Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam

On May 21, 12:30*am, Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam

SAM, DID YOU KNOW ABOUT YOUR SON?
ANYWAY, LIGHT IS MEASURED IN LUMENS, NOT INCANDESCENT-LIGHT-WATTS.
THEY ARE MORE OF A DECORATION, NOT SO GOOD FOR ILLUMINATION.

TGITM

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their
13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in
a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very
clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the
guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time). For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution. And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to describe
light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so many degrees
(usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not used to that way
of expressing (yet).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their
13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in
a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very
clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the
guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time). For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution. And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to describe
light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so many degrees
(usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not used to that way
of expressing (yet).

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Smitty Two wrote:
In articleApednYrnwcU7M0rQnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
"Ed wrote:

"Tony wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.
HMM,
light is energy, heat is energy, any of it can be calculated into Watts.
So what is new? I am sure you saw a new car brochures with
engine rated in Watts not Hp.

On May 20, 11:30*pm, Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam

Cannot tell you what the brightness numbers are per foot. What is
your application. We have used short runs pretty effectively in some
museum display cases where we wanted indirect lights. It is best to
keep them out of sight with simple baffles.

RonB

On 21 May 2011 15:45:58 GMT, Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their
13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in
a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very
clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the
guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time).

Watts are indeed a unit of electrical power, but watts/unit time (W/s) makes
no sense at all. Watt-hours (watts times hours, not divided by hours) is a
measure of energy. Watt-hours per unit time is, surprise, watts.

For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution.

Energy output is quite *objective*. It's utility of that output is subjective
but if you treat subjectivity as objectivity you end up with quite squishy
results.

And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to describe
light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so many degrees
(usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not used to that way
of expressing (yet).

That's (at least) two variables, making it impossible to compare (intensity).
Select temperature for effect and lumens for efficiency. Power out would be a
better measure, though.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 09:12:41 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their
13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in
a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very
clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the
guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time). For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution. And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to describe
light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so many degrees
(usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not used to that way
of expressing (yet).

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives a
relative number but not as useful.

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

snippage

light output can also apparently be measured in watts.

Sure can, but is it specified then that infrared (heat) and (possibly) UV
radiation is included or excluded in those watts? Also, I believe that
those light outputs in watts are even less in consideration of the
subjective "feel" of the light.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

snippage

light output can also apparently be measured in watts.

Sure can, but is it specified then that infrared (heat) and (possibly) UV
radiation is included or excluded in those watts?

Excluded, of course. This topic came up with my friend because I was
asking him to help me engineer a solar powered yard lamp that would put
out a useful amount of light. I started talking about lumens and he
grimaced, politely of course. Too nebulous for him. This is a guy who
will put an LED for example in an integrating sphere to determine the
real light output.


Also, I believe that
those light outputs in watts are even less in consideration of the
subjective "feel" of the light.

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright. Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or
candlepower?

" wrote in
:

On 21 May 2011 15:45:58 GMT, Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call
their 13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of
anyone that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff
in a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to
compare light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't
a very clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I
said, the guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time).

Watts are indeed a unit of electrical power, but watts/unit time (W/s)
makes no sense at all. Watt-hours (watts times hours, not divided by
hours) is a measure of energy. Watt-hours per unit time is, surprise,
watts.

For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution.

Energy output is quite *objective*. It's utility of that output is
subjective but if you treat subjectivity as objectivity you end up
with quite squishy results.

And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to
describe light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so
many degrees (usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not
used to that way of expressing (yet).

That's (at least) two variables, making it impossible to compare
(intensity). Select temperature for effect and lumens for efficiency.
Power out would be a better measure, though.

All taken with due humility.
We still need a way to judge the illumination we like. And that isn't
easy to quantify.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 5/21/2011 12:30 AM, Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam

Depends on brand and color and how many LEDs per foot. I've seen dim
ones that looked like theater/airplane escape lighting, and ones bright
enough to put over crown molding high on the wall, and use for indirect
room lighting. They're pretty cheap- buy a string and play with it.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 21 May 2011 13:47:01 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or candlepower?

