On 11/13/16 8:44 PM, krw wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:37:05 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 11/13/16 6:40 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:20:37 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 11/12/16 6:59 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:02:35 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 11/12/16 5:52 PM, Gramps' shop wrote:
Thanks. Fluorescents are cheaper, but I have decided on
the Costco leds.


They may be cheaper to buy, but the LEDs will be a LOT
cheaper in the long run when you consider their energy
consumption AND their life expectancy.

I don't buy the advertised life of any lighting. I just and
another pig tail die today. I've lost more of them than
incandescent bulbs in the last five years, despite being
outnumbered at least 3:1.


But it's not even a debatable issue. My LED's have already
outlasted any fluorescent tubes I've ever had by at least 2
fold. I would bet the farm that I'll get another 10 years out
of them. A safe guess would be 20.

But 2-fold isn't anything close to the advertised life. We'll
see but I *highly* doubt you're going to get 10 years, much less
20. Heat is a killer of semiconductors and those LEDs run *hot*.
If you want to extend the life of the medium screw base LED
"bulbs", a beer-can heatsink (cut it up to look like a fan
radiating away from the base) will probably double its life.


Apples and oranges. Yes, the compact ones (why the heck are we
still trying to visually imitate a century old designs is beyond
me) get hot, but there's a lot more room for the electronics in the
tube versions. Mine don't even run warm.

Bright LEDs are *hot* LEDs. They go together.


My point is there's a lot more room for the heat to dissipate in a 4ft.
tube than in a tiny little bulb-sized cluster, which would easily
explain the longer life span using your criteria for the reason for
failure.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply