Euro ban on incandescent bulbs hits 25W. - Page 7

roger · 10th September 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

Actually, had you dropped the LED, it would more than likely still work! They are plenty tough.

LED's are (as in the diodes). But the drivers?

roger · 10th September 2012, 11:22 AM

I'm not going to go back and quote some post, but I strongly disagree with the claims of LED life. I've posted about this before, with links. Lifetime #s are entirely artificial, usually based on theoretical light fall off. They are not based on actual tests of real lights used in real situations (heat, vibration). They are only based in the diode life, not the drivers.

Here is an example: The FTC is suing an LED manufacturer because lifetime estimates of 30,000 hours are wildly optimistic, since the lights lose 80% of their brightness in only 1000 hours. (the same lifetime as a 20 cent incandescent). They also are making bogus claims about the actual light output of the devices.

Here is an article from the NY times stating the same thing - stated lifetimes for LED and CFL have nothing to do with how lifetimes for incandescent lights are calculated.

Certainly my anecdotal experience bears that out. I went around and replaced a bunch of CFLs this weekend, and we can see at night again. Same wattage bulbs, just new.

I'm intrigued by LED lights, but am not prepared to drop $20-40+ USD on them.

What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen.

Meanwhile my neighbor can add 1000sq to their house, increasing their energy footprint by 30% (a made up number) with no penalization.

mhaze · 10th September 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by roger

I'm not going to go back and quote some post, but I strongly disagree with the claims of LED life. I've posted about this before, with links. Lifetime #s are entirely artificial, usually based on theoretical light fall off. They are not based on actual tests of real lights used in real situations (heat, vibration). They are only based in the diode life, not the drivers.

Here is an example: The FTC is suing an LED manufacturer because lifetime estimates of 30,000 hours are wildly optimistic, since the lights lose 80% of their brightness in only 1000 hours. (the same lifetime as a 20 cent incandescent). They also are making bogus claims about the actual light output of the devices.

Here is an article from the NY times stating the same thing - stated lifetimes for LED and CFL have nothing to do with how lifetimes for incandescent lights are calculated.

Certainly my anecdotal experience bears that out. I went around and replaced a bunch of CFLs this weekend, and we can see at night again. Same wattage bulbs, just new.

I'm intrigued by LED lights, but am not prepared to drop $20-40+ USD on them.

What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen.

Meanwhile my neighbor can add 1000sq to their house, increasing their energy footprint by 30% (a made up number) with no penalization.

Didn't we talk about this before? I've got practical an entire house running on LED, first ones installed in 2005. Of those, one has failed internally. That was the old grid of 50 white LED style. Recently, a 65 watt equivalent LED floodlight failed. So I'm not seeing any reason for skepticism on these units.

Some of these were bought in "early adopter" mode and were admittedly not cost efficient, others were bought at reasonable price points.

roger · 10th September 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Didn't we talk about this before? I've got practical an entire house running on LED, first ones installed in 2005. Of those, one has failed internally. That was the old grid of 50 white LED style. Recently, a 65 watt equivalent LED floodlight failed. So I'm not seeing any reason for skepticism on these units.

Some of these were bought in "early adopter" mode and were admittedly not cost efficient, others were bought at reasonable price points.

I don't think personal experience trumps scientific investigation.

What are the measured lumens from your lights?

ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life?

Brian-M · 10th September 2012, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by roger

ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life?

Did you read the link?

Quote:

He added that the bulbs that are the focus of the suit were introduced before formal standards were established for LED’s.

Quote:

While there is general agreement that LEDs on the market today are more likely to perform as advertised than earlier versions, experts say that their quality and the accuracy of manufacturers’ claims are still all over the map.

“The best of the products we have tested are absolutely living up to their claims about light output and wattage equivalency; the worst of the products are clearly not,” said Chris Calwell of Ecos, which develops energy efficiency programs for government agencies and utilities.

So while some LEDs don't live up to the claims, others do.

ETA:

Originally Posted by roger

What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen.

Strange that they'd legislate it as watts, it makes no sense. And not just because they're legislating what kind of lighting you can use in your kitchen, which is also odd. Are you sure it isn't 50% of the equivalent wattage an incandescent light would use to produce the same amount of light rather than 50% of actual energy consumed?

But LEDs only use a little less power than CFLs, so I don't see how it makes much of a difference. In order to have one halogen globe, you'd either need 5 CFLs or 6 LEDs of equal brightness to get the 50%. A ridiculous situation either way, if you've presented the situation correctly.

But most places I've seen have regular fluro light fixings in the kitchen, so for most people this isn't really an issue. (Plus, what are they going to do? Hire people to inspect random houses to check their kitchen lighting meets the legal requirements?) Fancier places have downlights (which are a hideously inefficient way to light a room if you ask me), but LED globs for downlights do exist, while CFL globes for downlights don't.

Ziggurat · 10th September 2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Fancier places have downlights (which are a hideously inefficient way to light a room if you ask me), but LED globs for downlights do exist, while CFL globes for downlights don't.