Yes, but power is power (A candela is 4*pi*lumens ;-).

On 21 May 2011 18:51:39 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 21 May 2011 15:45:58 GMT, Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call
their 13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of
anyone that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff
in a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to
compare light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't
a very clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I
said, the guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time).

Watts are indeed a unit of electrical power, but watts/unit time (W/s)
makes no sense at all. Watt-hours (watts times hours, not divided by
hours) is a measure of energy. Watt-hours per unit time is, surprise,
watts.

For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution.

Energy output is quite *objective*. It's utility of that output is
subjective but if you treat subjectivity as objectivity you end up
with quite squishy results.

And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to
describe light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so
many degrees (usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not
used to that way of expressing (yet).

That's (at least) two variables, making it impossible to compare
(intensity). Select temperature for effect and lumens for efficiency.
Power out would be a better measure, though.

All taken with due humility.
We still need a way to judge the illumination we like. And that isn't
easy to quantify.

Of course it isn't. The eye is as bad at judging luminous intensity as the
ear is at sound intensity. Too much depends on the environment and memory of
these things is almost nonexistent.

In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I look at the lumens.

As a result, I know that most dollar store 100W incandescents produce
about the same amount of light as 75W "standard" incandescents. And that
dollar store 75W incandescents tend to not outshine 60-watters worth
buying.
And, that superlonglife vibration-resistant 3500 or 5,000 hour rated 75
or 100W incandescents hardly outshine "one wattage lower" of "standard"
incandescents. (That is 60 or 75 watts respectively.) Decreasing
electricity consumption by 15-25 watts often easily pays for cost of
buying more lightbulbs, when one has a need for incandescents.

Stock up on shorter-life higher-efficiency versions of incandescents
*with good lumen figures* while you can, if you have a need for
incandescents.
Exempted from the upcoming USA ban are less-efficient
shock/vibration-resistant and "traffic signal" versions, along with many
others such as most under 25 or over 150 watts, all having "design voltage"
outside the 110-130 volt range, all having a base other than
right-hand-screw of E26/E27 size, and a few others exempted on basis of
shape, size or color of the bulb.

There are minimum lumen standards for Energy Star rated non-incandescent
lightbulbs:

40W equivalent - at least 400 lumens
60W equivalent - at least 800 lumens
75W equivalent - at least 1100 lumens
100W equivalent - at least 1600 lumens

150W equivalent - at least 2600 lumens (IIRC)

"Better" 120V incandescents have lumens in these ranges, & these lumens/watt:

15W - 108 to 126 lumens (life expectancy 2500 hours) 7.2-8.4

25W - 180 to 210 lumens (life expectancy 1000 or 1500 hours) 7.2-8.4

40W - 440 to 505 lumens (life expectancy 1000 or 1500 hours) 11 - 12.6
60W - 840 to 890 lumens (life expectancy 1000 hours) 12 - 14.8
75W - 1150 to 1210 lumens (life expectancy 750 hours) 15.3- 16.1
100W - 1670 to 1750 lumens (life expectancy 750 hours) 16.7- 17.5

150W - 2800 to ~2920 lumens (life expectancy 750 hours) 18.7-19.5

200W - 3800 to ~3980 lumens (life expectancy 750 hours) 19.0-19.9

300W - 6100 to 6300 lumens (life expectancy 750 hours) 20.3 - 21

--
- Don Klipstein )

In , Smitty
Two wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...


Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope
lights in incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. GE, for instance, call their
13 Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100
years so there are a lot of habits to change. I don't know of anyone
that looks at the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in
a way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very
clear measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the
guy has a boatload of credibility.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Watts are units of electrical power
consumption (actually, that should be watts/unit time). For light
output, the unit is lumen. The reason that is a bit misleading is
because the actual energy output is in a subjective manner affected by
the spectral distribution. And that distribution also determines whether
the light is harsh or pleasingly warm. I think the best way to describe
light is as so many lumens at a spectral temperature of so many degrees
(usually expressed in degrees Kelvin). We're just not used to that way
of expressing (yet).

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Lasers tend to be rated in watts of output.

This has only very rough correlation with lumens of output.

Output watts or milliwatts are "radiometric", meaning power, or energy
per unit time.

Lumens are "photometric", which takes into consideration a "standard
human eyeball"'s "photopic" spectral response.

One watt of 555 nm yellowish green light is 683 lumens. But, one watt
of 632.8 nm red is about 163 lumens, and 1 watt of 650 nm red is 73 lumens.
1 watt of 685 nm (a longer deep red wavelength of some early visible laser
diodes) is a mere 8 lumens. 1 watt of 405 nm violet is a little over 3
lumens, but looks brighter than that to "night vision" (favoring shorter
visible wavelengths) and causes many fluorescent objects to fluoresce with
as much as 100's of lumens (theoretical limit of 500).

One watt of 532 nm, a common more-luminous green laser wavelength, is
604 lumens. Get a 532 nm laser pointer when you need the most brightness
from the 4.9999 milliwatt limit of Class IIIa - at that wavelength, 4.99
milliwatts is 3 lumens.

One watt of invisible infrared or invisible ultraviolet has zero lumens.

Watt or milliwatt figures for laser output have fairly good correlation
with ability to cause burns, including to irreplaceable photosensors in
the eyes. Lumens has less correlation, since different wavelengths have
greatly different lumens for same watts or milliwatts.

===========

Output of lasers is usually rated in *radiometric* units, as in watts or
milliwatts. Output of lightbulbs is usually rated in *photometric* units,
as in lumens.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright. Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or
candlepower?

This gets into difference between radiometric units and photometric
units.

The difference between radiometric and photometric is that photometric
takes into consideration the "photopic response" of a "standard human
eyeball", as "determned" / defined by Commission International d'Eclairage
(International Illumination Commission).

Watts radiated out by a lightbulb includes infrared and ultraviolet -
useless.

Watts of visible light out may or may-not include a lot of
nearly-useless wavelengths of nearly-ultraviolet or nearly-infrared.

Lumen rating is a fairly good indicator of as-seen-by-humans light
output, when determined honestly.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In , zzzzz wrote:
On 21 May 2011 13:47:01 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or candlepower?

Yes, but power is power (A candela is 4*pi*lumens ;-).

A candela is 4*pi lumens for a uniformly even omnidirectional light
source. A "MSCP" or "mean spherical candlepower" is 4*pi lumens.

A candela of anything more directional than "100% in all directions
in all combinations of both ways of all 3 dimensions" is a different
number of lumens, generally less since candela gets measured where the
light goes.

Light sources that have greater directivity, greater concentration of
their light into a specific direction, have higher ratio of
candelas/lumens. The risk or downside from that is illumination being
concentrated to an area smaller than what you want illuminated, or
shortage of background illumination or overall "ambient illumination".

There are many people who don't work at 100% if illumination is
restricted to some "task area".
--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 21, 10:30*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:





"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit *of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. * GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. *I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.

Radiance is the correct term for total light output. Lumens is an
amount hitting a surface at a particular point. Add a lens and the
Lumens will increase at some point. add a reflector and Lumens
increase at some point. A flashlight hAs high lumens in a spot. When I
start reading about candlepower, I start to get a headache.

Greg

On Sun, 22 May 2011 01:05:07 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , zzzzz wrote:
On 21 May 2011 13:47:01 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or candlepower?

Yes, but power is power (A candela is 4*pi*lumens ;-).

A candela is 4*pi lumens for a uniformly even omnidirectional light
source. A "MSCP" or "mean spherical candlepower" is 4*pi lumens.

That's how a lumen is defined, yes.

A candela of anything more directional than "100% in all directions
in all combinations of both ways of all 3 dimensions" is a different
number of lumens, generally less since candela gets measured where the
light goes.

Light sources that have greater directivity, greater concentration of
their light into a specific direction, have higher ratio of
candelas/lumens. The risk or downside from that is illumination being
concentrated to an area smaller than what you want illuminated, or
shortage of background illumination or overall "ambient illumination".

There are many people who don't work at 100% if illumination is
restricted to some "task area".

That's why they make reflectors.

On May 21, 9:09*pm, zek wrote:
On May 21, 10:30*am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit *of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. * GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. *I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.

Radiance is the correct term for total light output. Lumens is an
amount hitting a surface at a particular point. Add a lens and the
Lumens will increase at some point. add a reflector and Lumens
increase at some point. A flashlight hAs high lumens in a spot. When I
start reading about candlepower, I start to get a headache.

Greg

There must be some kind od standard rating Lumens, because it's all
about distance, like 100lumens at one meter or foot. The farther away
the light, the lumens goes down since lumens is the amount falling on
a surface from a light. Candle power is light output looking at the
source of the light.

Greg
Greg

On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:31:29 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives
a relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright. Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? Or
candlepower?

This gets into difference between radiometric units and photometric
units.

The difference between radiometric and photometric is that photometric
takes into consideration the "photopic response" of a "standard human
eyeball", as "determned" / defined by Commission International d'Eclairage
(International Illumination Commission).

Watts radiated out by a lightbulb includes infrared and ultraviolet -
useless.

Wrong. Watts *IN* includes everything.

Watts of visible light out may or may-not include a lot of
nearly-useless wavelengths of nearly-ultraviolet or nearly-infrared.

Lumen rating is a fairly good indicator of as-seen-by-humans light
output, when determined honestly.

....and is 100% meaningless to 99.99% of the population.

On May 21, 9:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:31:29 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:





In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. *Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. *W/lumen gives
a relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? *He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright. *Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? *Or
candlepower?

*This gets into difference between radiometric units and photometric
units.

*The difference between radiometric and photometric is that photometric
takes into consideration the "photopic response" of a "standard human
eyeball", as "determned" / defined by Commission International d'Eclairage
(International Illumination Commission).

*Watts radiated out by a lightbulb includes infrared and ultraviolet -
useless.

Wrong. *Watts *IN* includes everything. * *

*Watts of visible light out may or may-not include a lot of
nearly-useless wavelengths of nearly-ultraviolet or nearly-infrared.

*Lumen rating is a fairly good indicator of as-seen-by-humans light
output, when determined honestly.

...and is 100% meaningless to 99.99% of the population.

THIS IS A STUPID POST TOO...IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, THOSE LED STRING
LIGHTS PUT OUT LESS THAN OR JUST ABOUT 40WATTS AT ANY GIVEN
POINT...THEY ARE A DECO ITEM NOT MEANT FOR REAL ILLUMINATION......IT
IS DUMB TO ELABORATE AND CONTINUE WITH SUCH DRAMA ABOUT IT.
KNOWING YOU ALL YOU'LL FIND SOME MORE DUMB-ASS CRAP TO ADD TO IT, LIKE
STATISTICAL PERCENTAGES AND IF IT IS IN CANDLEPOWER OR LUMENS..WHICH
THE OP DOESNT UNDERSTAND.

TGITM

Why are you shouting at him??????

On May 21, 9:42*pm, The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:
On May 21, 9:23*pm, "





wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:31:29 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. *Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. *W/lumen gives
a relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? *He may be technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright. *Isn't that where the lumens comes into play? *Or
candlepower?

*This gets into difference between radiometric units and photometric
units.

*The difference between radiometric and photometric is that photometric
takes into consideration the "photopic response" of a "standard human
eyeball", as "determned" / defined by Commission International d'Eclairage
(International Illumination Commission).

*Watts radiated out by a lightbulb includes infrared and ultraviolet -
useless.

Wrong. *Watts *IN* includes everything. * *

*Watts of visible light out may or may-not include a lot of
nearly-useless wavelengths of nearly-ultraviolet or nearly-infrared.

*Lumen rating is a fairly good indicator of as-seen-by-humans light
output, when determined honestly.

...and is 100% meaningless to 99.99% of the population.

THIS IS A STUPID POST TOO...IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, THOSE LED STRING
LIGHTS PUT OUT LESS THAN OR JUST ABOUT 40WATTS AT ANY GIVEN
POINT...THEY ARE A DECO ITEM NOT MEANT FOR REAL ILLUMINATION......IT
IS DUMB TO ELABORATE AND CONTINUE WITH SUCH DRAMA ABOUT IT.
KNOWING YOU ALL YOU'LL FIND SOME MORE DUMB-ASS CRAP TO ADD TO IT, LIKE
STATISTICAL PERCENTAGES AND IF IT IS IN CANDLEPOWER OR LUMENS..WHICH
THE OP DOESNT UNDERSTAND.

TGITM

I was going to say my incandescent string is more like a 10-20 watt
bulb. I would assume the led string is dimmer. It's probably also
bluish, which to me defeats nice even warm lighting of the other.
Maybe the OP is talking about a strip, didn't mention length. But he
is likely long gone.

Greg

wrote
wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen
gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be
technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W
of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. He states that lumens is not useful. I say BS.

This guy may be a genius, but cannot explain his theory to us commoners. Or
a whole lot of fact was left out. I don't care how efficient a lamp is, if
it is not bright enough, I'm getting a bigger one. More watts = more light.

On May 21, 10:20*pm, "The Henchman" wrote:
Why are you shouting at him??????

WHO'S SHOUTING?
TGITM

On May 21, 11:12*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote





wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. *Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. *W/lumen
gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? *He may be
technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W
of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. *He states that lumens is not useful. * I say BS.

This guy may be a genius, but cannot explain his theory to us commoners. *Or
a whole lot of fact was left out. *I don't care how efficient a lamp is, if
it is not bright enough, I'm getting a bigger one. *More watts = more light.

LED STRING LIGHTS ADD A NICE GLOW TO OTHERWISE DARK RECESSES AND
COVEYS IN WALLS, CEILINGS ETC.....OTHERWISE THIS ENTIRE THREAD WOULD
BE MEANINGLESS.
TGITM

On Sat, 21 May 2011 22:20:58 -0400, "The Henchman" wrote:



Why are you shouting at him??????

That's all Queerjano can do. He's never heard of a shift lock key.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 23:12:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen
gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be
technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W
of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. He states that lumens is not useful. I say BS.

This guy may be a genius, but cannot explain his theory to us commoners. Or
a whole lot of fact was left out. I don't care how efficient a lamp is, if
it is not bright enough, I'm getting a bigger one. More watts = more light.

I read it as lumens didn't say anything about efficiency. Watts out does
(since watts in is also stated). Lumens per watt means something but doesn't
tell me anything about efficiency. 100W in, 3W out (about right for an
incandescent) says it all.

On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT), zek wrote:

On May 21, 9:09*pm, zek wrote:
On May 21, 10:30*am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit *of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. * GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. *I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.

Radiance is the correct term for total light output. Lumens is an
amount hitting a surface at a particular point. Add a lens and the
Lumens will increase at some point. add a reflector and Lumens
increase at some point. A flashlight hAs high lumens in a spot. When I
start reading about candlepower, I start to get a headache.

No, "luminance" is the correct term for (visible) light output.

Greg

There must be some kind od standard rating Lumens, because it's all
about distance, like 100lumens at one meter or foot. The farther away
the light, the lumens goes down since lumens is the amount falling on
a surface from a light. Candle power is light output looking at the
source of the light.

No, a lumen is the visible light output of a one candela isotropic source, per
steradian (4pi steradians per circle so the entire output of the 1 candela
source is 4pi lumens). Distance is not a factor since the energy is measured
over a solid angle.

On May 22, 12:17*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 22:20:58 -0400, "The Henchman" wrote:

Why are you shouting at him??????

That's all Queerjano can do. *He's never heard of a shift lock key.

SHUT UP KIETHTURD..QUIJANO MUST HAVE ****ED YOUR FICTIVE FUGITIVE
BRAINS REAL GOOD, YOU FOOL... ..CONTROL YOUR FLAMING FAGGOTY HENCHMAN
TROLL TOO.
TGITM
PAT ECUM

On May 22, 12:29*am, "
wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:22:56 -0700 (PDT), zek wrote:
On May 21, 9:09*pm, zek wrote:
On May 21, 10:30*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
*"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...

