for her sewing
> room and all the hallway and critical short on/off time lights that
> never last as long as the makers claim.
We installed CFLs everywhere in our home four years ago when we completely
rewired the house, and so far the only complaint we have is the supposed
five-year life of these lights is problematic--some originals are still
going strong, others only lasted a year or two--quality control in mfg. I
suppose. But we've had no "stinky burnout" and the only flickering we've
seen is on some outdoor floods used in security fixtures. What we did
immediately notice was a significant reduction in our electricity bill. Our
local hardware store and community center both collect CFLs (and batteries)
for proper disposal, so getting rid of dead ones is no problem.
I expect LED lighting to come on strong, we've even noticed LED
stage-lighting in nightclubs lately. But so far we're pleased with CFLs,
and since we don't just toss them in the trash when they're dead hopefully
the mercury in them isn't finding its way into the environment (although I'd
like to know more about how the CFLs we leave at the hardware store are
disposed of).
Josepi
including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate different
types of bulbs? Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
does it just look about the same? Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
be very deceiving to the human eye.
Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:likdg5pklad59j26q...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than
>>incandescent
>>bulbs.
>
> Say WHAT?
>
> I have replaced all of the incandescent lamps on my sailboat ,
> including the navigation lights. The LED's use 1/10th the power for
> the same amount of light. That's not a random number - a typical light
> that drew 2 amps gets replaced by an LED that is a little brighter and
> draws slightly less than .2 amps.
>
> On a cruising sailboat, you have to keep careful track of your
> electrical budget.
>
JimH
> LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than incandescent
> bulbs.
I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while the
incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly while providing
less light.
Dave Houston
various types of lighting.
http://www.mge.com/home/appliances/lighting/comparison.htm
John Perry
couple of capacitors and other small SMD components. They certainly
do not have the inductors and other complex electronics used to strike
the CFLs.
--
John Perry
Robert L Bass
>
> "Jeff Volp" wrote:
>>
>> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes"...
>
> That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom
> builds electronics by hand, I am sure that you realize
> that even one delicate step in a process, say
> soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by
That's misleading at best, Robert. None of the processes are done by hand,
except packaging and that step is largely the same for either type of product.
Once the patterns have been made and accepted, the glass tubes are made by
machines. Modern plants use robotic systems to "blow" the glass tubes.
Electronic circuit boards for inexpensive devices like CFL's are not made by
hand any more either.
Here's a link to a CFL-manufacturing firm. There's no one soldering anything.
No one is blowing glass either. That's another fully automated process done
elsewhere. Circuit boards are assembled on a robotic line and dip-soldered en
masse. The final product is then assembled on fully automated systems. You
won't find a single person using a soldering iron. This kind of robotic
assembly is nothing new either. Manufacturers in the alarm industry have been
using it for better than 20 years. Heck, computer system makers such as
MOD-COMP (now defunct, I think) were using automated manufacturing systems 35 or
more years ago.
http://www.lightsindia.com/products.html#cfl-manufacturing-machine
> Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I
> think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and
> tooling to create narrow but even diameter glass tubes...
That is all supposition, Bobby. You don't know to what temperature glass for
CFL's is heated let alone if it's greater than, less than or the same as in
making incandescent bulbs. You clutter the discussion with wild guesses, then
argue the merits of CFL's as though whatever you suppose is established fact.
That is disingenuous and does nothing to help readers discern the benefits or
negatoives of CFL's.
Here's a link to an article on CFL-Haters (I didn't realize there were enough of
them around that they need to be categorized) :^)
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/927/the-four-types-of-cfl-haters-and-what-to-tell-them.html
> that then must be twisted into spiral shape...
> ... Forgive me for taking a technical note and
> turning it into polemic, but this is an important
> issue.
If that were what you did, I'd happily forgive. Unfortunately, you have built a
fire of guesses and wishes as fact, then shoveled personal preference into the
mix. Now you stand back and warn, "See, this stuff burns very hot."
> Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal,
> manufacturing CFL's means increasing the mining
> for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin
> to enter the world at large....
That is pure, unadulterated, male bovine excrement. CFL's cost more to build so
they cost more than incandescent bulbs. In the process of making them, more
people are employed (not exactly a bad thing given the current economic
situation). The benefits are twofold.
(1) Quality CFL's last long enough to repay the investment by not buying many
more incandescents *and* by using less electricity.
(2) Using less electricity means burning less coal. This reduces mercury
contamination far more than the small amount of mercury in the bulbs themselves.
Furthermore, the mercury in used CFL's can be recycled. A number of
manufacturers are now accepting used bulbs back from the public, as well as from
institutional users. That which is not recycled goes into land fills where a
small percentage may eventually seep back into the earth. By comparison, the
mercury emitted by coal burning electrical plants goes directly into the
atmsphere and from there enters the food chain.
> It may very well turn out that CFLs looked good
> on paper but turned out not to be so good when
> all costs are computed, just like biofuels.
It *may* be that CFL's will be just one step on the path to restoring the
environment. More likely, they will be one of many methods in simultaneous use
as various technologies develop. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, there's
nothing better that performs effectively at a reasonable cost so CFL's should be
used wherever possible. It's the right thing to do.
> While one dot of mercury might not seem so bad,
> almost 300 million CFL's were sold in the United
> States last year...
Without knowing how big the "dot" is and how much mercury they *don't* use by
reducing electric consumption, that proves nothing. If you want to understand
the real affect of mercury in CFL's vs coal, you must first you learn how much
they introduce into landfills. Then you have you learn what portion of it gets
out of the landfills (in all likelihood, the major portion does not re-enter the
environment but I can't prove that; it's supposition). Next you have to measure
the amount of mercury *not* introduced because CFLs use less power. Finally,
you have to quantify the effect of mercury sent directly into the air from
electric usage.
Do all that. Report back next week. There will be a quiz on Tuesday. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
Stormin Mormon
real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a
tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall
guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to
find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his
back pocket, with a practiced motion.
I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he
told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag,
and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said
it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this
is what he told me.
One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in
the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was
able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The
light was still on, having run for three days all the time.
he says he was able to use it for about a week after that,
on the same batteries, before having to replace the
batteries.
I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the
truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"JimH" <Ji...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:tsDNm.19420$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
Stormin Mormon
requoting it, either.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote in message
news:bgANm.39767$%j4.1...@newsfe18.iad...
sa...@dog.com
Lets not overlook the fact that florescent lights have been around for
a Looooooong time. The traditional tubes that light the entire world
of retail, manufacturing, hospitals, schools, public buildings,
offices, etc, are each much bigger and contain a lot more mercury tha
a CFL. No one ever really got upset about those. and In fact, they are
still being used to light the world, and CFL haters don't seem to know
they exist.
The only thing "new" about CFL's is their size and shape. Otherwise,
its' VERY old technology.
Bob Villa
>
> news:tsDNm.19420$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
>
> Josepi wrote:
> > LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient
> > than incandescent
> > bulbs.
>
> I know my LED flashlight can run for hours and hours, while
> the
> incandescent flashlight burns through batteries quickly
> while providing
> less light.
