In ,
TimR wrote:

This appears to be an article written as a student project.

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.

This thing has a couple items wrong. Not only do no lasers get anywhere
near 700, but the chart also states incorrectly that xenon achieves 400.
Xenon is doeing very well for xenon when it achieves 60.

The maximum possible is 683 - for a 100% efficient source of
monochromatic light at the yellow-green wavelength at which human photopic
vision is most sensitive.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In , wrote:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:18:48 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:43:59 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
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.

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.
I've seen plenty of direct replacements for 1157 incandescents,
complete with standard bayonet base.

And they produce less light than 1157s, have different directional
characteristics than 1157s, and produce light from different physical
locations than 1157s do. They do not achieve the same optical results,
and none of them have much chance of meeting specified upper and lower
limits of candela in every one of the dozens of specified directions in
any legally required motor vehicle external light fixture ever certified
to work properly with incandescents.

They do make street-legal LED fixtures to serve taillight, brake light,
rear turn signal, and backup light functions. They even make aftermarket
ones, though they generally fit more easily into buses and trucks than
into cars, pickups or SUVs.

- Don Klipstein )

Truckers and USPS seem to love those retrofit kits. Almost all the
little Grumman postal vans and 40' commercial trailers I have seen
recently have them, with mounting rings looking newer that the rest of
the vehicle. Makes sense- for people on a schedule, a deadlined vehicle
due to a burned out bulb costs a lot more than the 1-time cost of the
changeover to LEDs, which basically should outlive the vehicle. Just
program the changeover in whenever the next scheduled service is. I
presume they are factory installed on any built in the last few years.

--
aem sends...

In article , Josepi wrote:
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.

My experience is that they are usually LEDs. Most but not all cars with
LED tail/brake have dimming for tail function achieved by pulsing at a low
duty cycle. (This is done because most LEDs do not have
low-current performance sufficiently predictable from one run to another
for certification.)

Such LED tail/brake lights in tail mode usually show a stroboscopic
pattern if I move my eyes while looking at them.

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.

There are now legal LED backup lights, although so far I have only
noticed these as aftermarket replacements for truck backup lights or for
manufacture of truck bodies and trailers.

- Don Klipstein )

In , Gordon
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?

If the light continues to meet the specification of upper and lower
limits of candela in all required directions, then there is no way to
deserve a ticket. If the percentage of LEDs being failed is small,
chances are fairly good that the light will meet every letter of the legal
requirement.

Sometimes what appears to be redundancy actually increases the
failure rate.

I would agree that a multiple LED light is likely to fall short of the
spec sooner than a single-LED one is. However, since red LEDs usually
honestly achie 100,000 hour life expectancy (white ones generally don't),
I expect a multi-LED tail/brake light to meet the spec until the light has
been used a few tens of thousands of hours. More, since most of the time
it will not being used at full power as a brake light.

In a Crown Vic used as a police cruiser and after that as a taxicab,
lights may have to run for a few tens of thousands of hours. Otherwise,
any decent brake/tail or turn signal LED light should have little trouble
outlasting the car unless it gets broken in a collision that does not
total the car.

- Don Klipstein )

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.

I haven't seen that but some of the cars have one incandescent bulb and a
reflector with many small domes that make it look like many small lights.
I have had friends mention them as LED lights because they look like an LED
array until you look close and find the one actual bulb.

LEDs have typically been used where visibilty of the LED unit is required,
but for visibilty for the user of the LED they have not proven very
economical.

It is important to see the difference in these two usages. An LED for
visibilty for other can be flashed on and off and become more visible but
for a flashlight, for visibilty for the user (holder) flashing on and off
reduces the visibilty.

BTW: LEDs in traffic control lights are typically replaced every two years.
The individual units continually burn out with the severe heat and current
demand on them. This is also a beacon type usage and requires no light
output for illumination purposes.

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:48:23 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
wrote:

writes:

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:05 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
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.


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."

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

They had their choice and they decided to be born that way! It's not **our**
faults!

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
...
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. :^(

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass


"Gordon 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?

Because, overall **white** LEDs do not put out much more, if any, light than
an incandescent bulb for the energy used!

LEDs are more efficient in their usage than incandescents, can be. They are
directional, focusing all their output in one direction. The only produce
one colour of light, efficiently and do it well. An incandescent bulb with a
filter only wastes energy from heat, losing all the other colours. LED's are
also quite small with intense output, making them more esily seen to the
human eye (noticable). When it comes to flood illumination white LEDs are
too costly to compete for the small increase, if any, efficiency.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Nate Nagel wrote:

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 )

In article , Josepi wrote in part:

BTW: LEDs in traffic control lights are typically replaced every two years.
The individual units continually burn out with the severe heat and current
demand on them.

