On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:41:47 -0400, wrote:


THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.

In an unfinished basement, unfinished light works best.

2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.

The last CFLs I bought have no warm-up time at all that I can see.
Bought in the last year.

3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.

wrote:

IFF you believe the absurd claims of 30K Hrs.

Every other LED I've use over the last 40 years or so has lasted a whole
lot longer than 30,000 hours. 30k is a conservative estimate for
warranty purposes, most will last a lot longer. When was the last time
you had an LED burn out on some device where it is on 24x365?

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:45:17 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:12:25 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


nestork wrote:

I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

--
nestork

Remember that these LED lamps have 30,000+ hour life, so even compared
to your old $1 incandescents with 750 hour life the cost isn't worse,
it's just front loaded (30,000/750=40 i.e. 40 incandescents for the same
span as 1 LED). So if you are paying even $40/lamp you are at break even
just on lamp cost. The LG LEDs I'm using and quite happy with cost me
$9ea so I'm way ahead on base lamp cost, and much further ahead on power
savings as well as not having to replace them for a decade or two.

Tell me that after your LED lamps have 30,000 hours on them. IOW,
bull****!

There are decades of supporting data for 30,000hr LED life. LEDs are not
remotely new technology and they are well studied.

Utter bull****. The LEDs themselves, if cooled to the datgasheet
numbers (probably 25C) will last 30KPOH but NOT as they're used in
crap appliances. Let me know when yours actually last that long.

I'll get back to you in a decade or so...

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:50:48 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:54 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, nestork wrote:
I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

BUT if I needed to purchase some sort of light, any light, with the only
consideration being that it was going to go in an Edison base fixture, I
wouldn't even consider CFLs anymore. My choice today would be between
an incandescent and these new LEDs. The price difference between a CFL
and the LEDs (at $15, anyway) is little enough that I'm willing to pay
the extra for the luxury of not being annoyed at the CFL every time I
turn it on.

THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.
2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.
3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.


#1 was resolved years ago. Current CFLs have good color temp and CRI.

Bull****. Color temp doesn't tell you jack.

Tell that to anyone in the photo/video/film/stage lighting fields...


#2 seems to only apply to encapsulated CFLs, not a single one of the
open spiral CFLs I've used has a warmup time over a second or so after
it's initial couple hours of burn-in.

Nonsense. The pig tails take five minutes, or longer, to come up to
full brightness. In cold weather, forget it. Most of my lighs aren't
on that long in a day.

None of the dozens of CFLs I've used have ever behaved that way. You
must live in the Bermuda triangle for CFLs.


#3 there is energy to save regardless of daily run time. If your sub
hour a day run time saves #0.03 that's still a savings. Total lamp
lifetime savings is still the same, it just takes longer to accumulate.

Bull****. It takes energy to make the things (and for me to buy
them).

Yep, as it does to make incandescents and for you to buy the 40
incandescents that it will take to cover the service life of one LED
lamp.


#4 I use all 4' T8 fixtures in my shop and I'm pretty happy with them.
LEDs would save more power, but it would take more fixtures to get the
same coverage as a cheap dual 4' T8 fixture.

Don't bet on LEDs taking less power. 4' T8s are pretty efficient. The
light is also better for such work than anything you're likely to find
in a "bulb".

T8s are good, but LED are still more efficient W/Lumen.

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:51:54 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


DA wrote:

replying to Nate Nagel , DA wrote:
njnagel wrote:

I just went back and clicked on my own link; the "online price"
(except
you can't even buy it online, it's a "store exclusive" product) is
$49.97 each for me. Maybe HD is adjusting the pricing based on
location? Perhaps in your location they are actually readily available
in stores at the lower price? I have no idea...

Same thing happens he I select my PA local HD - $49.97, my NJ work
location (35 miles away) HD - $14.97

Sounds like a profitable business can be started to haul LED bulbs across
the Delaware river

A business doing that would seem likely to get you in trouble, but a
drive over to pay cash for a batch for yourself would seem a good idea.

What are they going to arrest you for, "bulb running? "Interstate
transport of lighting accessories?" Too funny!

Probably fraud, for claiming a subsidy from a utility you aren't a
customer of.

On Apr 26, 3:42*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
wrote:

IFF you believe the absurd claims of 30K Hrs.

Every other LED I've use over the last 40 years or so has lasted a whole
lot longer than 30,000 hours. 30k is a conservative estimate for
warranty purposes, most will last a lot longer. When was the last time
you had an LED burn out on some device where it is on 24x365?

Not sure that's the right comparison. The typical LED, used
for example as an indicator on a stereo or PC, is just that,
an LED and a very low power one at that. To make an LED
bulb, you have to have not only a much higher power LED, but
also a power supply that has to fit in the form factor of
a bulb. Combine all that with the need to try to keep
the cost down, how flimsy many of the CFLs and other
crap is that's built in China is, etc, and I'm a bit more
cautious.

On 04/26/2013 04:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

Forgot to add... the really amusing thing about this bulb is the
packaging. Philips hits a home run with this product which will likely
primarily appeal to eco-weenies and people who actually geek out over
things like light bulbs... and yet the packaging is that awful heat
sealed clamshell plastic, and about 3x as large as it needs to be. I
can't imagine any packaging more annoying, or, here's the ironic bit,
less eco-friendly...

I don't mind opening them much anymore, as I immediately reach for the
razor knife to open them.

I do feel bad about returning an item, because if I return something I
like it to be in the same condition as when I purchased it, something
impossible to do with the HF-sealed clamshell packaging.

Jon

On Apr 26, 3:46*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:50:48 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:54 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, nestork wrote:
I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. *You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. *In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. *It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. *Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

BUT if I needed to purchase some sort of light, any light, with the only
consideration being that it was going to go in an Edison base fixture, I
wouldn't even consider CFLs anymore. *My choice today would be between
an incandescent and these new LEDs. *The price difference between a CFL
and the LEDs (at $15, anyway) is little enough that I'm willing to pay
the extra for the luxury of not being annoyed at the CFL every time I
turn it on.

THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished *basement, where
*1) I don't care what how the light looks.
*2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. *Much.
*3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
* * be some energy to save.
*4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.

#1 was resolved years ago. Current CFLs have good color temp and CRI.

Bull****. Color temp doesn't tell you jack.

Tell that to anyone in the photo/video/film/stage lighting fields...



#2 seems to only apply to encapsulated CFLs, not a single one of the
open spiral CFLs I've used has a warmup time over a second or so after
it's initial couple hours of burn-in.

Nonsense. *The pig tails take five minutes, or longer, to come up to
full brightness. *In cold weather, forget it. *Most of my lighs aren't
on that long in a day.

None of the dozens of CFLs I've used have ever behaved that way. You
must live in the Bermuda triangle for CFLs.


None? Ever? I don't think it's necessarily that all spiral ones take
a considerable time to warm up, but I've sure seen plenty
of them that do take a long time. I have some of them in my garage.
right now. This time of year, they take about 1 min to get near
full brightness. For the first 15 secs, it's dim, but at least you
can
see. In the winter, you could double the time and for the first 30
secs,
you can't see worth a damn. They
are so bad, I switched back to regular bulbs for the most
critical of the 4, so at least I can see something.....

To be fair, these are older ones and I've had newer ones that
are better. But then when I bought these $7 things, they
were supposed to last a very long time so that I would get
the payback right? And one big problem that the industry
fails to address is that there are no STANDARDS. There
should be a spec system where how long they take to get
to say 50%, 75%, 100% output at 65F and 25F is right on the
box. That is one of the frustrations, that even today, you;re buying
a
pig in a poke. And what you bought last year, that gave an
acceptable light quality, warm-up time, etc, is probably no
longer available because now they have some other bulb,
from some other junk Chinese facility.

Oh and then there are other surprises. Like the CFL spiral
ones, at least some of them, say they are not supposed to
be installed upside down. Or the ones that look like reflector/
flood type bulbs. But while having basically the same shape,
the neck is much thicker so that it won't go into my recessed
lights....

The experience with CFL is one reason I'm not real quick
to jump on the LED bandwagon and buy all the marketing BS.
Not at $15 - $25 for sure.





#3 there is energy to save regardless of daily run time. If your sub
hour a day run time saves #0.03 that's still a savings. Total lamp
lifetime savings is still the same, it just takes longer to accumulate..

Bull****. *It takes energy to make the things (and for me to buy
them).

Yep, as it does to make incandescents and for you to buy the 40
incandescents that it will take to cover the service life of one LED
lamp.



If it lasts that long. Based on what I've seen with CFL versus
the claims, I'm skeptical. And just because the typical low power
LED indicator in a stereo or PC lasts a long time, doesn't mean
the LED light will. The light also has a power supply adn those
typically have things like caps in them that fail before the LED.
And with the drive to make these cheap so people will buy them,
I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the PS dies long before
the LED itself. And also, the light LEDs are high power devices,
so I don't think extrapolating the lifespan of an indicator LED is
valid.

We rightards are only reflecting on what
your Lib/Dems are doing to the country.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Bob F" wrote in message ...
You can thank the democrats for today's clam-shell packaging. You
see, lazy Democrats are used to free government handouts like free
cell phones, free housing and of course the WIC program. But the
government has failed them a bit. There is no free light bulb
program so the lazy democraps have to go to Lowes Depot and steal
them.

LOL! It's hard to believe how wacko the rightards have gotten.

On 04/26/2013 05:07 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
We rightards are only reflecting on what
your Lib/Dems are doing to the country.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Bob F" wrote in message ...
You can thank the democrats for today's clam-shell packaging. You
see, lazy Democrats are used to free government handouts like free
cell phones, free housing and of course the WIC program. But the
government has failed them a bit. There is no free light bulb
program so the lazy democraps have to go to Lowes Depot and steal
them.

LOL! It's hard to believe how wacko the rightards have gotten.


Less than a day, and a thread about light bulbs has gone to the usual
polarizing political comments... guess I should have expected that.

I'm still happy with my new LED "bulbs." I like old incandescents. (in
fact, I saw on the shelf at the Orange Colored Store, which I stopped at
last night to buy a socket extender, some incandescent bulbs with
vintage-styled envelopes and filament configurations. Was tempted to
grab a couple, but don't know what I would do with them.) But before
you think I'm a fluorescent hater, I still have an old Dazor desk lamp
with some full-spectrum tubes in it that I still use as, well, a desk
lamp... That old magnetic ballast is kind of loud, but because I'm a
sucker for vintage and it's a heavy, quality-made piece, I keep it
around. When it dies (if it does before I do) I'll look into
retrofitting an electronic ballast and reworking the switch appropriately...

nate

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

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:42:00 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

IFF you believe the absurd claims of 30K Hrs.

Every other LED I've use over the last 40 years or so has lasted a whole
lot longer than 30,000 hours.

More bull****. You don't have 40YO high power LEDs.

30k is a conservative estimate for
warranty purposes, most will last a lot longer. When was the last time
you had an LED burn out on some device where it is on 24x365?

Bull****. How many people will return these things for replacement?
How many return their pressure treated wood?

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:42:51 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:45:17 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:12:25 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


nestork wrote:

I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

--
nestork

Remember that these LED lamps have 30,000+ hour life, so even compared
to your old $1 incandescents with 750 hour life the cost isn't worse,
it's just front loaded (30,000/750=40 i.e. 40 incandescents for the same
span as 1 LED). So if you are paying even $40/lamp you are at break even
just on lamp cost. The LG LEDs I'm using and quite happy with cost me
$9ea so I'm way ahead on base lamp cost, and much further ahead on power
savings as well as not having to replace them for a decade or two.

Tell me that after your LED lamps have 30,000 hours on them. IOW,
bull****!

There are decades of supporting data for 30,000hr LED life. LEDs are not
remotely new technology and they are well studied.

Utter bull****. The LEDs themselves, if cooled to the datgasheet
numbers (probably 25C) will last 30KPOH but NOT as they're used in
crap appliances. Let me know when yours actually last that long.

I'll get back to you in a decade or so...

You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:46:16 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:50:48 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:54 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, nestork wrote:
I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

BUT if I needed to purchase some sort of light, any light, with the only
consideration being that it was going to go in an Edison base fixture, I
wouldn't even consider CFLs anymore. My choice today would be between
an incandescent and these new LEDs. The price difference between a CFL
and the LEDs (at $15, anyway) is little enough that I'm willing to pay
the extra for the luxury of not being annoyed at the CFL every time I
turn it on.

THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.
2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.
3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.


#1 was resolved years ago. Current CFLs have good color temp and CRI.

Bull****. Color temp doesn't tell you jack.

Tell that to anyone in the photo/video/film/stage lighting fields...

Really? Do photographers and videographers use CFLs? You really are
a dummy.

#2 seems to only apply to encapsulated CFLs, not a single one of the
open spiral CFLs I've used has a warmup time over a second or so after
it's initial couple hours of burn-in.

Nonsense. The pig tails take five minutes, or longer, to come up to
full brightness. In cold weather, forget it. Most of my lighs aren't
on that long in a day.

None of the dozens of CFLs I've used have ever behaved that way. You
must live in the Bermuda triangle for CFLs.

The only possible explanation is that you're blind.

#3 there is energy to save regardless of daily run time. If your sub
hour a day run time saves #0.03 that's still a savings. Total lamp
lifetime savings is still the same, it just takes longer to accumulate.

Bull****. It takes energy to make the things (and for me to buy
them).

Yep, as it does to make incandescents and for you to buy the 40
incandescents that it will take to cover the service life of one LED
lamp.

You really are an idiot. It would take me forty years to go through
forty lights. Try turning off your lights when you leave a room.
You'll save a *LOT* more money than using crappy CFLs.

#4 I use all 4' T8 fixtures in my shop and I'm pretty happy with them.
LEDs would save more power, but it would take more fixtures to get the
same coverage as a cheap dual 4' T8 fixture.

Don't bet on LEDs taking less power. 4' T8s are pretty efficient. The
light is also better for such work than anything you're likely to find
in a "bulb".

T8s are good, but LED are still more efficient W/Lumen.

I don't think that's right.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:40:22 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:41:47 -0400, wrote:


THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.

In an unfinished basement, unfinished light works best.

2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.

The last CFLs I bought have no warm-up time at all that I can see.
Bought in the last year.

I bought the house a year ago and bought the CFLs after that. They
all have the warm-up problem. It's a real PITA in the Winter.

3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:47:10 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:51:54 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


DA wrote:

replying to Nate Nagel , DA wrote:
njnagel wrote:

I just went back and clicked on my own link; the "online price"
(except
you can't even buy it online, it's a "store exclusive" product) is
$49.97 each for me. Maybe HD is adjusting the pricing based on
location? Perhaps in your location they are actually readily available
in stores at the lower price? I have no idea...

Same thing happens he I select my PA local HD - $49.97, my NJ work
location (35 miles away) HD - $14.97

Sounds like a profitable business can be started to haul LED bulbs across
the Delaware river

A business doing that would seem likely to get you in trouble, but a
drive over to pay cash for a batch for yourself would seem a good idea.

What are they going to arrest you for, "bulb running? "Interstate
transport of lighting accessories?" Too funny!

Probably fraud, for claiming a subsidy from a utility you aren't a
customer of.

You really are trying to win the top idiot award for the NG, aren't
you? boggle

That happens a lot more often that you might think, krw. In my case, I have the hallway lights in my building on 24 hours per day. That's a total of 21 light bulbs going 24/7. If I were to shut them off at night, then tenants would have to carry flashlights to find their apartment doors.

Also, in the winter here in Winnipeg, by the time you leave for work at 8:30 in the morning, the Sun is just starting to rise, and when you quit work at 4:30 in the afternoon, the Sun is setting. So, ALL of the time you're at home, the lights are on.

Winnipeg, Canada - Sunrise, sunset, dawn and dusk times for the whole year - Gaisma

That might seem like 8 hours of "daylight", but if you allow 1/2 hour for dawn and another 1/2 hour for dusk, you're down to 7 hours of BROAD "daylight" per day. And, your house lights are going to be on during dawn and dusk on Saturdays and Sundays cuz there's not enough light to see well by during those times.

So, that's 640,000 people in Winnipeg, or 200,000 homes (say) with their lights on at least 8 hours per day.

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:42:51 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:45:17 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:12:25 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


nestork wrote:

I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

--
nestork

Remember that these LED lamps have 30,000+ hour life, so even compared
to your old $1 incandescents with 750 hour life the cost isn't worse,
it's just front loaded (30,000/750=40 i.e. 40 incandescents for the same
span as 1 LED). So if you are paying even $40/lamp you are at break even
just on lamp cost. The LG LEDs I'm using and quite happy with cost me
$9ea so I'm way ahead on base lamp cost, and much further ahead on power
savings as well as not having to replace them for a decade or two.

Tell me that after your LED lamps have 30,000 hours on them. IOW,
bull****!

There are decades of supporting data for 30,000hr LED life. LEDs are not
remotely new technology and they are well studied.

Utter bull****. The LEDs themselves, if cooled to the datgasheet
numbers (probably 25C) will last 30KPOH but NOT as they're used in
crap appliances. Let me know when yours actually last that long.

I'll get back to you in a decade or so...

You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

A couple run about 14hrs/day, so those should go in just under six
years.

I didn't help. Oops, sorry.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message ...

LOL! It's hard to believe how wacko the rightards have gotten.


Less than a day, and a thread about light bulbs has gone to the usual
polarizing political comments... guess I should have expected that.

nate

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

The only LED I got were two or five watts, from Ebay. Didn't like the color spread. I use one of the two watt floods, with a desk lamp. Shine it on the ceiling of my bathroom. It replaces two eaches 7 watt filament bulbs. I'm saving enough on my electric to... not much.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Nate Nagel"
wrote in message ...

I'm still happy with my new LED "bulbs." I like old incandescents. (in
fact, I saw on the shelf at the Orange Colored Store, which I stopped at
last night to buy a socket extender, some incandescent bulbs with
vintage-styled envelopes and filament configurations. Was tempted to
grab a couple, but don't know what I would do with them.) But before
you think I'm a fluorescent hater, I still have an old Dazor desk lamp
with some full-spectrum tubes in it that I still use as, well, a desk
lamp... That old magnetic ballast is kind of loud, but because I'm a
sucker for vintage and it's a heavy, quality-made piece, I keep it
around. When it dies (if it does before I do) I'll look into
retrofitting an electronic ballast and reworking the switch appropriately...

nate

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

wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:46:16 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:50:48 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:54 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, nestork wrote:
I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

BUT if I needed to purchase some sort of light, any light, with the only
consideration being that it was going to go in an Edison base fixture, I
wouldn't even consider CFLs anymore. My choice today would be between
an incandescent and these new LEDs. The price difference between a CFL
and the LEDs (at $15, anyway) is little enough that I'm willing to pay
the extra for the luxury of not being annoyed at the CFL every time I
turn it on.

THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.
2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.
3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.


#1 was resolved years ago. Current CFLs have good color temp and CRI.

Bull****. Color temp doesn't tell you jack.

Tell that to anyone in the photo/video/film/stage lighting fields...

Really? Do photographers and videographers use CFLs? You really are
a dummy.

Yep, they sure do. They also use T8 flouro arrays.


#2 seems to only apply to encapsulated CFLs, not a single one of the
open spiral CFLs I've used has a warmup time over a second or so after
it's initial couple hours of burn-in.

Nonsense. The pig tails take five minutes, or longer, to come up to
full brightness. In cold weather, forget it. Most of my lighs aren't
on that long in a day.

None of the dozens of CFLs I've used have ever behaved that way. You
must live in the Bermuda triangle for CFLs.

The only possible explanation is that you're blind.

Yes, that's it, that's the ticket... Nobody could possibly have
experience that doesn't match your prejudice...


#3 there is energy to save regardless of daily run time. If your sub
hour a day run time saves #0.03 that's still a savings. Total lamp
lifetime savings is still the same, it just takes longer to accumulate.

Bull****. It takes energy to make the things (and for me to buy
them).

Yep, as it does to make incandescents and for you to buy the 40
incandescents that it will take to cover the service life of one LED
lamp.

You really are an idiot. It would take me forty years to go through
forty lights. Try turning off your lights when you leave a room.
You'll save a *LOT* more money than using crappy CFLs.

I've never used crappy CFLs, I used good CFLs and have now moved on to
good LEDs now that they are available at reasonable prices. The LG ones
I've been using for a bit over a year are performing wonderfully.


#4 I use all 4' T8 fixtures in my shop and I'm pretty happy with them.
LEDs would save more power, but it would take more fixtures to get the
same coverage as a cheap dual 4' T8 fixture.

Don't bet on LEDs taking less power. 4' T8s are pretty efficient. The
light is also better for such work than anything you're likely to find
in a "bulb".

T8s are good, but LED are still more efficient W/Lumen.

I don't think that's right.

It is, whether you think it or not.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:21:26 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:40:22 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:41:47 -0400, wrote:


THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.

In an unfinished basement, unfinished light works best.

2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.

The last CFLs I bought have no warm-up time at all that I can see.
Bought in the last year.

I bought the house a year ago and bought the CFLs after that. They
all have the warm-up problem. It's a real PITA in the Winter.

I think mine were from home depot and were less than $2 each. I can
go look at the label if you want.

3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:45:40 +0200, nestork
wrote:




Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment.

It is a lot of money, but it is not a lot of light. I'm not
interested until they have equivalent of 75W or 100W. We don't have a
60 in the house that I can think of.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:15:07 -0400, wrote:



You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:53:02 +0200, nestork
wrote:




That happens a lot more often that you might think, krw. In my case, I
have the hallway lights in my building on 24 hours per day. That's a
total of 21 light bulbs going 24/7. If I were to shut them off at
night, then tenants would have to carry flashlights to find their
apartment doors.

Code here is hallways must be lit. Good candidate for long lasting
lamps.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:16:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:53:02 +0200, nestork
wrote:




That happens a lot more often that you might think, krw. In my case, I
have the hallway lights in my building on 24 hours per day. That's a
total of 21 light bulbs going 24/7. If I were to shut them off at
night, then tenants would have to carry flashlights to find their
apartment doors.

Code here is hallways must be lit. Good candidate for long lasting
lamps.

Hardly an application where color or start up time matters. Of
course, that wasn't the issue at hand.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:15:21 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:42:51 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:45:17 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:12:25 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


nestork wrote:

I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

--
nestork

Remember that these LED lamps have 30,000+ hour life, so even compared
to your old $1 incandescents with 750 hour life the cost isn't worse,
it's just front loaded (30,000/750=40 i.e. 40 incandescents for the same
span as 1 LED). So if you are paying even $40/lamp you are at break even
just on lamp cost. The LG LEDs I'm using and quite happy with cost me
$9ea so I'm way ahead on base lamp cost, and much further ahead on power
savings as well as not having to replace them for a decade or two.

Tell me that after your LED lamps have 30,000 hours on them. IOW,
bull****!

There are decades of supporting data for 30,000hr LED life. LEDs are not
remotely new technology and they are well studied.

Utter bull****. The LEDs themselves, if cooled to the datgasheet
numbers (probably 25C) will last 30KPOH but NOT as they're used in
crap appliances. Let me know when yours actually last that long.

I'll get back to you in a decade or so...

You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

A couple run about 14hrs/day, so those should go in just under six
years.

A couple. Those are candidates for CFLs, possibly. All? Good grief!

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:12:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:15:07 -0400, wrote:



You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

What a horrible waste of electricity. You should be taken out and
flogged by a Greenie.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.

Perhaps. A switch would be more effective, though.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:19:37 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:46:16 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:50:48 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:24:54 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, nestork wrote:
I think the biggest selling point of these LED bulbs is that they're
dimmable, and they're instant-on like incandescents. You don't have to
wait a minute for the light output to rise.

But, the economics are an uphill battle for them.

Converting to CFL's was a no-brainer when they first came out because
even at their $7 per bulb price tag, they'd save you 80% on your
electricity, and that made them pay for themselves in a relatively short
period of time.

Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment. It's not
even economically attractive to replace incandescents with LED's when
the option of replacing them with CFL's is open to you.

I expect some people will buy these LED bulbs for dining rooms where
they want the dimmability, but other than that the transition from CFL's
to LED's is gonna be a slow one... until the price of LED bulbs drops to
within a buck or two of CFLs. Unfortunately, the price won't drop until
they start being mass produced, and that's not going to happen until
they're economically competitive with CFL's and, except for a C-change
in technology, that's not going to happen until the price drops.
Your classic Catch-22.

BUT if I needed to purchase some sort of light, any light, with the only
consideration being that it was going to go in an Edison base fixture, I
wouldn't even consider CFLs anymore. My choice today would be between
an incandescent and these new LEDs. The price difference between a CFL
and the LEDs (at $15, anyway) is little enough that I'm willing to pay
the extra for the luxury of not being annoyed at the CFL every time I
turn it on.

THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.
2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.
3) The lights may stay on for more than an hour a day so there might
be some energy to save.
4) Haven't gotten the T8s wired in yet.


#1 was resolved years ago. Current CFLs have good color temp and CRI.

Bull****. Color temp doesn't tell you jack.

Tell that to anyone in the photo/video/film/stage lighting fields...

Really? Do photographers and videographers use CFLs? You really are
a dummy.

Yep, they sure do. They also use T8 flouro arrays.

Bull****.

#2 seems to only apply to encapsulated CFLs, not a single one of the
open spiral CFLs I've used has a warmup time over a second or so after
it's initial couple hours of burn-in.

Nonsense. The pig tails take five minutes, or longer, to come up to
full brightness. In cold weather, forget it. Most of my lighs aren't
on that long in a day.

None of the dozens of CFLs I've used have ever behaved that way. You
must live in the Bermuda triangle for CFLs.

The only possible explanation is that you're blind.

Yes, that's it, that's the ticket... Nobody could possibly have
experience that doesn't match your prejudice...

You really are an idiot. *YOU* just said that because you can't see
it, it can't happen. What a dummy!

#3 there is energy to save regardless of daily run time. If your sub
hour a day run time saves #0.03 that's still a savings. Total lamp
lifetime savings is still the same, it just takes longer to accumulate.

Bull****. It takes energy to make the things (and for me to buy
them).

Yep, as it does to make incandescents and for you to buy the 40
incandescents that it will take to cover the service life of one LED
lamp.

You really are an idiot. It would take me forty years to go through
forty lights. Try turning off your lights when you leave a room.
You'll save a *LOT* more money than using crappy CFLs.

I've never used crappy CFLs, I used good CFLs and have now moved on to
good LEDs now that they are available at reasonable prices. The LG ones
I've been using for a bit over a year are performing wonderfully.

All CFLs are crappy, in that you can't tell the difference between
**** and the best (still ****). You really have a *lot* of trust of
technology. Designing this stuff, I know better. LEDs are still at
least five years (probably ten, if ever) away from being useful for
general lighting.

#4 I use all 4' T8 fixtures in my shop and I'm pretty happy with them.
LEDs would save more power, but it would take more fixtures to get the
same coverage as a cheap dual 4' T8 fixture.

Don't bet on LEDs taking less power. 4' T8s are pretty efficient. The
light is also better for such work than anything you're likely to find
in a "bulb".

T8s are good, but LED are still more efficient W/Lumen.

I don't think that's right.

It is, whether you think it or not.

I must say, you're good at being wrong.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:39:02 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:21:26 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:40:22 -0400, micky
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:41:47 -0400, wrote:


THe only place I have CFLs is in the unfinished basement, where
1) I don't care what how the light looks.

In an unfinished basement, unfinished light works best.

2) I don't care about the absurdly long warm-up. Much.

The last CFLs I bought have no warm-up time at all that I can see.
Bought in the last year.

I bought the house a year ago and bought the CFLs after that. They
all have the warm-up problem. It's a real PITA in the Winter.

I think mine were from home depot and were less than $2 each. I can
go look at the label if you want.

That's where I bought mine. I don't remember what I paid but it was
in the $2-$3 range. They work for the basement but there is *no* way
they'd live upstairs.

On 4/26/2013 10:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:15:07 -0400, wrote:



You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.


I have a 9 watt florescent tube fixture over the kitchen sink I leave
on, roommate can't leave it alone because his father who grew up during
THE Depression would beat him for leaving lights on. I don't bounce the
way I did when I was younger and I've been hurt because I tripped over
something in the dark. A broken hip costs more than the electricity to
run a 9 watt light 24/7 for 30 years. o_O

TDD

On 04/26/2013 11:05 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:45:40 +0200, nestork
wrote:




Now, unless there's a government subsidy involved, paying even $15 extra
to save an additional 3 watts is economically difficult. In a house
with 20 light bulbs, $300 is a lot of money to invest in them, whereas
60 watts isn't a lot of savings to justify the investment.

It is a lot of money, but it is not a lot of light. I'm not
interested until they have equivalent of 75W or 100W. We don't have a
60 in the house that I can think of.

Are you using 75W incandescents or "75W equivalent" CFLs? If the latter
I think you'd be OK with the new Philips light as it doesn't play fast
and loose with "wattage equivalents" like everyone else has for years.

There are brighter LEDs on the market, but they're less efficient and
more expensive. I know Philips has them, but they're expensive and fall
prey to the same optimistic ratings as CFLs (e.g. the "75W equivalent"
LED bulb uses 17W, produces 1100 lumens and costs $40 and the "100W
equivalent" one is 22W, 1780 lumens, $55 whereas real 120V incandescent
bulbs would in fact be 75W/1200 lumens. Surprisingly the "100W
equivalent" appears to in fact be so.)

nate


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

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:40:05 -0400, wrote:



I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

What a horrible waste of electricity. You should be taken out and
flogged by a Greenie.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.

Perhaps. A switch would be more effective, though.

It has a switch, we don't use it though. I want to be able to walk
into the kitchen at any time and be able to get a drink of water or
whatever. Plenty of light to start the coffee or tea in the morning.
Casts enough light to find the bathroom door, the top of the stairs.
too.

I also have an LED nightlight in the bathroom. Gives enough light
that you can use the bathroom during the night and not have to turn a
light on. Only had it about 6 months so I'm not sure how long it will
last.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:07:41 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:




Are you using 75W incandescents or "75W equivalent" CFLs? If the latter
I think you'd be OK with the new Philips light as it doesn't play fast
and loose with "wattage equivalents" like everyone else has for years.


Both, depending on location. The new CFLs have a good color
temperature and don't have any lag when turned on. When CFLs became
available, they were horrid sickly green, but no more. The bright
white is quite nice, better than incadescents.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:46:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:40:05 -0400, wrote:



I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

What a horrible waste of electricity. You should be taken out and
flogged by a Greenie.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.

Perhaps. A switch would be more effective, though.

It has a switch, we don't use it though. I want to be able to walk
into the kitchen at any time and be able to get a drink of water or
whatever. Plenty of light to start the coffee or tea in the morning.
Casts enough light to find the bathroom door, the top of the stairs.
too.

What a waste. I flick the light on when I walk into the kitchen. They
put them by the door for a reason. LED nightlights in the hall take
care of the rest.

I also have an LED nightlight in the bathroom. Gives enough light
that you can use the bathroom during the night and not have to turn a
light on. Only had it about 6 months so I'm not sure how long it will
last.

I have a few around the house. They use a lot less energy than your
wasteful habits.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:28:39 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 4/26/2013 10:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:15:07 -0400, wrote:



You do that. BTW, do you really run your light bulbs 8 hours a day,
seven days a year? Look at all that power *YOU'RE* wasting!

I have a kitchen under counter fixture that has been on for the 32
years we've lived here. Actually, I'm on the third, maybe fourth
fixture. It is a Lights of America fluorescent that is cheaper to
replace than just buying a new bulb.

There are 8760 hours in a year and these things last a few years.
There may be an LED in the future for that location.


I have a 9 watt florescent tube fixture over the kitchen sink I leave
on, roommate can't leave it alone because his father who grew up during
THE Depression would beat him for leaving lights on. I don't bounce the
way I did when I was younger and I've been hurt because I tripped over
something in the dark. A broken hip costs more than the electricity to
run a 9 watt light 24/7 for 30 years. o_O

Another energy hog! Wow!


....gotta go check on my stash of 100W incandescents.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:53:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:07:41 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:




Are you using 75W incandescents or "75W equivalent" CFLs? If the latter
I think you'd be OK with the new Philips light as it doesn't play fast
and loose with "wattage equivalents" like everyone else has for years.


Both, depending on location. The new CFLs have a good color
temperature and don't have any lag when turned on. When CFLs became
available, they were horrid sickly green, but no more. The bright
white is quite nice, better than incadescents.

The white is better but they still have that damned lag, particularly
when it's cold (*very* noticeable below 60F - worse as it gets
colder).

A person can go broke tying to save enough money.

On 2013-04-27, Fat-Dumb and Happy wrote:
A person can go broke tying to save enough money.

LOL!.....

That's a quote.

nb

On 4/26/2013 11:22 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/26/2013 10:50 AM, willshak wrote:
On 4/26/2013 7:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/26/2013 07:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
I've been interested in finding a more acceptable solution to indoor
lighting than the usual spiral CFLs for a while now, yesterday I was
researching LED light bulbs as I was actually repairing an outdoor post
light (and am trying a 4W LED in it, although I don't think it's bright
enough for the application) and found this:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-1...0#BVRRWidgetID





which is available at select (read: almost none) Home Depots but the
secret is that if you can find them, they're apparently subsidized by
local utilities or something to about $15 apiece, not the $50 listed on
the web site. A store about 50 miles away from me had a stock of them
however and I have a friend who works in that area so I imposed on him
to get me a couple.

I have a feeling I need more of these. They have a CRI of 92 (normal
CFLs and most LEDs are in the 70-80 range) Surprisingly, HD does not
even mention CRI at all in their description of this product
although to
me it's a bigger deal than the efficiency. However if you research the
L-prize you'll find that a CRI of 90 was one of the conditions. They
also turn on instantly, and are actually bright. Well, almost
instantly
- there's a very brief but noticable delay between flipping the switch
and getting light. It's really the one way you can tell that you're
not
turning on an incandescent bulb but something more complicated and
electronic. I remember when we didn't try to skimp on light bulb size
and actually lit up a room, but since switching to CFLs it's hard to
get
enough light in some spaces. Two of these 10W bulbs are definitely
brighter than the single 40W CFL with which I was trying to light up a
difficult room (dark paneling, main lighting from a torchiere with a
dark colored shade that reflects most of the light up, would have been
acceptable with a 200+ watt 3-way incandescent which is what it was
obviously designed for, but nothing else produced acceptable light) and
there's none of that annoying brightness ramp-up that you get from
CFLs.

One thing that I have not tested with these bulbs is dimming ability.
Supposedly it works, but some dimmers will buzz and hum. But if you
don't have dimmers, don't have fully enclosed light fixtures, and don't
mind (or can't see in your application) the odd shape/color of the bulb
when unlit, there's really nothing at all I can find fault with.

Best part - this bulb is actually assembled in the USA, and apparently
the LEDs used are made in the USA as well!

This may be old news for some as apparently they've been available @ HD
at the discounted price for about a month now, but I figured this was
worth posting because a) I don't go into HD that often and b) even if I
did, none of the stores local to me carry this bulb so if I hadn't gone
looking for it online I would not have known that it was actually
available (and if someone hadn't mentioned to check the price, the $50
price listed on HD's web site would have put me off...)

Hope this helps someone...

nate


Forgot to add... the really amusing thing about this bulb is the
packaging. Philips hits a home run with this product which will likely
primarily appeal to eco-weenies and people who actually geek out over
things like light bulbs... and yet the packaging is that awful heat
sealed clamshell plastic, and about 3x as large as it needs to be. I
can't imagine any packaging more annoying, or, here's the ironic bit,
less eco-friendly...

nate



Well, the plastic and cardboard are recyclable for those who care about
that sort of thing.


Yabbut what would be so wrong with a simple folded cardboard box like
regular old light bulbs have been sold in for ages? We've been
recycling paper for a lot longer than we've been doing plastic, and not
all areas have plastic recycling.

nate


I think it has a lot to do with the $50 price.

I know a lot of contributors here don't like them but, cfls work fine
for me. Anyplace I need instant-on I've still got all my old
incandescents or T8s.

It's funny to watch you guys get all huffy over light bulbs.

On 4/26/2013 2:35 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/26/2013 02:00 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/26/2013 12:24 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Frank wrote:

On 4/26/2013 7:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/26/2013 07:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
I've been interested in finding a more acceptable solution to indoor
lighting than the usual spiral CFLs for a while now, yesterday I was
researching LED light bulbs as I was actually repairing an outdoor
post
light (and am trying a 4W LED in it, although I don't think it's
bright
enough for the application) and found this:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-1...0#BVRRWidgetID





which is available at select (read: almost none) Home Depots but the
secret is that if you can find them, they're apparently subsidized by
local utilities or something to about $15 apiece, not the $50
listed on
the web site. A store about 50 miles away from me had a stock of
them
however and I have a friend who works in that area so I imposed on
him
to get me a couple.

I have a feeling I need more of these. They have a CRI of 92 (normal
CFLs and most LEDs are in the 70-80 range) Surprisingly, HD does not
even mention CRI at all in their description of this product
although to
me it's a bigger deal than the efficiency. However if you research
the
L-prize you'll find that a CRI of 90 was one of the conditions.
They
also turn on instantly, and are actually bright. Well, almost
instantly
- there's a very brief but noticable delay between flipping the
switch
and getting light. It's really the one way you can tell that
you're not
turning on an incandescent bulb but something more complicated and
electronic. I remember when we didn't try to skimp on light bulb
size
and actually lit up a room, but since switching to CFLs it's hard
to get
enough light in some spaces. Two of these 10W bulbs are definitely
brighter than the single 40W CFL with which I was trying to light
up a
difficult room (dark paneling, main lighting from a torchiere with a
dark colored shade that reflects most of the light up, would have
been
acceptable with a 200+ watt 3-way incandescent which is what it was
obviously designed for, but nothing else produced acceptable light)
and
there's none of that annoying brightness ramp-up that you get from
CFLs.

One thing that I have not tested with these bulbs is dimming ability.
Supposedly it works, but some dimmers will buzz and hum. But if you
don't have dimmers, don't have fully enclosed light fixtures, and
don't
mind (or can't see in your application) the odd shape/color of the
bulb
when unlit, there's really nothing at all I can find fault with.

Best part - this bulb is actually assembled in the USA, and
apparently
the LEDs used are made in the USA as well!

This may be old news for some as apparently they've been available
@ HD
at the discounted price for about a month now, but I figured this was
worth posting because a) I don't go into HD that often and b) even
if I
did, none of the stores local to me carry this bulb so if I hadn't
gone
looking for it online I would not have known that it was actually
available (and if someone hadn't mentioned to check the price, the
$50
price listed on HD's web site would have put me off...)

Hope this helps someone...

nate


Forgot to add... the really amusing thing about this bulb is the
packaging. Philips hits a home run with this product which will
likely
primarily appeal to eco-weenies and people who actually geek out over
things like light bulbs... and yet the packaging is that awful heat
sealed clamshell plastic, and about 3x as large as it needs to be. I
can't imagine any packaging more annoying, or, here's the ironic bit,
less eco-friendly...

nate


I guess if you're paying $50 for a light bulb you want first class
packaging.

Anybody that does the math will know that CFL's are most cost
efficient.

You flubbed your math then.

Assumptions:

40W equivalent lamps (what I have data handy for)
Power $0.10/kWh
Incandescent lamp $1
CFL lamp $3
LED lamp $10 (the $50 Phillips may be the latest, greatest, but most
LEDs are a lot less expensive)


Incandescent: $1 lamp, 750hr life, 40W power consumption = $0.0053
per hour
($1/750)+((40/1000)*$0.10)

CFL: $3 lamp, 8,000hr life, 14W power consumption = $0.0018
per hour
($3/8000)+((14/1000)*$0.10)

LED: $10 lamp, 30,000hr life, 7.5W power consumption = $0.0011
per hour
($10/30000)+((7.5/1000)*$0.10)

So LED lamps are about 20% cheaper than CFL


I did not do the math but the Phillips lamp, and that's what I
addressed, is 10 watts and costs $50. I'm not taking time to do math
again. You can do it but off hand I'll bet its more expensive.
I'd buy the 60 watt equivalent $10 LED bulb if I knew where to get it.

The Cree 9.5W/800 lumen (advertised as "60W equivalent" although this
seems to be a little reminiscent of CFL advertising where you give up
50-100 lumens relative to a traditional incandescent) ones apparently
are readily available in the HD stores that aren't selling the Philips
L-Prize bulbs. The Cree ones are $13 in my area and I apparently
wouldn't have any trouble getting them. I specifically sought out the
Philips bulbs because of the higher CRI and the "made in the USA"
factor, and the $2 difference (everywhere that I've actually been able
to find them for sale, they're $15 not $50; online at Amazon now, if
you're not close to a store selling them, they're about $30 BTW) isn't
going to kill me. The higher light output and greater efficiency is
nice too.

Not that Cree makes a bad product - as I said in a previous post, there
are applications where it might make sense to use them, e.g. where the
bulb is exposed and you are trying to maintain the appearance of a
traditional frosted bulb. I've got several flashlights using Cree LEDs
and they're great; I think I've replaced one pair of batteries in one of
three flashlights after several years of ownership and use (and all are
still working fine.) If the Philips didn't exist I'd probably be trying
a few of the Cree bulbs now.

As an aside, Cree is apparently where it's at for can lights now. They
have several models of downlights with a CRI of 90 or greater but for
whatever reason their "light bulbs" have a lower CRI. So Philips for
bulbs, but Cree for can lights.

Slight change in subject but I think home lighting requirements only
takes up about 14% of your total electric bill so improved lights are
just chasing diminishing return on investment.

I didn't even bother to fact check that statement but keep in mind that
going from incandescent to CFL or LED will reduce the heat load on your
A/C as well, if you live in an area that requires primarily cooling
rather than heating (and I do)

Also, is that 14% assuming incandescents or CFLs? If the latter, then
using incandescents would change lighting to a significant fraction of
the total power used.

nate


Number found he

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/lighting/execsum.html

is 9.4% for lighting and that is pre-cfl even.

I love the LED flashlights too. Believe I have 2 of the three watt Crees.

I bought two HD TV's last year, one LCD and one LED. Difference is the
lighting as what are called LCD's use cfl lighting where LED set has LCD
screen but lighting is LCD. The LED set runs noticeably cooler.
Don't know the wattage difference.