On 22/10/2017 14:58, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:28:42 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/10/2017 22:17, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:11:54 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 21/10/17 19:21, newshound wrote:
On 21/10/2017 19:14, tim... wrote:

[snip]

I avoid the junk that the shops sell - too much chinese cheap unbranded
crap. The ones that have worked well for me are Philips and LEDHut
(which are sort of "semi unbranded" but LEDHut seem to manage to pick
fairly decent stuff to resell)

Not my experience, albeit with a niche product. I bought MR16 (12
Volt) spotlights and the radio frequency interference was so bad it
obliterated DAB reception in my kitchen. I returned them, they denied
receipt, I scanned and emailed the proof of delivery, they said the
person who signed was not an employee and the words delivered from
named sorting office meant the package was still at the sorting
office. Eventually they conceded the package was in their office
after all.

I have bought quite a few from LEDHut, and found them to be pretty good.
I have had a couple of early lamp failures. In each occasion, I have
emailed them and they sent a replacement FOC without quibbling, or even
requesting the dud ones back.

Just as well if they can't cope with the returns process.

I found the filament style 60W equiv lamps
to be very good a true match for light output and a pretty good CRI.

Is it the case that almost all LED bulbs now are warm white? This may

No, you can get cool white and daylight as well.

(I got some cool white GZ10 spots for the kitchen the other day)

be the preferred choice for many applications but not IMO for
kitchens, bathrooms or where there are coloured shades or uplights.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 22/10/2017 14:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It's interesting to use one in a common situation - say a central
pendant fitting in a white or light coloured room, and compare the
ambient light between them. My guess is they have a very special
tungsten 100w they used for comparison.

I have found that these:

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/led-filamen...hape-bulb.html

Seem to compare well to a 60W GLS - similar pattern of light production,
colour temperature, and brightness. CRI is not far off.

Note tried this, but:

https://www.ledhut.co.uk/led-filamen...00k-clear.html

Claims 1440 lumens which is in the ball park for a 100W (perhaps closer
to a 90W)

This is really the point. It's a long time since most would have been
happy with a single 60w tungsten lighting a room. 100w far more likely. So
would be nice to have a true like for like replacement.

1440 lm is probably close enough for those applications (i.e. it will
match a GLS 100W past its first flush of youth).

Many light fittings these daya will have multiple lamps anyway, so the
need for 100W equiv in one lamp is less of an issue. (for example, my
dining room has a 3 lamp fitting - 30 x 60W equiv LED works very well
for that)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 22/10/2017 11:37, Caecilius wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:35:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2017 22:10, NY wrote:

Also, can you get an LED bulb yet that is as bright as a 25 W CFL which
is I think is equivalent to about 150 W tungsten?

I have seen some 11W ones that claim to match a 100W tungsten...

It's interesting to use one in a common situation - say a central pendant
fitting in a white or light coloured room, and compare the ambient light
between them. My guess is they have a very special tungsten 100w they used
for comparison.

I've heard that the claimed lumen output from LED bulbs is often
overstated.

Apparently there is an acceptable tolerance in stated lumens to
account for the variation inherent in tungsten bulb manufacture. But
LED bulbs can be manufactured to a more precise light output, so
manufacturers can claim a higher lumen value while ensuring that the
bulbs will fall within the acceptable range.

The better quality LEDs seem to make more realistic equivalence claims
(I note the LEDhut now often claim an equivalent against a halogen
tungsten rather than a GLS). I used to find the CFL equivalents were
often wildly overstated though. Also they would quite often make a
comparison to a 60W "soft tone" lamp, which was a rarer type of filament
lamp with lower light output than a regular GLS.

I've also heard that some claims used to be based on the output from
the LED chip rather than the entire bulb. I'm not sure if this still
goes on, or whether it's been banned.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 22/10/2017 19:22, Brian Reay wrote:
On 22/10/2017 16:47, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Caecilius formulated on Sunday :
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:16:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
on 22/10/2017, Jeff Layman supposed :
The trouble is that they are sold as low-power replacements for
halogen bulbs, to be used in the same fitting. Halogens have a
pretty-much 360 degree beam, and it doesn't matter too much how the
reflector is designed. But put an LED in the same reflector, and you
usually have a problem.

You can specify 'corn-cob' LED, which has light output around the
entire lamp, except the base.

These seem to be less efficient than single LED units.

I think that's because the corn cob lamps use SMB chips, which are not
as efficient as the COB chips used in single LED units.

My experience of one unit, does not support that. I replaced a 36w
double D light fitting with a new fitting installing in it, the cob
LED I mentioned earlier. It produces a much better light in the area.
The one issue is that being a much smaller light source, it tends to
dazzle a bit. It has already outlived the operating time I would
expect of the double D tube, where it would begin to dim.

I've come to the conclusion it is a matter of 'perception'. We've found
LEDs pretty well hopeless in a domestic setting- nothing like the
claimed 'equivalence' to ordinary bulbs. Conversely, a friend swears by
them- although his sitting room (for example) has a huge number of LED
lights inserted in the ceiling (at least 20) whereas we have one central
light in a similar sized room.

We do use them in our motorhome but we accept a lower level of light there.


Much of the key to success seems to be finding a reliable brand that has
decent quality products. Some of the very early LEDs I tried were poor,
did not last well, and had poor colour rendition.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 21/10/2017 19:42, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Me presented the following explanation :
My house is mostly lit by cfl lamps, apart from a couple of LEDs used
as bedside lights.* I am thinking about switching to LEDs throughout.
Is this viable?* Pros and cons?* I would value your opinions.