I have plenty of experience where I have been able to track individual
units due to fading and/or a few LEDs being burned out and/or LEDs of a
particular spectral characteristic are obsolete for the purpose due to
lower efficiency than more modern ones. I can tell you that LED traffic
signal units have a very high rate of lasting a lot more than 2 years -
more like 5-10.

- Don Klipstein )

This all may be replaced soon with ESL bulbs. I know they have been talking
about this for along time. Time will see if it is vapourware, like so many
other tech announcements.

http://www.vu1.com/technology/technology.htm


"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
news

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.


True. All of the evidence supports that.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass



"Don Klipstein" wrote:

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.

In article , Josepi wrote:
Because, overall **white** LEDs do not put out much more, if any, light
than an incandescent bulb for the energy used!

LEDs are more efficient in their usage than incandescents, can be. They are
directional, focusing all their output in one direction. The only produce
one colour of light, efficiently and do it well. An incandescent bulb with a
filter only wastes energy from heat, losing all the other colours. LED's are
also quite small with intense output, making them more esily seen to the
human eye (noticable). When it comes to flood illumination white LEDs are
too costly to compete for the small increase, if any, efficiency.

Cost is an obstacle, but plenty of available white LEDs are now a lot
more efficient than incandescents. Efficiency like that of CFLs is now
the cutting edge for available warm white ones, and cool white ones
without high color rendering index now get as efficient as T8
fluorescents.

Osram recently put an 8 watt LED bulb on the market in Europe, with as
much lumen output as an 8 watt CFL.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Nate Nagel wrote:

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 )

The traffic light people cannot afford failures. The legal implications are
too great. I am not sure if it is based on manufactures warraties,
recommendations or history but we still ocasional segments missing.

With LED experience this may also be a heat problem with retrofitting old
units and heat not being drawn away?? When you push LEDs too hard they don't
last long. This is only from a small sample area with slightly over $500K
population.



"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
I have plenty of experience where I have been able to track individual
units due to fading and/or a few LEDs being burned out and/or LEDs of a
particular spectral characteristic are obsolete for the purpose due to
lower efficiency than more modern ones. I can tell you that LED traffic
signal units have a very high rate of lasting a lot more than 2 years -
more like 5-10.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote in part:

BTW: LEDs in traffic control lights are typically replaced every two
years.
The individual units continually burn out with the severe heat and current
demand on them.

In article , Josepi wrote:
The traffic light people cannot afford failures. The legal implications are
too great. I am not sure if it is based on manufactures warraties,
recommendations or history but we still ocasional segments missing.

With LED experience this may also be a heat problem with retrofitting old
units and heat not being drawn away?? When you push LEDs too hard they don't
last long. This is only from a small sample area with slightly over $500K
population.

I meant being kept in service for 5-10 years. Most of Philadelphia's
red ones installed in the 1990's and using an LED chemistry since
superseded in traffic signal use are still working and in service, not
relaced just for a few LEDs being out.

Now that they are making them with power consumption as low as 7 watts
for ones 8 inches in diameter and 8 watts for the ones 12 inches in
diameter, heat is not that big a deal in traffic signals that had
incandescents of 92 or 116 watts. Such huge reduction in power
consumption occurs in part from not having 70-75% of the light blocked
by red and green filters.

If any failure is so intolerable, then why were incandescents
acceptable?

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
I have plenty of experience where I have been able to track individual
units due to fading and/or a few LEDs being burned out and/or LEDs of a
particular spectral characteristic are obsolete for the purpose due to
lower efficiency than more modern ones. I can tell you that LED traffic
signal units have a very high rate of lasting a lot more than 2 years -
more like 5-10.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote in part:

BTW: LEDs in traffic control lights are typically replaced every two
years.
The individual units continually burn out with the severe heat and current
demand on them.

As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot lamps on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs, burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters, we
changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.
When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so (at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with about 9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans. Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few years
of usage...LOL).

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
Cost is an obstacle, but plenty of available white LEDs are now a lot
more efficient than incandescents. Efficiency like that of CFLs is now
the cutting edge for available warm white ones, and cool white ones
without high color rendering index now get as efficient as T8
fluorescents.

Osram recently put an 8 watt LED bulb on the market in Europe, with as
much lumen output as an 8 watt CFL.

- Don Klipstein )

Incandescents were not so acceptable. They were experiemtning with LEDS to
lower the maintenance on incandescent systems.

Somebody ehre was roght about the lack of heat too. Snow storms can fill the
lamp projector lens in and the status cannot be told during the day. (No we
aren't moving to Florida, Robert...LOL)

After a debate on the job, we ran into a traffic light maintenance crew and
pulled over to chat with them.
IIRC, they informed me they replace the incandescents every year or on
report. We always have multiple lamps for out traffic lights. I assume you
are in the USA where they classically may have only one traffic head facing
each way. We have at least two and on big intersection, three or four,
sometimes. (we get lower sun in the winter. There always seems to be the
main one with a sunset right beside it)

I would imagine an incandescent, pushed and heated that hard and then
blinked on and off would wear the filiament out (thermal shock) very
quickly, too.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
I meant being kept in service for 5-10 years. Most of Philadelphia's
red ones installed in the 1990's and using an LED chemistry since
superseded in traffic signal use are still working and in service, not
relaced just for a few LEDs being out.

Now that they are making them with power consumption as low as 7 watts
for ones 8 inches in diameter and 8 watts for the ones 12 inches in
diameter, heat is not that big a deal in traffic signals that had
incandescents of 92 or 116 watts. Such huge reduction in power
consumption occurs in part from not having 70-75% of the light blocked
by red and green filters.

If any failure is so intolerable, then why were incandescents
acceptable?

- Don Klipstein )

I just had the the center-mount stoplight in my '03 Chevy Surburban fail.
Appears to be a line array
of 15 leds in a moulded plastic housing. Unit is completely dark.
Replacement cost is over $200
not including install labor. Less than 60K miles on the vehicle. If
incandescant, replacement would
be a $1.25 bulb, self installed. Bummer!

Bob King


"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message
...
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?

Sometimes what appears to be redundancy actually increases the
failure rate.

"Tony Hwang" wrote:

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.

Drive their autos less?

In article , Josepi wrote:
Incandescents were not so acceptable. They were experiemtning with LEDS to
lower the maintenance on incandescent systems.

Somebody ehre was roght about the lack of heat too. Snow storms can fill the
lamp projector lens in and the status cannot be told during the day. (No we
aren't moving to Florida, Robert...LOL)

Hasn't been much of an actual problem in Philadelphia PA USA.

After a debate on the job, we ran into a traffic light maintenance crew and
pulled over to chat with them. IIRC, they informed me they replace the
incandescents every year or on report. We always have multiple lamps for
out traffic lights. I assume you are in the USA where they classically may
have only one traffic head facing each way.

My experience in Philadelphia and its suburbs in 2 states is that
minimum of 2 face each way.

We have at least two and on big intersection, three or four,
sometimes. (we get lower sun in the winter. There always seems to be the
main one with a sunset right beside it)

I would imagine an incandescent, pushed and heated that hard and then
blinked on and off would wear the filiament out (thermal shock) very
quickly, too.

Incandescent filaments suffering significant damage from thermal shock
is mostly myth, despite existence of devices to remedy this. What mainly
happens is that an aging filament becomes unable to survive a cold start a
little before it becomes unable to survive continuous operation.

I even tried an experiment with a soft-starting device claimed to double
life of incandescents. It was a NTC thermistor, and when fully warmed up
it dimmed an incandescent enough to multiply its life by at least 1.5.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
I meant being kept in service for 5-10 years. Most of Philadelphia's
red ones installed in the 1990's and using an LED chemistry since
superseded in traffic signal use are still working and in service, not
relaced just for a few LEDs being out.

Now that they are making them with power consumption as low as 7 watts
for ones 8 inches in diameter and 8 watts for the ones 12 inches in
diameter, heat is not that big a deal in traffic signals that had
incandescents of 92 or 116 watts. Such huge reduction in power
consumption occurs in part from not having 70-75% of the light blocked
by red and green filters.

If any failure is so intolerable, then why were incandescents
acceptable?

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Josepi wrote:
As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot lamps on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs, burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters,

Due to someone not knowing how to implement the LEDs properly, though 15
years ago efficiency of LEDs was a lot less and maybe they could not have
been implemented properly.

we changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.

This problem is very easy to avoid with the green LEDs that are
available nowadays, not too hard to avoid with green LEDs that have been
available since about 2000-2001 or so.

When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so (at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with about 9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans.

Have a look at what just one modern good InGaN green LED can do with
5-10 mA now, or what one made by Nichia in 2001 can do.

Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few years
of usage...LOL).

Did you run controlled tests? I have heard of testing showing that most
incandescents do not lose much life to cold starts. They do become unable
to survive a cold start before they become unable to survive continuous
operation, but not by a lot. The usual incandescent failure is from a hot
thin spot in the filament, prone to temperature overshoot beyond its
already-excessive temperature when a cold start is imposed upon it. This
bad condition of an aging filament accelerates worse than exponentially,
and an aging filament that cannot survive a cold start will kick the
bucket soon no matter what.

- Don Klipstein )

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
Cost is an obstacle, but plenty of available white LEDs are now a lot
more efficient than incandescents. Efficiency like that of CFLs is now
the cutting edge for available warm white ones, and cool white ones
without high color rendering index now get as efficient as T8
fluorescents.

Osram recently put an 8 watt LED bulb on the market in Europe, with as
much lumen output as an 8 watt CFL.

- Don Klipstein )

The incandescents lasted forever (well at least 4-10 years) until they were
turned off.

I believe I have the supplier mixed up. It wasn't OSRAM but another supplier
with similiar type name???. OMRON or something..Been awhile now. These lED
indicators were all crap and we tried many different styles and many
different current levels. When run at their rated current (I think about
20mA) they all went up in smoke after a few years, anyway. The main (130vdc)
ballast resistors were mounted elsewhere so they weren't a problem. The
problem, as I saw it were they were designed as a 24v bulb with 24vdc worth
of ballast in a miniature bulb....that's a no..no and did them in from
localized heat. Finally, after about 15 years of experimenting with them and
different breeds, the Engineering department decided to ignore the
manufacturer's advice, went back to incandescents and replace the bulbs
every few years when the device was de-enrgized, basically.

As I stated, the LED units are back without any diffusion. LEDs just don't
put out enough light to make them look like incandescents with diffusion and
still be visible with bright lighting. The red and yellow ones were never a
problem, only the green, other than being short lived.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is
many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add
the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot lamps
on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs, burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters,

Due to someone not knowing how to implement the LEDs properly, though 15
years ago efficiency of LEDs was a lot less and maybe they could not have
been implemented properly.

we changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when
illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.

This problem is very easy to avoid with the green LEDs that are
available nowadays, not too hard to avoid with green LEDs that have been
available since about 2000-2001 or so.

When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so
(at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with about
9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans.

Have a look at what just one modern good InGaN green LED can do with
5-10 mA now, or what one made by Nichia in 2001 can do.

Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few
years
of usage...LOL).

Did you run controlled tests? I have heard of testing showing that most
incandescents do not lose much life to cold starts. They do become unable
to survive a cold start before they become unable to survive continuous
operation, but not by a lot. The usual incandescent failure is from a hot
thin spot in the filament, prone to temperature overshoot beyond its
already-excessive temperature when a cold start is imposed upon it. This
bad condition of an aging filament accelerates worse than exponentially,
and an aging filament that cannot survive a cold start will kick the
bucket soon no matter what.

- Don Klipstein )

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a
non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements
were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.

In article , Josepi wrote:

The incandescents lasted forever (well at least 4-10 years) until they were
turned off.

I believe I have the supplier mixed up. It wasn't OSRAM but another supplier
with similiar type name???. OMRON or something..Been awhile now. These lED
indicators were all crap and we tried many different styles and many
different current levels. When run at their rated current (I think about
20mA) they all went up in smoke after a few years, anyway. The main (130vdc)
ballast resistors were mounted elsewhere so they weren't a problem. The
problem, as I saw it were they were designed as a 24v bulb with 24vdc worth
of ballast in a miniature bulb....that's a no..no and did them in from
localized heat. Finally, after about 15 years of experimenting with them and
different breeds, the Engineering department decided to ignore the
manufacturer's advice, went back to incandescents and replace the bulbs
every few years when the device was de-enrgized, basically.

As I stated, the LED units are back without any diffusion. LEDs just don't
put out enough light to make them look like incandescents with diffusion and
still be visible with bright lighting. The red and yellow ones were never a
problem, only the green, other than being short lived.

My experience of red, yellow and green LEDs at 20 mA, for ones
characterized at 20 mA:

Red - my champion experience here so far is around 1.8 lumens at 20 mA.
They appear to me to achieve about .8 lumen at 10 mA. (Nichia NSPR510CS)

Yellow - I got about .6-.7 lumen at 20 mA several years ago, likely now
at least a little better. My experiece is generally 60% of red - so I
expect Osram to have something delivering around a lumen at 20 mA
nowadays.

Green - my champion experience so far here is 3.7-4.4 lumens at 20 mA,
more than half of this at 10 mA, averaging .94 lumen at 3 mA and around
..58 lumen at 1.7 mA, at which their efficiency is close to peak and much
improved over that at 20 mA. Part number - Nichia NSPG520AS.

http://members.misty.com/don/led.html

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is
many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add
the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot lamps
on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs, burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters,

Due to someone not knowing how to implement the LEDs properly, though 15
years ago efficiency of LEDs was a lot less and maybe they could not have
been implemented properly.

we changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when
illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.

This problem is very easy to avoid with the green LEDs that are
available nowadays, not too hard to avoid with green LEDs that have been
available since about 2000-2001 or so.

When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so
(at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with about
9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans.

Have a look at what just one modern good InGaN green LED can do with
5-10 mA now, or what one made by Nichia in 2001 can do.

Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few
years
of usage...LOL).

Did you run controlled tests? I have heard of testing showing that most
incandescents do not lose much life to cold starts. They do become unable
to survive a cold start before they become unable to survive continuous
operation, but not by a lot. The usual incandescent failure is from a hot
thin spot in the filament, prone to temperature overshoot beyond its
already-excessive temperature when a cold start is imposed upon it. This
bad condition of an aging filament accelerates worse than exponentially,
and an aging filament that cannot survive a cold start will kick the
bucket soon no matter what.

- Don Klipstein )

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a
non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements
were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.

How can the efficiency of a white LED be higher than it's constituent LEDs?
Is this due to phosphour screens used?

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:

The incandescents lasted forever (well at least 4-10 years) until they
were
turned off.

I believe I have the supplier mixed up. It wasn't OSRAM but another
supplier
with similiar type name???. OMRON or something..Been awhile now. These lED
indicators were all crap and we tried many different styles and many
different current levels. When run at their rated current (I think about
20mA) they all went up in smoke after a few years, anyway. The main
(130vdc)
ballast resistors were mounted elsewhere so they weren't a problem. The
problem, as I saw it were they were designed as a 24v bulb with 24vdc
worth
of ballast in a miniature bulb....that's a no..no and did them in from
localized heat. Finally, after about 15 years of experimenting with them
and
different breeds, the Engineering department decided to ignore the
manufacturer's advice, went back to incandescents and replace the bulbs
every few years when the device was de-enrgized, basically.

As I stated, the LED units are back without any diffusion. LEDs just
don't
put out enough light to make them look like incandescents with diffusion
and
still be visible with bright lighting. The red and yellow ones were never
a
problem, only the green, other than being short lived.

My experience of red, yellow and green LEDs at 20 mA, for ones
characterized at 20 mA:

Red - my champion experience here so far is around 1.8 lumens at 20 mA.
They appear to me to achieve about .8 lumen at 10 mA. (Nichia NSPR510CS)

Yellow - I got about .6-.7 lumen at 20 mA several years ago, likely now
at least a little better. My experiece is generally 60% of red - so I
expect Osram to have something delivering around a lumen at 20 mA
nowadays.

Green - my champion experience so far here is 3.7-4.4 lumens at 20 mA,
more than half of this at 10 mA, averaging .94 lumen at 3 mA and around
.58 lumen at 1.7 mA, at which their efficiency is close to peak and much
improved over that at 20 mA. Part number - Nichia NSPG520AS.

http://members.misty.com/don/led.html

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is
many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add
the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot
lamps
on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs,
burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters,

Due to someone not knowing how to implement the LEDs properly, though
15
years ago efficiency of LEDs was a lot less and maybe they could not
have
been implemented properly.

we changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when
illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If
we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.

This problem is very easy to avoid with the green LEDs that are
available nowadays, not too hard to avoid with green LEDs that have been
available since about 2000-2001 or so.

When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so
(at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with
about
9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans.

Have a look at what just one modern good InGaN green LED can do with
5-10 mA now, or what one made by Nichia in 2001 can do.

Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back
to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few
years
of usage...LOL).

Did you run controlled tests? I have heard of testing showing that
most
incandescents do not lose much life to cold starts. They do become
unable
to survive a cold start before they become unable to survive continuous
operation, but not by a lot. The usual incandescent failure is from a
hot
thin spot in the filament, prone to temperature overshoot beyond its
already-excessive temperature when a cold start is imposed upon it.
This
bad condition of an aging filament accelerates worse than exponentially,
and an aging filament that cannot survive a cold start will kick the
bucket soon no matter what.

- Don Klipstein )

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a
non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements
were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.

In article , Josepi wrote:
How can the efficiency of a white LED be higher than it's constituent LEDs?
Is this due to phosphour screens used?

Yes. The usual white LEDs have blue-emitting chips coated by a phosphor
that absorbs some-most of the blue light and converts it to a
yellow/yellowish broad band whose spectral content typically covers
mid-green to mid-red. Some of the blue light is not absorbed but passes
through the phosphor, to mix with the yellow/yellowish light so that you
get white light.

Nowadays, some of these blue chips used for white LEDs are achieving
around 40-50% efficiency. The most efficient white LED on the market that
I am aware of, Nichia NSPWR70CSS-K1 at 20 mA, is a goodly 40% efficient
even after losses of the phosphor. At 20 mA, it is supposed to typically
achieve 150 lumens/watt.

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:

The incandescents lasted forever (well at least 4-10 years) until they
were
turned off.

I believe I have the supplier mixed up. It wasn't OSRAM but another
supplier
with similiar type name???. OMRON or something..Been awhile now. These lED
indicators were all crap and we tried many different styles and many
different current levels. When run at their rated current (I think about
20mA) they all went up in smoke after a few years, anyway. The main
(130vdc)
ballast resistors were mounted elsewhere so they weren't a problem. The
problem, as I saw it were they were designed as a 24v bulb with 24vdc
worth
of ballast in a miniature bulb....that's a no..no and did them in from
localized heat. Finally, after about 15 years of experimenting with them
and
different breeds, the Engineering department decided to ignore the
manufacturer's advice, went back to incandescents and replace the bulbs
every few years when the device was de-enrgized, basically.

As I stated, the LED units are back without any diffusion. LEDs just
don't
put out enough light to make them look like incandescents with diffusion
and
still be visible with bright lighting. The red and yellow ones were never
a
problem, only the green, other than being short lived.

My experience of red, yellow and green LEDs at 20 mA, for ones
characterized at 20 mA:

Red - my champion experience here so far is around 1.8 lumens at 20 mA.
They appear to me to achieve about .8 lumen at 10 mA. (Nichia NSPR510CS)

Yellow - I got about .6-.7 lumen at 20 mA several years ago, likely now
at least a little better. My experiece is generally 60% of red - so I
expect Osram to have something delivering around a lumen at 20 mA
nowadays.

Green - my champion experience so far here is 3.7-4.4 lumens at 20 mA,
more than half of this at 10 mA, averaging .94 lumen at 3 mA and around
.58 lumen at 1.7 mA, at which their efficiency is close to peak and much
improved over that at 20 mA. Part number - Nichia NSPG520AS.

http://members.misty.com/don/led.html

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Josepi wrote:
As some of the articles point out LED testing may be done unfairly, is
many
cases. The manufactures show lumen output for bare elements and then add
the
reflectors, lenses and other external parts later.

The ballast in not usually included in the efficiency testing, either.

Are these the white phosphour screen based LEDs, you refer too?

As a side note our company put in hundreds of OSRAM indicator pilot
lamps
on
electrical control panels. After 10-15 years of replacing bulbs,
burnout,
sock melting, changing ballast current limiters, lenses and filters,

Due to someone not knowing how to implement the LEDs properly, though
15
years ago efficiency of LEDs was a lot less and maybe they could not
have
been implemented properly.

we changed them all back and retrofitted them to incandescent bulbs.

Certain colours, green especially, could not be dicerned, when
illuminated,
if there was any windows with sunlight entering into the buildings. If
we
put a similar green pilot lamp with a lime green filter in it (unlit)
beside a normal green illuminated unit, no difference could be detected.

This problem is very easy to avoid with the green LEDs that are
available nowadays, not too hard to avoid with green LEDs that have been
available since about 2000-2001 or so.

When we increased the drive current, the bulbs only lasted a month or so
(at
a cost of about $5 per bulb). These were very tiny LED segments with
about
9
elements in each bulb. The ballast resistor dropped the current from a
130vdc battery bank and was a burn hazard for humans.

Have a look at what just one modern good InGaN green LED can do with
5-10 mA now, or what one made by Nichia in 2001 can do.

Inverter technology
was a much better proposition but too expensive a retrofit for so many
bulbs. They spent tens of thousands of dollars trying all of OSRAM's
tehnologies they had availble for about 10 years and finally went back
to
incandecent bulbs with low current supplies (less than the LEDs) and the
bulbs last about 10-15 years (or until your turn them off, after a few
years
of usage...LOL).

Did you run controlled tests? I have heard of testing showing that
most
incandescents do not lose much life to cold starts. They do become
unable
to survive a cold start before they become unable to survive continuous
operation, but not by a lot. The usual incandescent failure is from a
hot
thin spot in the filament, prone to temperature overshoot beyond its
already-excessive temperature when a cold start is imposed upon it.
This
bad condition of an aging filament accelerates worse than exponentially,
and an aging filament that cannot survive a cold start will kick the
bucket soon no matter what.

- Don Klipstein )

In the last few years the pilot lamps got smarter and went to a
non-filtered
LED holder, so the area of illumination decreased and the LED elements
were
now visible. This made the LEDs visible and workable but the whole thing
dazzled the eyes like a Christmas tree.

Things are definitely improving with this technology!

I still suspect, as the article in the link I pointed out (another post) the
LED manufacturers are cheating the measurments a bit as they don't include
ballast energy (they can't as they don't know the circuit) and they don't
include the losses of the lens and/or filter and as you article describes,
the input power vs output power.

Thanx!


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
Yes. The usual white LEDs have blue-emitting chips coated by a phosphor
that absorbs some-most of the blue light and converts it to a
yellow/yellowish broad band whose spectral content typically covers
mid-green to mid-red. Some of the blue light is not absorbed but passes
through the phosphor, to mix with the yellow/yellowish light so that you
get white light.

Nowadays, some of these blue chips used for white LEDs are achieving
around 40-50% efficiency. The most efficient white LED on the market that
I am aware of, Nichia NSPWR70CSS-K1 at 20 mA, is a goodly 40% efficient
even after losses of the phosphor. At 20 mA, it is supposed to typically
achieve 150 lumens/watt.

- Don Klipstein )




In article , Josepi wrote:
How can the efficiency of a white LED be higher than it's constituent
LEDs?
Is this due to phosphour screens used?

On Nov 20, 7:05*pm, Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:52*pm, "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.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"JimH" wrote in message

...

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

I have around 32 LED's on my M109R motorcycle. Once I pulled into the
driveway and forgot to turn them off. After 2 days I went out to
start the bike at night and noticed the LED's were on. When I turned
the key and pushed the button the bike started up immediately. Nice.

Regards,
Robert L Bass

www.BassBurglarAlarms.com
www.BassHome.com

On Nov 20, 7:05*pm, Bob Villa wrote:
On Nov 20, 5:52*pm, "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.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"JimH" wrote in message

...

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

I have around 32 LED's on my M109R motorcycle. Once I pulled into the
driveway and forgot to turn them off. After 2 days I went out to
start the bike at night and noticed the LED's were on. When I turned
the key and pushed the button the bike started up immediately. Nice.

Regards,
Robert L Bass

www.BassBurglarAlarms.com
www.BassHome.com

wrote:

I've got a real assortment of small LED flashlights, and a couple big
ones. GREAT battery life. For home lighting they are still pretty
pricy, but with incandescents being phased out, and the LOUSY luck
I've had with CFLs, it sure is tempting!!!!!

The New York Times had an article earlier this week about a study (from a
manufacturer) that indicates both CFL & LED lights use about 20% of the
lifetime energy used by incandescents. That includes manufacturing and
transport costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/bu...20osram&st=cse

I don't no whether that reflects the high early failure rate for CFLs nor do
I know whether mass production of LED lighting may lead to the same types of
early failures which could severely skew the results.

Hmmm, I guess early failure actually means the CFLs use even less lifetime
energy. ;-)

Today's NYT has an article about a new LED lighting design from Britain that
addresses some outstanding problems with LEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/bu...t-rboglum.html

Their bulb is 70% more efficient than traditional bulbs (which is about the
same as CFLs). Unlike most articles like this they give an overall picture
saying that if every household in Britain were to switch, it would reduce
the total annual British carbon footprint (of 500 million tons) by 1.2
million tons - a reduction of 1/4 of a percent.

Think of all the starving plant. The plants need carbon
dioxide, to live. By reducing the carbon dioxide output,
plants will wither and die.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Dave Houston" wrote in message
...
Today's NYT has an article about a new LED lighting design
from Britain that
addresses some outstanding problems with LEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/bu...t-rboglum.html

Their bulb is 70% more efficient than traditional bulbs
(which is about the
same as CFLs). Unlike most articles like this they give an
overall picture
saying that if every household in Britain were to switch, it
would reduce
the total annual British carbon footprint (of 500 million
tons) by 1.2
million tons - a reduction of 1/4 of a percent.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Think of all the starving plant. The plants need carbon
dioxide, to live. By reducing the carbon dioxide output,
plants will wither and die.


