Philips Releases 100W-Equivalent LED Bulb, Runs On Just 23 Watts 529
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."
Warranty? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's the voltage? They might last longer on 220 or 230V.
Re: (Score:3)
Could be - but I'd have thought they could handle 10% over-voltage (although the peak of the sine wave could be significantly higher than the design can cope with). The thing is, I don't get brownouts, and it's the only the one brand/model that's been a problem. They were *just* out of warranty, so I sent a polite email expressing my disappointment that my bulbs lasted such a short time. The reply explained that warranties are calculated on how long HALF a sample of bulbs last under testing conditions - obv
Re: (Score:3)
"Sex Panther: 60% of the time, it works every time." [imdb.com]
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Informative)
245 V is the Root Mean Square voltage. That number is approx 70% of the peak voltage. Your 10% over is even higher peak.
Mind you Australia runs at 240v not 230v so 2% higher than that shouldn't be bad.
Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Funny)
Well no wonder they blow out - you're running them at twice the rated voltage!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, off-grid since 1996. The house had 600W of PV on the roof and 580 amphours of batteries when we moved in, with a modified square-wave inverter. Immediately upgraded to a sine-wave inverter (1500W continuous, 3000W surge), and a new washing machine (Fisher & Paykel smartdrive). Circa 2000, and we replaced batteries with 1100ah, and an additional 900W of PV. In 2008, we replaced the batteries again (had 2 children by this time), and added another kilowatt of PV to the roof. We could always do with more PV, but in sunny weather we can run three or four 240 volt appliances at once without overloading the inverter or needing to top up the batteries with the backup generator, e.g. 4 computers, or 2 computers and the washing machine, etc. The house is dual-wired - 240 volt power and the lighting circuit is 24 volt and uses incandescant and halogen bi-pin bulbs, but I'm going to cut those circuits over to 240 volts to take advantage of CFL and LED lamps - 24-volt bulbs are expensive, and the inverter inefficiency will be more than offset by the reduced energy consumption of CFL/LED lamps. I've already tried CFLs in some lamps running off the 240 volt power circuit, and difference in energy consumption is amazing. I've got a 240 volt fridge, and a 24 volt freezer.
I've never had a blackout that lasted more than 2 minutes (deliberately overloaded the lighting circuit to test the safety breakers). The downside is having to run the backup generator during rainy weather.
How can I afford all this? Well, the most recent upgrade cost ~AUD$23K, and was subsidised 50%, so we only paid about AUD$11K. That's NOT free or even cheap power, but it would cost us over AUD$40K to have the mains extended to our house, so it's a no-brainer, financially speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
I have them as ambient lighting behind a 5cm (2 inch) height wooden panel in the corner of the ceiling and the wall, over a long part of the wall. They provide a smooth glow over the wall, in whatever coulor I like that day.
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
>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)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:Warranty? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Ya I have to think power quality (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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....
don't point them down (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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?
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Funny)
Are there any bulb rental services? I want to buy the same make and model of bulbs that bulb rental services buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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)
>>>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)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, it could also inspire companies to make more efficient standard socket incandescents too - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/idUS273367407320110429 [reuters.com] is but one example of many.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>>> 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)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Chances are good that the light quality from your $15 60 watt bulb is not competitive with phillips.
You could, you know, check and not whine (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If it was working yesterday, and I replace it with your "equivalent" replacement, it's your fault if it stops working.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But then again, I guess the American legal system has seen sillier things...
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is an implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose. If you're selling a device that serves the same purpose as an incandescent, fits into the same receptacle as an incandescent, and is found on the same shelves as incandescents, and you fail to disclaim the warranty of fitness, I'm pretty sure you're legally and ethically in the wrong.
Re:Warranty? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with you to the extent that the GP might want to have that fixture rewired (or at least checked out) by a real electrician, I can't agree that something pushed as a long-lasting drop-in replacement for an X-Watt incandescent light-bulb would have a shorter lifespan than that same incandescent, regardless of faulty wiring.
I fully appreciate that incandescents count as just about the lowest-tech electricity-using device you can own; But CFL/LED manufacturers need to take into consideration the fact that people don't generally run their room lighting on a line-interactive UPS.
Re: (Score:3)
I used to live way out in the boonies. After my house there was one more house about 1/4 mile away, then a run of about 1 mile, and a couple of farms. One of the farms apparently ran some kind of equipment that thrashed the power factor in random patterns, and my UPS would take over for a minute or so, then would switch back to line mode - every couple of minutes for an hour at a time. As a result, it could never get fully charged, and after a day or so would whimper and shut down completely.
The power co
Re: (Score:3)
Care to tell me what I can do about my power conditions in my apartment? Ohh right, nothing because I own none of it. So I need the bulbs to do the power conditioning or tolerate just about anything that could show up on the line, so basically anything within the power company specs. If that means more hardware on their end, well too bad for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. I had a problem with LED holiday lights. I used an X10 appliance module so that I could turn them off by remote control. Unfortunately, when I switched to LED lights, I found that the X10 module leaked just enough current to keep the lights going, only slightly dimmer. Not very useful.
Re: (Score:3)
That's odd. AFAIK, X10 modules generally use a relay for power switching, so there should be no leakage whatsoever. Maybe it has a bad relay.
X10 modules have a local-on feature so that you don't need to use a controller to turn the device on. If you have a lamp connected to one, then turning the lamp off and then back on will trigger the X10 module to power on. It's a safety feature so a lost controller won't result in not being able to turn something on, like a light you need in the middle of the night.
That feature requires a continuous low level current through the controlled device to detect the actual switching at the device. This current
Re: (Score:3)
X10 modules generally use a relay for power switching,...
I forgot to add, the POWER modules use a relay. There are also LAMP modules that have TRIACs just like wall dimmer switches use. Unless you have a dimmable CFL, your LAMP module isn't going to dim your CFL. And both modules have the local-on feature so they both leak current to the controlled device.
This is why they passed the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is why they passed the law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:This is why they passed the law (Score:5, Informative)
Why would you think that LEDs are bad because you have a poor experience with CFLs?
You're right, many CFLs do have the issues you describe. That makes it a great argument FOR the LED bulbs, which don't have most of the issues you describe. One of the worst characteristics of CFLs is that their lifetime is hit hard by frequent on/off cycles. LED bulbs care about frequent on/off cycles even less than incandescent bulbs.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you think that LEDs are bad because you have a poor experience with CFLs?
You're right, many CFLs do have the issues you describe. That makes it a great argument FOR the LED bulbs, which don't have most of the issues you describe. One of the worst characteristics of CFLs is that their lifetime is hit hard by frequent on/off cycles. LED bulbs care about frequent on/off cycles even less than incandescent bulbs.
I think that it's a fair assumption that LED bulbs will be as unreliable as CFLs. The reason why CFLs die from heat and brownouts and mild spikes is because they rely on electronics that are made as shittily as possible to save on the overall cost of the bulb. There's very little to skimp on in incandescent bulbs, so it's harder to deliberately make the bulb cheaper yet still survive the first use.
The actual CFL element, just like LEDs, will easily last thousands of hours before failing or dimming significa
Re: (Score:3)
I run a business. For whatever reasons, 2 of our big connected buildings don't have fluorescent lights
Re: (Score:3)
My anecdote next!
I switched to CFL's over 15 years ago, and except for the kitchen all of them lasted at least 8 years. And, half them were replaced because they were just getting too dim, but still working.
Re: (Score:3)
assuming you have a bank account that pays about 4% interest as mine does
Where do you live? Where I live, they give around 0.1% annual interest at the moment. If you're lucky. That amounts to somewhere between -2 to -4% if you adjust for inflation. I would really like to hear where a simple bank account can give you a 4% annual income after inflation.
In your careful analysis, you also seem to have forgotten that prices of electricity are going up (well, at least they are in my part of the world).
But none of this matters because at the moment LED bulbs are expensive because they
Re: (Score:2)
Attila: you tell 'em! It's damned gobmint conspiracy! Next thing you know they'll make us have gay marriages!
Re:This is why they passed the law (Score:4, Insightful)
as in ONLY reason to get married is to get a child
Absolutely incorrect.
Lots of people get married without any intention (or even any ability) to have a child.
Lots of people have children without getting married.
so i do not understand really a reason for having a gay marriage (or any other kind of marriage without kids)
That's okay, you don't have to understand the reason. What's important is that you don't get to deny marriage to people simply because you don't understand their reasons.
Re:This is why they passed the law (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, ev
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Feel free to make & sell your own designs for $29 a piece -
He isn't free to make and sell his own design. If he was, he'd be making incandescant lamps for a buck each and you'd be saving $29 per bulb by buying from him. It takes a LONG time to get to $29 in electricity from a light bulb.
Light bulbs are no longer a free market item. Once the govmint got involved in banning certain kinds, the freedom kinda went POOF!
Re: (Score:3)
The US law didn't ban incandescents -- it set minimum efficiency standards for them which good halogen incandescents meet. I kind of disapprove -- a person should be allowed to buy whatever piece of shit bulb they want as long as they pay the electric bill without griping. HOWEVER as long as the emissions of the coal burning plants are allowed to foul the air upwind of me for the electricity used to power those POS's then I am partly paying for them, too -- that's not right either.
24W for equivalent of 100W light? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:24W for equivalent of 100W light? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Please... $16.99 buys you three, dimmable, 2700k, 24W, 100W equivalent CFL bulbs. So I'm going to spend an extra $30 per bulb to save one watt?
http://menards.com/main/lighting-fans/light-bulbs/fluorescent/24-watt-dimmable-2700k-spiral-bulb-multi-pak-3-bulb-box/p-1738410-c-6337.htm [menards.com]
Kewl factor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that horrible yellowish color?
Who the hell wants that? Daylight color or GTFO.
Re:24W for equivalent of 100W light? (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re:24W for equivalent of 100W light? (Score:4, Funny)
And they don't go "Buzzzzzzzzzzz..."
Color temperature (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sylvania claims their 100 watt Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite, is 1750 Lumens, and frankly, they should know.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:24W for equivalent of 100W light? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Think not what these lights can provide to you.
Think what you can provide to Phillips.
Re: (Score:2)
I avoided all this... (Score:2)
..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.
Re: (Score:2)
comedy aside, 300 bulbs would last you pretty much a lifetime...
Re:I avoided all this... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the flip side, I don't have to worry about having a substance in my house that has cleanup recommendations that involve a hazmat suit. How much mercury do you think has been tossed into landfills by now? I'll give you a hint:
"According to www.lightbulbrecycling.com, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power pl
Re: (Score:3)
"According to www.lightbulbrecycling.com, each year an estimated 600 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of in U.S. landfills, amounting to 30,000 pounds of mercury waste. Astonishingly, that's almost half the amount of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants each year. It only takes 4mg of mercury to contaminate up to 7,000 gallons of freshwater, meaning that the 30,000 pounds of mercury thrown away in compact fluorescent light bulbs each year is enough to pollute nearly every lake, pond, river and stream in North America (not to mention the oceans)."
1mg of mercury vaporized into the air is not the equivalent of 1mg mercury dumped in a landfill. Distribution counts just as much as quantity when it comes to bioavailability.
Heck, it doesn't take much lead or uranium (or any other heavy metal) to poison a body of water, but so long as you have it in metal form and contained behind layers of isolation, it's not a problem. That's kind of the point of landfills -- to hold garbage away from becoming mixed in with everything else. If you believe that the landfi
An optical question... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Energy usage matches CFL... but other properties? (Score:2)
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
led vs cfl (Score:3)
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.
60 Hz Flicker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have several of the Philips 60w equiv (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In nearly unrelated personal news... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Better plan.... (Score:5, Funny)
If only these were made by Apple and not Phillips. There would be block long lines forming to buy the latest iBulb.
What few consider (Score:3)
Like to see them in smaller sizes (Score:3)
The LEDs I have seen in the small sizes are just pi$$ weak. Compact fluorescents get less energy efficient in the smaller sizes, but I am thinking that since the big light bulbs have multiple LEDs, that you could get high efficiency at the low wattage end?
LEDs se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for one thing, LEDs are more robust. From the point of view of fragility, I think that's pretty obvious.
I believe that LED bulbs are okay in dimmer switch controlled sockets. I have an LED bulb, and I use it in a socket that seems to react very strongly to power fluctuations in my apartment. The CFL bulbs I've used in there make a terrible noise and really don't seem happy with it.
I don't know if the quality of light is any different, but that's not really technology dependent, per se.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot see the flicker of CFLs, they flicker at 40,000 cycles per second. It is not possible for a human to see that. You are a liar and a bad person.
Re: (Score:3)
You're in a room with an incredibly old fluorescent light that uses the 'built-in' line frequency of 60 hz, instead of upping the frequency.
Or, sometimes, it tries to up the frequency, but the original frequency still makes it in. For example, it might provide a nice high frequency, except in that split second as the voltage reverses itself. (Which it does 60 times a second in our alternating current systems.)
Incidentally, these problems are provided by the 'ballast', not the 'light bulbs' tubes. It's tha
Re:Uhhh... at WHAT price that is? (Score:5, Informative)
As others have noted, you're forgetting the cost to power the bulb. Standard incandescent lasts 1000 hours, the LEDs should last 10K (some claim 20K, but we'll go with the lower figure). So for a 100W equivalent, you buy 10 incandescents for 20 cents a piece, or $2. Let's say the LED costs $60.
Next up is the cost of power. Over 10K hours, the incandescents consume 100W * 10K hrs = 1Mwh (1000 Kwh). The LED consumes 23W * 10K hrs = 230 Kwh. At 10 cents per Kwh (I pay about 12 cents; prices in the U.S. range from 8-25 cents), that's $100 to power the incandescents. And $23 to power the LED.
That said, a fluorescent would get roughly the same power cost as the LED, and cost less than a tenth what the LED costs up front. But they're not well-suited to dimmable fixtures, they require special disposal, and they frequently have a delay before they reach full brightness (and some claim they get less "natural" light). If none of that bothers you, then go with fluorescents. But if it does, then your fallback option would be the LED, which is cheaper over its lifespan than even 20 cent incandescents.
Re: (Score:3)
I have an investment proposal for you that will pay you back 16.8% annual interest for 5 years in constant monthly payments (like a mortgage).
Buy that $60 23W LED bulb and use it to replace a cheap 100W incandescent that you run 5 hours per day (and I assume you pay $0.12/kWH for electricity).
It comes with a warranty, right? This investment is nearly risk free.
(other assumptions: 1500 hour life for incandescent, $1/bulb replacement cost)
Can you find any other investment right now that will pay you anything