Huh? What are you talking about? I have CFL downlights all over my house. Do you mean something by "globe" that I'm not familiar with? Do standard R-30 reflectors not count?

OnlyTellsTruths · 10th September 2012, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

If you are building a new house you can start from scratch and install a proper DC lighting system.

To be honest, I hadn't considered that somebody would be so anal that they would pack up their installed bulbs when the moved. But you'll have the bulbs you need for those seldom used corners of the new house.

I think the people more "anal" are the ones that want to ban light bulbs.

Brian-M · 11th September 2012, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Huh? What are you talking about? I have CFL downlights all over my house. Do you mean something by "globe" that I'm not familiar with? Do standard R-30 reflectors not count?

*checks google*

Sorry, I stand corrected.

Dan O. · 11th September 2012, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Strange that they'd legislate it as watts, it makes no sense. And not just because they're legislating what kind of lighting you can use in your kitchen, which is also odd. Are you sure it isn't 50% of the equivalent wattage an incandescent light would use to produce the same amount of light rather than 50% of actual energy consumed?

I took a quick look through title 24 and discovered that what they regulate is "rated watts". It's not the bulb you put in the luminary that counts, it's the maximum size bulb that the luminary can hold that is important under that law. It gets even more bizarre for track lighting where they consider the illumination from the track as the maximum that the branch circuit feeding the track will allow. Designers are forced to add a separate breaker panel just for lighting with separate breakers for each track to limit the design wattage of the track.

It seems stupid but might be the only solution when half the population has so much money that they will flaunt it by burning up the resources that the other half need to survive.

mhaze · 11th September 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by roger

I don't think personal experience trumps scientific investigation.

What are the measured lumens from your lights?

ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life?

I'm saying - no, that is false in my experience. I have not seen ANY that had a 1000 hour life. As for your article, it has to do with a company that was essentially LYING, right? That has nothing to do with technology .....

Lumen counts on installed units I have with the exception of the really "early adopter" units range from 700-1500. I have no idea what the 20 some early ones are in terms of lumens.

EDIT: Are you suggesting I measure year-by-year lumen output from installed lights? That would indeed be rather interesting.

10th September 2012, 11:04 AM	#241
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by Jarlaxle Actually, had you dropped the LED, it would more than likely still work! They are plenty tough. LED's are (as in the diodes). But the drivers?
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

10th September 2012, 11:22 AM	#242
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	I'm not going to go back and quote some post, but I strongly disagree with the claims of LED life. I've posted about this before, with links. Lifetime #s are entirely artificial, usually based on theoretical light fall off. They are not based on actual tests of real lights used in real situations (heat, vibration). They are only based in the diode life, not the drivers. Here is an example: The FTC is suing an LED manufacturer because lifetime estimates of 30,000 hours are wildly optimistic, since the lights lose 80% of their brightness in only 1000 hours. (the same lifetime as a 20 cent incandescent). They also are making bogus claims about the actual light output of the devices. Here is an article from the NY times stating the same thing - stated lifetimes for LED and CFL have nothing to do with how lifetimes for incandescent lights are calculated. Certainly my anecdotal experience bears that out. I went around and replaced a bunch of CFLs this weekend, and we can see at night again. Same wattage bulbs, just new. I'm intrigued by LED lights, but am not prepared to drop $20-40+ USD on them. What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen. Meanwhile my neighbor can add 1000sq to their house, increasing their energy footprint by 30% (a made up number) with no penalization.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir Last edited by roger; 10th September 2012 at 11:28 AM.

10th September 2012, 12:35 PM	#243
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,398	Originally Posted by roger I'm not going to go back and quote some post, but I strongly disagree with the claims of LED life. I've posted about this before, with links. Lifetime #s are entirely artificial, usually based on theoretical light fall off. They are not based on actual tests of real lights used in real situations (heat, vibration). They are only based in the diode life, not the drivers. Here is an example: The FTC is suing an LED manufacturer because lifetime estimates of 30,000 hours are wildly optimistic, since the lights lose 80% of their brightness in only 1000 hours. (the same lifetime as a 20 cent incandescent). They also are making bogus claims about the actual light output of the devices. Here is an article from the NY times stating the same thing - stated lifetimes for LED and CFL have nothing to do with how lifetimes for incandescent lights are calculated. Certainly my anecdotal experience bears that out. I went around and replaced a bunch of CFLs this weekend, and we can see at night again. Same wattage bulbs, just new. I'm intrigued by LED lights, but am not prepared to drop $20-40+ USD on them. What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen. Meanwhile my neighbor can add 1000sq to their house, increasing their energy footprint by 30% (a made up number) with no penalization. Didn't we talk about this before? I've got practical an entire house running on LED, first ones installed in 2005. Of those, one has failed internally. That was the old grid of 50 white LED style. Recently, a 65 watt equivalent LED floodlight failed. So I'm not seeing any reason for skepticism on these units. Some of these were bought in "early adopter" mode and were admittedly not cost efficient, others were bought at reasonable price points.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

10th September 2012, 12:43 PM	#244
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	Originally Posted by mhaze Didn't we talk about this before? I've got practical an entire house running on LED, first ones installed in 2005. Of those, one has failed internally. That was the old grid of 50 white LED style. Recently, a 65 watt equivalent LED floodlight failed. So I'm not seeing any reason for skepticism on these units. Some of these were bought in "early adopter" mode and were admittedly not cost efficient, others were bought at reasonable price points. I don't think personal experience trumps scientific investigation. What are the measured lumens from your lights? ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life?
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir Last edited by roger; 10th September 2012 at 12:56 PM.

10th September 2012, 06:24 PM	#245
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,291	Originally Posted by roger ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life? Did you read the link? Quote: He added that the bulbs that are the focus of the suit were introduced before formal standards were established for LED’s. Quote: While there is general agreement that LEDs on the market today are more likely to perform as advertised than earlier versions, experts say that their quality and the accuracy of manufacturers’ claims are still all over the map. “The best of the products we have tested are absolutely living up to their claims about light output and wattage equivalency; the worst of the products are clearly not,” said Chris Calwell of Ecos, which develops energy efficiency programs for government agencies and utilities. So while some LEDs don't live up to the claims, others do. ETA: Originally Posted by roger What's worse, CA laws makes them very counterproductive. Title 24 requires 50% of the lighting (in terms of watts) in a kitchen to come from energy efficient lights (CFL, LED, etc). Great, right? Ah, no. If you put in LEDs you are actually penalized, since they use far less wattage. I may want halogens in a few key areas to light a work area, but with LEDs I'd be over budget with just 1 halogen, despite the fact that my energy usage would be lower vs CFL + halogen. Strange that they'd legislate it as watts, it makes no sense. And not just because they're legislating what kind of lighting you can use in your kitchen, which is also odd. Are you sure it isn't 50% of the equivalent wattage an incandescent light would use to produce the same amount of light rather than 50% of actual energy consumed? But LEDs only use a little less power than CFLs, so I don't see how it makes much of a difference. In order to have one halogen globe, you'd either need 5 CFLs or 6 LEDs of equal brightness to get the 50%. A ridiculous situation either way, if you've presented the situation correctly. But most places I've seen have regular fluro light fixings in the kitchen, so for most people this isn't really an issue. (Plus, what are they going to do? Hire people to inspect random houses to check their kitchen lighting meets the legal requirements?) Fancier places have downlights (which are a hideously inefficient way to light a room if you ask me), but LED globs for downlights do exist, while CFL globes for downlights don't.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 10th September 2012 at 06:43 PM.

10th September 2012, 07:24 PM	#246
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,227	Originally Posted by Brian-M Fancier places have downlights (which are a hideously inefficient way to light a room if you ask me), but LED globs for downlights do exist, while CFL globes for downlights don't. Huh? What are you talking about? I have CFL downlights all over my house. Do you mean something by "globe" that I'm not familiar with? Do standard R-30 reflectors not count?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th September 2012, 08:29 PM	#247
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	Originally Posted by Dan O. If you are building a new house you can start from scratch and install a proper DC lighting system. To be honest, I hadn't considered that somebody would be so anal that they would pack up their installed bulbs when the moved. But you'll have the bulbs you need for those seldom used corners of the new house. I think the people more "anal" are the ones that want to ban light bulbs.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,811	__________________ ________________________

11th September 2012, 01:14 AM	#248
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,291	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Huh? What are you talking about? I have CFL downlights all over my house. Do you mean something by "globe" that I'm not familiar with? Do standard R-30 reflectors not count? checks google Sorry, I stand corrected.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

11th September 2012, 07:50 AM	#249
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,775	Originally Posted by Brian-M Strange that they'd legislate it as watts, it makes no sense. And not just because they're legislating what kind of lighting you can use in your kitchen, which is also odd. Are you sure it isn't 50% of the equivalent wattage an incandescent light would use to produce the same amount of light rather than 50% of actual energy consumed? I took a quick look through title 24 and discovered that what they regulate is "rated watts". It's not the bulb you put in the luminary that counts, it's the maximum size bulb that the luminary can hold that is important under that law. It gets even more bizarre for track lighting where they consider the illumination from the track as the maximum that the branch circuit feeding the track will allow. Designers are forced to add a separate breaker panel just for lighting with separate breakers for each track to limit the design wattage of the track. It seems stupid but might be the only solution when half the population has so much money that they will flaunt it by burning up the resources that the other half need to survive.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,775	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

11th September 2012, 11:05 AM	#250
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,398	Originally Posted by roger I don't think personal experience trumps scientific investigation. What are the measured lumens from your lights? ETA: I'm somewhat bemused by your post. Did you read the first link - LEDs with a stated lifetime of 30,000hrs have a 1000hr effective life? I'm saying - no, that is false in my experience. I have not seen ANY that had a 1000 hour life. As for your article, it has to do with a company that was essentially LYING, right? That has nothing to do with technology ..... Lumen counts on installed units I have with the exception of the really "early adopter" units range from 700-1500. I have no idea what the 20 some early ones are in terms of lumens. EDIT: Are you suggesting I measure year-by-year lumen output from installed lights? That would indeed be rather interesting.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms