"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

On Apr 11, 6:12*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

My 9w =40 watt Cfls from HD have a 9 yr warranty. The 9 and 13 watt
Cfls cost 1.85 a 4 pack or about 2$ with tax, thats only 0.50c a
piece. The HD Cfls have a 61.1 LPW rating and many LEDs are only 80
LPW rating, thats only a 20% increase for a bulb costing maybe 300%
more! And the Leds ive seen are not the Warm White like your old
incandesant or modern Soft White Cfls, they are near 2900 K, not the
2700K that is "Warm White'.

Ive looked at them, the Leds are non dimmable, interior grade, 300%
more in cost, only 20% more efficent and basicly offfered as a Spot
light , [ by Leds direct lighting design]. So what you have is limited
spot light useage and a reciept you cant loose for many years.

Also that compared those only to incandesant, do a Cfl comparison in
advertising and its obvious Leds dont make sence yet as a prime time,
complete replacement home bulb. The Leds ive seen are rated at 80-100
Lpw , but this is actualy a Spot light configuration. you can get T8
18" tube that are rated 80-100Lpw for near 300 % less of better color
rendition and some new name brand Cfls are near 70 Lpw. So again Leds
are way overpriced.

www.1000bulbs.com point out that with the rush to market these high
priced new bulbs that 80% of the ratings you read are bull ****, I
bought a Lights Of America Led, [ makers of many high quaility
commercial lighting products] and found the 9w Led to be a total lie
and terrible color rendition, it put out about 25% as much as a HD
Cfl ! Im looking, but havnt found Leds to be usefull for anything
except Can lights, and I need dimable and cant find that either, so I
wait and buy HD Cfls cheap.

On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

Over the life of the bulb, the savings is considerable, about $116.

Right now, I'm not going to pay extra for a bulb that is going to last
longer than me. They need brighter bulbs and decent color. I wonder if
they've done anything about that. I did buy an LED nightlight for the
bathroom. It is 4W, IIRC and bright enough. It gives a very blue light and
in a blue bathroom it is kind of overkill on blue. Good enough to take a
leak middle of the night, now something I'd want to live with all the time.

I imagine the price will come down over time, just as the CFL has in recent
years. They went from $20 to $1 and improved the light color too.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.




And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.


--
Tegger

On Apr 11, 10:59*am, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:39:10 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"





wrote:

On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

Over the life of the bulb, the savings is considerable, about $116.

Right now, I'm not going to pay extra for a bulb that is going to last
longer than me. *They need brighter *bulbs and decent color. *I wonder if
they've done anything about that. *I did buy an LED nightlight for the
bathroom. *It is 4W, IIRC and bright enough. *It gives a very blue light and
in a blue bathroom it is kind of overkill on blue. *Good enough to take a
leak middle of the night, now something I'd want to live with all the time.

I imagine the price will come down over time, just as the CFL has in recent
years. *They went from $20 to $1 and improved the light color too.

I use quite a few LED lamps on my sailboat, where saving electricity
is a way of life. They are rapidly getting cheaper and better than
even a couple of years ago. "Boats" is a relatively tiny niche market
where everything tends to be far more expensive for no apparent
reason. Once they have decent LED lamps for the home and commercial
applications, expect quality to rise exponentially and costs to
plummet. I'm looking forward to it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In this house and for ten months of the year, especially at night when
lights tend to be on and it is cool or cold, we can use the
electrically generated heat of 'wasteful' non LEDs and CFLs. i.e.
incandescents inside the house.

It just means our electric heaters, using hydro generated power don't
cut in quite as often!

Although we use (re-used) fluorescent tube fixtures from an old
school, in workshop, kitchen, garage etc. (We saved a whole bunch from
going to he dump, including some reusable tubes. Some are electronic,
others old style).

Where we must try an LED is in the outside porch fixture which is on
most of the night; mainly for safety purposes. And also insurance
purposes, if someone did happen to trip up! The heat and light from
that is just wasted outdoors.