Pros..
They come on instantly to full output, last considerably longer, cheaper
to run.

Cons..
None really, though some complain about the light spectrum.

I converted all of my regularly used/regularly on lights, over to LED 12
months ago - not a single failure so far. They vary from 3w to 9w. Just
to be clear, I did only swap out the ones which we use often - I didn't
do centre lights and some were 22w CFL's.

One difference is that with a pendant LED bulb very little light goes
upwards. I have a theory that lamp shades should last longer because
the bulbs do not give off much heat.

I only buy 2700K bulbs, not 300K bulbs as they are to white (IMHO).

I have had a number of failures.


--
Michael Chare

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:28:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

====snip====

I found the filament style 60W equiv lamps
to be very good a true match for light output and a pretty good CRI.

That'll be on account the 806Lm lamps "Wattage" rating is based on the
more efficient American 120v 750 hour tungsten filament lamp type than on
our less efficient UK 240v 1000 hour lamp type.

It's taken quite a few years longer than promised by Cree but we're
finally seeing LED lamps with efficiencies above the best on offer of
81Lm per watt of the past five years now raised to somewhere in the
region of 120 to 130Lm per watt.

I've been seeing 12W 1500Lm GLS LED lamps in Home Bargain stores for the
past 5 or 6 months now at the £2.99 mark (both 3000K and 6500K colour
temp ratings and in LES and BC22 forms). I'm not entirely tempted by the
brighter alternative to the 806Lm LES lamp fitted (cap down) in our porch
light since the opaque base blocks a bigger portion of the required
downward illumination, for cap down burning, than the existing lamp.
Also, they're still less than halfway to the 300Lm per watt promise of
the 303Lm per watt lab samples of three (maybe four?) years ago, where
they suggested that it typically took 18 to 24 months to go from lab to
shop shelf - they're at least 18, if not 30, months behind schedule on
that 'promise'.

The important benefit of doubling the efficiency from 80Lm per watt to
160Lm per watt is the reduced waste heat temperatures when running a
1600Lm 10W lamp compared to running the older 806Lm 10W lamp of
yesteryear, allowing decent levels of light to be provided in poorly
vented light fittings using the higher efficiency LED lamps where the
older type would most likely have suffered shortened lifetimes from
overheating. The reduction in energy consumption being merely a nice and
welcomed side effect.

Heat has always been the enemy of LED lamps. The most elegant way to
solve this problem is not to incorporate bigger heatsinks and/or cooling
fans (at least not in the case of GLS types) but to improve efficiency so
more of the input energy is converted into wanted illumination energy and
less into unwanted heat energy. Cree (and to a lesser extent, Philips
lighting) proved it was possible to almost quadruple the efficiency of
the 81Lm per watt LED which has been the mainstay of LED GLS lamps during
the past 4 or 5 years.

A good CFL to LED upgrade strategy is to replace EoL CFLs in areas where
you'd prefer the instant light characteristic of filament and LED lamps,
saving those CFLs in places such as hallways and landings for a later
upgrade where they're typically left on between dusk and bed time.
Smaller landings can typically be illuminated by those A shape 6W 470Lm
BC22 / LES lamps available in Poundland and any chandeliers currently
using 40 or 60 W tungsten filament candle lamps can usually be cheaply
upgraded with 3 or 5 watt LED candle lamps also on sale in Poundland.

IIRC, you can now buy the classic "60watt" 806lm LED 'bulb' in Home
Bargain stores for just a few pence more (£1.39 afaicr) so it needn't be
an expensive upgrade even at this early stage of the game provided you're
just interested in replacing you existing ageing CFL fleet with slightly
brighter LED alternatives.

Whilst on the subject of lighting, I'd like to make an observation about
linear tube fluorescent lighting. For some years now, it has been
possible to purchase slimline fittings with electronic ballasts for use
with T8 4 and 5 foot tubes (ideal kitchen lighting imo). Unfortunately,
you had to go out of your way to find a store that actually stocked such
light fittings[1].

Most places, lighting specialists and departments in larger stores
alike, seem blissfully unaware of this advance in fluorescent lighting
technology and will cheerfully foist an old fashioned magnetic ballasted
lamp with, horror of horrors, the cheap and nasty starter switch which
shortens tube life to as little as a third of what's possible with a half
century old "Quickstart Transformer" magnetic ballast technology[2].

A couple of years ago, after getting the kitchen extension flat roof and
ceiling repaired, the missus strongly insisted that I replace the old
semi-slimline 4 foot batten fitting which I'd upgraded to Quickstart"(tm)
by shoehorning a QS transformer into the fitting (literally unwrapping
its outer steel casing to allow me to squeeze it in!) some 15 years
previously.

Since I wasn't able to make a case against replacing the old fitting, I
started checking out local sources and discovered the cheapest electronic
ballasted 4 foot fitting in B&Q of all places (14 quid versus the 7 quid
or so of a cheap switch start magnetic ballasted unit) which I duly
purchased and tested against the old fitting to verify their respective
energy consumptions[3] before fitting said replacement onto the virgin
plaster boarded ceiling of our kitchen.