Just think...when they perfect LEDs for headlights...we won't have to
yell at the wife for draining down the battery!
bob_v
Nate Nagel
3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike head/taillights,
truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so difficult to find good
ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into car taillights?
nate
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Sadly, wasn't Lary this time. Though, he must be a hoot in
> real life, whoever it is that plays Larry the cable guy.
>
> I had some trouble with my cable recentl. I called for a
> tech to come out, and Dennis was the one who arried. Tall
> guy in his twenties, seems to know hs stuff. As he looked to
> find the power plug, he pulled a three D-cell Mag out of his
> back pocket, with a practiced motion.
>
> I noticed it was a LED bulb mag. Asked about that, and he
> told me a little about it. Formerly was a filament bub mag,
> and he bought the LED bulb only, and put that in. He said
> it's a lot better on batteries. I asked about that, and this
> is what he told me.
>
> One time he was in a crawl space, and forgot and left it in
> the crawl space. Turned on. It was the wekend, and he was
> able to get back to recover his light, three days later. The
> light was still on, having run for three days all the time.
> he says he was able to use it for about a week after that,
> on the same batteries, before having to replace the
> batteries.
>
> I'm totally amazed. He sounded like he was telling the
> truth. Wow! That's a long time on one set of batteries.
>
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Chuck
Lupus and fibromyalgia. Probably tomorrow.
Robert L Bass
>
> Think you could trim your post to post a snipe, in future?
Here's a brief comment on CFL's from the US Energy
Star program:
"CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these
bulbs draw far less power (resulting in lower electric bills),
and they last longer (so they don't need to be replaced
nearly as often). But they also work to save the environment
by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home
replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a
long-lasting CFL, the resultant energy savings would
eliminate greenhouse gases equal to the emissions of
800,000 cars..."
Robert L Bass
>
> Cue Twilight Zone theme...
Indeed. That one bent the needle on the bullshitometer.
The Daring Dufas
> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
> ultra violet light like the sun does.
Does your wife have some form of Cutaneous porphyria?
TDD
Chuck
The reference I have found relates to Lupus. I was somewhat incorrect
saying it also affected RA and Fibro. Her Dr. had said that folks with
auto immune problems should avoid UV. Since she has Lupus and Fibro,
(auto-immune diseases) I assumed it caused problems for both. Since RA
is also an auto-immune disease, I again assumed that uv might be a problem.
The Dr. was addressing just the Lupus. Here is the reference I found
for Lupus: www.itzarion.com/lupus-uv.html
She can only be in Walmart or HD for a few minutes. Then she has a very
bad reaction. Any time outside she must be wearing a sun hat (blocks UV's).
Sorry if I rattled anybodies cage. Chuck
Stormin Mormon
That kind of thing.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bob Villa" <pheeh...@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:62c50e82-ff75-4569...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
in back of stores, that fluorescent tubes are disposed
differently than rest of the trash. So, there is some effort
to contain the mercury.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:p0beg5hhm1u5ap7q1...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
Would be nice to see fairly priced LED replace for household
bulbs. I've not seen them yet.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote in message news:he7b0...@news7.newsguy.com...
Joe Pfeiffer
Interesting point on the graph is how much better linear fluorescent
can be than CF... also that metal halide basically starts where LED
leaves off.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Joe Pfeiffer
> What I don't understand is why LEDs are so excellent in flashlights
> (the 3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike
> head/taillights, truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so
> difficult to find good ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into
> car taillights?
Haven't looked into home LED home lighting yet, but the basic problem
with car taillights is that the fixture is designed for a point source
and the "replacements" are anything but. An LED taillight assembly (as
you can see on many cars and trucks today), designed for LEDs, works
great.
Unfortunately, the "replacements" are bought by idiots looking for a kewl
effect, who have no idea that they might as well just leave the wiring
harness unplugged for all the good their taillights do them --
frequently the other end of the car has headlights with blue glass
('cause blue is brighter) hidden behind a smoked glass shield.
The Daring Dufas
One of my roommates has a form of Porphyria and instead of a tan
he gets lesions on his exposed skin and it makes him very sick.
TDD
Pete C.
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
>
> Chuck wrote:
>
> > I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
> > exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
> > lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit
> > ultra violet light like the sun does.
>
> fluorescent lighting.
>
> Nevertheless, I am trying to replace CFLs by LEDs -- but for the energy
> savings, not for anything related to health.
>
> Perce
If you're trying for energy savings, you're going the wrong way as LEDs
produce lower lumens per Watt than CFLs currently. The only way you get
energy savings with LEDs over CFLs currently is if you do exclusively
task lighting where the directionality of LEDs can let you use a lower
Wattage LED lamp than CFL. LEDs are certainly improving over time so
eventually they may pass CFLs for efficiency, but they don't currently.
The current LED lamps also suffer from color temperature inconsistencies
which are problematic if you have more than one LED lamp in a room.
Pete C.
> >including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate different
> >types of bulbs?
>
> into the base of the lamps. The draw measured includes any and all
> parts of the assembly.
>
> >Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
> >does it just look about the same?
>
> certified.
>
> >Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
> >be very deceiving to the human eye.
> >
>
>
> >Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
> >completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
> >
>
LEDs are considerably more efficient than ordinary incandescents, but
they are still less efficient than CFLs. Many of the fixtures you'd be
using on a boat benefit from the directionality of LEDs, which is
another reason they perform better.
Robert L Bass
>
> I've seen LED replacments for tail lights. Any
> good? Dunno. Would be nice to see fairly
> priced LED replace for household bulbs. I've
> not seen them yet.
The brake light on my M109R consists of an array of *very* bright LEDs. I added
a flasher module to make it even more noticeable. In SW Florida you need all
the protection you can get, especially during snow-bird season. :^)
aemeijers
> "Josepi" wrote:
>>
>> Think you could trim your post to post a snipe, in future?
>
> Here's a brief comment on CFL's from the US Energy
> Star program:
>
> "CFLs save consumers money in the long run, as these bulbs draw far less
> power (resulting in lower electric bills), and they last longer (so they
> don't need to be replaced nearly as often). But they also work to save
> the environment by lessening greenhouse gases. If every American home
> replaced just one standard incandescent light bulb with a long-lasting
> CFL, the resultant energy savings would eliminate greenhouse gases equal
> to the emissions of 800,000 cars..."
>
Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press releases full of
SWAG numbers like that irritate me. Way too many uncontrolled variables
for them to come up with a hard number. How many hours a day is this
'one bulb per house' supposed to be on and what wattage? What type of
cars are those 80,000 cars, and how many hours a day are they lit up,
and at what speeds? And so on and so on...
--
aem sends....
Josepi
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message
news:5JednVG8gMZ_w5rW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
silly comment used to attempt to disguise it. I will assume the rest is
bullshit then too, for now.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:a0tdg5dml5j6kq0ki...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:32 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>
>>Not according to testing labs that have made lumen mesurements. Are you
>>including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate
>>different
>>types of bulbs?
>
> No inverters or "lossy gadgets" involved, other than what is built
> into the base of the lamps. The draw measured includes any and all
> parts of the assembly.
>
>>Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
>>does it just look about the same?
>
> Measured. Nav lights have to meet strict legal requirements and be
> certified.
>
>>Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
>>be very deceiving to the human eye.
>>
>
> You really can't stand being wrong, can you?
>
>>Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
>>completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
>>
>
> Sorry that you have such a hard time with reality.
>
>
>
>><sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
>>news:likdg5pklad59j26q...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:27:09 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>LEDs are still reported to only be slightly more efficient than
>>>>incandescent
>>>>bulbs.
>>>
Robert L Bass
>
> Not saying that CFL's aren't a good thing. But press
> releases full of SWAG numbers like that irritate me.
It wasn't actually a press release, but that's not important.
> Way too many uncontrolled variables for them to
> come up with a hard number. How many hours a
> day is this 'one bulb per house' supposed to be on
> and what wattage?
I don't know but if I were to guess, I'd suppose the figures are based on
"average" usage -- something that could be calculated by surveying a fair number
of homes.
> What type of cars are those 80,000 cars, and how
> many hours a day are they lit up, and at what
> speeds? And so on and so on...
That kind of information is always being sought by various surveys. If you ask
enough people what they drive, how many hours a week, etc., you can get a fairly
good picture of what the "average" driver does. That the report gave a figure
is nothing surprising. One could question the manner of surveys used if the
methods are known. Short of that, the best thing you can do is try to determine
whether the poll takers have an axe to grind. That's one reason I challenge
comments from Bobby Green and Dave Houston. Both are always "on a mission" and
neither seems above bending the facts to fit what they've already decided. That
isn't meant to imply that both are dishonest. Bobby has an opinion and he sees
as "facts" whatever ideas he comes up with in support of his ideas. Houston is
much worse -- he flat out lies.
OK, that's my quota of nastiness for this week. Time to be nice... :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> When they talk about saving Watts then we know they are informed...LOL
Did someone use that expression in this thread? If so I didn't notice.
Robert L Bass
>
> ... I will assume the rest is bullshit then too, for now.
There's a lot of that going around these days. :^)
sa...@dog.com
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen LED replacments for tail lights. Any good? Dunno.
>Would be nice to see fairly priced LED replace for household
>bulbs. I've not seen them yet.
A lot of new cars already come equipped with LED tail Lights. They are
very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
only thing I don't like about them on my car is that there is no
warmth generated to de-ice the lenses in winter. Tail light lenses are
plastic, so there is a limit to how much you can do to clear them with
an ice scraper without scratching them.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
Tell that to my 360 degree LED anchor light at the top of the mast
which is brighter and can be seen farther than the incandescent it
replaced, and uses 1/10th the power.
All nav lights have to cover specified arcs of visibility. The
directional nature of LED's is actually a disadvantage for boats that
had to be overcome, which is done by using arrays of smaller LED's
They now have LED's that produce as much as 200 lumens per watt.
Compare that to a CFL. :-)
sa...@dog.com
>Apparently you don't understand the scale used for illumination by your
>silly comment used to attempt to disguise it. I will assume the rest is
>bullshit then too, for now.
>
Go back to sleep.
Stormin Mormon
on snow birds, or are they a nussiance creature, and you're
encourged to shoot all you want?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in
message
news:x4-dnVEZsrHpwJrW...@giganews.com...
Nate Nagel
Right, my original comment was referring to retrofitting
LEDs in an older vehicle. Nothing good seems to be available there, at
least not in a plug and play (or nearly so) solution.
nate
Josepi
the media use this expression
"Saving Watts"
It clearly demonstrates ignorance of power and energy and belittles the
whole intent of any programme using it.
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:7OGdnYXhCpHo5prW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
can be clearly shown from history, here, that a hidden agenda may be lurking
in your demonstration.
pot, kettle? LOL
"Robert L Bass" <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote in message
news:zuqdnZdk2e9N55rW...@giganews.com...
Josepi
"Say Watt?"
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:idpfg5lq2rf3lr11f...@4ax.com...
Josepi
However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
with small pockets.
When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
LEDs have failed at, to date.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:blofg55k14g42agc9...@4ax.com...
Congoleum Breckenridge
> LED tail light are not "very bright". The illumination is very poor.
>
> However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
> compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
>
> Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
> many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
> bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
> with small pockets.
>
> When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
> future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
> LEDs have failed at, to date.
I've seen LED back up lights on a couple of newer Luxury cars.
BTW, The 2009 Cadillac Escalade Platinum has LED headlights.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
I've seen plenty of direct replacements for 1157 incandescents,
complete with standard bayonet base.
sa...@dog.com
>LED tail light are not "very bright". The illumination is very poor.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. The only thing in this
conversation that is not very bright, is you.
>However LED lights are very focused and play on the human vision system to
>compete with the effectiveness of incandescents.
>
>Many incandescent tail lights have taken a lesson in efficiency also and
>many of the so-called LED taillights on vehicles are actually incandescent
>bulbs. Take a closer look and you will see many peanut bulbs in a reflector
>with small pockets.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. Just so I could say I knew for
certain, I just went out and looked again. LED's, dopey. Nine in each
tail/brakelight. Looked in the manual and in the list of replacement
bulbs, there is nothing listed for tail lights. They are not expected
to need replacement in the lifetime of the vehicle. If they are
damaged in an accident, you replace the whole light array as an
assembly.
Game, Set, Match
>When will we see back-up LED lights on vehicles? Not likely in the near
>future. The total luminence is not there to illuminate an area. Something
>LEDs have failed at, to date.
>
Once again, you are COMPLETELY wrong. Have someone (who can read) look
up the word "array" in a dictionary and explain it to you.
sa...@dog.com
Careful. You'll make Josepi's head explode.
Josepi
at the back of your scrap yard? Show me the money.
At least if you are going to use over 2348 (your figures) different nyms
you should attempt to change your stupid insult style of words. It would
make trolling and stalking much more effective for you.
**sigh** The newbies.
You can run but you can never hide. Better luck next time.
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:h05gg5tbv60uolhic...@4ax.com...
Josepi
Apparently the Lexus (2008) used LEDs for low beam headlights. Here is an
exepr from a sirte discussing that. The heigh heat put out by LED
inefficiency is a problem.
---------------------------------------------
Automotive headlamp applications using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have
been undergoing very active development since 2004.[38][39] The first
series-production LED headlamps were factory-installed on the Lexus LS 600h
/ LS 600h L starting with the 2008 models. Low beam, front position light
and sidemarker functions are performed by LEDs; high beam and turn signal
functions use filament bulbs. The headlamp is supplied by Koito. Full-LED
headlamps supplied by AL-Automotive Lighting were fitted on the 2008 V10
Audi R8 sports car except in North America. The Hella headlamps on the 2009
Cadillac Escalade Platinum became the first U.S. market all-LED headlamps.
Present designs give performance between halogen and HID headlamps,[40] with
system power consumption slightly lower than other headlamps, longer
lifespans and more flexible design possibilities.[41][42] As LED technology
continues to evolve, the performance of LED headlamps is predicted to
improve to approach, meet, and perhaps one day surpass that of HID
headlamps.[43]
The limiting factors with LED headlamps presently include high system
expense, regulatory delays and uncertainty, and logistical issues created by
LED operating characteristics. LEDs are commonly considered to be low-heat
devices due to the public's familiarity with small, low-output LEDs used for
electronic control panels and other applications requiring only modest
amounts of light. However, LEDs actually produce a significant amount of
heat per unit of light output. Rather than being emitted together with the
light as is the case with conventional light sources, an LED's heat is
produced at the rear of the emitters. The cumulative heat of numerous
high-output LEDs operating for prolonged periods poses thermal-management
challenges for plastic headlamp housings. In addition, this heat buildup
materially reduces the light output of the emitters themselves. LEDs are
quite temperature sensitive, with many types producing at 30 �C (86 �F) only
60% of the rated light output they produce at an emitter junction
temperature 16 �C (61 �F). Prolonged operation above the maximum junction
temperature will permanently degrade the LEDs and ultimately shorten the
device's life. The need to keep LED junction temperatures low at high power
levels always requires additional thermal management measures such as
heatsinks and exhaust fans which are typically quite expensive.
Additional facets of the thermal issues with LED headlamps reveal themselves
in cold ambient temperatures. Many types of LEDs produce at ?12 �C (10 �F)
up to 160% of their 16 �C (61 �F) rated output. The temperature-dependency
of LED's light output creates serious challenges for the engineering and
regulation of automotive lighting devices, which are in some cases required
to produce intensities within a range smaller than the variation in LED
output with temperatures normally experienced in automotive service.
Cold weather also brings another thermal-management conundrum: Not only must
heat be removed from the rear of the headlamp so that the housing does not
deform or melt and the emitters' output does not drop excessively, but heat
must in addition be effectively applied to thaw snow and ice from the front
lenses, which are not heated by the comparatively small amount of infared
radiation emitted forward with the light from LEDs.
LEDs are increasingly being adopted for signalling functions such as parking
lamps, brake lamps and turn signals as well as daytime running lamps, as in
those applications they offer significant advantages over filament bulbs
with fewer engineering challenges than headlamps pose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Congoleum Breckenridge" <conb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4B080FFD...@home.com...
Nate Nagel
I've tried a couple out of curiosity, they range from "OK but about half
the apparent brightness of a 1034 or 1157" or "so dim you'd have to be
insane to even think about using them." Nothing actually "acceptable."
None of the vendors of same are willing to put in their documentation a
comparison of brightness between their "bulbs" and a standard 1034/1157.
sa...@dog.com
>You base your whole argument and insults on the back of some vehicle parked
>at the back of your scrap yard? Show me the money.
>
>At least if you are going to use over 2348 (your figures) different nyms
>you should attempt to change your stupid insult style of words. It would
>make trolling and stalking much more effective for you.
>
> **sigh** The newbies.
>
>You can run but you can never hide. Better luck next time.
>
Now you have become pretty much incoherent. I have been on usenet
since... well, a very long time. I have changed my nym maybe 5 or so
times in 20 or so years. I only use one at a time, usually for many
years, before changing to another.
And you remain completely wrong on everyting else, too. Now the list
of things you are confused about is just longer.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
I haven't tried them myself, as my cars already have LED tail and
brake lights. My greatest experience is in use of LED's to replace
interior lights in yachts, as well as Navigation lights, which have
very strict requirements set by the government. They have to be
visible for a specified distance, and in specific arcs of coverage,
both vertical and horizontal. They need to have full brightness in the
specified coverage parameters. Obviously single LED's won't do that,
which seems to completely stymie Josepi. The simple answer is that
most LED replacements for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application
other than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by use of
arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
The Daring Dufas
The only problem with high output LED lights is the need for cooling.
Like most semiconductor technologies, excessive heat will damage them.
The Cadillac LED headlights have built in cooling fans.
TDD
Robert L Bass
>
> The only thing I don't like about them on my
> car is that there is no warmth generated to
That's a problem we don't have to deal with in Sarasota. :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> More appropriately, your most intelligent argument should have been
>
> "Say Watt?"
Heh, heh, heh... :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> For sure, good lighting is essential. What's the bag limit
> on snow birds, or are they a nussiance creature, and you're
> encourged to shoot all you want?
The bag limit works in reverse with these "birds". The typical conversation in
their car goes something like this:
Blue Hair: "George, you just ran a red light!"
No Hair: "Oh, am I driving?"
Regards,
Robert
Robert L Bass
>
> ... The simple answer is that most LED replacements
> for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application other
> than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by
> use of arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
Therein lies the problem. Lamp housings using reflectors or prismatic lenses
for nav lights and other purposes are designed to use a light coming from a
single point. Incandescent bulbs do that rather well. An LED array can't work
as well in that type of lamp because only a few of the LEDs are at the focal
point. Light emitted from the rest of the LEDs will be scattered in wrong
directions.
That does not mean that LEDs can't serve well in nav lights -- only that they
don't work well as replacements for standard bulbs in *existing* lamps. If
someone designs a lamp around light coming from the broad surface of an LED
array it may turn out to be a better choice for sailboats. Sailing is in that
respect analogous to living "off the grid." Folks interested in learning ways
to conserve energy might learn a lot from folks who sail.
sa...@dog.com
<Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
>salty wrote:
>>
>> ... The simple answer is that most LED replacements
>> for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application other
>> than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by
>> use of arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
>
>Therein lies the problem. Lamp housings using reflectors or prismatic lenses
>for nav lights and other purposes are designed to use a light coming from a
>single point.
You are already off course. ;-)
>Incandescent bulbs do that rather well. An LED array can't work
>as well in that type of lamp because only a few of the LEDs are at the focal
>point. Light emitted from the rest of the LEDs will be scattered in wrong
>directions.
Way off course. The alarms are now sounding and crew are running up on
deck.
>
>That does not mean that LEDs can't serve well in nav lights -- only that they
>don't work well as replacements for standard bulbs in *existing* lamps.
Not true. As I said, they have to perform to strict legal standards -
and they do. I did not replace any fixtures for my nav lights. All
done with drop in LED arrays made to completely and legally reproduce
the same or better light. Couldn't do it if they didn't comply. LED's
can be mounted in arrays on the surface of any shape in order to give
full brightness in all directions needed. They individually have a
fairly narrow beam, but you simply mount a bunch of them so that the
beams overlap. I'm not speculating about this. I have them on my
sailboat. So do a lot of other folks.
>If
>someone designs a lamp around light coming from the broad surface of an LED
>array it may turn out to be a better choice for sailboats. Sailing is in that
>respect analogous to living "off the grid." Folks interested in learning ways
>to conserve energy might learn a lot from folks who sail.
Electrical power on a sailboat is precious. As I mentioned previously,
I have a written "electrical budget" that details the draw of every
single piece of equipment on the boat, including draw for things like
the separate "memory" power lead of the digital am/fm/CD which draws
miniscule amounts of power. This draw spec is not from the specs that
come with the devices. It is measured at the power source (breaker
panel) to take into account all losses inherent in the system.
I know at all times how many amp hours I'm consuming, and how many I'm
generatingfrom various sources. I also have to compute how long at how
many amps I have to input power to replace used amp hours. It is not a
1:1 ratio. Battery charging is not simply stuffing juice back in to
replace the amount used.
Robert L Bass
>
> Careful. You'll make Josepi's head explode.
That's not helping.
Robert L Bass
>
> Not true. As I said, they have to perform to strict
> legal standards - and they do. I did not replace
> any fixtures for my nav lights. All done with drop
> in LED arrays made to completely and legally
OK, I believe you.
> ...I'm not speculating about this.
I was speculating. Clearly you know what you're talking about.
> I know at all times how many amp hours I'm consuming,
> and how many I'm generating from various sources. I
> also have to compute how long at how many amps I have to
> input power to replace used amp hours. It is not a 1:1 ratio.
> Battery charging is not simply stuffing juice back in to
> replace the amount used.
Now you've got my curiosity piqued. What do you use to generate power while
under way?
sa...@dog.com
<Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
>salty wrote:
>>
>> Not true. As I said, they have to perform to strict
>> legal standards - and they do. I did not replace
>> any fixtures for my nav lights. All done with drop
>> in LED arrays made to completely and legally
>> reproduce the same or better light...
>
>OK, I believe you.
>
>> ...I'm not speculating about this.
>
>I was speculating. Clearly you know what you're talking about.
>
>> I know at all times how many amp hours I'm consuming,
>> and how many I'm generating from various sources. I
>> also have to compute how long at how many amps I have to
>> input power to replace used amp hours. It is not a 1:1 ratio.
>> Battery charging is not simply stuffing juice back in to
>> replace the amount used.
>
>Now you've got my curiosity piqued. What do you use to generate power while
>under way?
Most of the time the solar panels make up for whatever the sporadic
running of the engine doesn't take care of. I'm pretty frugal about
using electricity, and I pay attention to my electrical budget out of
long established habit. I have all the wiring hookeups needed for
connecting to shore power if I am at a dock that has it available, but
I've never used it. Just don't need it if you are used to not having
unlimited power all the time. I don't have refrigeration or air
conditioning, which would be huge consumers of electrical power. If I
had them, I would probably have to add a wind generator. Most people
with air conditioning can only use it at the dock on shore power,
except for very large yachts with dedicated gensets.
Going to all LED's was a very important part of how I manage power
usage. Just running the incandesent anchor light for 10 hours every
night when it drew 2 amps was a problem. That was 20 amp hours of
battery capacity just for that. Now it draws just under .2 amps. for
10 hours which consumes 2 amp hours. Big difference!
At home, I use CFL's everywhere practical, which is almost everywhere.
It dropped my electrical usage so much that it qualified me for
rebates on my electrical bill on top of the savings from the lower
usage itself. I figure my CFL's will mostly be near the end of their
service life about the time that LED replacements will be cost
effective.
Gordon Burditt
>very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
According to state and/or Federal regulations, if you're driving
with a tail light with one burned out LED, do you deserve a ticket,
even if you still have a lot of light?
Sometimes what appears to be redundancy actually increases the
failure rate.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:37:57 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
> <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
>
>>salty wrote:
>>>
>>> ... The simple answer is that most LED replacements
>>> for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application other
>>> than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by
>>> use of arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
>>
>>Therein lies the problem. Lamp housings using reflectors or prismatic lenses
>>for nav lights and other purposes are designed to use a light coming from a
>>single point.
>
> You are already off course. ;-)
Umm... you know boats and I don't, but when talking about automotive
taillights he's exactly correct.
>>Incandescent bulbs do that rather well. An LED array can't work
>>as well in that type of lamp because only a few of the LEDs are at the focal
>>point. Light emitted from the rest of the LEDs will be scattered in wrong
>>directions.
>
> Way off course. The alarms are now sounding and crew are running up on
> deck.
No... exactly correct for autos.
>>That does not mean that LEDs can't serve well in nav lights -- only that they
>>don't work well as replacements for standard bulbs in *existing* lamps.
>
> Not true. As I said, they have to perform to strict legal standards -
> and they do. I did not replace any fixtures for my nav lights. All
> done with drop in LED arrays made to completely and legally reproduce
> the same or better light. Couldn't do it if they didn't comply. LED's
> can be mounted in arrays on the surface of any shape in order to give
> full brightness in all directions needed. They individually have a
> fairly narrow beam, but you simply mount a bunch of them so that the
> beams overlap. I'm not speculating about this. I have them on my
> sailboat. So do a lot of other folks.
This I can readily believe -- but that's absolutely not what the
automotive "replacements" that try to drop a bunch of LEDs in to replace
an 1157 are like.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
sa...@dog.com
Burditt) wrote:
>>A lot of new cars already come equipped with LED tail Lights. They are
>>very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
>
>According to state and/or Federal regulations, if you're driving
>with a tail light with one burned out LED, do you deserve a ticket,
>even if you still have a lot of light?
>
Probably not. I wouldn't be at all surprised if my tailights far
exceed the minimum requirements, so that losing a number of elements
would still leave me with more than is required. Very unlike an
incandescent tail light that if it loses one lamp, goes completely
dark.
I'm sure you have noticed that the tail lights on cars vary greatly in
size. The DOT specifies a MINIMUM size and brightness.
Robert L Bass
>
> Most of the time the solar panels make up for whatever the sporadic
> running of the engine doesn't take care of. I'm pretty frugal about
> using electricity, and I pay attention to my electrical budget out of
> long established habit. I have all the wiring hookeups needed for
> connecting to shore power if I am at a dock that has it available, but
> I've never used it. Just don't need it if you are used to not having
> unlimited power all the time.
I assume that makes for less problems with galvanic loss of any metal in contact
with the water. I've been told (don't know how true it is) that boats
comnnected to shore power need some sort of sacrificial anode. True or legend?
> I don't have refrigeration or air conditioning...
Aha! I knew there was a reason I never took up sailing. :^)
> Going to all LED's was a very important part of how I manage power
> usage. Just running the incandesent anchor light for 10 hours every
> night when it drew 2 amps was a problem. That was 20 amp hours of
> battery capacity just for that. Now it draws just under .2 amps. for
> 10 hours which consumes 2 amp hours. Big difference!
Huge. Designing fire alarm systems, we become accustomed to considering every
small drain on power because they have to be able to operate on backup battery
alone for 24 hours (in some cases 72 hours) and then run all sirens, strobes,
etc., for 15 minutes. Every small add-on impacts the battery requirements.
> At home, I use CFL's everywhere practical, which is almost
> everywhere.
I started using them a while ago and they serve well enough for everything
except my PC desks. There I use incandescant lights. Since I work online as
much as 12 or 14 hours some days I afford myself the "luxury" of incandescant
lighting. I have a number of recessed can fistures in the ceilings, which are
12 and 14 feet high in most of the house. Bulb replacement is a royal PITA with
those so any time one goes out it gets a CFL.
> It dropped my electrical usage so much that it qualified
> me for rebates on my electrical bill on top of the savings
> from the lower usage itself...
We have a pool pump running 8 to 10 hours a day, two freezers, two
refrigerators, two central AC systems and, until recently, as many as 5 PC's
running for at least 8 hours a day. Somehow I don't hink I'll be able to get a
rebate on my FPL bill. Maybe they'll offer me stock in the company though. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
Robert L Bass
>
>> A lot of new cars already come equipped with LED tail Lights. They are
>> very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
>
> According to state and/or Federal regulations, if you're driving
> with a tail light with one burned out LED, do you deserve a ticket,
> even if you still have a lot of light?
That depends on the circumstances. On the NJ Turnpike most people won't even be
stopped. If the driver happens to be black or brown, it's an arrest offense,
including a felony stop as in, "Driver! Exit the vee-hick-al and step backward
toward me with your hands in the air..." all of this at gunpoint. :^(
sa...@dog.com
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>sa...@dog.com writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:37:57 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
>> <Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
>>
>>>salty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... The simple answer is that most LED replacements
>>>> for incandesent bulbs in almost ANY application other
>>>> than indicator lights on a panel, are accomplished by
>>>> use of arrays of LED's, not a single LED.
>>>
>>>Therein lies the problem. Lamp housings using reflectors or prismatic lenses
>>>for nav lights and other purposes are designed to use a light coming from a
>>>single point.
>>
>> You are already off course. ;-)
>
>Umm... you know boats and I don't, but when talking about automotive
>taillights he's exactly correct.
>
Sorry, but he's not
>>>Incandescent bulbs do that rather well. An LED array can't work
>>>as well in that type of lamp because only a few of the LEDs are at the focal
>>>point. Light emitted from the rest of the LEDs will be scattered in wrong
>>>directions.
>>
>> Way off course. The alarms are now sounding and crew are running up on
>> deck.
>
>No... exactly correct for autos.
>
No, not correct for autos.
>>>That does not mean that LEDs can't serve well in nav lights -- only that they
>>>don't work well as replacements for standard bulbs in *existing* lamps.
>>
>> Not true. As I said, they have to perform to strict legal standards -
>> and they do. I did not replace any fixtures for my nav lights. All
>> done with drop in LED arrays made to completely and legally reproduce
>> the same or better light. Couldn't do it if they didn't comply. LED's
>> can be mounted in arrays on the surface of any shape in order to give
>> full brightness in all directions needed. They individually have a
>> fairly narrow beam, but you simply mount a bunch of them so that the
>> beams overlap. I'm not speculating about this. I have them on my
>> sailboat. So do a lot of other folks.
>
>This I can readily believe -- but that's absolutely not what the
>automotive "replacements" that try to drop a bunch of LEDs in to replace
>an 1157 are like.
We are not talking about the cheap chinese 1157 replacements.
I have a car that came from the factory with LED tail light/brake
lights. Trust me, they are a lot more visible from any angle then any
incandescent tailight you have ever encountered.
sa...@dog.com
<Sa...@BassBurglarAlarms.com> wrote:
><salty> wrote:
>>
>> Most of the time the solar panels make up for whatever the sporadic
>> running of the engine doesn't take care of. I'm pretty frugal about
>> using electricity, and I pay attention to my electrical budget out of
>> long established habit. I have all the wiring hookeups needed for
>> connecting to shore power if I am at a dock that has it available, but
>> I've never used it. Just don't need it if you are used to not having
>> unlimited power all the time.
>
>I assume that makes for less problems with galvanic loss of any metal in contact
>with the water. I've been told (don't know how true it is) that boats
>comnnected to shore power need some sort of sacrificial anode. True or legend?
>
Even boats not connected to shore power need sacrificial anodes.
Sometimes, if there is a problem in a Marina's wiring, serious damage
can happen VERY quickly. Imagine what happened if a bronze thruhull
gets eaten. Your boat sinks!
It is also possible to be electrocuted swimming near marina docks with
shore power issues.
>> I don't have refrigeration or air conditioning...
>
>Aha! I knew there was a reason I never took up sailing. :^)
>
It is exactly what I like about sailing. If I wanted it to be just
like home, I could save a lot of money by... staying home!
>> Going to all LED's was a very important part of how I manage power
>> usage. Just running the incandesent anchor light for 10 hours every
>> night when it drew 2 amps was a problem. That was 20 amp hours of
>> battery capacity just for that. Now it draws just under .2 amps. for
>> 10 hours which consumes 2 amp hours. Big difference!
>
>Huge. Designing fire alarm systems, we become accustomed to considering every
>small drain on power because they have to be able to operate on backup battery
>alone for 24 hours (in some cases 72 hours) and then run all sirens, strobes,
>etc., for 15 minutes. Every small add-on impacts the battery requirements.
>
>> At home, I use CFL's everywhere practical, which is almost
>> everywhere.
>
>I started using them a while ago and they serve well enough for everything
>except my PC desks. There I use incandescant lights. Since I work online as
>much as 12 or 14 hours some days I afford myself the "luxury" of incandescant
>lighting. I have a number of recessed can fistures in the ceilings, which are
>12 and 14 feet high in most of the house. Bulb replacement is a royal PITA with
>those so any time one goes out it gets a CFL.
>
>> It dropped my electrical usage so much that it qualified
>> me for rebates on my electrical bill on top of the savings
>> from the lower usage itself...
>
>We have a pool pump running 8 to 10 hours a day, two freezers, two
>refrigerators, two central AC systems and, until recently, as many as 5 PC's
>running for at least 8 hours a day. Somehow I don't hink I'll be able to get a
>rebate on my FPL bill. Maybe they'll offer me stock in the company though. :^)
I'm currently looking into installing a geothermal system for heating
and cooling my house. My boiler will be nearing it's expected service
life end in about 4 or 5 years. Since I would be paying to replace
that at that time anyway, it helps make the numbers work very well.
Replacing it earlier would not be nearly as cost effective. What I
would pay for a new boiler and central air is about half of the total
cost for the geothermal system. Then of course, there are all sorts of
rebates, tax credits and "green" programs to cut the cost even
further.
Joe Pfeiffer
A taillight engineered around an LED array can work at least as well as
incandescents, with all the longevity and energy savings of LEDs. I can
also believe in an LED array engineered to fit behind a particular
existing lens, which would also work as well, though I've never seen it.
But this discussion started (when I brought up the topic) with drop-in
retrofits for auto taillights -- ie cheap Chinese 1157 "replacements".
And those fail for all the reasons that have been quoted enough times in
this discussion that I snipped them this time.
sa...@dog.com
<pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>sa...@dog.com writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:05 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
>> <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>This I can readily believe -- but that's absolutely not what the
>>>automotive "replacements" that try to drop a bunch of LEDs in to replace
>>>an 1157 are like.
>>
>> We are not talking about the cheap chinese 1157 replacements.
>>
>> I have a car that came from the factory with LED tail light/brake
>> lights. Trust me, they are a lot more visible from any angle then any
>> incandescent tailight you have ever encountered.
>
>A taillight engineered around an LED array can work at least as well as
>incandescents, with all the longevity and energy savings of LEDs. I can
>also believe in an LED array engineered to fit behind a particular
>existing lens, which would also work as well, though I've never seen it.
>But this discussion started (when I brought up the topic) with drop-in
>retrofits for auto taillights -- ie cheap Chinese 1157 "replacements".
>
>And those fail for all the reasons that have been quoted enough times in
>this discussion that I snipped them this time.
If you look around a little more thoroughly, you will find drop in
replacements that DO work well.
They exist.
TimR
http://footprint.mit.edu/energy/apres.html
However if you'll scroll down you'll see an interesting table, with
more than just luments per watt. It also includes dollars per lumen
and lifetime numbers. I didn't see the reference.
There is an interesting one liner at the end, giving lumens per watt
of a laser at about 700. Dunno where that data came from.
Nate Nagel
> sa...@dog.com writes:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:05 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
>> <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> This I can readily believe -- but that's absolutely not what the
>>> automotive "replacements" that try to drop a bunch of LEDs in to replace
>>> an 1157 are like.
>> We are not talking about the cheap chinese 1157 replacements.
>>
>> I have a car that came from the factory with LED tail light/brake
>> lights. Trust me, they are a lot more visible from any angle then any
>> incandescent tailight you have ever encountered.
>
> A taillight engineered around an LED array can work at least as well as
> incandescents, with all the longevity and energy savings of LEDs. I can
> also believe in an LED array engineered to fit behind a particular
> existing lens, which would also work as well, though I've never seen it.
> But this discussion started (when I brought up the topic) with drop-in
> retrofits for auto taillights -- ie cheap Chinese 1157 "replacements".
>
> And those fail for all the reasons that have been quoted enough times in
> this discussion that I snipped them this time.
I have seen circuit-board type retrofits for Studebaker Avantis
(notorious for dim, hard to see taillights even when everything is in
as-new shape) and they work really well. Unfortunately I have a '55
coupe which has the same issue but there is no ready-made retrofit kit.
I'm thinking of perhaps taking some of the "truck-lite" oval taillights
and busting them apart and seeing if that works better. Only thing I've
tried that provides acceptable lighting in those taillights so far are
halogen bulbs (which I don't like for heat reasons) and one set of LED
"bulbs" that I got from DealExtreme that use three high-output LEDs
rather than the usual array of cheap crappy LEDs. Unfortunately for
those wanting a "drop in" replacement, I suspect that those particular
"bulbs" will only work well in a light designed with a Fresnel type
lens, and not one relying on the reflector for its optical
characteristics. Even worse; one of them has already fallen apart.
If an LED "bulb" were available that would work well in reflector-type
optics and would fit the same form factor as a typical 1034, 1157,
P21/5W or single filament equivalent, I would be really happy. I sure
wouldn't mind having LED lighting on the rear of my Porsche 944, but
that uses a molded-together type lens/reflector assembly where the bulbs
are inserted through little holes in the rear, so it's damn near
impossible to implement a circuit board type retrofit there (OK, not
impossible, but it would be an ambitious project, esp. considering that
there's five different segments in each taillight - three red, one
amber, one white (stop, tail, and rear fog are discrete segments) and I
just don't have enough free time to build such a taillight, and I doubt
the results would be worth it even though they'd be quite cool.
As I posted before, I tried some that looked like this:
http://www.urban-neon-car-lights.com/car-lights/1156ledbulb.html
I think I got them from superbrightleds.com - what a misnomer!
absolutely worthless. Then I tried some of these a couple years later:
those are the ones that I said worked well but were too dim.
these are the ones that worked well in my '55 (Fresnel type lens) but
fell apart:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240415486/LED_Car_Light_LED_Auto_Lamp.html
Now that I think about it, I think I also put a power resistor in series
with the parking light function, as it was way too bright.
Nothing yet that I can recommend as a plug 'n' play for most people in
an average car.
I haven't tried the SMD type "bulbs" yet but at $20 a pop and me
expecting to be disappointed, I'm hoping that someone else will try them
first and let me know :)
Nate Nagel
Link? I've been waiting for years for someone to recommend a good one
and have seen lots of websites and hype but not one person who's been
able to say "I used this particular product, and it's as bright as a
1157 and works well."
Don Klipstein
>"Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:HxCHm.141327$8m4....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>> Except for the "intricately curved delicate glass tubes", 120V LEDs have
>> essentially the same production and noise issues as CFLs.
>
>That's a pretty big exception. As a guy who custom builds electronics by
>hand, I am sure that you realize that even one delicate step in a process,
>say soldering an SMD component to a circuit board by hand, can cause your
>reject rate to soar. Take a look at some of the spiral shapes of bulbs and I
>think you'll realize that it takes some significant heat and tooling to
>create narrow but even diameter glass tubes that then must be twisted into
>spiral shape, uniformly coated internally with phosphor, primed with
>mercury, and then sealed and capped with electrodes. Forgive me for taking
>a technical note and turning it into polemic, but this is an important
>issue.
>
>Even if LED and CFL production costs were equal, manufacturing CFL's means
>increasing the mining for mercury and causing much more of the neurotoxin to
>enter the world at large.
<Along with several more pages of tirading on mercury>
Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining
of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution.
LEDs are better once they become sufficiently cost-effective and
cost-effectively improve upon CFLs in energy efficiency and do so in
versions with similarly warm color high color rendering index light.
Until then, mercury is a good reason to use CFLs instead of incandescents.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Gordon Burditt
>>>very bright, and if one LED fails, you still have a lot of light. The
>>
>>According to state and/or Federal regulations, if you're driving
>>with a tail light with one burned out LED, do you deserve a ticket,
>>even if you still have a lot of light?
>>
>
>Probably not. I wouldn't be at all surprised if my tailights far
>exceed the minimum requirements, so that losing a number of elements
>would still leave me with more than is required.
This was a legal question, not a technical one. The laws tend to
be written to make it easy to write tickets. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if there was a maximum of 0 dead lights regardless of
whether you could get it certified if you simply removed all the
dead lights. The history of single incandescent bulbs that die and
leave you with no light makes it more likely that "driving with a
dead tail light" is a ticketable offense with 1 dead LED and 99
working ones. This more likely comes from the state vehicle code,
not the DOT which is more aiming its regulations at manufacturers,
but you're still stuck with both sets of rules.
I seem to recall that there are FAA regulations that you have to
have at least two independent methods of measuring <something> (I
forget, this may have been altitude or airspeed) but if you add a
GPS unit, you now have three methods of measuring <something>. But
you can't take off unless *all* of them are working, so adding the
GPS just added another point of failure.
Assume that a tail light setup was certified to be 25% more than
sufficiently bright with 100 LEDs. It is likely to be ticket-worthy
if there's one dead light. It may be ticket-worthy if there are
101 working LEDs and one dead one. It might be ticket-worthy if
there are 101 working LEDs and no dead ones and it wasn't re-certified.
I'll ask the same question about boats, which one poster said had
very strict regulations. Can you get your setup certified if you
have a dead light in it (without removing the dead one)? If you
got your setup certified with N lights (N is, say, around 100) with
a 25% margin over minimum lighting intensity, and one of N burns
out, is that acceptable without re-certification (or fixing the
dead one)?
Robert L Bass
>
> <Along with several more pages of tirading on mercury>
>
> Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs
> actually reduce mining of mercury-containing materials
> and transfering mercury to the environment. This is
> because about half of all electricity produced in the USA
> is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury
> pollution.
That is correct but if you're trying to convince Bobby Green, forget it. He
began with the premises that CFL's are bad and refuses to see anything that
proves otherwise. That "dining room table" phrase comes to mind.
> LEDs are better once they become sufficiently
> cost-effective and cost-effectively improve upon CFLs
> in energy efficiency and do so in versions with similarly
> warm color high color rendering index light. Until then,
> mercury is a good reason to use CFLs instead of
> incandescents.
True. All of the evidence supports that.
Robert L Bass
>
> I seem to recall that there are FAA regulations that you have to
> have at least two independent methods of measuring <something> (I
> forget, this may have been altitude or airspeed) but if you add a
> GPS unit, you now have three methods of measuring <something>. But
> you can't take off unless *all* of them are working, so adding the
> GPS just added another point of failure.
It's been a long time since I read the FARs but I can tell you this much. It's
a lot more "interesting" making a anding without electrical power to the
instrument panel. On a flight with my CFI years ago we were returning to SRQ
(Sarasota) when a fuse blew. Then we noticed a faint smell of somethying
electrical burning. There was no visible smoke and everything that doesn't need
electricity worked. Strangely, the radios also worked.
In order to land at SRQ you usually approach from the North and have to fly
briefly into Tampa International's airspace. Tampa's controllers get pretty
busy and often tell GA pilots to stand by. That afternoon was no exception.
After a couple of minutes I called them again. Same answer.
I replied "Cessna ***** standing by with electrical failure and odor of smoke in
airplane."
They took care of us really fast. We landed without incident, taxied to the
shop and walked away (definition of a good landing). The A&P guy found a short,
fixed it and said all was well. Next time we flew that airplane, we lost
electrical power to the panel again. Shortly after that I had to stop due to
health issues. I assume they finally got things straightened out.
> Assume that a tail light setup was certified to be 25% more than
> sufficiently bright with 100 LEDs. It is likely to be ticket-worthy
> if there's one dead light...
First the cop has to see the one dead LED. Then he has to be the one moron in
twenty who would ticket you for it. Of course, with my luck... :^)
Robert L Bass
>
> He began with the premises...
Doh! Make that "premise" -- not premises. :^)
Robert
sa...@dog.com
As with automotive lamps, the specifications for boats do not
stiplulate how many elements are in the fixture or how many are lit.
All that is required to be legal is to have the minimum specified
illumination, and in the case of automobile tailights, there is also a
requirement of the size of surface area exposed. If you have an array
of 100 LED's and 50 are not lit, you are still legal in both an
automobile and a boat as long as you still meet the minimum
specifications.
If there is a spec of dust on the lens of your tailight will you get a
ticket?
Don Klipstein
>Interesting. Everything I have ever heard says the opposite about
>fluorescents, of the right colour.
>
>How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
>affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
>statistically reduced, big time.
>
>The flickering of fluorescents was always blamed for some problems but the
>sun doesn't flicker at 120Hz.
>
>"Chuck" <cbac...@attt.net> wrote in message
>news:he643p$h5d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
>> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
>> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit ultra
>> violet light like the sun does.
Furthermore, CFLs emit less UV than is found in even a similar quantity
of daylight that has passed through a window.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Tony Hwang
> Interesting. Everything I have ever heard says the opposite about
> fluorescents, of the right colour.
>
> How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually
> affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is
> statistically reduced, big time.
>
> The flickering of fluorescents was always blamed for some problems but the
> sun doesn't flicker at 120Hz.
>
> "Chuck"<cbac...@attt.net> wrote in message
> news:he643p$h5d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I will stay with old fashion bulbs as long as I can. My wife can't be
>> exposed to florescence bulbs. People with immune problems (arthritis or
>> lupus or fibromyalgia) react badly to the CFL type bulbs. They emit ultra
>> violet light like the sun does.
>
>
Old/little knowledge is worse than lack of knowledge. How about vitamin
D then? Auro immune disease did not happen over night. When it was
coming with all kinds of signal/symptoms, I wonder what people did to
prevent it.
Don Klipstein
>With the energy required to manufacture LED bulbs. And the
>cost of the bulbs. I doubt there is any real savings. Either
>to your wallet, or to the planet, by converting to LED light
>indoors.
Osram, who makes incandescents, CFLs and LEDs, did a study indicating
very well that only a very small percentage (about 2%) of energy used by
all 3 of these throughout their life cycles, including manufacturing and
transportation, is in everything other than the electricity consumed by
them over their lifetimes.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/6/8/4
http://www.osram-os.com/osram_os/EN/About_Us/
We_shape_the_future_of_light/Our_obligation/
LED_life-cycle_assessment/More_Information/index.html
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>
>sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:36:32 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@inv.alid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Not according to testing labs that have made lumen mesurements. Are you
>> >including the inverters or other lossy type gadgets to accomodate
>> >different types of bulbs?
>>
>> No inverters or "lossy gadgets" involved, other than what is built
>> into the base of the lamps. The draw measured includes any and all
>> parts of the assembly.
>>
>> >Have you actually measured the "equivalent" light output or
>> >does it just look about the same?
>>
>> Measured. Nav lights have to meet strict legal requirements and be
>> certified.
>>
>> >Brilliance is a logarithmic scale and can
>> >be very deceiving to the human eye.
>>
>> You really can't stand being wrong, can you?
>>
>> >Trouble with the lab measurements is they are not usually dated when
>> >completed and the technology advances quite rapidly.
>>
>> Sorry that you have such a hard time with reality.
>
>LEDs are considerably more efficient than ordinary incandescents, but
>they are still less efficient than CFLs. Many of the fixtures you'd be
>using on a boat benefit from the directionality of LEDs, which is
>another reason they perform better.
There are now white LEDs more efficient than CFLs - but this level of
efficiency is largely limited to cool white ones without high color
rendering index, or to laboratory prototypes.
Nav lights involve colored lights, and LEDs have an extra advantage
there from the fact that there are efficient LEDs specializing in
producing one color or another of light. Incandescent red and green nav
lights have filters that remove something like 70% of the light.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
in part:
>They now have LED's that produce as much as 200 lumens per watt.
>
>Compare that to a CFL. :-)
Can you tell me where I can buy an LED exceeding 150 lumens/watt?
(I have ones claiming 150 lumens/watt - Nichia NSPWR70CSS at 20 mA
drive current, 8.7 lumens at .058 watt, 5000 K color temp. with color
rendering index appearing to me to be in the mid or maybe low 60's.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>What I don't understand is why LEDs are so excellent in flashlights (the
>3W Task Force light kicks a Mag-Lite's ass BTW) bike head/taillights,
>truck taillights and traffic lights but it is so difficult to find good
>ones for home lighting and/or retrofitting into car taillights?
Flashlight bulbs tend to mostly be less efficient than ones used for
home lighting.
One advantage LEDs have for flashlights is that their energy energy only
changes slightly (mostly improves slightly) when the batteries weaken,
while incandescents greatly lose energy efficiency.
Another thing: The cost of LEDs needed to achieve an 800, 1600 or 1710
lumen light is fairly prohibitive, more so for warm white, and the amount
of heatsinking needed is a tall order now to get into something the size
of a regular lightbulb.
As for LED taillights: They make those. Cadillac has been using them
for many years already. Some other cars are now being made with them.
An LED retrofit bulb to put into a taillight made for an incandescent is
another story. It is quite a tall order to get an LED light source with
the same emitter shape and size and same radiation pattern and suitable
output so as to achieve the same optical results as with incandescent.
A light to serve a legally required function on a motor vehicle has to
fall within both lower and upper limits of candela into a few dozen
different specified directions, and must be properly certified to do so,
in order to be street legal. An incandescent light with an LED retrofit
bulb generally fails to achieve this, let alone be certified to do so with
any particular mfr/part-number LED bulb. It is illegal to refit a legally
required motor vehicle light with a bulb other than one it is certified to
use.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)