Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Technology

Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years 710

Posted by kdawson
from the shine-on dept.
Mike writes "As lighting manufacturers phase out the incandescent bulb, and CFLs look set to define the future of lighting, Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years (if used 5-1/2 hours a day). With a lifespan 40 times longer than their incandescent counterparts, Panasonic's new EverLed bulbs are the most efficient LEDs ever to be produced. They are set to debut in Japan on October 21st. Let's hope that as the technology is refined their significant cost barrier will drop — $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Panasonic's New LED Bulbs Shine For 19 Years

Comments Filter:
  • But still... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    incandescents have the advantage of putting off a lot of heat, if you're going to use one as a cheap heat lamp and light provider.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fractoid (1076465)
      Why the hell is this offtopic? It's true - this hippie-frenzy focus on non-incandescent light sources is idiotic. Any time you're running any kind of active heating, the thermal inefficiency of incandescent lights becomes a nonissue because the heat output is not wasted. And with the usage cycle they're talking about, a $0.90 incandescent bulb should last at least 2 years. While I agree that it's nice to see LED lighting starting to measure up to the good old bulb-and-tungsten-wire approach, I don't think t
      • Re:But still... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Patch86 (1465427) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:31AM (#29436977)

        So incandescent bulbs are a bad thing in most of the world for about a third of the year (summer) and in some of the world most of the year. If you happen to be running air-conditioning at the same time as an incandescent bulb, you're just pumping money out of the window.

        Not to mention the fact that having a heat source 6 inches from your ceiling is generally not the most efficient way to heat a room. It makes far more sense to save the energy wasted from the bulb, and spend it in an efficient central heating system instead, where strategically placed radiators and vents can put the heat where it's actually needed.

        • by Kagura (843695) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:51AM (#29437063)
          The problem is the weight. They're made of led.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by poopdeville (841677)

        Yup. A halogen desk lamp makes a great accessory during Winter. It is more efficient than using a CFL and oil heating. I don't typically need to warm up my whole office, just the place I sit. The light also looks better than CFLs, or even regular incandescent bulbs. And halogen lamps are both hotter and 40% more efficient than regular incandescent bulbs.

  • ROI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by polar red (215081) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @02:58AM (#29436773)

    $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb,

    one that saves 23$ a year, which lasts a whopping 19 years ? yup, some people are stupid.

    • Re:ROI (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShooterNeo (555040) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @02:59AM (#29436781)
      But compact fluorescents cost $2, save almost as much power/year, and last about 10 years. They are the most cost effective.
      • Re:ROI (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DDLKermit007 (911046) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:14AM (#29436869)
        10 years? I've yet to have the spiral CCFLs last over 1.5 years.
        • Re:ROI (Score:5, Informative)

          by polar red (215081) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:18AM (#29436903)

          I have only CFL's in my house. not one of them has broken since i moved in in june last year. 3 of those i brought with me from my previous house, which i have i used there for nearly 5 years.

          • Re:ROI (Score:5, Interesting)

            by lazybeam (162300) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:50AM (#29437059) Homepage

            CFLs in my house have died within a year: the ones installed in the bathroom and kitchen. They don't like the humidity and heat which is why I'm not surprised. The others have lasted since Feb 2007. Brands don't seem to matter.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
            It's unwritten law that you don't take the lightbulbs when you move house; It's just being a cheapskate. Like taking the carpets, or the hooks off the back of doors. My parents have had to walk around with candles before now because the idiot who sold the house too every bulb, and this was before the time of 24 hour shopping in the UK. They had to drag boxes out in front of the car to see what was in them.

            I swear to God if anybody does that to me when I'm moving into the house they've sold, I'm turning up
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by mspohr (589790)
              In Switzerland it's standard procedure to take everything when you move out of an apartment... curtains, blinds, light fixtures, bulbs. I found this a bit odd but they are very frugal here.
              • Re:ROI (Score:4, Informative)

                by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @07:27AM (#29438091)
                In the US (well, the parts I've paid attention to) "real property" is the land and anything attached to it. If you can lift it and carry it out (with or without help) with nothing more than disconnecting it from utilities (or something like a dryer vent) then it not part of the real property. So you take the counter-top microwave with you, but not the one above the stove. You can take your fridge and washer/dryer, but not the dish washer. Stoves that slide out can be taken as well. In practice, the stove is left in place. The refrigerators are usually left as well, but not washer/dryers. It is a violation of the terms of sale for all standard sale agreements to take bulbs. If they were replaced with incandescents, no one would probably notice, but it would still be "illegal" to take them. If the sockets were left empty, I would expect that the buyer would press the issue. It's rude and a violation of contract to remove anything "secured" to the grounds, and you have to unscrew them to take them, so they are part of the real property. Blinds and curtain hardware are attached with screws or the like, and thus are also left, by law, in most of the US. The curtain fabric itself can be removed. Light fixtures must remain. Though, in the US, unlike the rest of the world, you can sign away what's guaranteed you by law, so you can make the buyer agree that you'll be taking them in direct contradiction to the law.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Plekto (1018050)

          I've yet to have the spiral CCFLs last over 1.5 years.

          Same here. They can last that long in theory, but the ballasts go dead in a year or two. If a LED works like it should, it will be ballast-free and actually last until the thing burns itself to a crisp inside.(ie - failure from wearing out vs defect)

          Also, don't underestimate the benefit to the utility companies which have to generate extra power for CF bulbs vs other technologies. Less load means less brownouts and so on. If these are full-wave, in f

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by toppavak (943659)
          The problem with CCFL's is that short duty-cycle usage shortens their lifetimes. This makes them great for things like porch lighting, living rooms etc where they'll be on for hours at a time, but poor for things like bathrooms where they may be on for 10 minutes at a time tops. When used in situations that extend their lifetimes, CCFLs are indeed much more cost-effective than LEDs are currently, but as is usually the case, a mixed application of both will always be the winner. Also, I've noticed (in a very
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Chapter80 (926879)

          I bought my first CFLs back in 2001 (six of them). All but one is still working. One, I had in a portable work light, and I busted it transporting it. The others survived a move to my new house in 2005.

          As soon as the builders cheap incandescent lights began burning out (in 2006), I bought replacements for ALL non-dimmer lights in my house (mostly in bathrooms), about 25 bulbs. While not all of them are in use every day, every one of them is still working.

          So I am well above your 1.5 estimate with a sampl

      • Re:ROI (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kumiorava (95318) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:19AM (#29436909)

        In a lamp test by a Finnish magazine the 3 EUR fluorescent lamp died at 3000 hours. The more expensive ones are still going on but starting to show longer warming times, stains/cracks and other problems. In addition to these problems fluorescents are hazardous waste and should be recycled. At 10x longer lifespan the LED light sounds like a good deal to me.

      • Re:ROI (Score:5, Informative)

        by Firehed (942385) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:44AM (#29437037) Homepage

        The bulb in TFA (I know, I know... but it wasn't in TFS) is rated 6.9w consumption, and is presumably the 60w-equivalent referenced in the summary. Most "60w" CFLs take around 12-15w if memory serves - so these LED bulbs are about twice as efficient. Save $23/yr for 19 years vs $12/yr for 5 years (you say 10, but they're usually rated to five and I've almost never seen one last more than two; they seem very sensitive to older wiring). It pays for itself in less than two years compared to an incandescent, and in four compared to a CFL.

        Of course, that's all assuming they actually last that long. I don't doubt the power consumption ratings, but as I said I've never seen a CFL last anywhere near it's rated life. My understanding is that they have a limited number of starts due to the ignition ballast (which is external to the bulb in standard fluorescent tubes); I'd assume that if you have older wiring or other factors that may cause frequent power sags you'll burn through those starts unusually fast. That seems to be the case at my house, or would at least make some degree of sense to me. I could be dead wrong about the reasoning, but CFLs unquestionably die faster than incandescent bulbs around here. Hopefully this isn't an issue with LED bulbs.

        • by xaxa (988988)

          I bought some cheap (£2, 1W, 30W equivalent) LED bulbs. They claim to last 15000 hours, after that long the box says they'll keep working, but won't be as bright.

        • by lazybeam (162300)

          In theory LEDs don't care about how many times they are switched. Normal LEDs are dimmed by adjusting the PWM - they are switched thousands of times per second - this is more efficient than simply using a bigger series resistor.

          I say "in theory" because these LEDs could be different to "normal" LEDs. (Driver circuitry etc)

        • by jonbryce (703250)

          The issue with LED bulbs is that they fade when they get older.

          Look at the LEDs on your keyboard. If you are like most people with a desktop machine, the num lock is on all the time, and you never use the scroll lock. Even after a year, the scroll lock light will be about twice as bright as the num lock light.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by sFurbo (1361249)
          Whoa, there, if you go from 60W to 6,9W you save 53W, if you go from 60W to 15W you save 45W, if saving 53W saves you 23$/y, saving 45W will save you 19,5$/y. But it still pays for itself in 10 years, a bit less if you take into account the price of the CFL.
    • Re:ROI (Score:4, Insightful)

      by paul248 (536459) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:06AM (#29436809) Homepage

      You only save $23 a year if you compare against an incandescent bulb, which is like comparing your car's fuel economy against a school bus. When you compare these bulbs to CFLs, they make much less economic sense, unless you're worried about Mercury pollution.

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        I guess mercury pollution is preferable to arsenic pollution.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AuMatar (183847)

        And what's a little mercury pollution? Its not like that stuffs harmful.

        I'll take LEDs any day over a CFL. I refuse to switch to those, they're just too hazardous for home use. I'll go to leds when the color temperature works out, until then its good old incandecents.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ceoyoyo (59147)

        Well, most people still use incandescents. There are also some places where CFLs don't work as well, but an LED would be just fine.

        Also, if you look a little further up, the LED lights still pay for themselves times two or so against CFLs over their lifetime. And that's with a brand new product. CFLs weren't a lot cheaper when they debuted.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pinkfud (781828)
      Provided the claim has any base in reality. I have been using CFLs for years, and so far my luck with them has been uniformly bad. They burn out in 3 to 6 months in my application. Possibly my environment is too hot for the electronics inside.
    • by Techman83 (949264)
      Not great for renters/share houses. Personally I when I rented, my CFL's came with me, but sometimes you don't have the luxury of being able to do that.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by johnlcallaway (165670)
      A 60 watt bulb burning for 5.5 hours a day uses about 120KWH a year. My non-peak electricity (i.e. night time when I would be using the lights) is $0.063/kwh. That math is $7.60/YEAR for electricity. Electric rates would have to be almost $0.18US, which is my peak rate during the summer months (it drops to about $0.086US for what passes for winter in Phoenix.) So a 6watt LED bulb would use 1/10th of electricity, saving around $7/year.And I doubt if more than 3 of the incandescent bulbs are used more than
  • by mpoulton (689851) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @02:59AM (#29436779)
    That's 38,143 hours. Not great for LEDs, actually. Most newer white LEDs are rated for 50k to 100k hours.
    • by Firehed (942385)

      Aren't LED lifetimes usually rated to the point at which they hit half brightness, not die completely? And don't white LEDs tend to turn blue over time due to the powder stuff (sorry, it's almost 4am, I can't be bothered to look up the technical term) they use to adjust the color to white fading unevenly, or something to that general effect?

      In either case, it doesn't matter. If the apocalypse hasn't come in 19 years, you can bet your ass that we'll have much cheaper and better alternatives available.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mattsson (105422)

      On the other hand, we're talking high-power LEDs here.
      The high power comes at the price of shortened life.

  • Philips (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PARENA (413947)

    If this is the longest one lasting, then how come the Philips led 'bulb' I have says 20 years?

  • by corsec67 (627446) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:04AM (#29436801) Homepage Journal

    I hope they put a capacitor in there with a bridge rectifier instead of just ignoring half of the 50/60 Hz cycle.

    • by fons (190526) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:10AM (#29436837) Homepage

      Seems an interesting comment, but I don't understand it.
      Could you explain this to me?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        A typical bulb sees 50Hz 110V or 240V coming into it. When the signal goes above 0V it starts to glow, when it goes below 0V it starts to glow, back and forth faster than the eye can see.
        LEDs don't work on a negative signal so the signal needs to be rectified. Half wave rectification means that when it goes above 0V you start getting power to the LED, when you go below 0V you don't. So the LED is on for only half the time. Full wave rectification flips the negative part to the positive side and you get some

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by bami (1376931)

          Addendum:

          And the capacitor is there to keep the current going for the time the voltage is around 0V. This isn't really a problem for incandescent light bulbs since they after-glow for the time there is no voltage on the bulb, so you get a consistent glow. This is not the case with CFL's as they only marginally afterglow, and even worse with LEDs since they don't glow at all when the power is cut.

          Without it:
          Normal lightbulb: pretty consistent light
          CFL: 50hz or 60hz flicker
          LED: 25hz or 30hz flicker (without r

        • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @05:26AM (#29437565)
          Nobody would ever seriously run a production LED system like this. Typical forward voltage of white LEDs is around 3V. Supplying rectified AC would waste 97% of the energy on US 110V, thus making it less efficient that a halogen bulb and producing lots of heat in the resistor.

          The things contain a switch mode power supply, like just about every small mains powered device nowadays. The SMPS converts input to a current output for LEDs, which is what they need for best efficiency. It does this on both halves of the AC cycle. This added complexity contributes to the cost, but not as much as you might think.

          Early LED bulbs that ran off cheap transformers used for SELV lighting used series resistors, but the current is very variable and they are, basically, crap. They got away with it because big arrays of cheap LEDs were used. A long term solution really needs not more than two or three high power LEDs in an envelope, because this helps to drive down cost. But this requires an advanced power supply.

          • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @11:13AM (#29440537) Journal
            For what it's worth, my job is designing test hardware for LED drivers. As such I spend a lot of time taking apart other people's LED bulbs and seeing what they're doing. A scary number of current LED bulbs consist of a single diode, a big capacitor, and a string of LED's in series with their series forward voltage drop being roughly equal to 150 volts, and then a single current-limiting resistor at the end of the strand. That is the *worst* way I can think of to do the job. (Not to mention the cap they're using to smooth out the ripple is a very cheap electrolytic, with a lifetime of probably about 2000 hours if you're lucky, so that will be what fails.) The nicer low-end bulbs use a full wave bridge rectifier and sometimes even a linear regulator.

            Of course, any good bulb worth buying uses an actual LED driver that acts as a constant current source. But even they still often use cheap electrolytics, meaning your LEDs will still have 95,000 hours of life in them when the bulb dies because the crappy caps they're using on the input and output sides of the switcher have failed.

            If you're looking at a light and want to know generally what they're doing, see if you can count roughly how many LED's are in the fixture. If there are over 30, chances are it's a series string being run on rectified AC. If there are only a dozen or less, it's got a real driver and should at least give you reasonable efficiency, although no guarantees on lifetime. In an ideal world everyone would design LED drivers and use all ceramic or Nichicon caps, which have lifetimes measured in decades rather than months, but that'd cost a few pennies more and people will always buy the cheapest thing they can buy, particularly when you're working in a price range that's already an order of magnitude more expensive than the (incandescent) competition.

    • by paul248 (536459) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:11AM (#29436847) Homepage

      You really think Philips would try selling a half-wave rectified LED emitter for $40? That would be so unbelievably awful, you'd probably see return rates close to 100%.

      Hell, even the LED Christmas lights I bought at Wal-mart last year are full-wave.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jared555 (874152)

        A lot of LED christmas lights seem to have a visible flicker noticable from half a mile away. They probably don't have anything along the lines of smoothing capacitors in them. Hopefully we are talking about better technology though

    • by iamapizza (1312801) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:17AM (#29436893)
      You do realize why the Borg are so bad at making dimmer switches don't you?
      Resistance is futile.
    • by arctanx (1187415)

      I hope they put in some smarts so that it looks resistive rather than cutting off the peaks like a capacitor and bridge rectifier does.

  • In my experiance, LED bulbs have a very high faliure rate. Granted i got the cheapest ones i could find, but still...
  • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:11AM (#29436851) Journal
    The LED lights I've seen are too directed. They don't light up a room all that well. Whatever spot the LEDs are aimed at is more illuminated, and everywhere else less illuminated than with CFLs or incandescents.
    • The LED lights I've seen are too directed. They don't light up a room all that well. Whatever spot the LEDs are aimed at is more illuminated, and everywhere else less illuminated than with CFLs or incandescents.

      This can usually be alleviated by a good design of emitter geometry, lens and diffuser. Unfortunately, designing good lenses is difficult, and fabricating and assembling the resulting complex shapes is expensive.

  • Summary Misleading (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Techman83 (949264) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:14AM (#29436873)
    Summary

    Panasonic recently unveiled a remarkable 60-watt household LED bulb that they claim can last up to 19 years

    TFA

    The bulbs use only an eighth the power of incandescents. That means a 60-watt-equivalent LED bulb would cost only 300 yen (about $3) a year instead of 2,380 yen ($25.80)--a significant savings over a lifetime.

    The box pictured on the right has "6.9w", which if as good as a 60 watt incandescent, is probably only a watt or two better than the equivalent CFL.

  • Does it mean they have tested that technology for 19 years and their bulb just died ?

    Man if MS could test their product that way ! :)

  • 19 years, huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by merikari (205531)

    I'll believe when I see it.

  • Light temperature (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jklovanc (1603149) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:21AM (#29436921)
    My main problem with LEDs that I have seen is that their light is to cold and white. It hurts my eyes and causes migraines. I didn't see a temperature quoted in the article.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      From link in TFA: Available in "Daylight" and warm "Lamp" colors

      Not that they list a figure for what these are. I've seen cheep 'warm white' CFLs that have a colour rating higher than the expensive brand 'cool white'

    • Re:Light temperature (Score:5, Informative)

      by rdebath (884132) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @04:10AM (#29437161)

      This is because the really bright white LEDs are actually monochrome blue, they have a phosphor that converts some of that blue light into other colours, but not normally enough for a nice (sun like) colour.

      There are other techniques that seem to convert the frequencies better; or they could use the old trick of putting different colour LEDs in one bulb. But for the moment if you want highest efficiency you're stuck with lots of blue in the light and a "cold" feel.

      One point though, white LEDs are normally closer to the spectrum of the sun than incandescents, it's just that the blue spike is in the opposite direction to the very reduced blues you get from a incandescent. This is a known problem, so the conversions will continue to get better.

  • Bad mathematics? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Teun (17872) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:28AM (#29436965) Homepage

    $40 still seems pretty pricey for a light bulb, even one that promises to save $23 a year in energy costs

    You must be an accountant living on the outdated system of monthly and quarterly figures.
    To have an amortisation within 2 years and outright profit for 17 years afterwards sounds like a pretty damn good investment.

  • While I wouldn't mind using LED as replacements when the existing CFL wear out, particularly if they are less toxic when discarded, what I really need is a replacement for halogen small US base and bayonet, along with a few "candelabra" small base bulbs. Dimming would be a plus.

    Anyone making those yet?

  • by sl149q (1537343) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:43AM (#29437027)

    I was talking to the facilities manager at the local University... about cost to replace bulbs in some of his buildings.. In some cases it is literally in the many tens of thousands of dollars range. They have to bring scaffolding in with a small crew to erect and move around. (Doors too small for a lift.)

    He would be more than happy to pay $42/bulb IFF it meant he didn't have to go back in for two decades.

  • Colour me stupid but what is 5-1/2 hours a day?

    Did someone steal the decimal point off your keyboard? Or maybe even the comma, if you're from that part of the world?

    C'mon, behave yourself.
  • Dimness (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Masa (74401) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @03:59AM (#29437107) Journal
    But how dim they get over time? It's pretty pointless to have a LED light that lasts 19 years, if the light gets so dim after few years that it is practically unusable.
  • LEDs are great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrXym (126579) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @04:39AM (#29437349)
    I just built a new house which has something like 32 GU10 spotlights built into the ceilings to provide lighting. An LED bulb uses ~1/25th the power of a traditional halogen so I could be turn on every single light in the house for little more than the cost of a single halogen. The initial outlay will pay for itself in a year or two. And I don't have to be climbing up ladders or risking my neck changing they so often because they last much longer.

    The main issues to look for with LEDs is some of the cheaper ones give out a horrible ghostly white light. The box should say what colour temperature they output, and the best ones output 3200K warm white light similar to traditional incandescents. You wouldn't even know its an LED unless you stared at it. The other issue is only some bulbs work with dimmer switches, but there are models which do that too.

    The case for LEDs in other kinds of fixtures is probably less clear cut. LEDs are fairly directional so they probably require some refractive covering to be useful in hang down bulbs. But in the meantime there are plenty of CFL solutions which again save a lot more than traditional incandescents. I really don't see why anyone would bother with incandescent bulbs unless they are ignorant of how much money they're losing or they have have highly specific needs that other kinds of bulbs do not provide.

  • More useless trash (Score:3, Informative)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:42AM (#29439263) Homepage Journal

    I switched the whole house to CFL. Every light. These bulbs are supposed to last 3-5 years.

    I have replaced EVERY CFL BULB IN THE HOUSE within a year. EVERY ONE. GE Brand. No electrical voodoo in the house (I have a line conditioner even at the main). EVERY ONE. I shipped every damn one of them back to GE and Philips for a refund and explaination on why they failed. ZERO response.

    Yeah my electric bill went down. $4 a month after replacing EVERY BULB in my house. That is 38 bulbs. You only save oodles of money provided you run them 5 hours a day constantly to cover the cost of the bulb. If have those 5 minute hall and closet lights along with perhaps 2-8 bulbs on for 5 hours (reading lamp, kitchen lights) you lose money. I barely saved money due to the living room lights being on all day. The livingroom, kitchen, and my office are the only high use lights and effectively had to subsidize all the other lights in the home. The $4 a month doesn't cover the $90+ spend on the bulbs...

    Now every bulb was replaced back then as the old incandescent ones died off. So they were replaced over a 6 month period when we moved in (The old bulbs were at the oldest 4 years old.) So it can't be blamed on a bad batch of bulbs or a specific store (Target, Home Depot, Menards, and Walmart were sources for the bulbs)

    So the CFLs being cheaper is pure bull shit as far as a home is concerned. That useless philips halogen crap in the garage that was supposed to be a 5 year bulb worked out to 8 months and didn't survive the winter.

    Total scam in my opinion on CFLs. Until they can get an LED to match a 100 watt bulb (because I like to be able to see in my house rather then some crap ass 60-watt equivalent...) get it as cheap as a normal bulb, I keep my nice 100 watt incadescents thank you. When they burn out I don't have to fork over $3 to replace them.

    I won't even get into the discussion about the quality of light from CFLs and LEDs vs. Incandescent bulbs... more useless ineffective crap to protect your new found god...

    Telling us it saves $25 bucks a month if bullshit. I'll buy 1. It goes in my garage. If it can survive 3 years I MIGHT consider buying a second one for the bathroom and if that survies another 3 years... then we'll talk. So far this low-energy lighting scam is just that.. a scam as far as my experience has gone.

    My criteria from now on: Full Spectrum, 100 Watts, NO STROBING, NO FLICKERING.

    CFLs are a joke and LEDs have a long way to go. Too bad it looks like government has to subsidize and legistate to prop up yet another failure... How long till they ban those nice incandescent lights... oh wait...

    • by ChaosDiscord (4913) * on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @04:38PM (#29445849) Homepage Journal

      You had 38 CFL bulbs that all died in less than a year. Meanwhile other people (myself included) are seeing multiple years of life out of ours. As you note, it's can't possibly be something unusual in your case; you have electricl voodoo, and have a line conditioner. That's interesting.

      For no particular reason, I'm reminded of the guy I know who complains that every single romantic relationship he's in ends messily. He's wisely concluded that it's impossible for any man to have a healthy, long-term relationship with with women. I'm sure there is some valuable lesson there. [despair.com]

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...