The supplied tube only lasted about a year before failing completely,
forcing me to go out to our local Lighting specialist shop to make a
distress purchase, albeit at just a third of the SCEWfix price. It was
only a day or so later that it occurred to me to check out Tool Station's
prices and discovered that I'd missed out on an even saner price - ah
well, you live and learn.

Anyway, the replacement tube worked just fine for about another year's
worth of service before the cheap Chinese made electronic ballast started
to emulate similar tube failure symptoms last week. I left it to the
following day to try the trick of reversing the tube, not really
expecting to improve things. Much to my surprise, normal service was
restored. However, I had a sneaking suspicion the relief was only going
to be short lived and, sure enough, it went back to its dim flickering
resolving into full lumen output flashing like a disco strobe light just
a few hours later.

Eventually, out of curiosity since I suspected the real culprit was the
cheap 'n' nasty Chinese ballast, I left it to carry on to what I expected
would be self destruction (something a properly designed and manufactured
electronic ballast should never do). I have to say, was not disappointed
in this since just a few minutes later the light extinguished with a
muffled fart coming from the fitting suggesting it was going to go bang
in a big way if I hadn't been handy to the wall switch to turn it off
before it got the chance to short out and blow the ground floor lighting
fuse.

At this point, I was seriously considering bypassing the ballast and
replacing the tube with an LED based 'ersatz' tube but the main problem
with the affordable types is their indifferent efficiency forcing a lower
power limit and a downward concentration of light output compared to a
proper fluorescent tube.

Although a couple of those 1500Lm Home Bargain store lamps could replace
the 2500Lm fluorescent tube, they couldn't match the lighting quality
demanded by a kitchen (shadowless and even illumination) so I started
googling for electronic ballasts that didn't cost more than I'd paid for
the whole fitting (way far too many of that type of ballast - overfeckin'
priced! - to be found on the interweb).

Eventually I found a decent brand, Helvar, at the right price (£4.47
with free delivery) on Amazon to tempt me to place an actual order for
one. The only snag with the free delivery option being the longer
delivery times. This order is scheduled to be delivered next week between
the 24th and the 28th. With any luck, it might even turn up tomorrow
(Monday) but I ain't holding my breath.

One of the reasons why I've gone to the extra faff of ordering and
fitting a replacement ballast rather than buy and fit an overpriced LED
based linear batten fitting is that I suspect the original tube wasn't as
terminal as that ****e "Shangyu Bright-Lighting Electric appliance co.,
Ltd" ballast had implied the first time round.

For a mere £4.47 investment, I get the chance to fully realise the
capital invested in the current tube and, quite possibly see some
additional useful life out of the original, even if only as a lower light
output 'spare' to tide me over a complete tube failure as determined by
the new ballast calling time on an EoL tube to prevent overheating and/or
uneconomic operation of a below par tube.

LED lighting technology has come a long way during the past ten years or
so (even if it does seem to have stagnated somewhat during the last four
years) but there are still some situations where it doesn't quite match
the older technologies for quality of illumination such as the classic
fluorescent batten light fitting in the domestic kitchen where even and
shadowless illumination is of prime importance.

[1] I tried all the usual Electrical trade shops before chancing on the
B&Q example and only one claimed to stock such a fitting which proved to
be a barefaced lie when I turned up at their counter in person to lay
claim to my prize. Indeed, none of the usual suspects even so much as
stocked spare electronic ballasts for upgrade or repair of existing
fittings. The only sources all seemed to be on line e-tailers asking
stupid money for the product (circa fifteen quid and up).

[2] A "Quickstart Transformer"(tm) is an auto transformer with cathode
heater taps at each end of the winding which is wired across the tube. On
switch on, the original series ballast choke allows almost the full mains
voltage to be applied across the tube and the transformer which applies
voltage to the cathode filaments warming them up to full emission causing
the tube to strike within two or three hundred milliseconds of switch on
which drops the tube voltage to its normal running voltage due to the
volt drop in the ballast choke from the tube current. The tube, of course
lights up about as quickly as the 12v 35W halogen downlights in our
shower room each fed by an electronic 12v 60W rated "Transformer" with no
sign of the flicker normally associated with fluorescent lighting in most
of the general public's mind.

The heaters now receive a reduced heating voltage which elevates the
filament temperature a little above the marginal minimum produced by
cathode bombardment alone to avoid cathode stripping and loss of its
emissive coating. Switch start further aggravates cathode coating loss by
sputtering on each start cycle, a process largely absent in the case of
the quickstart transformer circuit.

Using a Quickstart transformer makes a real difference to tube life in
situations where it gets frequently switched on and off, otherwise, when
it is only switched on and off a couple of times a day and left running
for several hours at a time, the cheap and cheerful switch starter based
circuit will give nearly as long a life as the QS type.

[3] The only downsides to continued use of the venerable Quick Start
circuit is the reduced lamp efficacy compared to an HF electronic ballast
and the fact that compatible T12 tubes are becoming harder to source and
modern T8 tubes simply won't start up in a QS fitting.

I'd known about the benefits of high frequency AC to fluorescent tube
operation for the past four decades or so, so was curious to compare the
power consumption of the older 40W T12 4 foot tube in a magnetically
ballasted QS fitting and the newer slimline 36W T8 4 foot tube in an
electronically ballasted fitting.

After allowing about half an hour or longer warm up time, the figures
were 36 watts exactly for the electronic fitting and 50 to 51 watts for
the older magnetic ballasted fitting. It was too close to call on
effective illumination levels to say which, if any was the brighter.
However, I was happy with the result which helped to mitigate the small
sense of loss at finally putting 'Old Faithful' out to pasture.

Hopefully, the Helvar ballast will restore my faith in HF electronic
ballasts once more. I suppose I should have guessed that B&Q's 'cheaply
priced' electronically ballasted fluorescent batten fitting would prove
to be of the lowest quality possible. :-(

--
Johnny B Good

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:56:37 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:26:31 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 22/10/2017 14:58, Scott wrote:



Is it the case that almost all LED bulbs now are warm white?

No, a lot of suppliers have the same design in warm or cool/daylight.

What about retail suppliers? It seems to me the ones in Morrisons,
Sainsbury's, John Lewis, Currys and Maplin are all warm white.

Ikea went all-LED about a year ago. Trouble is, the lamps stocked are
abysmally poor performance - I would have rejected those 2 years ago.

Home Bargains used to have some 6500K lamps and also 120 deg. GU10s. Last
time I looked the range was less.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Johnny B Good wrote:

At this point, I was seriously considering bypassing the ballast and
replacing the tube with an LED based 'ersatz' tube but the main problem
with the affordable types is their indifferent efficiency forcing a lower
power limit and a downward concentration of light output compared to a
proper fluorescent tube.

My local supermarket has just had a refit with each aisle now
having a single continuous linear LED fitting down the middle.

The lighting level seems surprisingly high, and beam spread
appears pretty good.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Brian Reay wrote:

I've come to the conclusion it is a matter of 'perception'. We've found
LEDs pretty well hopeless in a domestic setting- nothing like the
claimed 'equivalence' to ordinary bulbs.

I have to say that does not reflect my experience.

We do use them in our motorhome but we accept a lower level of light there.

I have put LEDs, either new fittings or G4 replacements, in my
caravan, and found that some of them are much brighter.

For instance the old twin tube fluorescent had probably dimmed
somewhat, but this:

https://www.atenlighting.co.uk/small-surface-chrome.html

is really bright. It wasn't cheap, but the switches on the old
fittings were failing too, so I didn't consider just replacing
the tube.

In the toilet and awning light fittings, I was able to use:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/SEBSON%C2%A.../dp/B0055HTNL0

which is brighter than the original halogen.

This works well fitted over a mirror in which I was never
previously able to see to shave:

https://www.atenlighting.co.uk/touch...ble-rigid.html

and this gives much improved under-cupboard illumination for the
kitchen work top, compared with the old halogens:

https://www.atenlighting.co.uk/led-r...rip-cable.html

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:57:23 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:56:37 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:26:31 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 22/10/2017 14:58, Scott wrote:



Is it the case that almost all LED bulbs now are warm white?

No, a lot of suppliers have the same design in warm or cool/daylight.

What about retail suppliers? It seems to me the ones in Morrisons,
Sainsbury's, John Lewis, Currys and Maplin are all warm white.

Ikea went all-LED about a year ago. Trouble is, the lamps stocked are
abysmally poor performance - I would have rejected those 2 years ago.

As cool white and daylight variants?

Home Bargains used to have some 6500K lamps and also 120 deg. GU10s. Last
time I looked the range was less.

But did the reduction in range reflect concentration on warm white
only?

My point was whether there is a move towards warm white at retail
level not the general properties of LED lighting. .

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 08:41:16 +0100, "Jim in Hamhaig ...."
coalesced the vapors of human experience
into a viable and meaningful comprehension...


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
Also some do not like the suddencut off in lighting area of leds, but they
are , apparently getting better in this respect now.

My one concern has been that some LEDs have some kind of switch mode psu
in them and kick out rfi at an alarming rate, but I'm sure these are
mostly the el cheapo ones.
Obvioulsly myself I hardly use lights these days, but as long as you get
the right colour temp for what you need then I think LEDs are more
efficient, and come on faster.
Brian

I have found even the pound shop jobs to be quiet on HF ...........

All the pound shop ones I have examined use capacitive wattless
droppers, so it's not supprising.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:28:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

====snip====

I found the filament style 60W equiv lamps
to be very good a true match for light output and a pretty good CRI.

That'll be on account the 806Lm lamps "Wattage" rating is based on the
more efficient American 120v 750 hour tungsten filament lamp type than
on our less efficient UK 240v 1000 hour lamp type.

It's taken quite a few years longer than promised by Cree but we're
finally seeing LED lamps with efficiencies above the best on offer of
81Lm per watt of the past five years now raised to somewhere in the
region of 120 to 130Lm per watt.

I'd think most know an LED is more efficient than tungsten. My problem is
buying one which says it is a 100 watt equivalent only to find it is not -
and noticeably so.

If I'm happy with a particular light level/quality, that's what I want of
any replacement, since it is the primary purpose of a light. Seems to me
many think saving money is the primary purpose of a light. In which case
leave it switched off. ;-)

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

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

In article ,
Chris J Dixon wrote:
My local supermarket has just had a refit with each aisle now
having a single continuous linear LED fitting down the middle.

Bet they don't sell those, though. ;-)

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

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

On 22/10/2017 15:14, Iggy wrote:

replying to tabbypurr, Iggy wrote: Says you. But, an "Indicator LED"
is all the early bulbs were a collection of and the claims were
there.

Indicator LEDs have never been much use for general purpose lighting.

"Magically", they steadily decreased to exactly where the
manufacturers needed them for constant profits. An LED is an LED and
they don't go bad in such a short period,

It would be nice if that were true, however you are dealing with
different technology, different topology, and vastly different power
levels.

The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs are very
narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its partly this that
makes them so efficient)

Indicator LEDs are point light sources that tend to be very directional.
Not desirable qualities for general purpose lighting.

Indicator LEDs have a very good life because they are run very gently
compared to illumination LEDs. So they generate little heat. Heat is a
major enemy for LED life span.

All of these have been very significant technical challenges to overcome
in the quest for a practical white light source from LEDs.

but the A-holes of the
world make sure the electronics do.

Perhaps you should show us your PSU design that is rock solid reliable
for 20k hours+


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs are very
narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its partly this that
makes them so efficient)

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full spectrum
of colours.

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

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

On Saturday, 21 October 2017 19:15:10 UTC+1, tim... wrote:
"Me" wrote in message news
My house is mostly lit by cfl lamps, apart from a couple of LEDs used as
bedside lights. I am thinking about switching to LEDs throughout. Is
this viable? Pros and cons? I would value your opinions.

with the cost of LEDs coming down annually, I wouldn't be going out and
replacing mine today.

wait until the cfls die and actually need replacing

tim

I'd get some in ready and try them out before the CFL blow, you might not like the 'cold' colour ones so get a 'warm' one too . You could try mixing them that might help you get used to the differtn colour temperature and the mostly spotlight effect you tend to get with LED bulbs.

On 23/10/2017 16:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs are very
narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its partly this that
makes them so efficient)

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full spectrum
of colours.


I have a very cheap remote controlled RGB LED floodlight where the
individual colours are adjustable. The white light it produces is quite
poor. Its impossible to adjust so it doesn't have an overriding hint of
one of the primary colours.


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

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 23/10/2017 16:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs are very
narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its partly this that
makes them so efficient)

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full spectrum
of colours.


I have a very cheap remote controlled RGB LED floodlight where the
individual colours are adjustable. The white light it produces is quite
poor. Its impossible to adjust so it doesn't have an overriding hint of
one of the primary colours.

The Hues work fine. Not cheap tho.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full spectrum
of colours.

I wasn't aware my TV could reproduce near-UV and near-IR, until I saw
Grishnan Guru-Murthy's tie the other night ...

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:08:51 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:57:23 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:56:37 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:26:31 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 22/10/2017 14:58, Scott wrote:



Is it the case that almost all LED bulbs now are warm white?

No, a lot of suppliers have the same design in warm or cool/daylight.

What about retail suppliers? It seems to me the ones in Morrisons,
Sainsbury's, John Lewis, Currys and Maplin are all warm white.

Ikea went all-LED about a year ago. Trouble is, the lamps stocked are
abysmally poor performance - I would have rejected those 2 years ago.

As cool white and daylight variants?

Haven't looked for a couple of months - the website is the best place to
find out.

Home Bargains used to have some 6500K lamps and also 120 deg. GU10s. Last
time I looked the range was less.

But did the reduction in range reflect concentration on warm white
only?

Probably varies from store to store. All I noticed was that some of the
lamps that I had bought were no longer in there :-(

My point was whether there is a move towards warm white at retail
level not the general properties of LED lighting. .

ISTR that preety well all retailers had WW only; some, at least, now have
CW.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:19:40 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:08:51 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:57:23 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:56:37 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:26:31 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 22/10/2017 14:58, Scott wrote:



Is it the case that almost all LED bulbs now are warm white?

No, a lot of suppliers have the same design in warm or cool/daylight.

What about retail suppliers? It seems to me the ones in Morrisons,
Sainsbury's, John Lewis, Currys and Maplin are all warm white.

Ikea went all-LED about a year ago. Trouble is, the lamps stocked are
abysmally poor performance - I would have rejected those 2 years ago.

As cool white and daylight variants?

Haven't looked for a couple of months - the website is the best place to
find out.

So the point of your comment was ... what?

Home Bargains used to have some 6500K lamps and also 120 deg. GU10s. Last
time I looked the range was less.

But did the reduction in range reflect concentration on warm white
only?

Probably varies from store to store. All I noticed was that some of the
lamps that I had bought were no longer in there :-(

Seems I have looked and you are just guessing..

My point was whether there is a move towards warm white at retail
level not the general properties of LED lighting. .

ISTR that preety well all retailers had WW only; some, at least, now have
CW.

Which ones, or it this just another guess?

On Monday, 23 October 2017 16:33:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs are very
narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its partly this that
makes them so efficient)

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full spectrum
of colours.

and whether that spectrum matches what the eye is used to, don't forget that just because you have the full spectrum it doesn't relate to human eye sensitivity.

On 22/10/2017 09:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2017 22:10, NY wrote:

Also, can you get an LED bulb yet that is as bright as a 25 W CFL which
is I think is equivalent to about 150 W tungsten?

I have seen some 11W ones that claim to match a 100W tungsten...

It's interesting to use one in a common situation - say a central pendant
fitting in a white or light coloured room, and compare the ambient light
between them. My guess is they have a very special tungsten 100w they used
for comparison.


ISTR the comparison was against a pearl 100W lamp - and then probably a
240V one running at 230V just to help manipulate the figures:-)

BTW I put a lightmeter app onto my phone the other day and compared it
to the proper lightmeter we use at work.

It was surprisingly accurate.

--
Adam

On 22/10/2017 22:27, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
ARW formulated on Sunday :
36W DD?

Mistyped - 38W DD

Well the ballast on my 38W DD 110V tasklight has died. So that's getting
a 38W LED equivalent replacement in it to see how it works. There's
nothing wrong with the tasklights case so I am reluctant to bin it and
add to landfill.

But the new lamp nearly costs as much as a new tasklight. That's wrong.

--
Adam

On 23/10/2017 00:52, Michael Chare wrote:
On 21/10/2017 19:42, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Me presented the following explanation :
My house is mostly lit by cfl lamps, apart from a couple of LEDs used
as bedside lights.* I am thinking about switching to LEDs throughout.
Is this viable?* Pros and cons?* I would value your opinions.

Pros..
They come on instantly to full output, last considerably longer,
cheaper to run.

Cons..
None really, though some complain about the light spectrum.

I converted all of my regularly used/regularly on lights, over to LED
12 months ago - not a single failure so far. They vary from 3w to 9w.
Just to be clear, I did only swap out the ones which we use often - I
didn't do centre lights and some were 22w CFL's.

One difference is that with a pendant LED bulb very little light goes
upwards.

That is one thing I noticed when I relamped 2 years ago. There are now
better LEDs that do not do this.


--
Adam

On 23/10/2017 19:09, ARW wrote:
On 23/10/2017 00:52, Michael Chare wrote:


One difference is that with a pendant LED bulb very little light goes
upwards.

That is one thing I noticed when I relamped 2 years ago. There are now
better LEDs that do not do this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nme8T2yLhL0

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

replying to John Rumm, Iggy wrote:
Thank you for backing me up. I still have 2 Earthwise bulbs going that are
from 1998 and half a dozen Ecosmart Double-Life's, both are "rated" or
"marketed" at 20,000-hours. While the Earthwise's only started out being on
for 8-hours a day (5-years) they've been daily use bathroom bulbs since and
seem to have proven themselves. I'd bank on Fluorescents, which have lead the
way for close to a century. LED's should've beat them to a pulp from the
start, but they don't and only try to match them.

The Ecosmarts, I've only had for a few years and quality's a problem with the
brand, but those that worked from the start haven't had any issues and it's
too early to tell. But, 4 of them have been 8-hours+ a day or 3000-hours a
year. They're at a little more than 9,000-hours now, so only time will tell if
they die or just keep going for another 3 to 5-years. So far, they've beaten
any 8,000-hour bulb and were cheaper than LED's of then and now.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1244535-.htm

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2017 16:33:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather
than the output from the LED being used directly. (indicators LEDs
are very narrow band - producing a discrete single colour. Its
partly this that makes them so efficient)

Which is also why just using RG&B LEDs may not produce the full
spectrum of colours.

and whether that spectrum matches what the eye is used to, don't forget
that just because you have the full spectrum it doesn't relate to human
eye sensitivity.

Narrow spectrum light looks very different to different people. You can
prove that by using a wide spectrum colour box to match the narrow
spectrum light colour. No two people will agree it looks the same. Unlike
say matching paint samples.

--
*If you think this van is dirty, you should try having sex with the driver*

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

On Monday, 23 October 2017 18:53:11 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 22/10/2017 09:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 21/10/2017 22:10, NY wrote:

Also, can you get an LED bulb yet that is as bright as a 25 W CFL which
is I think is equivalent to about 150 W tungsten?

I have seen some 11W ones that claim to match a 100W tungsten...

It's interesting to use one in a common situation - say a central pendant
fitting in a white or light coloured room, and compare the ambient light
between them. My guess is they have a very special tungsten 100w they used
for comparison.


ISTR the comparison was against a pearl 100W lamp - and then probably a
240V one running at 230V just to help manipulate the figures:-)

soft tone lamp iirc. icba to go look right now.


NT

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:32:58 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Johnny B Good wrote:

At this point, I was seriously considering bypassing the ballast and
replacing the tube with an LED based 'ersatz' tube but the main problem
with the affordable types is their indifferent efficiency forcing a
lower power limit and a downward concentration of light output compared
to a proper fluorescent tube.

My local supermarket has just had a refit with each aisle now having a
single continuous linear LED fitting down the middle.

The lighting level seems surprisingly high, and beam spread appears
pretty good.

That's because such commercial lighting is installed by lighting
specialist contractors who can access sources of industrial and
commercial lighting kit usually only directly available from the lighting
manufacturers. The ceiling heights in downtown department stores are much
higher than the 9 foot height ceilings typical of domestic housing which
allows High Bay lighting practices to be applied which takes advantage of
the narrower beam angles typical of LED based lighting.

The fluorescent tube wins out in a domestic kitchen by virtue of its 360
degree radiation pattern. In a high bay lighting situation in a factory
or a large retail shed, fluorescent light fittings relied upon a trough
reflector to obtain the beamed output now readily available with LED
based lighting without resorting to the expense of such reflectors.

Harking back to my own kitchen light fitting, I'm pleased to report that
the Helvar electronic ballast I'd ordered from Amazon arrived in the post
this Monday morning. :-)

I've gotten as far as replacing the faulty ballast and testing the
fitting with the two T8 tubes which *both* proved to be duds as far as
the modern intelligent Helvar ballast was concerned. Oddly, it was the
original tube that showed more lighting activity whilst the recently
failed replacement only flashed briefly at switch on with the fitting
only drawing less than a watt afterwards.

At that point, I was pretty certain, despite my previous thoughts on the
matter, that I was now possessed of two failed tubes so nipped out to my
very local Toolstation for yet another 36W 4ft T8 tube which confirmed
the truth of the matter when I connected it up to the mains via my trusty
analogue wattmeter. As expected, the first time run of the brand new tube
started a bit on the slow side and took ten or twenty minutes to warm up
and disperse the mercury vapour with an initial power draw of 28 watts
eventually ramping up to and settling at 36.5 watts, about the same as
what the basic "Dumb" Chinese unit[1] had drawn when I'd originally
commissioned the fitting some two years ago.

I had to pull the PCB out of the rectangular plastic trunking of the
cheap Chinese unit so as to cut the wires close to where they had been
soldered onto the board in order to avoid having to patch them back to
the length required to reconnect to the replacement ballast.

The tube connections were all at one end of the PCB and the wires for
one of the tube ends had been routed internal to this plastic tube
housing via the end cap hole adjacent to the mains input wiring hole. As
a consequence of this inexplicable 'internal routing' a short section of
insulation had been charred where it had been touching one of the pair of
high voltage TO-220 plastic power transistors which problem I fixed using
a short length of silicone rubber sleeving.

The Helvar unit uses push in connectors so I also had to strip and twist
the stranded wire and tin the ends before I could reconnect the wires. By
the time I'd finished bench testing, it was already too dark to be
pulling the ground floor lighting fuse in the CU so I plan on finishing
the job tomorrow in daylight hours.

[1] Surprisingly for a cheap Chinese product, they'd not skimped on any
of "The Usual Suspects" such as EMC filter components of which there was
a remarkable abundance. There were no wire straps standing in for
inductors nor unpopulated capacitor locations.

I'm guessing the problem was simply down to a complete lack of any
"Smarts" to protect itself from tube faults and vice versa. The only
concession to safety being a small and still intact 2A 250v glass fuse
soldered to the board. There was no sign of anything smarter than a
transistor; it was all discrete components through and through (and lots
of them!). I wouldn't have classed it as being 'cheap', just a little too
primitively retro for its own good and for the sake of tube service life.

--
Johnny B Good

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:55:04 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 01:28:42 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

====snip====

I found the filament style 60W equiv lamps
to be very good a true match for light output and a pretty good CRI.

That'll be on account the 806Lm lamps "Wattage" rating is based on the
more efficient American 120v 750 hour tungsten filament lamp type than
on our less efficient UK 240v 1000 hour lamp type.

It's taken quite a few years longer than promised by Cree but we're
finally seeing LED lamps with efficiencies above the best on offer of
81Lm per watt of the past five years now raised to somewhere in the
region of 120 to 130Lm per watt.

I'd think most know an LED is more efficient than tungsten. My problem
is buying one which says it is a 100 watt equivalent only to find it is
not -
and noticeably so.

If I'm happy with a particular light level/quality, that's what I want
of any replacement, since it is the primary purpose of a light. Seems to
me many think saving money is the primary purpose of a light. In which
case leave it switched off. ;-)

When CFLs first became available, the savings in running costs compared
to tungsten filament lighting was the main selling point, especially true
in locations such as hallways and landings where, for safety as much as
convenience, it would be preferable to leave those lights switched on
between dusk and bedtime.

Now that most domestic lighting is largely CFL based, if not already
upgraded to LED, the savings aspect is rather more marginal leaving the
"Instant On" characteristic of LED lamps as the main driver towards
retiring existing fleets of CFLs in favour of relamping with marginally
more efficient LEDs which use "wattage equivalency ratings" based on the
higher efficiency American tungsten filament lamp standards rather than
on the less efficient UK and European lamp standards.

The point I was making was that the 806 Lm reference would otherwise
require a 72W rated 240v 1000 hour tungsten filament lamp. It actually
works in our favour that the "60W tungsten filament" benchmark is based
on the American 120v 750 hour lamp rather than our own feeble 240v 1000
hour rated lamps.

--
Johnny B Good

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:39:08 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

====snip====

1440 lm is probably close enough for those applications (i.e. it will
match a GLS 100W past its first flush of youth).

The gas filled (rather than vacuum) tungsten filament lamps suffer very
little drop off in Lumen output over their relatively short 750 and 1000
hour lifetimes, unlike fluorescent lamps with their 10000 to 16000 hour
lifetimes to the 20% below design Lumen output where such lamps start off
with a Lumen output from new of some 20% above "Design Lumens" which
swiftly drops to "Design Lumens output" after just a few hundred hours.

I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W incandescent
lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency for CFLs is
still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000 hour lamps
rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps which is the
benchmark for LED lamps.

Interestingly, this lamp, as far as I could estimate, died a sudden
death at 6022 hours, suspiciously close to the guaranteed 6000 hour life
rating, leading me to suspect it was based on a "Smart Ballast" which
counted the run time hours in order to blow its safety fuse at the 6000
hour life rated point to prevent uneconomic running at below the 80% of
design lumens limit. Not a bad thing IMHO but it would have been nice if
they'd declared the existence of this energy saving feature up front.


Many light fittings these days will have multiple lamps anyway, so the
need for 100W equiv in one lamp is less of an issue. (for example, my
dining room has a 3 lamp fitting - 30 x 60W equiv LED works very well
for that).

Amen to that! We have a couple of 5 lamp chandeliers which we originally
kitted out with 40W and 60W SES candle lamps which were replaced with 7
and 8 watt CFL "candle" lamps nearly a decade ago.

Just recently, within the past 12 months or so, I spotted the 330Lm 5W
LED SES candle lamps in Poundland and took the opportunity to upgrade
first one, then the other chandelier, both 'On The Cheap' and I've not
had any regrets. Only one of the lamps suffered a premature failure which
seemed to be a simple matter of a manufacturing defect which Poundland
obligingly put right when I returned the faulty lamp on my next shopping
trip into town.

The main benefit of improved LED lamp efficiency is less to do with
reducing the running costs and more to do with reducing operating
temperatures to fully realise the full lifetime rating in fittings that
had been designed to handle the much higher temperatures of incandescent
lamps rather than provide efficient cooling of temperature fragile LED
lamps.

--
Johnny B Good

On 23/10/2017 15:28, John Rumm wrote:

The technology is different because a (non RGB) illumination LED is
typically a hybrid device, that uses a blue spectrum LED to excite a
more traditional phosphor coating to produce white light, rather than
the output from the LED being used directly.

Example
https://youtu.be/auUlTDunBCc?t=162
(A BigClive LED light strip-down)


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

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W incandescent
lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency for CFLs is
still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000 hour lamps
rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps which is the
benchmark for LED lamps.

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does it
sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who would
complain?

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

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

On 24/10/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W incandescent
lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency for CFLs is
still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000 hour lamps
rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps which is the
benchmark for LED lamps.

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does it
sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who would
complain?


Save that there are adults today who have never used ordinary, domestic
incandescent lamp and wouldn't find that a useful benchmark.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who would
complain?


Save that there are adults today who have never used ordinary, domestic
incandescent lamp and wouldn't find that a useful benchmark.

In which case no real point in making the claim. Simply state the light
output in a standard way.

--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?

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

On 24/10/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W incandescent
lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency for CFLs is
still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000 hour lamps
rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps which is the
benchmark for LED lamps.

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does it
sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

I would guess it goes back to earlier days where there was no equal to
the mid to higher wattage GLS lamps, and yet they felt the need to be
able to offer an alternative.

If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who would
complain?



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:11:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Johnny B Good wrote:
I tried a 30W CFL in our hall pendant fitting a couple or three years
ago. It was claimed to be equivalent to a 130W incandescent lamp AFAICR
but my impression was that it seemed no brighter than a 100W
incandescent lamp which makes me suspect that the wattage equivilency
for CFLs is still based on the UK and European 240 and 220 volt 1000
hour lamps rather than the much brighter American 120v 750 hour lamps
which is the benchmark for LED lamps.

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does
it sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

If there is any element of "lying" in manufacturers' published
specifications, it's normally the usual matter of "Lying by Ommission" as
per the advertising industry's standard practice. In this case, the
omission related to the specifics of filament voltage and design hours
life rating used in America where the thicker shorter filaments can be
run a little hotter (improving efficacy) and trading a bit of life (by
running the filaments a touch hotter again to improve efficacy even
further) against energy cost to optimise the overall running costs for
domestic customers.


If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS, most would know and, if it turned out to be better, who
would complain?

True enough, so my guess is they chose the most difficult to satisfy
tungsten filament lamp benchmark, the American one, in order to keep the
blurb about the 'advantages' printed on their product packaging regionless
and nice and simple and to a minimum.

I was just pointing out to anyone who hadn't yet read the wikipedia
articles on lamps and lighting technologies, the good news that this
806Lm 60W bulb reference was to a higher standard than what we in the UK
would normally associate with a "60 Watt incandescent light bulb".

I enjoy providing "Good News" so it's been by pleasure to point out the
above 'factoid' about LED lamps. However, to summarise and keep it all in
context, my next statement, comprising three items of "news", is more of
a **** sandwich.

The good news, as above, is that "You never had it so good." (in regard
of light output). The "Bad News" is that heat kills LEDs, but the final
"Good News" item is that the efficiency improvements of the latest LED
lamps means you can now use an LED of equivalent light output of a 60 (or
100) watt GLS lamp in a fitting that would otherwise have fried the older
versions of LED lamps in rather short order.

--
Johnny B Good

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:10:48 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Robin wrote:
If they claimed the light output was say equivalent to the 60w (or
whatever) GLS most would know, and it turned out to be better, who
would complain?


Save that there are adults today who have never used ordinary, domestic
incandescent lamps and wouldn't find that a useful benchmark.

In which case no real point in making the claim. Simply state the light
output in a standard way.

They already do, using a Lumens output figure (typically 806 or 810
Lumens for the classic A bulb American 60W GLS lamp). Mentioning the
tungsten filament lamp equivalent is their way of complying with
discrimination laws in regard of "Ageism". :-)

--
Johnny B Good

Johnny B Good wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:

Simply state the light output in a standard way.

They already do, using a Lumens output figure (typically 806 or 810
Lumens for the classic A bulb American 60W GLS lamp).

I often get asked to replace one or more blown lamps when I visit my
parents (they have 5 + 3 fittings in lounge and dining room) I noticed
that the boxes for the 60W incandescent lamps this time *were* marked
clearly in lumens.