Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

As with many things these days, nobody seems to make one model long enough
to know how reliable it is as its been replaced by the next generation by
the time you find out the issues. at least that seems to be theway of things
at the moment.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they are
long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

I've been looking at LEDs for a while (waiting for the CFLs to die/fade and
LEDs to improve) and most of the golf ball and GLS have little more than 180
deg. - a hemisphere. Candle seem to have better dispersion - might even
shine capwards.
As for output and cooling, the COB in corn format (not corn-on-the-cob COB,
but corn-cob shape) seem to be hitting 100 lumens/watt now and radiate
almost omnidirectionally.
Amazon has quite a lot, as does Ebay, but it's worth reading the details and
narrative to avoid Chinglish which, to me, suggests over-run chips.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

I've been looking at LEDs for a while (waiting for the CFLs to die/fade and
LEDs to improve) and most of the golf ball and GLS have little more than 180
deg. - a hemisphere. Candle seem to have better dispersion - might even
shine capwards.
As for output and cooling, the COB in corn format (not corn-on-the-cob COB,
but corn-cob shape) seem to be hitting 100 lumens/watt now and radiate
almost omnidirectionally.
Amazon has quite a lot, as does Ebay, but it's worth reading the details and
narrative to avoid Chinglish which, to me, suggests over-run chips.


Picked up a couple of Asda own brand LED BC 18w 1500lm 3000K last week
and they work well as a substitute for 100W GLS and are no bigger (they
fit uplighter type shades well). Full brightness on startup and rather
better colour temperature than the CFLs which seem to be rather red to
me (2700K).

They were quite expensive (£15 ea) but a great improvement on the 4 x
16w CFLs they replaced. Reliability remains to be seen but they don't
get too warm in conventional pendant fittings.

Of course, they are now NLA - only a "temporarily out of stock" sign now
:-( Only the ES versions were left.

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...

Chris K

"ChrisK" wrote in message
...
PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

I've been looking at LEDs for a while (waiting for the CFLs to die/fade
and
LEDs to improve) and most of the golf ball and GLS have little more than
180
deg. - a hemisphere. Candle seem to have better dispersion - might even
shine capwards.
As for output and cooling, the COB in corn format (not corn-on-the-cob
COB,
but corn-cob shape) seem to be hitting 100 lumens/watt now and radiate
almost omnidirectionally.
Amazon has quite a lot, as does Ebay, but it's worth reading the details
and
narrative to avoid Chinglish which, to me, suggests over-run chips.


Picked up a couple of Asda own brand LED BC 18w 1500lm 3000K last week and
they work well as a substitute for 100W GLS and are no bigger (they fit
uplighter type shades well). Full brightness on startup and rather better
colour temperature than the CFLs which seem to be rather red to me
(2700K).

They were quite expensive (£15 ea) but a great improvement on the 4 x 16w
CFLs they replaced. Reliability remains to be seen but they don't get too
warm in conventional pendant fittings.

Of course, they are now NLA - only a "temporarily out of stock" sign now
:-( Only the ES versions were left.

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...

Chris K

They are selling similar in B&Q for £8 each.
Very satisfied with them.
Supposed to have 15000 hr life.
We'll see.

On 18/11/14 17:25, ChrisK wrote:


Thanks Peter and Chris - both very useful posts

On 18/11/2014 13:56, Tim Watts wrote:
Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Got a couple of LEDHut ones. They are the very plain GLS-style - though
somewhat smaller than true GLS filament lamps.

Happy with brightness at 9W. Disappointed that their "cool white" is
5000K rather than, say, 4200K or so. But quite usable depending on
decoration of the room they are in.

I don't like their marketing ("free delivery", "no VAT", excessive
emails) but it was surprisingly difficult to find anything between 4000
and 6000K.

Have not really had them long enough to give a proper assessment.

--
Rod

Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:25:09 +0000, ChrisK wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

I've been looking at LEDs for a while (waiting for the CFLs to die/fade and
LEDs to improve) and most of the golf ball and GLS have little more than 180
deg. - a hemisphere. Candle seem to have better dispersion - might even
shine capwards.
As for output and cooling, the COB in corn format (not corn-on-the-cob COB,
but corn-cob shape) seem to be hitting 100 lumens/watt now and radiate
almost omnidirectionally.
Amazon has quite a lot, as does Ebay, but it's worth reading the details and
narrative to avoid Chinglish which, to me, suggests over-run chips.


Picked up a couple of Asda own brand LED BC 18w 1500lm 3000K last week
and they work well as a substitute for 100W GLS and are no bigger (they
fit uplighter type shades well). Full brightness on startup and rather
better colour temperature than the CFLs which seem to be rather red to
me (2700K).

They were quite expensive (£15 ea) but a great improvement on the 4 x
16w CFLs they replaced. Reliability remains to be seen but they don't
get too warm in conventional pendant fittings.

I was in our local Asda superstore a fortnight ago and spotted a 12W
810 lumen example of the otherwise identical looking 10W 810 lumen
lamps[1] sat on the 15 quid shelf a couple of shelves above the two
quid shelf it was resting on.

Both were LES cap which, in this case, was exactly what I needed.
When I asked the girl on the till to check, it was priced at £3.50. I
didn't argue the toss since it was an even better bargain than the 5W
370 lumen BC LED lamp I'd snagged at a bargain price of £4.99 the year
before.

Careful comparison against the 20W CFL it was replacing shows a small
but distinct improvement in illumination level with the bonus of
instant light. The CFL started off a dim pink for the first 5 or 6
seconds after switch on, taking about half a minute or so to get to
full brightness so the upgrade was something to be marvelled at,
brighter and instant light for 8 watts less consumption.


Of course, they are now NLA - only a "temporarily out of stock" sign now
:-( Only the ES versions were left.

I've got to say, the rarity of BC LED lamps compared to the surfeit
of ES and LES types is a bit of a puzzle when the demand must surely
be for BC lamp types to match the use of BC holders used almost
exclusively in domestic lighting here in the UK.

Hopefully, in a year or two's time when the price of the properly
efficient LED lamps only just now entering production (12 fold better
efficiency over incandescent versus the current crop of 6 fold better
lamps) drops out ofthe stratosphere, we'll start seeing the
manufacturers and distributors stop ignoring the UK market
requirements. I _can_ wait!


Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...


I think the ES phenomena is just a combination of suppliers tapping
into the initial high volume production runs for the more common
worldwide market in ES type lamps in order to maximise profits. Once
the pricing drops to more sane levels to drive up the demand in the BC
lamp market, we should start seeing a proliferation of BC LED lamps.

I think it's just a matter of holding back until the suppliers see
the error of their ways. After all, the CFL makers seemed happy enough
to supply the demand for BC lamp types, so I can't think of any good
reason why the same shouldn't apply to LED lamps.

The only reason we might not see a let up in this ridiculous
situation is if the UK consumer caves in and starts to accept LES as
"The New Standard" which, btw, is a crappy one for lamp fittings
compared to the more superior BC fitting.

I see it as our duty to get the message across to our friends and
family that LED lamps are currently way over-priced and a bad
investment right now, especially as most householders will undoubtedly
have an ample stock of CFLs to tide them over for the next year or two
(and, in any case, they're still readily available at more realistic
prices if replacements still need to be purchased). Lets face it, who
in this group wants to see the BC replaced by LES in all of our light
fittings?

[1] I have to say, the extra two watt saving on consumption for the
same 810 lumen output just didn't justify the extra 13 quid difference
in price. A view that remained unaltered even when the price
difference turned out to be only 11 1/2 quid when I got to the till.

I can wait another year or two for the 810 lumen lamp wattage to drop
another 2 or 3 watts along with a drop in price to around a fiver or
less. There's no great rush to buy into this new lighting technology
right now.

The really big energy saving technology has been with us all for the
past decade or so in the form of the CFL. Swapping out our CFLs for
modern[2] high efficiencly LEDs will make an almost negligable
reduction in our annual electric bills so we can afford to sit tight
on this technological marvel of the age... for several years if needs
be. Let's just for once, make the lamp manufacturers dance to the
consumers' tune for a change.

[2] That basically excludes most of the not so efficient crap being
flogged in Aldilidl. Just don't be taken for mug is what I'm advising.
--
J B Good

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:29:29 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 18/11/2014 13:56, Tim Watts wrote:
Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not
oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they
are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Got a couple of LEDHut ones. They are the very plain GLS-style - though
somewhat smaller than true GLS filament lamps.

Happy with brightness at 9W. Disappointed that their "cool white" is
5000K rather than, say, 4200K or so. But quite usable depending on
decoration of the room they are in.

I don't like their marketing ("free delivery", "no VAT", excessive
emails) but it was surprisingly difficult to find anything between 4000
and 6000K.

Have not really had them long enough to give a proper assessment.

I had a look at that lamp on LEDhut's website, including the video
description and the extra images. Interestingly, they've used the more
efficient 60W 120v 750 hour American incandescent as their base line
standard rather than our 75W lumen equivilent 240v 1000 hour GLS
tungsten lamp.

I noticed a rating of 9.2W on their warm white 806 lumen varient
versus the cool white 9.5W 850 lumen example. When it comes to
comparing lamp efficiencies, you need to know both the colour
temperature and which of the two possible GLS incandescent lamp
standards (American 120v 750 hour 60W 810 lumen or the UK 240v 75W
1000 hour 810 lumen lamp) is being used to make such out of date
comparisons.

A more meaningful comparison these days (at least as far as the
consumer is concerned) would be a comparison against the typical CFL
or (even braver, a linear fluorescent lamp in an electronically
ballasted fitting - 100 lumen per watt lamp).

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if
you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my
liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear
at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and
at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder
Technology of The Age'.

For comparison, that 9.5 watt lamp is at around the 80 Lumens per
watt mark. Philips have already demonstrated the 200 lumen per watt
lamp and Cree's latest marvel has just topped the 300 Lumen per watt
mark.

Lead times between laboratory examples and actual product on the
shelves is reckoned to be some 18 to 24 months. You can see why I'm
finding the currently available 'high efficiency' LED lamps a bit of a
Yawn Fest. :-)

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most
efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal
coil within the next year or two), is that the higher efficiencies
will reduce the amount of waste heat that needs to be convected away
from the lamp which means, even for the same total energy input,
issues with badly vented lamp shades in cap up burning (pendant
ceiling hung) fittings will be somewhat reduced, even more so if the
lamp is selected for a target Lumens output rather a specific wattage.
--
J B Good

Johny B Good wrote:

The only reason we might not see a let up in this ridiculous
situation is if the UK consumer caves in and starts to accept LES as
"The New Standard" which, btw, is a crappy one for lamp fittings
compared to the more superior BC fitting.

Personally, I'm glad to get rid of BC fittings and say goodbye to
cross-threaded shade rings and jammed bulbs.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Johny B Good wrote:

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most
efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal
coil within the next year or two),

In that case, are you sure the break even point would be reached?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:47:36 +0000, Johny B Good wrote:

I've got to say, the rarity of BC LED lamps compared to the surfeit
of ES and LES types is a bit of a puzzle when the demand must surely
be for BC lamp types to match the use of BC holders used almost
exclusively in domestic lighting here in the UK.

Surely that is why the BC types fly off the shelves leaving behind
the ES... Certainly seems the way in aldidle. Ok the supply chain
ought to be able to keep up but ...

I see it as our duty to get the message across to our friends and
family that LED lamps are currently way over-priced and a bad
investment right now, ...

Yep, I won't pay over a fiver, preferably less, for a LED lamp. It's
simply not economic over CFL.

... especially as most householders will undoubtedly have an ample stock
of CFLs to tide them over for the next year or two

Do they?


I can wait another year or two for the 810 lumen lamp wattage to drop
another 2 or 3 watts along with a drop in price to around a fiver or
less. There's no great rush to buy into this new lighting technology
right now.

+1

I keep an eye out and if I spot a lamp I want of the required spec
(fitting/CT/Lm) and it's around the £3 to £4 mark I might buy it to
try. But no way am I buying LED for routine. They are getting there
regards light level, quality and distribution but the price is too
high for routine replacement.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:08:53 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Johny B Good wrote:

The only reason we might not see a let up in this ridiculous
situation is if the UK consumer caves in and starts to accept LES as
"The New Standard" which, btw, is a crappy one for lamp fittings
compared to the more superior BC fitting.

Personally, I'm glad to get rid of BC fittings and say goodbye to
cross-threaded shade rings and jammed bulbs.


That soundsto me more like a whine from a cackhanded butter fingered
technophobe forced by the demands of fashion to frequently 'upgrade'
their lampshades to stay in fashion rather than the typical denizen of
this news group. :-)
--
J B Good

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:11:41 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Johny B Good wrote:

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most
efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal
coil within the next year or two),

In that case, are you sure the break even point would be reached?


In this case, the ROI break even point is... well, beside the point.
I was thinking more of the "Let me enjoy the benefit whilst I can and
hang the expense!" factor. :-)
--
J B Good

Johny B Good wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:08:53 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Personally, I'm glad to get rid of BC fittings and say goodbye to
cross-threaded shade rings and jammed bulbs.

That soundsto me more like a whine from a cackhanded butter fingered
technophobe forced by the demands of fashion to frequently 'upgrade'
their lampshades to stay in fashion rather than the typical denizen of
this news group. :-)

The fact of the matter is that it is a long time since I changed
a lampshade, and bulbs last longer these days, but my memory is
even longer.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Johny B Good wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:11:41 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Johny B Good wrote:

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most
efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal
coil within the next year or two),

In that case, are you sure the break even point would be reached?

In this case, the ROI break even point is... well, beside the point.
I was thinking more of the "Let me enjoy the benefit whilst I can and
hang the expense!" factor. :-)

That sounds like an argument for tungsten. ;-)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Johny B Good wrote:

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if
you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my
liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear
at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and
at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder
Technology of The Age'.

If you wait for technology, you'll wait forever as it's always moving
thataway..

Your post prompted me to look at my electricity consumption figures,
as I take readings every month, and a couple of years ago I replaced
all the lights in the house (bar two for which I can't yet get a
suitable LED) with LEDs.

Taking July and August figures (summer, no heating, live on salads,
least variability, etc) to compare the last four years data gives this
(figures are kWh):

Jul 2011 310 Aug 2012 321 mean 316
Jul 2013 202 Aug 2014 204 mean 203

So, on the face of it I'm saving 113 kWh per month.

But let's look at the yearly figures

2011 4257 2012 4393 mean 4325
2013 3530 2014 3281 mean 3356

So somewhere I'm now not using 970 kWh per annum or 80 kWh per month

The two savings figures are suggestive that I'm measuring the same
thing, but let's run with the lower figure of 970 kWh per annum or
1940 kWh over the two years. At 8 kWh to the £ that's £242 saved by
using LEDs in that time. I think I spent about £180 or so on buying
them in the first place, so I'm £60 to the good already. These savings
will continue until the lamps give out, somewhere between 25,000 and
50,000 hours of use. In that time I won't have spent anything on
multiple replacements. As a bonus I get instant light at start-up and
better colour rendition.

To my mind, waiting for the latest technology is like ignoring
significant savings now. If there was a leap in technology in say two
years time, I could go for that because having already saved £60
towards it, I'm now saving £10 per month (80 kWh) for an additional
£240 in that time totalling £300 to the good. I could then throw away
all my current LEDs as they'd paid for themselves years before.

Another way of looking at this is that I'm saving £10 per month, but
am currently £60 to the good over the original cost of the LEDs, so
that means that they've paid for themselves in 24 - 6 = 18 months.

At today's prices I could have done the replacement for much less
cost, suggesting that current payback time would be even shorter, say
a year.

Fit LEDs, it's a no-brainer.

--
Terry Fields

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:25:09 +0000, ChrisK wrote:

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...

Only for ceiling lights, DIY:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?qu...&sorting=price
BTW, "ready to use" - hadn't spotted these befo
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00240585/
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:25:09 +0000, ChrisK wrote:

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...

Only for ceiling lights, DIY:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?qu...&sorting=price
BTW, "ready to use" - hadn't spotted these befo
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00240585/


Probably wouldn't fit existing widely supplied shades though, the ES
holders are wider & probably need a bigger shade ring than is normally
the case.

Seems like we have a mixture of incompatible standards at the moment...

Chris K

Johny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:11:41 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Johny B Good wrote:

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most
efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal
coil within the next year or two),

In that case, are you sure the break even point would be reached?


In this case, the ROI break even point is... well, beside the point.
I was thinking more of the "Let me enjoy the benefit whilst I can and
hang the expense!" factor. :-)


That was my point, 2 x 18w LED bulbs produce a much more pleasant light
than the 4 x CFLs. Given that I have several lifetimes of CFL lamps to
work through, the break even point on power savings is 2 years or more
so I'll continue to use the CFLs elsewhere where the duty cycles are
lower and light colour less critical.

Chris K

On 19 Nov 2014 16:19:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Johny B Good wrote:

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if
you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my
liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear
at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and
at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder
Technology of The Age'.

If you wait for technology, you'll wait forever as it's always moving
thataway..

Your post prompted me to look at my electricity consumption figures,
as I take readings every month, and a couple of years ago I replaced
all the lights in the house (bar two for which I can't yet get a
suitable LED) with LEDs.

Taking July and August figures (summer, no heating, live on salads,
least variability, etc) to compare the last four years data gives this
(figures are kWh):

Jul 2011 310 Aug 2012 321 mean 316
Jul 2013 202 Aug 2014 204 mean 203

So, on the face of it I'm saving 113 kWh per month.

But let's look at the yearly figures

2011 4257 2012 4393 mean 4325
2013 3530 2014 3281 mean 3356

So somewhere I'm now not using 970 kWh per annum or 80 kWh per month

The two savings figures are suggestive that I'm measuring the same
thing, but let's run with the lower figure of 970 kWh per annum or
1940 kWh over the two years. At 8 kWh to the £ that's £242 saved by
using LEDs in that time. I think I spent about £180 or so on buying
them in the first place, so I'm £60 to the good already. These savings
will continue until the lamps give out, somewhere between 25,000 and
50,000 hours of use. In that time I won't have spent anything on
multiple replacements. As a bonus I get instant light at start-up and
better colour rendition.

To my mind, waiting for the latest technology is like ignoring
significant savings now. If there was a leap in technology in say two
years time, I could go for that because having already saved £60
towards it, I'm now saving £10 per month (80 kWh) for an additional
£240 in that time totalling £300 to the good. I could then throw away
all my current LEDs as they'd paid for themselves years before.

Another way of looking at this is that I'm saving £10 per month, but
am currently £60 to the good over the original cost of the LEDs, so
that means that they've paid for themselves in 24 - 6 = 18 months.

At today's prices I could have done the replacement for much less
cost, suggesting that current payback time would be even shorter, say
a year.

Fit LEDs, it's a no-brainer.

Only if you're replacing tungsten filament lamps (which it very much
looks to be the case with that level of energy saving). The savings on
replacing an existing fleet of CFLs are a lot more modest.

I've just done a rough and ready assessment on replacing my existing
collection of 20W CFLs (including a couple of 8W CFL lamps in wall
fittings in the living room, normally the only lighting SWMBI has
switched on when she's watching the telly) and estimate that upgrading
the living room, hall and landing lights, the very ones that _do_ get
left on for the longest periods of time is unlikely to reduce my
_annual_ bill by more than 12 quid.

It was a very different story 10 years ago when I replaced the
tungsten filament lamps with CFLs at about 2 or 3 quid a pop and got a
saving of some 50 or 60 quid on the annual bill. That's when the
lamping upgrade exercise gave the best ROI of all time.

Sure, it wasn't as 'perfect' a solution as the LED upgrade now is
since the trade off was an acceptance of a half minute or so run up
time to full brightness. For lamps that were normally left switched on
for the evening, this wasn't a serious issue. However, this
temperature sensitivity did make CFLs pretty well unusable in exterior
locations without the use of expensive double glazed fittings along
with an even more protracted run up time.

A decade or so back when we were substituting something like, for
example, a 1KW incandescent lighting load with a 250W CFL load, that
gave us a massive 750 watt reduction, repeating the same exercise now
only yields a 100 watt reduction at best with the current crop of LEDs
(for those willing to wait another year it's more likely to be 150
watts).

The only tangible benefit with the best of today's LEDs is an instant
startup lamp with (if the manufacturers' claims are to be believed) a
lamp life some 3 to 5 times better than the typical 6 to 8 thousand
hour rating of the CFL along with a wider range of applications
extending into much cooler environments. All worthy reasons, of
course, to upgrade if we're prepared to accept the high price of early
adoption - not everyone is.

For those of us who do take a rather jaundiced view of the 'early
adoption' pricing model, it makes far more sense to be rather more
choosy about how we go about replacing our existing stock of CFLs and
hold off making any mass purchases for as long as we reasonably can
and that includes resisting the temptation to succumb to the 'low
priced' LEDs on sale in LidAldi which are far from the bargain they
appear to be in the eyes of the general public unaware of the rapid
improvements in LED lamp efficiencies that have been made in the last
two years which are only now starting to come through the distribution
channel.

What the likes of LidAldi and a lot of other retail stores are
currently flogging off at 'bargain prices' is older, less efficient
stock that's currently backed up in the distribution channel, awaiting
the store's best efforts to clear the current backlog.

By the LED manufacturer's own reckoning (Cree and Philips), it's
going to be another 18 to 24 months for their latest 200 and 300 lumen
per watt R&D examples to appear as actual product on the retail
shelves. In effect, since both companies announced their 200 Lumen per
watt devices back in January and February this year, such high
efficiency lamps (3 times better than the best CFLs) won't be on sale
until at least this time next year.

Although the initial pricing on such 200L/W product is likely to
carry an even higher price premium than the current 'best available'
LEDs, I'd expect the prices to drop out of the stratosphere even
quicker than the previous generation's pricing did due to the much
larger reduction in running costs compared to the CFL (typically a
reduction to one third that of a good quality CFL compared to the
reduction by one third to one half with the best LEDs now available).

The availability of the newer lamps should help depress the pricing
of the existing overpriced 10W 810 lumen 15 quid lamps to a more
reasonable 5 quid or less (that's a lamp type that's about twice as
efficient as its 20W CFL equivilent so still a worthwhile investment
in terms of running costs once "The Price Is Right"er. As I see it,
it's just a matter of biding your time.

--
J B Good

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:55:00 +0000, ChrisK wrote:

PeterC wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:25:09 +0000, ChrisK wrote:

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference -
and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp
holders...

Only for ceiling lights, DIY:
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/search/?qu...&sorting=price
BTW, "ready to use" - hadn't spotted these befo
http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00240585/


Probably wouldn't fit existing widely supplied shades though, the ES
holders are wider & probably need a bigger shade ring than is normally
the case.

If our kitchen, height adjustable, pendant lamp, bought from Ikea a
decade or so back, is anything to go by (LES - E27 lamp socket),
you're absolutely correct. The (metal chinese hat styled) shade is
held on with a retaining ring that has a much larger diameter than
those used on BC lamp sockets.


Seems like we have a mixture of incompatible standards at the moment...

Largely thanks to Ikea pushing LES fittings onto the general public
these past two or three decades (thin end of the wedge effect).
--
J B Good

On 18/11/2014 19:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.



Slight thread hijack - anyone experience of Ikea bulbs:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10255289/

Prices seem half decent . . .

--
Cheers, Rob

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:53:33 +0000, Johny B Good wrote:

Probably wouldn't fit existing widely supplied shades though, the
ES
holders are wider & probably need a bigger shade ring than is
normally
the case.

If our kitchen, height adjustable, pendant lamp, bought from Ikea a
decade or so back, is anything to go by (LES - E27 lamp socket),
you're absolutely correct.

There is a bit of a clue in the numbers b22 and E27... B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:10:21 +0000, RJH wrote:

On 18/11/2014 19:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.



Slight thread hijack - anyone experience of Ikea bulbs:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10255289/

Prices seem half decent . . .

They're not the worst but be careful when choosing your 1000 lumen
LES LED lamp, I spotted a 65% variation between a couple of models
with that output.

Also, please note that they're only a little more efficient than a
CFL (6x more light per watt compared to CFL's 5x more per watt than an
incandescent). We can reasonably expect to see LED lamps with twice
the efficiency of CFL this time next year (instead of the current 20%
improvement over CFL as at present).
--
J B Good

On 20/11/2014 08:10, RJH wrote:
On 18/11/2014 19:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.



Slight thread hijack - anyone experience of Ikea bulbs:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10255289/

Prices seem half decent . . .

Far too low a colour temperature for my (our) taste. They appear to be
very much designed to look like tungsten filament in terms of light emitted.

--
Rod

In article , polygonum
wrote:
On 20/11/2014 08:10, RJH wrote:
On 18/11/2014 19:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.



Slight thread hijack - anyone experience of Ikea bulbs:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10255289/

Prices seem half decent . . .

Far too low a colour temperature for my (our) taste. They appear to be
very much designed to look like tungsten filament in terms of light
emitted.

When I fitted ones with a higher colour temperaure, SWMBO objected. We have
"warm White" ones.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 20/11/2014 21:32, charles wrote:
When I fitted ones with a higher colour temperaure, SWMBO objected. We have
"warm White" ones.

It is as much my partner as me who likes the higher colour temperature!

It is more difficult when there is a mixture of existing lighting some
of which will remain 2700K or so.

--
Rod

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:20:17 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 20/11/2014 21:32, charles wrote:
When I fitted ones with a higher colour temperaure, SWMBO objected. We have
"warm White" ones.

It is as much my partner as me who likes the higher colour temperature!

It is more difficult when there is a mixture of existing lighting some
of which will remain 2700K or so.

Most folk prefer 'warmer' looking lighting to the 'cooler' looking
simply on account the bluer tint triggers an association with blue
skies lacking direct sunlight typical of the cooler parts of the day
(early morning/late afternoon).

It wouldn't matter so much if we set our home thermostats 2 or 3
degrees C higher but most of us are looking to keep our heating bills
in check which allows the 'cooler' looking light to exagerate the
percieved 'chilliness' of the just below warm setting most of us set
our room temperature stats to.

I've noticed that the colour temperature for 'warm white' now tends
towards 3000K and even 3200K rather than the original 2700K for
tungsten filament and the earlier 'warm white' CFL/LED lamps. I'd
expect the next generation might find the older 2700K lamps to be just
a little too warm looking for their taste over the next decade or so.

In this case, habituating the next generation to a 'cooler' colour
temperature lamp is a useful trend since it makes for higher lumen
output per watt lamps just from the colour temperature shift alone.
--
J B Good

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:10:21 +0000, RJH wrote:

On 18/11/2014 19:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more
expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional
size/shape.



Slight thread hijack - anyone experience of Ikea bulbs:

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/10255289/

Prices seem half decent . . .

lm/W bit low - not necessarily a bad thing if enclosed. I've a 3.5W one in a
bulkhead and it illuminates the area well (helped by the aluminium foil
between glass and cage to shade it so that it doesn't shine outside the area
required).
Toolstation's prices aren't too bad on some lamps and there are BC caps.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On 19/11/2014 16:19, Terry Fields wrote:
Johny B Good wrote:

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if
you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my
liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear
at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and
at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder
Technology of The Age'.

If you wait for technology, you'll wait forever as it's always moving
thataway..

Your post prompted me to look at my electricity consumption figures,
as I take readings every month, and a couple of years ago I replaced
all the lights in the house (bar two for which I can't yet get a
suitable LED) with LEDs.

Taking July and August figures (summer, no heating, live on salads,
least variability, etc) to compare the last four years data gives this
(figures are kWh):

Jul 2011 310 Aug 2012 321 mean 316
Jul 2013 202 Aug 2014 204 mean 203

So, on the face of it I'm saving 113 kWh per month.

But let's look at the yearly figures

2011 4257 2012 4393 mean 4325
2013 3530 2014 3281 mean 3356

So somewhere I'm now not using 970 kWh per annum or 80 kWh per month

The two savings figures are suggestive that I'm measuring the same
thing, but let's run with the lower figure of 970 kWh per annum or
1940 kWh over the two years. At 8 kWh to the £ that's £242 saved by
using LEDs in that time. I think I spent about £180 or so on buying
them in the first place, so I'm £60 to the good already. These savings
will continue until the lamps give out, somewhere between 25,000 and
50,000 hours of use. In that time I won't have spent anything on
multiple replacements. As a bonus I get instant light at start-up and
better colour rendition.

To my mind, waiting for the latest technology is like ignoring
significant savings now. If there was a leap in technology in say two
years time, I could go for that because having already saved £60
towards it, I'm now saving £10 per month (80 kWh) for an additional
£240 in that time totalling £300 to the good. I could then throw away
all my current LEDs as they'd paid for themselves years before.

Another way of looking at this is that I'm saving £10 per month, but
am currently £60 to the good over the original cost of the LEDs, so
that means that they've paid for themselves in 24 - 6 = 18 months.

At today's prices I could have done the replacement for much less
cost, suggesting that current payback time would be even shorter, say
a year.

Fit LEDs, it's a no-brainer.

Without having the data available to compare, I'm not qualified to
comment on these figures, but would add another factor, which is the
power used by number of lamps that we used to leave on when not necesary
due to the warm up time of a CFL over LED. And, of course, the
convenience factor of being able to turn a light on and
get...well...light (!)
Not that I have taken the plunge to change the whole place to LED, but I
replace with them whenever a bulb goes. The Toolstation range are not
bad in terms of price and performance together with easy availability.
I wouldn't over-think aspects like the light distribution as it doesn't
seem much of an issue in practice. Where I have gone wrong has been in
buying LEDs that are more powerful than necessary in some applications.
Like the 6-lamp set up in the dining room that I filled with 5W candles,
that could burn the average retina out in milliseconds. Fortunately,
it's switched as 3 + 3, so can be mitigated, but I'm still trying to
think of how to re-deploy those onesto justify replacing them with
something more subdued....

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:31:46 +0000, GMM GlMiMa-AT-yahoo.co.uk wrote:

On 19/11/2014 16:19, Terry Fields wrote:
Johny B Good wrote:

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if
you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my
liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear
at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and
at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder
Technology of The Age'.

If you wait for technology, you'll wait forever as it's always moving
thataway..

Your post prompted me to look at my electricity consumption figures,
as I take readings every month, and a couple of years ago I replaced
all the lights in the house (bar two for which I can't yet get a
suitable LED) with LEDs.

Taking July and August figures (summer, no heating, live on salads,
least variability, etc) to compare the last four years data gives this
(figures are kWh):

Jul 2011 310 Aug 2012 321 mean 316
Jul 2013 202 Aug 2014 204 mean 203

So, on the face of it I'm saving 113 kWh per month.

But let's look at the yearly figures

2011 4257 2012 4393 mean 4325
2013 3530 2014 3281 mean 3356

So somewhere I'm now not using 970 kWh per annum or 80 kWh per month

The two savings figures are suggestive that I'm measuring the same
thing, but let's run with the lower figure of 970 kWh per annum or
1940 kWh over the two years. At 8 kWh to the £ that's £242 saved by
using LEDs in that time. I think I spent about £180 or so on buying
them in the first place, so I'm £60 to the good already. These savings
will continue until the lamps give out, somewhere between 25,000 and
50,000 hours of use. In that time I won't have spent anything on
multiple replacements. As a bonus I get instant light at start-up and
better colour rendition.

To my mind, waiting for the latest technology is like ignoring
significant savings now. If there was a leap in technology in say two
years time, I could go for that because having already saved £60
towards it, I'm now saving £10 per month (80 kWh) for an additional
£240 in that time totalling £300 to the good. I could then throw away
all my current LEDs as they'd paid for themselves years before.

Another way of looking at this is that I'm saving £10 per month, but
am currently £60 to the good over the original cost of the LEDs, so
that means that they've paid for themselves in 24 - 6 = 18 months.

At today's prices I could have done the replacement for much less
cost, suggesting that current payback time would be even shorter, say
a year.

Fit LEDs, it's a no-brainer.

Without having the data available to compare, I'm not qualified to
comment on these figures, but would add another factor, which is the
power used by number of lamps that we used to leave on when not necesary
due to the warm up time of a CFL over LED. And, of course, the
convenience factor of being able to turn a light on and
get...well...light (!)
Not that I have taken the plunge to change the whole place to LED, but I
replace with them whenever a bulb goes. The Toolstation range are not
bad in terms of price and performance together with easy availability.
I wouldn't over-think aspects like the light distribution as it doesn't
seem much of an issue in practice. Where I have gone wrong has been in
buying LEDs that are more powerful than necessary in some applications.
Like the 6-lamp set up in the dining room that I filled with 5W candles,
that could burn the average retina out in milliseconds. Fortunately,
it's switched as 3 + 3, so can be mitigated, but I'm still trying to
think of how to re-deploy those onesto justify replacing them with
something more subdued....

You could try 7W CFL candle lamps. They won't dazzle on switch on and
take about half a minute or so to work up to full brightness so should
fit the bill just nicely. :-)
--
J B Good

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

LEDHut and Lightrabbit items bought in the past year or two have had
no failures so far, despite being on a lot of the time. Which is what
I'd been led to expect of LED lifespans.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:08:53 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:


Personally, I'm glad to get rid of BC fittings and say goodbye to
cross-threaded shade rings and jammed bulbs.

Ditto.
Apart from some legacy lights, all my fittings are ES and I only
bought one or two BC fittings by accident more or less (clamp-on shelf
edge lights). Even the legacy lights mostly have BC-ES adapters in
them now.

On 21/11/2014 02:38, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:20:17 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 20/11/2014 21:32, charles wrote:
When I fitted ones with a higher colour temperaure, SWMBO objected. We have
"warm White" ones.


Yes, I prefer warm white. I thought 2700k (the Ikea bulbs) is warm white?

It is as much my partner as me who likes the higher colour temperature!

It is more difficult when there is a mixture of existing lighting some
of which will remain 2700K or so.

Most folk prefer 'warmer' looking lighting to the 'cooler' looking
simply on account the bluer tint triggers an association with blue
skies lacking direct sunlight typical of the cooler parts of the day
(early morning/late afternoon).

It wouldn't matter so much if we set our home thermostats 2 or 3
degrees C higher but most of us are looking to keep our heating bills
in check which allows the 'cooler' looking light to exagerate the
percieved 'chilliness' of the just below warm setting most of us set
our room temperature stats to.

I've noticed that the colour temperature for 'warm white' now tends
towards 3000K and even 3200K rather than the original 2700K for
tungsten filament and the earlier 'warm white' CFL/LED lamps. I'd
expect the next generation might find the older 2700K lamps to be just
a little too warm looking for their taste over the next decade or so.

In this case, habituating the next generation to a 'cooler' colour
temperature lamp is a useful trend since it makes for higher lumen
output per watt lamps just from the colour temperature shift alone.


Interesting, thanks. Is that quite a performance hit, then?

And I'm not sure about acclimatising people to a different whiteness -
perhaps folk like the warmness for a physiological reason, like a mild
form of SAD?

Having said this, from very limited reading*, it's LEDs themselves
rather than the whiteness that matters.

*http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/14-0468.1
--
Cheers, Rob

On 22/11/14 00:31, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

LEDHut and Lightrabbit items bought in the past year or two have had
no failures so far, despite being on a lot of the time. Which is what
I'd been led to expect of LED lifespans.


Thanks

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:29:29 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Happy with brightness at 9W. Disappointed that their "cool white" is
5000K rather than, say, 4200K or so. But quite usable depending on
decoration of the room they are in.

I had an LEDHut golf-ball style (enclosed mini corn-cob) which had a
bilious green cast for ages, so bad I relegated it to third-rank use.
I noticed it had gradually become warmer and it's now merely a touch
cool white instead of ghastly.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:49:36 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 22/11/14 00:31, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:56:35 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

LEDHut and Lightrabbit items bought in the past year or two have had
no failures so far, despite being on a lot of the time. Which is what
I'd been led to expect of LED lifespans.


Thanks

Just avoid the cheap junk from the far East - 100% failure rate on
mains-powered LEDs now [1]. Otoh, the cheap and cheerful
Chinese-sourced flashlights / torches are all going strong, with the
only failure being one that was suspect from the start as the High
setting on that was definitely over-running the chip and it cooked.

[1] I suspect the mains circuitry is the fault, rather than the
low-voltage side, so they might be repairable, if I can be tuited.

On 22/11/2014 18:37, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:29:29 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

Happy with brightness at 9W. Disappointed that their "cool white" is
5000K rather than, say, 4200K or so. But quite usable depending on
decoration of the room they are in.

I had an LEDHut golf-ball style (enclosed mini corn-cob) which had a
bilious green cast for ages, so bad I relegated it to third-rank use.
I noticed it had gradually become warmer and it's now merely a touch
cool white instead of ghastly.

Have not had them long - but will definitely be looking out for changes.
Thank you for posting that.

--
Rod