Isn't part of the reason for the increase in carbon dioxide levels that
we've cut down so many trees? IOW, there's more than enough carbon
dioxide around to support the remaining plants.

Perce

Oh, bother. Another liberal educated drone bee. "we've cut
down so many trees". I would imagine that you also think
that mankind caused the hole in the ozone over the south
pole.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...


Isn't part of the reason for the increase in carbon dioxide
levels that
we've cut down so many trees? IOW, there's more than enough
carbon
dioxide around to support the remaining plants.

Perce

"we've cut down so many trees". I would imagine that you also think
that mankind caused the hole in the ozone over the south
pole.

yep we probably have....

cleaner air is better for EVERYONE!

Oh, bother. Another liberal educated drone bee. "we've cut
down so many trees". I would imagine that you also think
that mankind caused the hole in the ozone over the south
pole.

Of course we caused it. Remember the time Fred Flintstone bombed
the dinosaurs (and missed) with that nuclear weapon?

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:49:27 -0600, (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:

Oh, bother. Another liberal educated drone bee. "we've cut
down so many trees". I would imagine that you also think
that mankind caused the hole in the ozone over the south
pole.

Of course we caused it. Remember the time Fred Flintstone bombed
the dinosaurs (and missed) with that nuclear weapon?

How about the sheep?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:49:27 -0600, (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:

Oh, bother. Another liberal educated drone bee. "we've cut
down so many trees". I would imagine that you also think
that mankind caused the hole in the ozone over the south
pole.

Of course we caused it. Remember the time Fred Flintstone bombed
the dinosaurs (and missed) with that nuclear weapon?

How about the sheep?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices were
outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to install
triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on.
IIRC the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare this
to a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.

"Dave Houston" wrote in message
...
Today's NYT has an article about a new LED lighting design from Britain
that
addresses some outstanding problems with LEDs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/bu...t-rboglum.html

Their bulb is 70% more efficient than traditional bulbs (which is about
the
same as CFLs). Unlike most articles like this they give an overall picture
saying that if every household in Britain were to switch, it would reduce
the total annual British carbon footprint (of 500 million tons) by 1.2
million tons - a reduction of 1/4 of a percent.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:31:57 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices were
outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to install
triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on.
IIRC the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare this
to a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.


11 watts gives 530 lumens versus 23 watts gives 1200? Do the math,
dopey. Sounds like DOUBLE the fixtures would give you 22 watts and
1060 lumens with the particular LED's you are whining about.

When will you be coming over to install another pot light then?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:31:57 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices
were
outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to install
triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on.
IIRC the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare this
to a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.


11 watts gives 530 lumens versus 23 watts gives 1200? Do the math,
dopey. Sounds like DOUBLE the fixtures would give you 22 watts and
1060 lumens with the particular LED's you are whining about.

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:23:23 -0500, salty wrote:

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:31:57 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices
were outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to
install triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on. IIRC
the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare this to
a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.


11 watts gives 530 lumens versus 23 watts gives 1200? Do the math,
dopey. Sounds like DOUBLE the fixtures would give you 22 watts and 1060
lumens with the particular LED's you are whining about.

Just how do your extraordinary skills with higher mathematics show that
double the fixtures provide enough light if he thinks he needs a minimum
of 1200 lumens?

Isn't it time for the troll to change his nick again?

You been using this one for a long...long time now. Almost.... 21 posts?
Some kind of record for you, no?

BTW: Your interlaced posting mixed in with other styles makes you almost
unintelligeible. That and your amazing math skills makes you almost a bozo
bin candidate.

Stick to the oar myth, it seems more plausible, in this group, anyway.


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:57:39 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

When will you be coming over to install another pot light then?


I'm not interested in the job. Mostly because if you offer me $150,
your deficient math skills will result in a check for $100. You will
of course, insist that it is really $150.


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:31:57 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

And increased the number of corrective lenses by 150%

I had a few of these LED PAR30 bulbs in my hand a week ago. The prices
were
outrageous and the lumen output was so pathetic I would have to install
triple the fixtures to be able to watch TV with them on.
IIRC the largest was 11 Watts and put out about 530 lumens??? Compare
this
to a 23 Watt CFL (Not PAR30) putting out 1200 lumens.


11 watts gives 530 lumens versus 23 watts gives 1200? Do the math,
dopey. Sounds like DOUBLE the fixtures would give you 22 watts and
1060 lumens with the particular LED's you are whining about.