Elsewhere outside we have a couple of motion sensor lights that come
on for a few minutes each time. Haven't changed the bulbs in them for
quite a few years.

However for some 10 hours per night; electricity for that outside
porch light (long life/rural incandescent using 50 watts per hour),
for one year costs; 365 x 50 x10/1000 = kilowatts. Each kilowatt hour
costs about 9 or 10 cents including all taxes etc. So annual cost
about $18. So an LED or CFL (provided it works in cold weather without
hesitation) using one third the power might be cost efficient? The
existing bulbs usually last several years (last one changed earlier
this year) was the second of two bought some ten to fifteen years ago.
Our voltage rarely above 119 to 121 volts and probably pretty steady
at night when load is lower.

On Apr 11, 7:12*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.


I figured LED TV would soon be followed with LED lighting panels. The
size of say a 4 tube fluorescent fixture. Adjustable color, last 20
years, cost $100

Jimmie

Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.



And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.


--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:


60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.

On Apr 11, 8:49*am, "Pete C." wrote:
Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.

==
What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.
==

JIMMIE wrote in
:

On Apr 11, 7:12*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...lb-lasts-years
/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.


I figured LED TV would soon be followed with LED lighting panels. The
size of say a 4 tube fluorescent fixture. Adjustable color, last 20
years, cost $100

Jimmie


How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

"Pete C." wrote in
ter.com:


Tegger wrote:


Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:


60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)



Last time I bought incandescents, they were 30¢ each for a pack of four.

Now that incandescents are to be phased out, prices are going up, but
that's an artificial increase.




CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98



Or $2.40 for the incandescents at the price I used to be able to pay.

And your numbers get thrown wholly out of whack if a few CFLs blow
before their rated lives, which I'm discovering is not an uncommon
occurrence.





CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh =
$72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package =
$478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that
are used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs
works out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot,




That's the problem; it's a trivial amount (I give up one Starbuck's
latte a month and there's my $5.70 savings right there). Plus I get ugly
lighting unless I buy just the right kind of bulb; I need a special kind
to put upside down, a special kind for over the stove; you're not really
supposed to toss them out with the trash, etc., etc....

No thanks.


--
Tegger

On Apr 11, 1:40*pm, TheHack wrote:
JIMMIE wrote :



On Apr 11, 7:12*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...lb-lasts-years
/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

I figured LED TV would soon be followed with LED lighting panels. The
size of say a 4 tube fluorescent fixture. Adjustable color, last 20
years, cost $100

Jimmie

How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

Been Done

Jimmie

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:49Â*am, "Pete C." wrote:
Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

That's assuming you ever get one to last 8000 hours. I never have. I
replace CFLs more often than incandescents around here

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.

==
What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.
==

Wouldn't be too bad if you could buy decent quality CFLs - but
everything today is a crap-shoot. Doesn't matter what you pay for them
they are all cheap chinese crap.

HeyBub wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.




I bought a Lights of America LED bulb last year. It was very dim
(Probably about half the rated output), had an odd color spectrum to
it that I can't quite put my finger on, and it only lasted about 2
weeks before it burned out.

LED lights aren't there yet. Maybe in a few years.

Bob

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
www.1000bulbs.com point out that with the rush to market these high
priced new bulbs that 80% of the ratings you read are bull ****, I
bought a Lights Of America Led, [ makers of many high quaility
commercial lighting products]


Lights of America makers of "high quality" commercial lighting products?

This outfit is on my never even think about buying again from list, because
every single one of their products I have ever purchased have died an early
death, and even while still alive performed less than the competition.

Caveat emptor.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

wrote in
:



Wouldn't be too bad if you could buy decent quality CFLs - but
everything today is a crap-shoot. Doesn't matter what you pay for them
they are all cheap chinese crap.




China is, and from what I've read always has been, the intended
manufacturing location for all CFLs.

A couple of years ago, I read a newspaper article about the CFL matter.
According to the article (newspaper name unremembered now), the major
light-bulb makers were in possession of North American factories that were
reaching the ends of their productive lives, were expensively unionized,
and were in need of extensive and expensive overhaul.

The makers were reluctant to pour large amounts of new money into an old-
technology product that had slim margins to begin with, so they decided to
develop and promote a relatively new technology that carried much higher
margins: CFLs. Since CFLs required brand-new machinery, the makers could
justify new plants in places where labor was very cheap. Guess where?

How many CFLs are made in North America? I'd wager...few to none.

Since CFLs are extremely expensive compared to incandescents; often produce
unattractive light; "light-off" slowly; contain mercury; have limited
application, consumers were understandably reluctant to purchase them. For
this reason, governments in the First World were intensively lobbied by
bulb makers (among other groups; for their own reasons) to have
incandescents banned.


--
Tegger

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

Been Done

A local place has modern TV - Plasma/LCD (watering hole).

Behind the mirrors in the rest room are televisions. Looking into the
mirror, you see TV. Amazing, TV through a mirror!

DanG wrote:

Amen, the ones I have tried have all blown. They have been name
brand, not discount bulbs. The one on the front porch is still
going. By choice I will not be investing in any more CFL or LED
until the technology improves.


I've been buying my CFLs in the multi packs at Depot / Lowe's / Sam's /
Costco for quite some time and I honestly have not had any of them that
had short life spans.

I moved about 5.5 years ago, and loaded up most all the fixtures with
new CFLs at that time. So far I have replaced two CFLs, both within the
last couple months and both were lights that got much longer than the 3
hours per day of on time that the 7 year life expectancy is based on.
Indeed these two lights probably average 8 hours per day of on time, so
they both outlasted their rating by a fair margin.

As for the quality of the light, I find they are quite acceptable, and
having spent some 15 years in video production I am pretty attuned to
color temperature. Also as a result of that video production experience
I know not to light an area with mixed color temperature sources, so the
color temperature is consistent throughout my house.

I also am using the 26W killer CFLs in inexpensive clamp light fixtures
for tasks that I used to use portable 500W halogen floods for. I get
plenty of light, for far less power and far less heat.

wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:49Â am, "Pete C." wrote:
Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

That's assuming you ever get one to last 8000 hours. I never have. I
replace CFLs more often than incandescents around here

That's very strange, I don't know what would account for that. You don't
have them on dimmers, or worse yet the old fashioned diode dimmers that
give half wave AC do you? That will kill a CFL very quickly, as will a
lot of short on times as the startups give the most "wear" to a CFL.


CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.

==
What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.
==

Wouldn't be too bad if you could buy decent quality CFLs - but
everything today is a crap-shoot. Doesn't matter what you pay for them
they are all cheap chinese crap.

I've not had any issues with the bulk pack CFLs from Depot / Lowe's /
Sam's / Costco. See my other post.

I've also used six little 9W CFLs to light the inside of a 40' cargo
container in the frozen northeast and had no problems with those either,
even when the ambient temp was below zero. Granted at those temps the
CFLs do take about 90 seconds to reach full brightness, but after that
they are fine and I have had no failures there either.

On 11/04/10 6:07 PM, DanG wrote:
Amen, the ones I have tried have all blown. They have been name
brand, not discount bulbs. The one on the front porch is still
going. By choice I will not be investing in any more CFL or LED
until the technology improves.

There's your problem, you think you're investing when you buy a light bulb.

But it's true about LED bulbs not lasting all that long. There's a huge
difference between a low power, 20mA LED indicator lamp that will likely
last for a hundred years, and a high-power LED lamp that is designed to
actually illuminate a given area. High power LEDs generate an enormous
amount of heat at the very small semiconductor junction. It's very
difficult to adequately heat sink these junctions. If you look at
something like a 3W MR16 lamp, you can see the amount of metal used for
the heat sink. If you block the air flow across the bulb by putting it
into a sealed enclosure (like for automotive lamps) then it will quickly
self destruct. Incandescent bulbs dissipate the filament heat through
the glass of the bulb which is much easier to manage.

On 4/11/2010 9:42 AM Roy spake thus:

What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.

This seems to vary wildly by individual case.

I've got a bunch of CFLs, including some decidedly "old-school" ones (20
watters from Ikea, which were the cheapest ones at the time) that I've
been using since 2002 with no problems.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 4/11/2010 5:44 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

Been Done

A local place has modern TV - Plasma/LCD (watering hole).

Behind the mirrors in the rest room are televisions. Looking into the
mirror, you see TV. Amazing, TV through a mirror!

But the question is, who's looking back at you?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."
t\



The present generation of LED lamps is, at best only slightly more
efficient than the CFL lamps.

In theory they last much longer but, because they are "new technolgy" the
bugs haven't been worked out and you can expect a LOT of pre-mature
failures.

Bottom line for now is just the CFL "bulbs."

In the fullness of time the LEDs should be more efficient that the CFL to at
least the low double digits. The "color" problems should also be solved.

But that's no reason to buy them now unless you have a special application
that truly requires a super long life.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:46:06 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/11/2010 5:44 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

Been Done

A local place has modern TV - Plasma/LCD (watering hole).

Behind the mirrors in the rest room are televisions. Looking into the
mirror, you see TV. Amazing, TV through a mirror!

But the question is, who's looking back at you?

People in Oakland? I'm not sure.

On 4/11/2010 7:11 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:46:06 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/11/2010 5:44 PM Oren spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:43:19 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

How about hanging a LED TV on the wall and encasing it with window trim.
Think of the great views you could have !

Been Done

A local place has modern TV - Plasma/LCD (watering hole).

Behind the mirrors in the rest room are televisions. Looking into the
mirror, you see TV. Amazing, TV through a mirror!

But the question is, who's looking back at you?

People in Oakland? I'm not sure.

Nah, we've got better things to look at.

Like the Oakland marathon, aka Oakland Running Festival:
http://www.oaklandmarathon.com. Revived after a 25-year hiatus.

Or the Fire Festival held each summer:
http://thecrucible.org/events/fire-arts-festival. A fusion of art and
pyromania. Burn, baby, burn!


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:56:10 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:49Â am, "Pete C." wrote:
Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

That's assuming you ever get one to last 8000 hours. I never have. I
replace CFLs more often than incandescents around here

That's very strange, I don't know what would account for that. You don't
have them on dimmers, or worse yet the old fashioned diode dimmers that
give half wave AC do you? That will kill a CFL very quickly, as will a
lot of short on times as the startups give the most "wear" to a CFL.
No dimmers. Just normal lamps and fixtures. The worst culprits have
been the PAR floods (potlights) which have NEVER lasted more than 14
months - and usually the last 5 or more of that 14 being extremely
slow to light off.
Never had much luch with the F40 tubes either, and "green" t12s are
even worse. I'm down to only 3 of those disasters left in the house.

I DID still have 1 old circline compact flourescent in working
condition up untill about 3 months ago that I bought about 22-25 years
ago. Bought 2 - the first one died about 6 years back. Cannot remember
the manufacturer but it was North American

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:43:50 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/11/2010 9:42 AM Roy spake thus:

What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.

This seems to vary wildly by individual case.

I've got a bunch of CFLs, including some decidedly "old-school" ones (20
watters from Ikea, which were the cheapest ones at the time) that I've
been using since 2002 with no problems.
The OLD ikea bulbs were the only ones I EVER had any luck with -
made in Germany or Belgium or someplace like that. So I went the 80Km
to get some more a year or so later, and "Made in China".

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:56:10 -0500, "Pete C."

Never had much luch with the F40 tubes either, and "green" t12s are
even worse. I'm down to only 3 of those disasters left in the house.


You can sort of blame the enviromental people. The new bulbs do not contain
enough mercury to really light off, especially if it gets cold.

On 4/11/2010 7:28 PM spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:43:50 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/11/2010 9:42 AM Roy spake thus:

What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.

This seems to vary wildly by individual case.

I've got a bunch of CFLs, including some decidedly "old-school"
ones (20 watters from Ikea, which were the cheapest ones at the
time) that I've been using since 2002 with no problems.

The OLD ikea bulbs were the only ones I EVER had any luck with -
made in Germany or Belgium or someplace like that. So I went the 80Km
to get some more a year or so later, and "Made in China".

The Ikea bulbs were pretty good--they were linear, with 4 tubes, not
"twirly", but they had one really annoying featu they took what
seemed like forever (actually about 5 seconds) to light up; enough time
to cross a room before any light appeared. Other than that, they were
bright and reliable.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Apr 11, 9:10*pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"ransley" wrote in message

...
On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote: "GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

t\

The present generation of *LED lamps is, at best only slightly more
efficient than the CFL lamps.

In theory they last much longer but, because they are "new technolgy" the
bugs haven't been worked out and you can expect a LOT of pre-mature
failures.

Bottom line for now is just the CFL "bulbs."

In the fullness of time the LEDs should be more efficient that the CFL to at
least the low double digits. * The "color" problems should also be solved.

But that's no reason to buy them now unless you have a special application
that truly requires a super long life.

Leds last, but the electronic package and the non exterior housings I
see make me think you cant loose that Receipt for your warranty. In
time they will come down in price.

On Apr 11, 7:56*am, Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:WdKdnTo7lvI3M1zWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The money a Cfl saves over an incandesant is 75%++ in electricity
consumed. I pay near .50c a cfl bulb of warm white 2700k, with a 9 yr
warranty from HD. Cfls are Prime Time and in all commercial buildings
I work work and visit.

On Apr 11, 8:41*am, terry wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:59*am, wrote:





On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:39:10 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

On Apr 11, 6:12 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

Over the life of the bulb, the savings is considerable, about $116.

Right now, I'm not going to pay extra for a bulb that is going to last
longer than me. *They need brighter *bulbs and decent color. *I wonder if
they've done anything about that. *I did buy an LED nightlight for the
bathroom. *It is 4W, IIRC and bright enough. *It gives a very blue light and
in a blue bathroom it is kind of overkill on blue. *Good enough to take a
leak middle of the night, now something I'd want to live with all the time.

I imagine the price will come down over time, just as the CFL has in recent
years. *They went from $20 to $1 and improved the light color too.

I use quite a few LED lamps on my sailboat, where saving electricity
is a way of life. They are rapidly getting cheaper and better than
even a couple of years ago. "Boats" is a relatively tiny niche market
where everything tends to be far more expensive for no apparent
reason. Once they have decent LED lamps for the home and commercial
applications, expect quality to rise exponentially and costs to
plummet. I'm looking forward to it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In this house and for ten months of the year, especially at night when
lights tend to be on and it is cool or cold, we can use the
electrically generated heat of 'wasteful' non LEDs and CFLs. i.e.
incandescents inside the house.

It just means our electric heaters, using hydro generated power don't
cut in quite as often!

Although we use (re-used) fluorescent tube fixtures from an old
school, in workshop, kitchen, garage etc. (We saved a whole bunch from
going to he dump, including some reusable tubes. Some are electronic,
others old style).

Where we must try an LED is in the outside porch fixture which is on
most of the night; mainly for safety purposes. And also insurance
purposes, if someone did happen to trip up! The heat and light from
that is just wasted outdoors.

Elsewhere outside we have a couple of motion sensor lights that come
on for a few minutes each time. Haven't changed the bulbs in them for
quite a few years.

However for some 10 hours per night; electricity for that outside
porch light (long life/rural incandescent using 50 watts per hour),
for one year costs; 365 x 50 x10/1000 = kilowatts. Each kilowatt hour
costs about 9 or 10 cents including all taxes etc. So annual cost
about $18. So an LED or CFL (provided it works in cold weather without
hesitation) using one third the power might be cost efficient? The
existing bulbs usually last several years (last one changed earlier
this year) was the second of two bought some ten to fifteen years ago.
Our voltage rarely above 119 to 121 volts and probably pretty steady
at night when load is lower.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But I like the most of the US pay near 50% more per BTU for electric,
so Incandesants are a waste as is electric heat.

On Apr 11, 9:49*am, "Pete C." wrote:
Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is worthwhile, every bbuilding ive converted to cfls has seen a 50%
overall drop in the electric bill, those who say its not worthwhile
dont know all the facts.

On Apr 11, 11:42*am, Roy wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:49*am, "Pete C." wrote:





Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package = $478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that are
used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs works
out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot, but considering that you
save that by doing nothing but buying a different type of light bulb,
and also saving yourself around 3 hours of light bulb changing time (56
extra changes x 3 minutes per change), I'd say it's entirely worthwhile..

==
What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.
==- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Buy HD stuff, you are in their computer and just the other day I
returned some without a reciept, HD has a 9 yr warranty and I often
buy the CFls so im in their computer, no mail in required.

"Pete C." wrote in
ster.com:


I've not had any issues with the bulk pack CFLs from Depot / Lowe's /
Sam's / Costco. See my other post.

I had one "60W" CFL of a 4-pack die very quickly,just a month or two.
Two more from the same pack seem to be lasting OK.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Apr 11, 1:47*pm, Tegger wrote:
"Pete C." wrote nster.com:



Tegger wrote:

Apparently you have not done the math, or have made some mistakes:

60W equiv. 13W CFL, 8,000hr rated life, $1.58 ea (8pk)
60W incandescent, 1,000hr rated life, $0.6225 ea (8pk)

Last time I bought incandescents, they were 30 each for a pack of four.

Now that incandescents are to be phased out, prices are going up, but
that's an artificial increase.



CFL cost for 8,000 hours = $1.58
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours = $4.98

Or $2.40 for the incandescents at the price I used to be able to pay.

And your numbers get thrown wholly out of whack if a few CFLs blow
before their rated lives, which I'm discovering is not an uncommon
occurrence.







CFL savings in lamp cost alone $3.40

CFL energy cost for 8,000 hrs at 13W (104kWh) at $0.15/kWh = $15.60
Incandescent cost for 8,000 hours at 60W (480kWh) at $0.15/kWh =
$72.00

CFL energy savings over 8,000 hours $56.40

Total CFL savings over 8,000 operating hours for one lamp = $59.80

Total CFL savings over the life of the 8 lamps in the package =
$478.40

If we presume that the 7 yr life listed for the 8,000 hr lamp life is
reasonable (it's about 3hrs/day), and the household has 8 lamps that
are used regularly (pretty average), the yearly savings of the CFLs
works out to $68.34 or $5.70 per month.

$5.70 per month doesn't sound like a whole lot,

That's the problem; it's a trivial amount (I give up one Starbuck's
latte a month and there's my $5.70 savings right there). Plus I get ugly
lighting unless I buy just the right kind of bulb; I need a special kind
to put upside down, a special kind for over the stove; you're not really
supposed to toss them out with the trash, etc., etc....

No thanks.

--
Tegger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

View it this way. Incandesants are Electric Heaters, that as a by
product out put light. In the visable spectrum you only see about 4-6%
of the energy used as visable light, the rest is heat output in an
incandesant. So take 11, 100w incandesants and its equal to running a
1000w electric resistance heater. In winter its not so bad, in summer
its an extra 1000w you will need to run you AC longer to remove that
1000w of extra heat. Now consider the fact electricity is at least 50%
more than NG per BTU, and you see the wasted energy. Incandesants
output 10-15 LPW, CFls 60-75 LPW, LED 80-100 LPW [ In a spot beam] so
ratings can be skewed to be deceptive. CFLs are winners hands down.

On Apr 11, 5:02*pm, zxcvbob wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy savings
while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's intended to
replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

I bought a Lights of America LED bulb last year. *It was very dim
(Probably about half the rated output), had an odd color spectrum to
it that I can't quite put my finger on, and it only lasted about 2
weeks before it burned out.

LED lights aren't there yet. *Maybe in a few years.

Bob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I bought that LOA crap, its one of the junk LEDs as you say, funny it
wasnt even on the LOA web site, ACE sold it to me, im ****ed at that
LOA -ACE bulb too

Ralph Mowery wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 19:56:10 -0500, "Pete C."

Never had much luch with the F40 tubes either, and "green" t12s are
even worse. I'm down to only 3 of those disasters left in the house.


You can sort of blame the enviromental people. The new bulbs do not contain
enough mercury to really light off, especially if it gets cold.

I have "green" T8 4' fluros in my unheated shop and never have a problem
when it's near freezing. I also used regular 9W CFLs to light a 40'
cargo container which saw ambient temps below 0F, and had no issues
there either other then about a 90 second wait for them to reach full
brightness when it was that cold.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 4/11/2010 7:28 PM spake thus:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:43:50 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 4/11/2010 9:42 AM Roy spake thus:

What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.

This seems to vary wildly by individual case.

I've got a bunch of CFLs, including some decidedly "old-school"
ones (20 watters from Ikea, which were the cheapest ones at the
time) that I've been using since 2002 with no problems.

The OLD ikea bulbs were the only ones I EVER had any luck with -
made in Germany or Belgium or someplace like that. So I went the 80Km
to get some more a year or so later, and "Made in China".

The Ikea bulbs were pretty good--they were linear, with 4 tubes, not
"twirly", but they had one really annoying featu they took what
seemed like forever (actually about 5 seconds) to light up; enough time
to cross a room before any light appeared. Other than that, they were
bright and reliable.


I've never had any issues with all the CFLs I use, and they are pretty
much all made in China bulk pack ones. I really don't understand what
factors may be involved with the folks who seem to have suck bad luck
with CFLs, but I've used them extensively at 4 different locations in
two different states, all with no problems at all.

On 4/12/2010 4:42 AM ransley spake thus:

On Apr 11, 11:42 am, Roy wrote:

What's with the 8000 hr. b.s.? I've had a number of them last only
about 500 hours and of course I had thrown the packaging away. Now, I
write the installation date on the sleeve and file it away. Of course
if you don't have the freakin receipt, you're up the creek as well.
Even some from the same lot have different life-times. The ones that
lasted the longest were in outside enclosed fixtures and were turned
on for eight to twelve hour durations all year long.

Buy HD stuff, you are in their computer and just the other day I
returned some without a reciept, HD has a 9 yr warranty and I often
buy the CFls so im in their computer, no mail in required.

So do they just scan the bulb? Is the bulb's barcode in their database?
What if you buy a 4-pack and just return 1 blub?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 4/12/2010 3:28 AM spake thus:

I believe the LED's themselves as a component, have a service life of
around 50,000 hours. The problems with current LED's for the home is
that they have to have a regulator built into each one to take 120
volts AC and reduce it to just a few volts DC. That is very
inefficient. I am thinking that LED's for retrofits will always be a
problem. In new construction, if the building is wired with low
voltage DC for lighting circuits, I think that problem can be overcome
NOW. It would be pretty easy to set up a battery bank of AGM batteries
that would be charged by solar panels and backed up by an AC charger.

That's an interesting idea, and you may be right: this might be the wave
of the future for home lighting.

One problem with this is that low-voltage wiring loses much more power
over long runs than comparable high-voltage wiring, due to I^2R losses.
(This can be partly compensated for by using heavier conductors, but
that adds cost.) While this may not be a problem in a small, compact
house where the batteries are centrally located, it will definitely be a
problem on a large suburban "spread" where the batteries may be located
in an outbuilding. Maybe not a show-stopper, but there will definitely
be some energy losses to deal with. The homeowner may end up running
8-gauge cables over long runs.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)