Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth News

Philips Releases 100W-Equivalent LED Bulb, Runs On Just 23 Watts 529

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-not-easy-being-green dept.
MrSeb writes "The Light Fair convention kicks off in Las Vegas this week, so there will be any number of related announcements coming soon. Lighting giant Philips is starting things off early with the announcement of their 100W-equivalent LED bulb, the AmbientLED 23W. The model produces 1700 lumens, putting it at a very respectable 73.9 lm/W. The unveiling comes shortly after Philips' L Prize bulb was made available to consumers. That bulb currently sells for about $60 and is a more efficient light source, capable of 94 lm/W. The two use similar designs; for example, both take advantage of remote phosphor, but the AmbientLED 23W (it will be called the EnduraLED in non-consumer applications) is brighter and lacking in some of the performance characteristics of the L Prize winner, including luminous efficiency and color accuracy. Philips' 100W-equivalent bulb will be available some time in the fourth quarter. Pricing has yet to be announced, but it will likely be well over $30."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Philips Releases 100W-Equivalent LED Bulb, Runs On Just 23 Watts

Comments Filter:
  • Warranty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:40PM (#39919535)

    At those prices, I expect it to come with a warranty that backs up their "Lasts X years" claim. If you say it lasts 10 years, and you can't even offer a 5-year warranty, I'll keep my $60, thanks. I've seen too many of these bulb manufacturers make promises they knew they couldn't keep. CFL's in particular seem very sensitive to electricity fluctuations and brownouts. I've got a couple of fixtures in my house that burn through them like crazy, even after replacing the switches (finally just put a incandescent back in them and they do fine).

    No way I'm slapping down that kind of money for a bulb unless I can be sure the thing is really going to last, and that the company has enough faith in it to put their money where their mouth is. I'd hate to buy a bunch of those only to have some local brownouts blow them in their first year (and find out the company won't back their product up with a replacement or refund).

    • by lymond01 (314120)

      My thoughts exactly. My first CFL back in the 90s was rated for 7 years. I think it lasted 3 months. As with the poster above, I'm not paying significantly more for a CFL, unless it's going to make Saturday appearances at the office and get its damned cover sheets on its damned TPS reports!

      • Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MozeeToby (1163751) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:10PM (#39920005)

        I hear this a lot, but I also know of people, myself included, who do get the advertised life (moved into my house 4 years ago and started swapping in CFLs as the existing bulbs burnt out and have only had to replace one of them so far). My best guesses as to why some people have better luck than others:

        Bulb quality: I bought relatively expensive bulbs because they were the only ones at the time that didn't put out awful blue/white light.
        Temperature range: The only bulb I had to replace was in the garage, which swings from 100+F to -10F depending on the season.
        Power quality: Spikes/brownouts/etc.

        • by Surt (22457)

          I buy the quality CFLs too. I'm pretty sure the power quality kills them because my temperature range is pretty mild and I still have them dying pretty quickly (inside the warranty, but I'm replacing them with LEDs as they go).

          • Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dwywit (1109409) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:44PM (#39920423)

            I've got a sine-wave inverter powering my house - and if it overloads, it just shuts down. Otherwise, It's a stable 245 VAC day and night - no dips or spikes. I've had Osram, Phillips, and GE CFLs - and the Osrams have typically lasted about half their claimed lifespan.

            • by vadim_t (324782)

              Maybe it's the voltage? They might last longer on 220 or 230V.

            • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday May 07, 2012 @06:06PM (#39920733) Homepage

              Well no wonder they blow out - you're running them at twice the rated voltage!

            • The problem is that the claimed lifetime is something like 7 years with 10 minutes of continuous use per day. The lifetime is not for 24/7/365 usage, or for being turned on/off 10,000 times per day.
        • Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Informative)

          by popeye44 (929152) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:43PM (#39920413)

          Chances are you don't live in a newer house or maybe not in California. California building code requires dimmable switches to be built in as the first switch in most rooms. CFL's are horribly unreliable "even if you spend $12.00 for the good dimmable bulbs" at working with dimmable switches.

            In the areas where I have on/off type switches they seem to work fairly well "not sure if equal to most incandescent or not but at least on par" I have multiple lights in my house that bleed through electricity if I am using fluorescent lights. You turn them off.. and the light either flickers or you can see a dim glow. This does not happen with incandescent. So California in it's ever so insane stance to control anything they can fucks me from using cheaper "power wise" bulbs in every fixture. I end up running about half and half between the two.

          Soon I won't even be able to buy incandescent lights and will probably be unable to find a simple on/off switch do to some other policy they'll enact to save beavers.

          • by ZorinLynx (31751)

            >California building code requires dimmable switches to be built in as the first switch in most rooms.

            Are you serious? What in the hell led to such a stupid requirement? Especially since dimmed incandescent bulbs use far more watts per lumen than bulbs of a lower wattage?

            To hell with the building code, I'd be swapping those out for regular switches once I move in if I don't want dimmers in those rooms. The dimmers are easily kept in a drawer to put back in before move-out day.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Changa_MC (827317)

              You don't have to put the dimmers back in - you just can't build a new house without them. It was a decent idea when incandescent bulbs were all you could buy since it prevented the power-on spike that kills those. Now it's a law that should go away, but it's maybe $100 expense on a house costing $200,000+, so no-one cares.

            • Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Informative)

              by swalve (1980968) on Monday May 07, 2012 @07:08PM (#39921571)

              Newly installed lighting in bedrooms, family room, living rooms, hallways, dining rooms, etc. shall be high efficiency fixtures (e.g. fluorescent), or all switches shall be dimmer switches, or be controlled with an occupant sensor with controls that do not allow the fixtures to be automatically turned on or allow the fixture to be always on. (2008 CA Title 24 Section 150)

          • Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by es330td (964170) on Monday May 07, 2012 @06:06PM (#39920743)
            Thank you for reminding me again how happy I am to not live in the nanny state that is California. It is a beautiful state, with dynamic people and wonderful climate, but the amount of regulation its citizens to which the citizens subject themselves is unreal.
        • Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Informative)

          by ZorinLynx (31751) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:59PM (#39920639) Homepage

          I also get the advertised life. I sometimes wonder why some people have such bad luck with CFLs. Power quality is the most likely cause, I think; as we have excellent power quality here and I have friends whose power is constantly having little issues. At one particular friend's place, the UPS beeps around once every visit.

          Also, when CFLs end up lasting far longer than their advertised life, they need to be replaced for another reason: They start getting dim. I replaced about three bulbs that get a lot of use and were over six years old when I noticed a brand new bulb of the same wattage was twice as bright. If you're getting really long life out of your CFLs you might want to check this, as you don't notice them getting dimmer since it happens so gradually.

          • Been using CFLs for a long time and life has not been an issue. I have some that have not been replaced, I installed them when I moved in 8 years ago and they've not needed replacement (once that don't get used as often, needless to say). In my room, I have had to replace them, but due to brightness, not failure. I've since replaced them with LEDs, since I like the colour spectrum of the LEDs better, and they warm up faster (LEDs are instant according to my eye, CFLs take a bit). My whole house is CFL or LE

          • You should only replace bulbs that are too dim when you notice they are dim. If you don't notice, it's not actually a problem....

          • The cheaper CFLs have electronics that can't handle the heat, when ppl use them the usual way with the screw (and electronics) up and the glass part pointing down, it fries them (heat goes up).

            Want to have them last longer?, make sure they are the other way, with the screw down and the glass pointing up. When they are horizontal, the longevity is average. Incandescents don't care and can point down just fine.

            Incidentally i have a couple of 10w Phillips LEDs, flood lamp style. They use 4pcs of 2.5w led each.

        • by mcvos (645701)

          In ideal circumstances, CFLs can last a very long time. But they also seem to be a lot more sensitive to power fluctuations, bad wiring, temperature, being turned on and off a lot, etc. I still remember that the first CFLs were specifically for locations where they wouldn't be turned off and on a lot. Best for rooms that are lit constantly. Not so good for toilets and garages, for example.

          I also have one fixture in my house where CFLs don't work at all, for some mysterious reason. Incandescents and LEDs wor

      • Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by realityimpaired (1668397) on Monday May 07, 2012 @06:13PM (#39920825)

        That wasn't my first thought... though in response to your question, LED lights usually last a long time, because they're composed of hundreds of LED's, and an individual diode can burn out without drastically affecting the usability of the bulb itself.

        That being said... my first thought was of the CFL in a lamp sitting next to my computer. 8 years old, and it cost about $15. It's a full-spectrum 100W equivalent bulb that I call my "artificial sun" (and there have been many late-night gaming sessions which turned into early morning sessions with its help), and it draws 27W equivalent. Costs of CFLs have gone down significantly in the last 8 years... is a $30 LED bulb that would save 4W (which is less than some DVD players draw at idle) really enough of an upgrade to be worth the cost?

    • by vlm (69642) on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:45PM (#39919597)

      Are there any bulb rental services? I want to buy the same make and model of bulbs that bulb rental services buy.

      • I don't think that rental services exist; but there are about a zillion commercial/office/industrial properties whose facilities guys have to keep a whole lot of lights, some badly inaccessible from ground level or in crowded public areas, going. Whatever they use is probably the equivalent(and mostly seems to be really boring hot-cathode fluorescent tubes, except in places where they can't get away with that for aesthetic reasons)...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Pay us what you think you'd pay the power company to operate an incandescent or CFL bulb for the same number of hours".
      "Oh, and please take our word for the fact that it will last as many hours as we claim."
      "We wouldn't lie to you."
      "Honestly!"

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>I've got a couple of fixtures in my house that burn through them like crazy, even after replacing the switches (finally just put a incandescent back in them and they do fine).

      Exactly.
      CFLs are the biggest scam the megacorps ever came-up with, and they used the power of Congress or the Parliament to force us into it. (By gradually outlawing incandescents.) I know I've saved NO money using CFLs because they burn-out just as fast as incandescents..... and they certainly aren't reducing pollution wh

      • Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mister Whirly (964219) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:19PM (#39920103) Homepage
        Stop buying the cheapest CFL that are made in China. They burn out as quick/faster than incandescents. Buy a slightly higher quality bulb and you will notice a difference. I thought exactly the same way you did until I stopped buying the bargain CFLs. I found a brand a few years back (can't recall the name at work though) of a CFL bulb that was actually made in the USA. It has been going for about 4 years now. It was only about 25-30% more expensive than the other cheap bulbs.
      • by PRMan (959735)

        This is simply not true across the board. I bought CFLs when they first came out. I spent $150 on them for all the bulbs in my house, so they were pricey. But I saved $30 PER MONTH in electricity costs (granted, I am in SoCal, where electricity is pretty high), giving me an ROI of 5 months. So even though the first set may have died in a year or two, I already made back my money many times over.

        The next set I bought has not burned out at all for about 8 years. Finally, one bulb died and my kids (12 and

    • by m0n5t3r (1154605)

      of my first 2 CFLs (23W Philips, incidentally) one still works after ~ 6 years; I've moved 4 times since I bought those (yeah, I actually took my light bulbs with me, they were worth about 10 beers each); one of them died due to being used in the bathroom (went through a lot of power cycles)

      Right now, I have the remaining one in a rather low usage area (kitchen, rarely used at night), and for the room I spend most of the time in I have some no-name Chinese thing I bought 2 years ago from Mega Image; it eats

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>> takes about 10 minutes to reach full brightness

        Ditto.
        And it's a Philips!
        Why are we "upgrading" to bulbs that are actually inferior to the incandescents we used before? They take too long long to light, don't live any longer in real world use, can't be used in enclosed or upside down fixtures (trapped heat kills CFL electronics), and have to be shipped across ~20,000 miles from China (and back) whereas the incandescents were built right here.

        For me my experience with CFLs is as bad as my experi

        • Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DavidTC (10147) <slas45dxsvadiv,vadiv&neverbox,com> on Monday May 07, 2012 @06:45PM (#39921221) Homepage

          In case you haven't noticed, heat getting trapped in light fixtures are why all bulbs burn out. It's what deforms the filament in incandescent bulbs, which then cools and either snaps then, or snaps when they next have current run through them. In fact, the entire question of 'What is a good filament in a light bulb?' is answered by 'Whatever metal expands less when heated.'

          Which is the reason that all non-stupid light fixture have holes in them to let the heat out, because otherwise the incandescent bulbs that existed when they were designed burn out rapidly.

          And of course, CFLs run a lot cooler, so are generally safer to use in such fixtures for each lum of light. The idea that CFLs are more susceptible to heat is somewhat idiotic. Yes, they have more complicated circuitry that is technically more susceptible to heat (Which is why CFLs will never be used inside a stove.), but they also are generating only a third the heat, so there's a lot less damn heat to start with!

          Of course, the real solution is to stop buying stupid light fixtures that trap heat. Which, in addition to rapidly eating through a supply of any sort of light bulbs, are a fire (If made of something combustible or touching something combustible) and/or scalding (If not combustible but they just sit there and absorb heat, resulting the entire thing getting hotter and hotter, eventually including parts that people are supposed to touch.) hazard.

          (And, incidentally, current CFLs have no startup time, at least not one that humans can notice. Complaining that you were sold something that is shitty that is supposed to last for five years is reasonable, but it's not a reason to not buy new ones, which do not have that problem.)

      • by dgatwood (11270)

        By contrast, I recently replaced the incandescent bulbs in my bathrooms when I replaced the fixtures. Out of the twelve bulbs (three fixtures), all were original bulbs, about a decade old. The only places I've ever blown bulbs are the ceiling fan in my room and the three-way bulb in the table lamp in my TV room, both of which have blown about two bulbs in eleven years.

        Incandescent bulbs (good ones) last a long time. For CFLs to make sense at the current price, they would need a hundred year guarantee.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      Oh and yes the price it outrageous. I have a 60 watt LED "bulb" in my amazon cart that only costs $15. Buy two and you have your 100+ equivalent for half the price.

      AND it uses less power (7 watts not 23). Philips really laid an egg with their new bulb. WORSE: They were paid millions of dollars in OUR money to produce this rotten egg.

      • by Surt (22457)

        Chances are good that the light quality from your $15 60 watt bulb is not competitive with phillips.

    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday May 07, 2012 @07:39PM (#39921917)

      Philips does indeed say what their warranties are. I don't have that bulb, but I do have 3 AmbientLEDs. The warranty says "Philips warrants that this bulb will be free from defects in material and workmanship and will operate for a period of 6 years under normal usage..." and then goes on and on as such things do. They also state they expect it to last 15 years or more under normal usage and specify what that qualifies as (as in how many hours a day and so on).

      Seems like they are willing to back it up. Philips isn't some fly-by-night company either, they've been around for quite some time, reasonable bet they are around to deal with claims, if they need to.

      I'm willing to throw my money in on their bulbs. They look good, work good (they run in a regular dimmer no problem), are efficient, and so on. I'm fairly confident they'll replace them if they break, and I'm fairly confident they won't break so they are worth the money to me.

  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:44PM (#39919591)
    And now we are discovering why they passed the law requiring all light bulbs to be higher efficiency than standard incandescents, so that Philips can sell light bulbs for $30-60.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:04PM (#39919911)

      A 100W light bulb consumes 100kWh over its rated lifetime, which is 1000 hours. Depending on the price of electricity in your part of the world, that's probably between $8 and $30. Assuming a dismal lifetime of just 5000 hours for the LED bulb, you'd need five $1 incandescent bulbs for a total cost of ownership between $5+5*$8=$45 and $4+5*$30=$154. The LED bulb (let's say $35) consumes electricity for $9 to $35, for a total cost of ownership between $35+$9=$44 and $35+$35=$70. So unless the LED doesn't last 5000 hours or your electricity costs less than $0.08, the LED bulb is cheaper, and you don't need to change the bulb as often. The law exists because most people couldn't do a simple calculation if their life depended on it.

    • Attila: you tell 'em! It's damned gobmint conspiracy! Next thing you know they'll make us have gay marriages!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:22PM (#39920145)

      It's so that LIEBERALS can use LED lights to lighten up their ABORTION HOUSES and FORCED STERILIZATION CAMPS where they will destroy white people.

  • by Gary Franczyk (7387) on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:46PM (#39919611)

    I have fluorescent lights that use pretty much exactly the same amount of power to output 100W equivalent of light. And those bulbs cost not much more than a buck a piece. What exactly does these provide to me for $30?

    • by Albanach (527650) on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:51PM (#39919703) Homepage

      I think the primay advantages are supposed to be color temperature (2700K so very similar to the light from an incandescent) and lifespan. It's also dimmable which is still quite a big issue with CFL bulbs.

      All in all, it's fairly expensive but does address what are probably the three biggest complaints about CFLs for use in the home.

    • by ThePeices (635180) on Monday May 07, 2012 @04:51PM (#39919705)

      "Philips Releases 100W-Equivalent LED Bulb, Runs On Just 23 Watts"

      They last longer than a fluro tube, they have no mercury in them, they are way smaller, they are more robust and dont break as easily.

    • The spectrum from a LED bulb is better than florescent. Many people don't like florescents simple because the color temperature isn't as close to incandescent.

      From what I've heard, LED can come in several ranges.

      Better explanations: http://www.agreensupply.com/what-is-warm-white-and-natural-daylight-cool-white-color-for-led-light-bulbs/ [agreensupply.com]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Temperature#Lighting [wikipedia.org]

      All that said, that is worth maybe $5 to me, but not $30.

      • The spectrum from a LED bulb is better than florescent.

        That is not a certainty. Some LEDs have a better spectrum than some fluorescents, with other models, it's the other way around.

        The spectrum depends basicaly on the selection of phosphour on both lamps. Fluorescent are better tested, thus the cheaper ones are usualy better than the cheaper LEDs. When you get into the expensive ones, only God knows.

    • I also recently installed a bunch of 9W Philips LEDs (E27 socket) and by eye I would estimate each one to produce at least as much of light than a 60W incandescent.

      Although a 100W incandescent is in reality something like 1000..1200lm, not 1700lm like the article says. So the LED should be quite efficient after all. It looks funky, too.

    • by OhPlz (168413)

      The LEDs do go to full brightness even if the ambient room temperature is low. Probably not a huge issue for most people, but I don't crank the heat in the winter and even the latest and greatest CFLs still take a while to get to full brightness. They switch on and off so fast it's trippy.

    • by Darth Snowshoe (1434515) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:08PM (#39919971)

      The price of the bulb is, unsurprisingly, like just about everything else, related to the number of bulbs produced and sold. If you bought a one-off handmade automobile, it would cost a lot more, even if it performed exactly the same as a stock car that rolled off a manufacturing line.

      Over time, as more of these bulbs are produced, the price per item is going to come down. Phillips doesn't want to subsidize the price of the early bulbs (to take the risk that they'll never sell enough of them to back out the cost of the subsidy), so they're pricing them to cost, apparently. I'm sure its dawned on Phillips that a $30 light bulb is not going to be an easy sell. I'd bet that the pricing also indicates that they don't expect a consumer with a house full of these would need to replace them very often.

      It's not some kind of socialist plot. It's business.

    • Think not what these lights can provide to you.
      Think what you can provide to Phillips.

  • ..by stockpiling 300 100w incandescent light bulbs. By the time I run out of those, a suitable, and cheaper, replacement for 100W incandescent bulbs should be available.

    • comedy aside, 300 bulbs would last you pretty much a lifetime...

    • by joggle (594025) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:21PM (#39920137) Homepage Journal

      Using those 300 bulbs isn't free, unless for some reason you don't have to pay the power bill.

      At .12 cents per kWh and a lifetime of 750 hours per bulb, it would cost you about $2,700 to use them. Tack on a cost of $1 per bulb, and you pay a total of about $3,000.

      To get 750 * 300 hours of 100 W equivalent, you would only need about 12 of the LED bulbs. The cost of running them for that many hours would be $621. The article doesn't say how much the bulbs will cost, just more than $30. Let's double it to $60, then the cost of those 12 bulbs would be $720. You would end up paying a total of $1,321 for what would have cost $3,000 with incandescents, a savings of almost $1,700.

      So it's your choice, either pay nothing down while paying more in the future, or pay more now but more than make up for it eventually.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:00PM (#39919843) Journal
    All these relatively small LED lights are using a phosphor layer, pumped by either a blue or UV diode or diodes, to generate something resembling reasonably white light. The phosphor step gives them much lousier efficiency compared to their monochromatic counterparts, which don't have that additional step eating photons.

    I am assuming that they do this, rather than using arrays of multiple colored LEDs matched to add up to 'white', because of the difficulty of getting suitably even mixing, weird color fringes, and the like. Does anybody know what would be needed(either advances in LED fabrication, or minimum size/complexity requirements for a light fixture) to make the multiple-colors-mixed approach viable?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      LEDs without phosphor are monochromatic, as in "one wavelength". That's really useful if you need a backlight for a screen, but in a room light you want a mixture of all visible wavelengths, ideally resembling a "black body" spectrum at a given temperature (2700K for lightbulb-yellowish light). If you mix just three wavelengths instead, you can get perfectly white looking light, but only if you look directly into the light or if the light is reflected by a surface that happens to reflect these three wavelen

  • So why not just get a CFL? In general, it's probably not worth it. But if:

    1. there's a high cost to change the bulb [ladder, scaffolding, or left required], additional lifetime is extremely valuable;
    2. the color is different and that matters to you;
    3. the warm-up time and process is different and that matters to you; and/or
    4. the fragility or hazardous materials in a CFL is a concern,

    then LED might be the way to go. I don't think that Philips nor other manufacturers are expecting a large-scale consum

  • by scharkalvin (72228) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:09PM (#39919979) Homepage

    For me the problem is using the bulbs with a dimmer. CFL's DO NOT DIM. Period! Even the so called dimable ones simply drop in output maybe 30-40% then flicker and go out. If you have a multi bulb fixture the CFL's don't dim together and usually go out at different settings. In the rooms of my house that require dimable fixtures I have to use incandecents. If the LED bulbs will dim with standard dimmers (I use X10 switches than can be remote controlled) I would consider switching to them. At some point I will try the 75watt LED bulbs in the bedroom or maybe the 60w ones in the family room and see if they work with dimmers. (If they don't they will go back to HomeDepot for a refund!). The LED bulbs should also be more vibration proof than CFL's so they can be used in ceiling fan fixtures.

  • I recently put some rather expensive LED bulbs in my fridge (long story...) Anyhow, reaching in and pulling anything out freaks me out due to the flicker... it's like a strobe light or an old CRT... Is there a DC converter or are they still hitting the LEDs with raw AC?
    • All LED bulbs have DC converters. My guess is that you bought some GE or Chinese junk. It simply will not last long. Do not waste your money on that. The Phillips and even better the Switch Light Bulbs, are the way to go.
  • So far, none of the Philips "Ambient LED" bulbs I've purchased has failed. I have several, in 40 and 60 watt equiv. The 60's (around 850 lumins) are not the latest prize winners, but are still quite efficient.

    I --HATE-- the CFL bulbs. I have found them to be unreliable as well as uncomfortable to use for reading or working. These new LED bulbs, however, have a very nice color to them, a fairly wide spectrum, virtually no flicker at all, and as I said -- so far, I have yet to have one fail.

    I actually prefer these new ones to incandescent bulbs for reading and lighting a room -- I would never have said that for any form of CFL or long tube fluorescent.

  • by joh (27088) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:36PM (#39920319)

    Since half a year now I have a 6x1W LED lamp (from IKEA) hanging off the ceiling in my kitchen. This thing fires 6 tightly focused beams at the walls, which makes 6 funny areas of bright white light to distribute around my kitchen (it has adjustable steel tentacles) . It's bright (where it shines), it's reasonable well designed, it's sturdy and looks seriously cool. It also consumes only a laughable amount of electricity.

    And you know what? I happen to like that thing a lot. It eats 6 bloody watts and gives more than enough light everywhere I need it while generating a really nice light landscape. And yes, it does this while eating just 6 bloody watts of electric energy. It also fires up 100% instantly after switching it on.

    Hey, there's nothing wrong with LED lights! Gimme more of those! How can geeks NOT like these things?

    I have even thought of buying the cheapest LCD screens off ebay and making lamps from them. Hey, you spend how many dollars on gadgets and then you're mean on lighting? Why? Light is cool and LEDs are the next best thing after stealing fire from the gods (or nature or the OS of that particular simulation or whatever).

    Stop complaining and invent BETTER LED LIGHTS! And make them cheaper! You will sell billions of them! You lazy, dumb, complacent idiots!

    • by Khyber (864651)

      I do make better LED lights. Mostly for growing plants, though. Nobody wants to use my ideas for building interior lighting.

      Sucks for them. 12w to light up amost my entire 30x50 back yard is pretty damned good, considering I needed roughly 300w incandescent to do the same thing.

  • by jsm18 (1317959) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:50PM (#39920511)

    If only these were made by Apple and not Phillips. There would be block long lines forming to buy the latest iBulb.

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Monday May 07, 2012 @05:55PM (#39920569)
    People squawk about the price but consider these factors. How many light bulbs are left on more than an hour a day in most homes? Say living room and kitchen? Maybe a family room or office? Bedroom? Okay so we are talking four or five bulbs, the rest can be compact florescent. Even at $60 you are talking about $240 to $300 to replace all the important lights in the house. Remember nation wide lighting is a large percentage of the power used. In the average house it's 14%. Say you have a $100 power bill and your lights run $14. Let's be generous and call the florescents $4 of that so the LEDs would cost around $2.50 a month so the savings was $7.50. It would take 40 months to pay them off. That's assuming 5 bulbs with no discounting or rebates. If they last 10 years then you get 6.5+ years of saving $7.50 a month and that's conservative. The returns are better than the stock market. The speed of return would be higher if you just replaced the 2 or 3 most used bulbs but the savings are still impressive on 5 bulbs. Buy one bulb a year and in 5 years they are all replaced and by then they'll be cheap enough to replace the rest of the florescent bulbs. My mind is constantly blown when people complain about paying more now just so they can get cheap or free power later. If solar panels payback in 5 to 7 years you are talking 20 years of free power and people still complain that they have to spend extra money now. Most homes can cut their power bills in half with more efficient appliances and most pay a hell of a lot more than a $100 a month. If everyone got on board they'd save a lot of money and we could shut down some coal plants instead of building more. People keep calling it a rip off and the bulb companies are cheating you but how is saving you a ton of money cheating you?

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...