On Saturday, 12 November 2016 06:45:37 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 11 November 2016 16:04:53 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
How long a car lasts depends on lots of things. Like type of use and
servicing, etc. That doesn't apply to a lamp.

It does to a fair extent... with LEDs its particularly effected by how
hot it is allowed to get.

As regards straightforward replacement of tungsten with LED are going to
be just fine with cooling if they were OK for tungsten.

Try reading the specs supplied with those LED lamps.
Then try to understand what they mean.

Something you can't manage with the 4 hours bit.

It would take you more than 4 hours yes I agree but most people aren't that dim.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 01:18:27 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
With a car, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that one which
is abused isn't going to have as long a life as one driven
sympathetically.

What do you mean by abused ?

Since you don't drive or know anything about cars, why ask?

What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't drive
one. Or know anything about them. Given it was about the first 'toy'
fitted to cars some 25 years ago, after perhaps ICE.

You don't know anythiung about LEDs.

Then refer me to one of my posts which supports your view.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The book is a guide only I'd perfer us not to spend the money buying
books but to write our own.

Crikey.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 13:29:28 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 01:18:27 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
With a car, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that one which
is abused isn't going to have as long a life as one driven
sympathetically.

What do you mean by abused ?

Since you don't drive or know anything about cars, why ask?

What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't drive
one.

No I don;t drive but I have friend s that do and I spent a few weeks helping a friend to strip down his TR6. I'm not an astronuat either but I know where the moon is.

Or know anything about them. Given it was about the first 'toy'
fitted to cars some 25 years ago, after perhaps ICE.

Toys have been fited to cars for years, they are the extras not on other cars.


You don't know anythiung about LEDs.

Then refer me to one of my posts which supports your view.

Have done multiple times where you think replacing a triac changes a dimmer from leading edge to trailing edge, care to list that triac you replaced again.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't
drive one.

No I don;t drive but I have friend s that do and I spent a few weeks
helping a friend to strip down his TR6.

Right. Now impress me by saying you put it back together. But a TR6 dates
from before remote central locking anyway.

I'd rather take the views of a driver on what is or not convenient on a
car over a non-driver any day.



I'm not an astronuat either but
I know where the moon is.

Let's just hope you're never an astronaut enroute to Mars, then.

Or know anything about them. Given it was about the first 'toy'
fitted to cars some 25 years ago, after perhaps ICE.

Toys have been fited to cars for years, they are the extras not on other
cars.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any new car without central locking
these days.

You don't know anythiung about LEDs.

Then refer me to one of my posts which supports your view.

Have done multiple times where you think replacing a triac changes a
dimmer from leading edge to trailing edge, care to list that triac you
replaced again.

Ah. Thanks for proving once more you can't read. Or is it just don't
understand what's written?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 14:04:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't
drive one.

No I don;t drive but I have friend s that do and I spent a few weeks
helping a friend to strip down his TR6.

Right. Now impress me by saying you put it back together. But a TR6 dates
from before remote central locking anyway.

yes I know we build and untrasonic alarm for it too.
First time I'd used Nitromors stripper nice or nasty stuff depending on where it lands.


I'd rather take the views of a driver on what is or not convenient on a
car over a non-driver any day.

And who would you take notice of regarding kettles and household appliances becomeing aprt of IoT how about cars, do you think a remote that could tell you how much fuel you had left as well as turning off/on the alarm might be useful,
tyre pressure and everything else a cars dashboard can be used for. Or
do you think dedicated remotes costing £120+ each are the way to go ?




Or know anything about them. Given it was about the first 'toy'
fitted to cars some 25 years ago, after perhaps ICE.

Toys have been fited to cars for years, they are the extras not on other
cars.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any new car without central locking
these days.

In a few years you'll find it hard to find a new car that isn't ioT


Have done multiple times where you think replacing a triac changes a
dimmer from leading edge to trailing edge, care to list that triac you
replaced again.

Ah. Thanks for proving once more you can't read. Or is it just don't
understand what's written?

That's your problem not mine so remind me how replacing a traic works......

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 14 November 2016 14:04:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't
drive one.

No I don;t drive but I have friend s that do and I spent a few weeks
helping a friend to strip down his TR6.

Right. Now impress me by saying you put it back together. But a TR6
dates from before remote central locking anyway.

yes I know we build and untrasonic alarm for it too.

*You* built an alarm for it? This from one who hasn't the skills to
replace a triac in a dimmer so buys new? I'd not dream of building a car
alarm. I couldn't make one for anywhere near the cost of buying one - and
it wouldn't be as good either.

First time I'd used Nitromors stripper nice or nasty stuff depending on where it lands.


I'd rather take the views of a driver on what is or not convenient on a
car over a non-driver any day.

And who would you take notice of regarding kettles and household
appliances

Users of those who aren't stupid, I'd say.


becomeing aprt of IoT how about cars, do you think a remote
that could tell you how much fuel you had left as well as turning off/on
the alarm might be useful, tyre pressure and everything else a cars
dashboard can be used for.

Complete waste of time. Apart from the central locking and alarm. But then
since you don't drive you probably no most cars already have a fuel gauge.
Of course if you're a goldfish, you may need a mobile to tell you you need
fuel.


Or
do you think dedicated remotes costing £120+ each are the way to go ?




Or know anything about them. Given it was about the first 'toy'
fitted to cars some 25 years ago, after perhaps ICE.

Toys have been fited to cars for years, they are the extras not on
other cars.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any new car without central
locking these days.

In a few years you'll find it hard to find a new car that isn't ioT


Have done multiple times where you think replacing a triac changes a
dimmer from leading edge to trailing edge, care to list that triac
you replaced again.

Ah. Thanks for proving once more you can't read. Or is it just don't
understand what's written?

That's your problem not mine so remind me how replacing a traic
works......

But you've said you don't know how to. So no point.

--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 15:44:54 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 14 November 2016 14:04:55 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
What makes you think I don't knnow anything about cars. ?

Your comments about remote central locking on cars shows you don't
drive one.

No I don;t drive but I have friend s that do and I spent a few weeks
helping a friend to strip down his TR6.

Right. Now impress me by saying you put it back together. But a TR6
dates from before remote central locking anyway.

yes I know we build and untrasonic alarm for it too.

*You* built an alarm for it? This from one who hasn't the skills to
replace a triac in a dimmer so buys new?

Yes, I'm NOT as stupid as you when it comes to replacing traics.

I'd not dream of building a car
alarm. I couldn't make one for anywhere near the cost of buying one - and
it wouldn't be as good either.

This one was in ETI around 1982/3
We made a PCB for it too. It wasn't brillant because a cat kept setting it off as it slept on the soft top, largeb swings in temprature caused problems too.





First time I'd used Nitromors stripper nice or nasty stuff depending on where it lands.


I'd rather take the views of a driver on what is or not convenient on a
car over a non-driver any day.

And who would you take notice of regarding kettles and household
appliances

Users of those who aren't stupid, I'd say.

You donlt seem to be able to tell the differnce.


becomeing aprt of IoT how about cars, do you think a remote
that could tell you how much fuel you had left as well as turning off/on
the alarm might be useful, tyre pressure and everything else a cars
dashboard can be used for.

Complete waste of time.

heard it all before.

Apart from the central locking and alarm. But then
since you don't drive you probably no most cars already have a fuel gauge.

So there;s no point in tracking a car to see whwre it is and how it is being driven. Next you'll be telling me there's no point in having cab cams and dashboard cams.

Of course if you're a goldfish, you may need a mobile to tell you you need
fuel.

well I;ve never run out of fuel but people do, just like some peole need an automatic car or prefer one.




In a few years you'll find it hard to find a new car that isn't ioT



Have done multiple times where you think replacing a triac changes a
dimmer from leading edge to trailing edge, care to list that triac
you replaced again.

Ah. Thanks for proving once more you can't read. Or is it just don't
understand what's written?

That's your problem not mine so remind me how replacing a traic
works......

But you've said you don't know how to. So no point.

I have done it, and it doesn't matter how many times I tell you you ignore that fact.

Of course uo could explian how and why you'd replace a traic but you've no idea have you.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 November 2016 06:02:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
dennis@home wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
John Rumm wrote

It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in
multiples
of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about 6-months
use
when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional halogen
spotlight
bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours) where as an LED
will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - that€˜s between 15 and 25
years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to change your
light
bulbs again.",

Heh heh. If the average life of an LED was actually 15 years, why
don't
they give them a lifetime warrenty? The number of people who could
produce a receipt after 15 years would be very very small.

If you sold 10 million of them and 0.01% claimed each year
you would need quite a few people to keep up with the claims.
It just wouldn't be economical on the margins they make.

But it doesn;t stop them doing it because they know few will
attempt to claim and those that do you cabn ask have you ever
had them on for more than 4 hours at a time. If they asnwer yes
(which most peolpe will have had) then the warrently is invalid

Wrong. The warranty never says that you can't have them on for longer
than 4
hours.

You have utterly mangled what they do say about 4 hours, as always.

So what does it say.

It says that if you have the light on for 4 hours a day, it will last X
years.

just as it would be if the do not remove sticker was removed.

Wrong, as always. You still have the warranty if you remove that.

That's the law.

If you don't follow the manufactures rules

There is no rule that says anything about 4 hours a day.

then you can't claim on the warrenty.

Depends on the rule. If the manufacturer of a LED light says
that anyone using the light must wear yellow sox when they
use it, and you flout that rule, the warranty is still valid.

Which are part of teh terms and condition of sales.

Which is irrelevant to the statutory warranty.

One car manufacturer offered lifetime warranties
for a while but they stopped doing it.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
snip

Scuse me butting in, I haven't been counting but it's hilarious how many
times you've tried to type triac and ~always get traic.

On 14/11/16 18:56, bm wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
snip

Scuse me butting in, I haven't been counting but it's hilarious how many
times you've tried to type triac and ~always get traic.


Fluorescent has to be the most misspelled adjective on this NG.

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On Monday, 14 November 2016 18:56:52 UTC, bm wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
snip

Scuse me butting in, I haven't been counting but it's hilarious how many
times you've tried to type triac and ~always get traic.

Yes dyslexia I guess, look it up.

On 14/11/2016 11:15, whisky-dave wrote:



Yes and that's why we modify the course with labshhets the stends follow
the book is used as a reference NOT as bloody Bible study !


On the few pages I read there are some more pitfalls for the unwary -
how to weld the contacts of a miniature push switch together by directly
shorting out a charged 1000uF capacitor.

If you have found so many problems with the publication that you have to
write your own corrections or advise against the foolhardy suggestions
why buy 60 copies as a student reference book and why recommend it to
this group?

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:57:15 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 10/11/2016 10:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 18:02:43 UTC, John Rumm wrote:

Another problem with many LED lamps is the electronic drivers don't
like heat much either. So if your lamp base has an electrolytic cap in
it (as many do) its not going to last long at over 100 degrees.

same thing happened with PC PSUs a while back someone had one the other
day and I brought some capacitors rated at 130C 2000hrs I think, you
can get 105C and the normal range are mostly 85C. This is why a lot of
LED lamps donl;t last the 50K hours stated, if you read the full specs
some are only rates at 50K if you use them for less than x hours at a
time.

Yup indeed. I retired a GU10 spot the other day that was still working
LED wise, but was flickering because the cap in its base had lost so
much capacitance.


Of course there are some 'ankers on her that will say I'm wrong. So
before tehy embarress themselfs lijke a high wranking academci telling
me there no such thing as the factories and workplaces act.....

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/spot-lights...watt-gu10-led-
spotlight-35w-replacement.html

Go to the specs tab on the 3.6 Watt GU10 LED Spotlight - 35W
Replacement
hover the mouse over the average life hrs the green.

For dave plowman who has trouble reading it says. "When the bulb is on
for 4 hours a day".

It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in multiples
of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about 6-months use
when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional halogen spotlight
bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours) where as an LED
will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - thats between 15 and 25
years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to change your light
bulbs again.",

which (to me at least) does not seem to imply any maximum duty cycle or
period of on time to achieve that lifetime on that particular product.
(others may differ obviously)

I was rather suspicious of that specific usage pattern offered by WD
since it rather looked like the 2.7 hours a day caveat in regard of the 6
year guarantee period on a 30W 6000 hour rated CFL which, by my best
guess, actually expired with no warning symptoms at what I suspect was
the actual 6000 hour limit designed into the lamp to avoid extended life
at low efficacy (less economic lumens production rate) by forcing the end
user to do the right thing and replace it with another lamp rather than
hang on until the spiral tube was completely buggered after a few more
years of wasting electricity at an ever reducing efficacy as was
typically the case for the old traditionally ballasted fluorescent tube
luminaries used domestically. A legitimate EoL mechanism to help their
customers operate the lamp to its full economic lifetime without having
to count the hours of use for themselves.

What put me off mentioning it was that the 50000 hours at 4 hours per
day equated to some 34 years of guaranteed operation and, even assuming a
more likely figure of 25000 hours this still equated to a 17 year
guarantee! The "Hours per day" figure is normally a caveat in regard of
the warranty period expressed in years.

As you noted, limiting the continuous run time per day to four hours
would barely reduce the average temperature of operation since thermal
equilibrium would likely be achieved within the first hour of operation.

If the lamp had a 10 year warranty, I'd have expected the caveat to have
been expressed as 7 hours a day for a 25000 hour rated lamp and 14 hours
a day for a 50000 hour rated lamp. The 4 hours a day seems a rather
specious figure since it relates to no realistic warranty periods
measured in years alone (ISTR seeing some Eveready LED lamps offering a
10 year warranty which I thought was rather optimistic considering it
would likely be completely obsoleted long before then).

There are only 52596 hours in a 6 year warranty period meaning such a
warranty on a 50000 hour rated lamp would allow for 22.8 hours a day
operation anyway and 13.7 hours a day for a 30000 hour lamp or 11.4 hours
a day in the case of the 25000 hour rated lamp. That 4 hours a day seems
so spurious, one has to wonder why it was ever quoted in the first place.

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:47:07 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 11/11/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in
multiples of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about
6-months use when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional
halogen spotlight bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours)
where as an LED will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - that€˜s
between 15 and 25 years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to
change your light bulbs again.",


Heh heh. If the average life of an LED was actually 15 years, why don't
they give them a lifetime warrenty? The number of people who could
produce a receipt after 15 years would be very very small.


If you sold 10 million of them and 0.01% claimed each year you would
need quite a few people to keep up with the claims.
It just wouldn't be economical on the margins they make.

Eveready are offering 10 year warranties on some of their LED lamps but
even this seems excessive considering the lamp is likely to be obsoleted
by new improved LED lamps offering two to three times the efficiency
within the next 5 years or so [1].

I think most of us would be quite happy with the more realistic 3 to 6
year warranties typically being offered by the more upmarket and long
established manufacturers (especially at this stage of LED lamp
development - Cree announced a laboratory achievement of 303Lm/W (3 times
the current best efficiency today) just over 2 1/2 years ago which they
thought could be commercialised within the next 18 to 24 months - the
deadline on that promise has well and truly slipped).

The major benefit of a 270Lm/W lamp over today's 90Lm/W lamps is less to
do with reduced electricity consumption and more to do with making them
an even better substitute for the traditional tungsten filament GLS lamp.
Your 2430Lm 9W LED lamp would produce noticeably less waste heat than
today's 9W 810Lm lamp and therefore deployable in luminaries otherwise
too marginal on ventilation to allow a 9W 810 lumens lamp to used due to
overheating issues.

[1] Possibly I'm being unduly optimistic about a mere 5 year time scale
for those 270+ Lm/W lamps that had been promised to be on the shop
shelves some 6 months ago. It now looks for all the world as if Cree and
Co have realised their marketing blunder resulting in losing the
"Disposable Razor blade model" of a guaranteed steady income revenue and
are now resolutely dragging their heels in fulfilling that promise. :-(

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:00:52 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Yup early LED lights were fairly horrible in terms of the colour and
quality of the light - quite often as bad or worse than CFLs.

Worse, IMHO. Unless you liked 'blue' light.

The modern ones however have got vastly better - to the point now where
I find the LED "filament" style lamps produce a light quality hard to
distinguish from a real filament lamp (both in terms of light quality
and also directionality). (the non filament ones can also do decent
light, but have a different illumination pattern from a traditional
GLS).

Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently only
one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the promised
availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail stores. :-(

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:44:21 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/11/2016 15:36, John Rumm wrote:
On 11/11/2016 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
Heh heh. If the average life of an LED was actually 15 years, why
don't they give them a lifetime warrenty? The number of people who
could produce a receipt after 15 years would be very very small.

The LEDs themselves are incredibly reliable provided that you don't
abuse them. I find dipping the old dim ones in LN2 to demonstrate the
improvement in efficiency with a cooled more rigid crystal lattice
tends to do for them after a while, but indicator LEDs I installed
when they were new and novel in the mid 70's are still going strong.
Unlike the old low voltage indicator bulbs they are almost
indestructible.

Yes - same here. But once you start driving a LED hard to use as a
light source, the life comes down.
I've had a couple of early ones explode. And they claimed a very long
life too. Given their high cost put me off them - especially since the
light they produced was terrible.

Yup early LED lights were fairly horrible in terms of the colour and
quality of the light - quite often as bad or worse than CFLs.

I didn't consider them worth having until the price became comparable
with CFLs - then bought a couple on special offer and never looked back.

The modern ones however have got vastly better - to the point now where
I find the LED "filament" style lamps produce a light quality hard to
distinguish from a real filament lamp (both in terms of light quality
and also directionality). (the non filament ones can also do decent
light, but have a different illumination pattern from a traditional
GLS).

Indeed. And the only criticism I have of the previous generation of
Philips LED spotlamps is that they are too well collimated and
directional. The other notable thing is that the LED functional
equivalent to a nominal 60W incandescent is way brighter than the poxy
output of a CFL claiming to be a "nominal" 60W. I got caught out with my
first ever 60W equivalent LED being far too bright!

That's in part due to the fact that the 807Lm 60W tungsten filament
reference lamp is based on the higher efficacy American 120v 750 hour
lamp rather than the lower temperature 1000 hour rated 240v filament
lamps we use in the UK. When they state that 60W equivalency on an 810Lm
LED lamp it's more like that of a 75W 240v 1000 hour lamp. :-)

It's unusual for anyone to complain about a LED lamp being too bright
(unless it's entirely absent some form of diffuser to soften the glare of
naked LEDs). Aside from the diffuser issue, most people regard more light
output from their lamps as "A Good Thing" in that "You can't have too
much of a good thing.".

Besides, if the 270Lm/W LEDs *do* finally make an appearance in the
marketplace, one always has the option of a cheaper lower power lamp
which, by virtue of its considerably reduced heat dissipation, is very
likely to realise its full 50000 hour rated lifetime.

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:37:04 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in
multiples of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about
6-months use when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional
halogen spotlight bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours)
where as an LED will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - that‘s
between 15 and 25 years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to
change your light bulbs again.",


Heh heh. If the average life of an LED was actually 15 years, why don't
they give them a lifetime warrenty? The number of people who could
produce a receipt after 15 years would be very very small.

which (to me at least) does not seem to imply any maximum duty cycle
or period of on time to achieve that lifetime on that particular
product. (others may differ obviously)

Any claim made to the life of a product should be taken as Trump speak
unless backed up with a decent warrenty.


Not LEDs, but have Just worked out that some of my CFLs are 35
yeares old. I shudder to think what their light output is.

That's one of the benefits of modern 6000 hour rated CFLs, the 6000 hour
suicide timer to force you to do what you probably ought to have done
with those early CFLs some three decades ago. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

Johnny B Good wrote:

Capitol wrote:

Just worked out that some of my CFLs are 35 yeares old.

That's one of the benefits of modern 6000 hour rated CFLs, the 6000 hour
suicide timer to force you to do what you probably ought to have done
with those early CFLs some three decades ago. :-)

I still have some of the first CFLs I bought, not quite so old (are the
35 y/o ones the philips "jam jar" type?) mine are just under 30 I should
think, they were expensive enough that I didn't leave them behind in my
previous house, they are now relegated to lighting the loft, so only a
few hours per year.

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently only
one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the
promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail
stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

1) Same quality of light. That is important to me - some may not care.
2) The actual lamp - if it can be seen - must be attractive too.
3) Dimmable - with a dimmer that will also work for tungsten.
4) The efficiency is the least important bit to me. I don't leave lights
on all over the house. But obviously lower running costs are good. But
must take the cost of the lamp and actual life into account too.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
It's unusual for anyone to complain about a LED lamp being too bright
(unless it's entirely absent some form of diffuser to soften the glare
of naked LEDs). Aside from the diffuser issue, most people regard more
light output from their lamps as "A Good Thing" in that "You can't have
too much of a good thing.".

LEDs often appear to be brighter when viewed directly. Which might be
annoying where you 'catch' that light with the eye often.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 16/11/2016 05:24, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:47:07 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 11/11/2016 00:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in
multiples of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about
6-months use when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional
halogen spotlight bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours)
where as an LED will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - that€˜s
between 15 and 25 years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to
change your light bulbs again.",


Heh heh. If the average life of an LED was actually 15 years, why don't
they give them a lifetime warrenty? The number of people who could
produce a receipt after 15 years would be very very small.


If you sold 10 million of them and 0.01% claimed each year you would
need quite a few people to keep up with the claims.
It just wouldn't be economical on the margins they make.

Eveready are offering 10 year warranties on some of their LED lamps but
even this seems excessive considering the lamp is likely to be obsoleted
by new improved LED lamps offering two to three times the efficiency
within the next 5 years or so [1].

Depending on the circumstance there may be far less desire on the part
of consumers. The tenfold reduction in running costs moving from 60 to
6W say is worth having in financial terms. Saving another couple of watt
may be less motivation especially when the purchase price of the lamp is
likely to be noticeably higher.

I think most of us would be quite happy with the more realistic 3 to 6
year warranties typically being offered by the more upmarket and long
established manufacturers (especially at this stage of LED lamp
development - Cree announced a laboratory achievement of 303Lm/W (3 times
the current best efficiency today) just over 2 1/2 years ago which they
thought could be commercialised within the next 18 to 24 months - the
deadline on that promise has well and truly slipped).

The major benefit of a 270Lm/W lamp over today's 90Lm/W lamps is less to
do with reduced electricity consumption and more to do with making them
an even better substitute for the traditional tungsten filament GLS lamp.
Your 2430Lm 9W LED lamp would produce noticeably less waste heat than
today's 9W 810Lm lamp and therefore deployable in luminaries otherwise
too marginal on ventilation to allow a 9W 810 lumens lamp to used due to
overheating issues.

True, although how aware joe consumer is of these issues is another matter.

[1] Possibly I'm being unduly optimistic about a mere 5 year time scale
for those 270+ Lm/W lamps that had been promised to be on the shop
shelves some 6 months ago. It now looks for all the world as if Cree and
Co have realised their marketing blunder resulting in losing the
"Disposable Razor blade model" of a guaranteed steady income revenue and
are now resolutely dragging their heels in fulfilling that promise. :-(

There is also a danger of calling into play the (rather unfairly titled)
Osbourn Effect - cutting off current revenues as people delay purchase
waiting for the better model etc.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Johnny B Good wrote:

the lamp is likely to be obsoleted by new improved LED lamps offering
two to three times the efficiency within the next 5 years or so

You've reverted to believing the hype then? :-P

On Tuesday, 15 November 2016 20:21:56 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 14/11/2016 11:15, whisky-dave wrote:



Yes and that's why we modify the course with labshhets the stends follow
the book is used as a reference NOT as bloody Bible study !


On the few pages I read there are some more pitfalls for the unwary -
how to weld the contacts of a miniature push switch together by directly
shorting out a charged 1000uF capacitor.

If you have found so many problems with the publication that you have to
write your own corrections or advise against the foolhardy suggestions
why buy 60 copies as a student reference book and why recommend it to
this group?

It's not my decision it's the decision of teaching staff just like any other text book the university recomends for teaching that the bookshop sells.
If they asked my opion which I give on many sub jects they ignore it
just like they do with H&S if they can get away with it.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently only
one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the
promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail
stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.


1) Same quality of light. That is important to me - some may not care.
2) The actual lamp - if it can be seen - must be attractive too.
3) Dimmable - with a dimmer that will also work for tungsten.
4) The efficiency is the least important bit to me. I don't leave lights
on all over the house. But obviously lower running costs are good. But
must take the cost of the lamp and actual life into account too.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket - an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides
and at an affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Then no wonder it blew up your dimmer. I can tell you how to fix that by
replacing the triac, if you want.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 14:09:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket - an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides
and at an affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Then no wonder it blew up your dimmer. I can tell you how to fix that by
replacing the triac, if you want.

go on then ... lets see if yuo realyl know what you're talking about.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 14:09:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket - an LED which will replace a tungsten with no
downsides and at an affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Then no wonder it blew up your dimmer. I can tell you how to fix that
by replacing the triac, if you want.

go on then ... lets see if yuo realyl know what you're talking about.

Think a whoosh may be in order. Again.

--
*With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 15:10:26 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 14:09:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket - an LED which will replace a tungsten with no
downsides and at an affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Then no wonder it blew up your dimmer. I can tell you how to fix that
by replacing the triac, if you want.

go on then ... lets see if yuo realyl know what you're talking about.

Think a whoosh may be in order. Again.

You're doing a wodeny are you.

On 16/11/2016 04:52, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:57:15 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 10/11/2016 10:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 18:02:43 UTC, John Rumm wrote:

Another problem with many LED lamps is the electronic drivers don't
like heat much either. So if your lamp base has an electrolytic cap in
it (as many do) its not going to last long at over 100 degrees.

same thing happened with PC PSUs a while back someone had one the other
day and I brought some capacitors rated at 130C 2000hrs I think, you
can get 105C and the normal range are mostly 85C. This is why a lot of
LED lamps donl;t last the 50K hours stated, if you read the full specs
some are only rates at 50K if you use them for less than x hours at a
time.

Yup indeed. I retired a GU10 spot the other day that was still working
LED wise, but was flickering because the cap in its base had lost so
much capacitance.


Of course there are some 'ankers on her that will say I'm wrong. So
before tehy embarress themselfs lijke a high wranking academci telling
me there no such thing as the factories and workplaces act.....

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/spot-lights...watt-gu10-led-
spotlight-35w-replacement.html

Go to the specs tab on the 3.6 Watt GU10 LED Spotlight - 35W
Replacement
hover the mouse over the average life hrs the green.

For dave plowman who has trouble reading it says. "When the bulb is on
for 4 hours a day".

It actually says: "Manufacturers will give lifetime claims in multiples
of 1000 hours. One thousand hours is equivalent to about 6-months use
when the bulb is on for 4 hours per day. A traditional halogen spotlight
bulb is expected to last about one year (2000 hours) where as an LED
will last between 30,000 and 50,000 hours - thats between 15 and 25
years! Switching to LEDs means you may never have to change your light
bulbs again.",

which (to me at least) does not seem to imply any maximum duty cycle or
period of on time to achieve that lifetime on that particular product.
(others may differ obviously)

I was rather suspicious of that specific usage pattern offered by WD
since it rather looked like the 2.7 hours a day caveat in regard of the 6
year guarantee period on a 30W 6000 hour rated CFL which, by my best
guess, actually expired with no warning symptoms at what I suspect was
the actual 6000 hour limit designed into the lamp to avoid extended life
at low efficacy (less economic lumens production rate) by forcing the end
user to do the right thing and replace it with another lamp rather than
hang on until the spiral tube was completely buggered after a few more
years of wasting electricity at an ever reducing efficacy as was
typically the case for the old traditionally ballasted fluorescent tube
luminaries used domestically. A legitimate EoL mechanism to help their
customers operate the lamp to its full economic lifetime without having
to count the hours of use for themselves.

The flaw in the argument about energy use rising due to decreased
efficiency is that it assumes that the user will compensate for the
lower light level by turning on additional illumination. Whereas in
reality they will probably just "put up" with less light until they get
so fed up and fit "a bigger bulb".

What put me off mentioning it was that the 50000 hours at 4 hours per
day equated to some 34 years of guaranteed operation and, even assuming a
more likely figure of 25000 hours this still equated to a 17 year
guarantee! The "Hours per day" figure is normally a caveat in regard of
the warranty period expressed in years.

Yup, that is pretty much the point I was making. If you are going to
claim something will last n years, then you need to state the bases if
that claim - i.e. do you really mean n years of 24/7, or more likely n
years of "typical use" for some value of typical. If you want the x
hours per day thing to form a hard limit that is a condition of the
warranty, then you had better explain that explicitly.

As you noted, limiting the continuous run time per day to four hours
would barely reduce the average temperature of operation since thermal
equilibrium would likely be achieved within the first hour of operation.

If the lamp had a 10 year warranty, I'd have expected the caveat to have
been expressed as 7 hours a day for a 25000 hour rated lamp and 14 hours
a day for a 50000 hour rated lamp. The 4 hours a day seems a rather
specious figure since it relates to no realistic warranty periods
measured in years alone (ISTR seeing some Eveready LED lamps offering a
10 year warranty which I thought was rather optimistic considering it
would likely be completely obsoleted long before then).

I also have my doubts about the capacitors used in the PSUs in many of
these lamps actually lasting anything like as long as the lamp.

There are only 52596 hours in a 6 year warranty period meaning such a
warranty on a 50000 hour rated lamp would allow for 22.8 hours a day
operation anyway and 13.7 hours a day for a 30000 hour lamp or 11.4 hours
a day in the case of the 25000 hour rated lamp. That 4 hours a day seems
so spurious, one has to wonder why it was ever quoted in the first place.

I suppose if you average out the yearly use for a family at work during
the day and only using a lamp in the evening, it might be slightly
plausible - still seems a bit short though even then.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:54:16 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 16/11/2016 05:24, Johnny B Good wrote:

====snip====


[1] Possibly I'm being unduly optimistic about a mere 5 year time scale
for those 270+ Lm/W lamps that had been promised to be on the shop
shelves some 6 months ago. It now looks for all the world as if Cree
and Co have realised their marketing blunder resulting in losing the
"Disposable Razor blade model" of a guaranteed steady income revenue
and are now resolutely dragging their heels in fulfilling that promise.
:-(

There is also a danger of calling into play the (rather unfairly titled)
Osbourn Effect - cutting off current revenues as people delay purchase
waiting for the better model etc.

I'm applying "The Osbourne Effect" in spades. I'm also doing my best to
educate the public at large with regard to the empty promises made by
Philips Lighting and Cree just over 2 1/2 years ago when they both
announced their latest laboratory achievements of 280[1] and 303 Lumens
per watt LED lamps respectively.

I'd be more accepting of the delay in fulfilling these promises if some
sort of steady progress in improving lamp efficiencies was being
demonstrated in the supply chain but so far, over the past 3 years, we
seem to have been stuck with lamps in the 81 to 90 Lumens per watt
efficiency range. Where are all those 120 to 150 Lm/w lamps that we might
have reasonably expected to be made available by now?

It would seem that Cree and its customers are in some sort of Mexican
stand off, each waiting for the other to blink before making their next
move, quite possibly because their main competitor, Philips Lighting,
have dropped out of the game leaving them with a near monopoly situation
they're doing their best to exploit whilst they still can. Who knows? I'm
just taking my best guess as why further development in LED lamp
technology efficiency has remained stalled at the 81 to 90 Lm/w mark
these past 3 years or so.

[1] I can't find the original news announcement made by Philips Lighting
so the 280Lm/w figure is my best recollection of their 'record breaking'
lamp performance figure. I may be wrong but I do know they were trumped
by Cree's "record breaking" 303Lm/w lamp announcement at just about the
same time.

--
Johnny B Good

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:54:16 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 16/11/2016 05:24, Johnny B Good wrote:

====snip====


[1] Possibly I'm being unduly optimistic about a mere 5 year time scale
for those 270+ Lm/W lamps that had been promised to be on the shop
shelves some 6 months ago. It now looks for all the world as if Cree
and Co have realised their marketing blunder resulting in losing the
"Disposable Razor blade model" of a guaranteed steady income revenue
and are now resolutely dragging their heels in fulfilling that promise.
:-(

There is also a danger of calling into play the (rather unfairly titled)
Osbourn Effect - cutting off current revenues as people delay purchase
waiting for the better model etc.

I'm applying "The Osbourne Effect" in spades. I'm also doing my best to
educate the public at large with regard to the empty promises made by
Philips Lighting and Cree just over 2 1/2 years ago when they both
announced their latest laboratory achievements of 280[1] and 303 Lumens
per watt LED lamps respectively.

I'd be more accepting of the delay in fulfilling these promises if some
sort of steady progress in improving lamp efficiencies was being
demonstrated in the supply chain but so far, over the past 3 years, we
seem to have been stuck with lamps in the 81 to 90 Lumens per watt
efficiency range. Where are all those 120 to 150 Lm/w lamps that we might
have reasonably expected to be made available by now?

It would seem that Cree and its customers are in some sort of Mexican
stand off, each waiting for the other to blink before making their next
move, quite possibly because their main competitor, Philips Lighting,
have dropped out of the game leaving them with a near monopoly situation
they're doing their best to exploit whilst they still can. Who knows? I'm
just taking my best guess as why further development in LED lamp
technology efficiency has remained stalled at the 81 to 90 Lm/w mark
these past 3 years or so.

[1] I can't find the original news announcement made by Philips Lighting
so the 280Lm/w figure is my best recollection of their 'record breaking'
lamp performance figure. I may be wrong but I do know they were trumped
by Cree's "record breaking" 303Lm/w lamp announcement at just about the
same time.

It's always possible that Phillips are using these high output LEDs in
their theatric division rather then their domestic one. In that areea
forced cooling, by means of a fan, isn't uncommon.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:47:29 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently only
one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the
promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail
stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or supermarket
-
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

1) Same quality of light. That is important to me - some may not care.
2) The actual lamp - if it can be seen - must be attractive too.
3) Dimmable - with a dimmer that will also work for tungsten.
4) The efficiency is the least important bit to me. I don't leave lights
on all over the house. But obviously lower running costs are good. But
must take the cost of the lamp and actual life into account too.

Points 1, 2 and 4 are important to me. I'm not really concerned by their
dimmability (this just adds to the cost of the lamp for a feature I'm
unlikely to utilise).

The main benefit at *this* stage of the game with item 4 is the reduced
running temperature of say a 10W 1620Lm LED compared to a 10 watt 810Lm
LED (same power consumption but less being dissipated as waste heat).
This means the more efficient LED lamps can be fitted into "LED
unfriendly" GLS luminaries where the extra light output is needed to
replace that of a 100 or 150 watt tungsten filament lamp.

I too take a pragmatic view of the situation, having invested a whole 13
quid in those 5W LED SES candle lamps on sale in Poundland (or Poundworld)
to replace the 7 and 8 watt CFLs (two wall lights and a couple of 5 lamp
chandeliers and a spare lamp) a few weeks ago. One of them failed after
about a week, hence the purchase of the extra as a spare when I returned
the faulty one for exchange.

I'm holding back on buying high output LED lamps mainly on account of
their excessive price points and the fact that they may not survive very
long in the existing fittings where I'd like more light. I've still got a
now dwindling stock of CFLs to replace any of the existing fleet I've got
installed.

The only GLS incandescent lamps we have left in service now are the 100W
ES in the bathroom ceiling luminary and the four 35W 12v halogen
downlighter lamps fitted in the shower room which have all survived the
past 5 or 6 years since they were first installed. Both areas in the
house with a low occupancy factor and therefore the lowest priority with
regard to a lighting upgrade to more efficient lamps.

--
Johnny B Good

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:32:28 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently
only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the
promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail
stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Not forgetting the other priority that they don't overheat in the
luminary. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 05:52:29 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:32:28 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so many
thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to improve
perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently
only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on the
promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the retail
stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Not forgetting the other priority that they don't overheat in the
luminary. :-)

I'm not the sort of person to insert them in such a place, I always install my bulbs into bulb holders.


--
Johnny B Good

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 03:17:34 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 05:52:29 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:32:28 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so
many thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to
improve perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently
only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on
the promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the
retail stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Not forgetting the other priority that they don't overheat in the
luminary. :-)

I'm not the sort of person to insert them in such a place, I always
install my bulbs into bulb holders.

Or luminaires.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 03:17:34 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 05:52:29 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:32:28 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so
many thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to
improve perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently
only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on
the promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the
retail stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Not forgetting the other priority that they don't overheat in the
luminary. :-)

I'm not the sort of person to insert them in such a place, I always
install my bulbs into bulb holders.

"Luminary" is just the 'posh' or 'technical' term for any light fitting,
commonly used by the authors of technical publications relating to lamps
and lighting. I presume you're referring to a pendant lamp holder hanging
from a ceiling rose cord (naked or else fitted with a well ventilated
lamp shade of some sort).

If that presumption on my part is justified and you're considering this
aspect of lamp usage on every occasion where you decide to fit a LED lamp
to replace a tungsten filament GLS lamp (or even a CFL), then you're
doing exactly the right thing.

Lamp holder or light fitting (or Luminary) wattage ratings were more
about how much heat they could cope with from an incandescent lamp than
about the lamp itself. With LED lamps, the wattage limit is a function of
how well a luminary can keep a LED lamp cool enough to achieve its rated
life (typically 15 to 30 thousand hours with the higher wattage
examples). There is no easy rule of thumb over de-rating a 60W fitting
down to say 20 or 25% when used with a LED lamp. Although such a de-
rating figure is a handy starting point, you still have to consider how
well the luminary is likely to perform in preventing unwanted heat build
up.

The higher the LED lamp efficiency, the less of an issue such heat build
up becomes. When I invested a fiver in an Asda 5W 270Lm 'bargain lamp' 5
or 6 years ago, I'd intended it for the wall mounted bed head luminaries
to replace the overly bright 7W CFLs which had replaced the 25W tungsten
filament BC22 candle lamps originally fitted.

These luminaries used small "Snowdrop" style glass shades which offered
no through ventilation. Not a problem for the incandescent lamps they'd
been designed for (and not much of a problem for the 7W CFLs since they
protruded further out of the open end of the glass shade). However, I
realised that my 5 quid investment could land up cooking itself to an
early demise from the effect of inadequate ventilation.

Indeed, I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the light output
was reduced after being lit for more than 15 to 20 minutes suggesting
that the LEDs were operating uncomfortably close to their upper
temperature limit. Discretion being the better part of valour, I landed
up relegating this "Asda Special" to a ceiling mounted batten socket at
the foot of our basement stairs where it has been in service ever since
without (as one might expect of an open unshaded lamp holder in a lower
than usual temperature environment) any signs of impending failure.

A couple of months ago, I spotted 5W 325Lm BC22 candle lamps in Poundland
and decided it was worth a punt to trial one in one of those bedroom wall
light fittings. The results, compared to the more expensive 270Lm "Asda
Bargain", were a lot more encouraging so I bought a second lamp to
complete the upgrade.

After a few weeks of trouble free service, I felt confident enough to
invest another 7 quid on SES versions to upgrade the lighting in the
living room (2 wall luminaries and a 5 lamp chandelier), followed a
fortnight later with an upgrade to the similar 5 lamp chandelier in the
lounge which, after about a week or two's service, suffered a lamp
failure.

One random infant mortality failure out of 14 LED lamps bought in our
local "Pound Shop" seemed pretty good going imo, especially since you
never get any arguments when returning faulty items for refund or
replacement in the Poundland or Poundworld stores.

In terms of appearance, apart from the "whiter light", they perform just
as well as the traditional pearl enveloped tungsten filament lamps
they've replaced. With a 15,000 hour rating, these lamps would seem to be
much better value for their money than a traditional tungsten filament
lamp costing around 25 to 33 pence each when bought in packs of 4 or 3 in
a pound shop.

Of course, only time will tell whether the promised 15,000 hour average
lifetime is a realisable target or simply just 'hype'. Where they've been
installed in low usage locations (bedroom reading lamps or the very
rarely used 5 lamp chandelier in the living room and that basement
location) it could quite easily take several years of use before they've
even clocked up their first thousand hour's worth of run time.

The living room wall lights are the most likely to give any indication
of actual versus promised life time performance figures over a reasonable
timescale. At just a pound each lamp, that's not too great an investment
to run 'The Experiment' to prove or disprove the life time rating claims
made for these lamps.

Morrisons are selling LED lamps that appear to have come off the same
factory production line as the Poundland ones but at just over 4 times
the price! I think it is a similar story in Asda, Aldi and Lidl stores.
Just for once, it seems Poundland are offering a product at a genuinely
bargain price. They say you get what you pay for but I'd be very
surprised if this turned out to be the case for those Poundland lamps.

If the "Famous Clive" can be persuaded to sample such lamps from
Poundland and Morrisons, et all for a really in depth analysis (usually
to the point of destruction), we'd all be guaranteed a definitive
answer. :-) It might be worth checking out his more recent YT videos for
such a product comparison. You never know, he may already have done the
work for us.

--
Johnny B Good

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
"Luminary" is just the 'posh' or 'technical' term for any light
fitting, commonly used by the authors of technical publications
relating to lamps and lighting.

Don't think so. A luminary is most commonly a famous person.

Luminaire is the term you'd find in text books.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 15:43:10 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 03:17:34 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 05:52:29 UTC, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:32:28 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 10:49:56 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
Yes - they are improving all the time. Which is odd since so
many thought them perfect when they first arrived. Difficult to
improve perfection. ;-)

But, according to a 2 1/2 year old announcement by Cree of their
record
breaking 303Lm/W laboratory samples, it looks like we're currently
only one third of the way there despite being 6 months overdue on
the promised availability of such high efficiency LED lamps in the
retail stores. :-(

My rule of thumb is can I buy easily - ie in a local shed or
supermarket -
an LED which will replace a tungsten with no downsides and at an
affordable price.

that's why I walked almost 500 yards to B&Q .
My priority is that it fits the socket I intend to put it in.

Not forgetting the other priority that they don't overheat in the
luminary. :-)

I'm not the sort of person to insert them in such a place, I always
install my bulbs into bulb holders.

"Luminary" is just the 'posh' or 'technical' term for any light fitting,
commonly used by the authors of technical publications relating to lamps
and lighting. I presume you're referring to a pendant lamp holder hanging
from a ceiling rose cord (naked or else fitted with a well ventilated
lamp shade of some sort).

or any other holder.
Some use the term voltage to describe somnething whereas here we can also use the term potentail differnce, but go into shop and ask for a battery of 9V potentail difference.


If that presumption on my part is justified and you're considering this
aspect of lamp usage on every occasion where you decide to fit a LED lamp
to replace a tungsten filament GLS lamp (or even a CFL), then you're
doing exactly the right thing.

yeah sorted.


Lamp holder or light fitting (or Luminary) wattage ratings were more
about how much heat they could cope with from an incandescent lamp than
about the lamp itself. With LED lamps, the wattage limit is a function of
how well a luminary can keep a LED lamp cool enough to achieve its rated
life (typically 15 to 30 thousand hours with the higher wattage
examples). There is no easy rule of thumb over de-rating a 60W fitting
down to say 20 or 25% when used with a LED lamp. Although such a de-
rating figure is a handy starting point, you still have to consider how
well the luminary is likely to perform in preventing unwanted heat build
up.

Well normally the heat comes from what's plugged into it.
At thier base LEDs lamps/bulbs (rather than LEDs) get hot to the touch.
very hot in fact.



The higher the LED lamp efficiency, the less of an issue such heat build
up becomes. When I invested a fiver in an Asda 5W 270Lm 'bargain lamp' 5
or 6 years ago, I'd intended it for the wall mounted bed head luminaries
to replace the overly bright 7W CFLs which had replaced the 25W tungsten
filament BC22 candle lamps originally fitted.

These luminaries used small "Snowdrop" style glass shades which offered
no through ventilation. Not a problem for the incandescent lamps they'd
been designed for (and not much of a problem for the 7W CFLs since they
protruded further out of the open end of the glass shade). However, I
realised that my 5 quid investment could land up cooking itself to an
early demise from the effect of inadequate ventilation.


Indeed, I got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the light output
was reduced after being lit for more than 15 to 20 minutes suggesting
that the LEDs were operating uncomfortably close to their upper
temperature limit. Discretion being the better part of valour, I landed
up relegating this "Asda Special" to a ceiling mounted batten socket at
the foot of our basement stairs where it has been in service ever since
without (as one might expect of an open unshaded lamp holder in a lower
than usual temperature environment) any signs of impending failure.

My LEDs lamps and bulbs are mostly used with dimmers (trailing edge)
they are usualy dimmered by at least 50% ('measured by rotation of the pot)
I believe this may help with reducing teh heat they do produce.


A couple of months ago, I spotted 5W 325Lm BC22 candle lamps in Poundland
and decided it was worth a punt to trial one in one of those bedroom wall
light fittings. The results, compared to the more expensive 270Lm "Asda
Bargain", were a lot more encouraging so I bought a second lamp to
complete the upgrade.

you devil


After a few weeks of trouble free service, I felt confident enough to
invest another 7 quid on SES versions to upgrade the lighting in the
living room (2 wall luminaries and a 5 lamp chandelier), followed a
fortnight later with an upgrade to the similar 5 lamp chandelier in the
lounge which, after about a week or two's service, suffered a lamp
failure.

I'm replacing the majority of my none LEDs light with LEDs as the tungsten and halagen blow.



One random infant mortality failure out of 14 LED lamps bought in our
local "Pound Shop" seemed pretty good going imo,

It does.

especially since you
never get any arguments when returning faulty items for refund or
replacement in the Poundland or Poundworld stores.

I've never tried I aviod these places I only have an hour lunch break



In terms of appearance, apart from the "whiter light", they perform just
as well as the traditional pearl enveloped tungsten filament lamps
they've replaced. With a 15,000 hour rating, these lamps would seem to be
much better value for their money than a traditional tungsten filament
lamp costing around 25 to 33 pence each when bought in packs of 4 or 3 in
a pound shop.

Of course, only time will tell whether the promised 15,000 hour average
lifetime is a realisable target or simply just 'hype'.

Is there any info on how long they can be kept on for ?


Where they've been
installed in low usage locations (bedroom reading lamps or the very
rarely used 5 lamp chandelier in the living room and that basement
location) it could quite easily take several years of use before they've
even clocked up their first thousand hour's worth of run time.

true if age is the only critria for them blowing.


The living room wall lights are the most likely to give any indication
of actual versus promised life time performance figures over a reasonable
timescale. At just a pound each lamp, that's not too great an investment
to run 'The Experiment' to prove or disprove the life time rating claims
made for these lamps.

I'd like to see you're 'blind' study

if I had teh space and time I;d put one on and leave it on 24/7/365.


and another I'd leave on for 12 hours a day, both should last the same lenght of time when on. So the 12 hour day one should last twice as long as the 24 hour a day one.



Morrisons are selling LED lamps that appear to have come off the same
factory production line as the Poundland ones but at just over 4 times
the price! I think it is a similar story in Asda, Aldi and Lidl stores.
Just for once, it seems Poundland are offering a product at a genuinely
bargain price. They say you get what you pay for ...

You can get a slap if you say that to the wrong person

but I'd be very
surprised if this turned out to be the case for those Poundland lamps.

If the "Famous Clive" can be persuaded to sample such lamps from
Poundland and Morrisons, et all for a really in depth analysis (usually
to the point of destruction), we'd all be guaranteed a definitive
answer. :-) It might be worth checking out his more recent YT videos for
such a product comparison.

I did watch one but he said the 'bulbs' are no longer avaible in teh UK.

You never know, he may already have done the
work for us.

I doubt his had a LED's lamp or bulb on for teh bpast 5-15 years
His don't last much longer than his videos ;-)


--
Johnny B Good

On 17/11/16 15:43, Johnny B Good wrote:
"Luminary" is just the 'posh' or 'technical' term for any light fitting,
commonly used by the authors of technical publications relating to lamps
and lighting.

No, actually it isn't,

That is a luminaire. French for a light fitting complete.

A luminary is a person or occasionally a natural object like the sun or
moon, that enlightens or gives off light.

In UK.D-i-y *I* am a luminary.

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)