Sam Takoy wrote:
Hi,

What's the brightness (let's say per foot) of the L.E.D. rope lights in
incandescent-light-watt-equivalent?

Thanks,

Sam
Hi,
Watt is unit *of power(energy) There is no such thing as ILWE.

They use a similar rating on the CFLs. * GE, for instance, call their 13
Watt bulbs Smart 60.

They really rate bulbs in lumens, but we've used watts for over 100 years so
there are a lot of habits to change. *I don't know of anyone that looks at
the lumens on the package.

I was talking with a guy the other day, who knows about this stuff in a
way that few do, and he says the only really correct way to compare
light intensity is in watts of *output.* Says lumens aren't a very clear
measure at all. First time I'd heard that, but like I said, the guy has
a boatload of credibility.

Radiance is the correct term for total light output. Lumens is an
amount hitting a surface at a particular point. Add a lens and the
Lumens will increase at some point. add a reflector and Lumens
increase at some point. A flashlight hAs high lumens in a spot. When I
start reading about candlepower, I start to get a headache.

No, "luminance" is the correct term for (visible) light output.

Greg

There must be some kind od standard rating Lumens, because it's all
about distance, like 100lumens at one meter or foot. The farther away
the light, the lumens goes down since lumens is the amount falling on
a surface from a light. Candle power is light output looking at the
source of the light.

No, a lumen is the visible light output of a one candela isotropic source, per
steradian (4pi steradians per circle so the entire output of the 1 candela
source is 4pi lumens). *Distance is not a factor since the energy is measured
over a solid angle.

THIS ISNT SCIENCE OR ELECTRICAL CLASS YOU FREAK, SHUT THE **** UP
ALREADY.
TGITM

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. He states that lumens is not useful. I say BS.

Which poster said that?

In , zzzzzzz wrote:
On 21 May 2011 23:12:02 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
wrote in

Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen
gives
a
relative number but not as useful.

But what does efficiency have to do with brightness? He may be
technically
correct, but how can a consumer tell what he is getting?

Visible energy out is the whole point of a light bulb, isn't it?

Say one bulb is 100 watts in, 65 watt out, it would be 65% efficient.

Ok...

Another bulb is 50 watts in, 49 watts out, it would be more efficient, but
not as bright.

Do you want a 49 watt out bulb or a 65 watt out bulb? If you only need 49W
of
illumination, certainly you would buy the smaller bulb.

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. He states that lumens is not useful. I say BS.

This guy may be a genius, but cannot explain his theory to us commoners. Or
a whole lot of fact was left out. I don't care how efficient a lamp is, if
it is not bright enough, I'm getting a bigger one. More watts = more light.

I read it as lumens didn't say anything about efficiency. Watts out does
(since watts in is also stated). Lumens per watt means something but doesn't
tell me anything about efficiency. 100W in, 3W out (about right for an
incandescent) says it all.

Lumens out per watt in varies widely among incandescents.

For example, a Sylvania 75W "standard" incandescent available at Lowes
outshines a Sunbeam 100 watt one available at some dollar stores.
--
- Don Klipstein )

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

The poster said the EE stated efficiency was the determining factor.
Therefore, he says the 49 watt output is what counts because it is more
efficient. He states that lumens is not useful. I say BS.

Which poster said that?

I may have interpreted that incorrectly It was between your friend's
statement and krw's reply that lumens are not as useful as efficiency.
My point is, though, efficiency is not as meaningful as actual light output,
no matter the measurement method.


Sorry, but the fellow who told me that is a life-long EE, and one of the
world's leading laser experts. While watts as used in connection with
incandescent lamps has always referred to consumption, the light output
can also apparently be measured in watts. I choose to believe my friend,
whom I've known and respected for 10 years, on this score.

Absolutely. Watts-out/watts-in gives efficiency directly. W/lumen gives a
relative number but not as useful.