Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lighting Solutions  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

Most of the lighting in our house is CFL. I have to say that I like CFL's. They make a very nice, soft light that is visually indistinguishable from an incandescent, but yet somehow a bit softer, with less sharp shadows. They're also somewhat bulky, take forever to get up to full light intensity (our front porch light takes ten minutes), and break easily. I also have colored accent CFL uplights in every corner behind my plants, throwing crazy shadows onto the ceiling when the lights are off. I like the purity of the light a colored CFL makes. Also, while some do come dimmable, they are finicky to dim.

I have a few LED's. They make fantastic light (the good [read expensive] ones do), turn on instantly, have amazing energy efficiency, often come dimmable, and last forever. All my LED house lights are on dimmer switches and they are amazing. They are a touch bigger (usually length) than their incandescent counterparts. I really like them and I'd honestly love to use them in every light in my house except they're so expensive! That would be a $1,000 commitment to a rental home. Not a bright idea. (Pardon the pun)

What do you like in your home?

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

Because of concerns over the mercury content of CFL bulbs, I'm still using incandescent bulbs in my home except for one CFL in the kitchen that was here when I moved in. I use 75w bulbs in my lamps, 40w bulbs in the triple-bulb overhead fixtures, and 25w bulbs in the two quadruple-bulb bathroom fixtures.

Like Doc Lightning, I'd prefer to go with all LED lights but they're just too expensive at present.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
They make a very nice, soft light that is visually indistinguishable from an incandescent, but yet somehow a bit softer, with less sharp shadows

1. You should change your name to DocLighting.

2. I have been lurking in India the last few months and the CFLs you get here tend to be blue-ish (6500K) - what color temperature are your CFLs? I can't stand the 'cool' tones - reminds me of the tube lights of the 50's. I did find CFLs with great difficultly that were warmer, but 2750K is too yellow.

So LEDs are the way to go, you think?


Thanks


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

I have a mix of lighting types in my home. I have an old-style long fluorescent tube lights in the (1980's vintage) built-in kitchen ceiling fixture, a couple of small incandescent bulbs in the dining room fixture, a red CFL in the hallway ceiling fixture (so not to wake anyone else in the apartment when turned on in the middle of the night for a bathroom trip - my friend sings "Roxanne" whenever I turn it on!), an LED light in the bathroom, and a handpainted incandescent bulb in the floor lamp in the living room (for some relaxing mood lighting) - along with CFLs in the end table lamps and CFLs in the lamps in the bedrooms. My adjustable height desk lamp has a super bright LED bulb in it.

An eco-friendly friend of mine gave me a box of a dozen CFL lights from Cosco when I moved into this space as a housewarming gift, and he then proceeded to change out the incandescent bulbs throughout the apartment for me - which was pretty awesome!   



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

All CFL here, incandescent aren't available anymore in the EU.

The few old CFL I still have that have years on them (proving they're as durable as advertised) do indeed take forever to get to full brightness and I should replace them. The newer ones are good, I have mostly "solar yellow" ones. LEDs should be great to replace halogen spots but outside the bathroom I don't use those. For normal bulbs replacement they have to put tons of LEDs in one "bulb" since they only shine in one direction, that's hardly economical.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5811 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I have to say that I like CFL's.

I love innovation and trying out new things, but I just can't get used to appearance of CFL bulbs in normal lampshades, unless they are disguised to look like incandescent ones. The only time I'll use them otherwise is inside opaque lampshades.

In the kitchen I have two tracks of halogen bulbs, which is a bitch as they don't have a great life cycle, for some reason. I tried using LEDs, but they were the same and I thought the light was harsh and cold. For dinner parties I'll use only candles and night-lights, which are always great for atmosphere.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
They make a very nice, soft light that is visually indistinguishable from an incandescent, but yet somehow a bit softer, with less sharp shadows.

No the light they make is very different, I would use Osram Halogen Energy Saver Lamps, they give an excellent natural light, they have a very long life, they use significantly less energy than incandescent, and are dimmable.


Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 5):
In the kitchen I have two tracks of halogen bulbs, which is a bitch as they don't have a great life cycle, for some reason.

You must have some problems with the power in your home, I've got 40 or so 50w halogen spots in my home, they have all been installed over the past 5 years, I've not had a single one blow. I love the spots, they are all on dimmer switches, the light is fantastic.

The big problem with LEDS at the moment is heat, they run very very hot and need careful heat management, not hot to touch from the front all the heat goes out the back, that's why I would only buy LEDS from Osram, Philips, and GE.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3466 times:



Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
For normal bulbs replacement they have to put tons of LEDs in one "bulb" since they only shine in one direction, that's hardly economical.

Why not? Each LED is a very small, almost point-shaped light source. One very strong LED would still cast rather sharp shadows which is generally not desirable, so you can either put a diffusor over it (which reduces overall efficiency) or simply use several smaller LEDs in a "bulb" which can keep the efficiency higher, distribute the light source a bit and evade the cooling problems a single LED usually produces.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 5):
In the kitchen I have two tracks of halogen bulbs, which is a bitch as they don't have a great life cycle, for some reason. I tried using LEDs, but they were the same

Halogen spots produce a lot of light from a very small bulb, but they get very hot doing it.

LEDs waste less energy through heat, but they still get hot, and they are much more susceptible to damage from it. Your LED spots were probably not cooled properly and died from overheating.

In many cases you cannot just switch out halogen for LEDs.

LEDs are better suited for entire strips of multiple LEDs instead of only a few very bright spots.

Another thing to be aware of is that LEDs should not be driven by AC, not even just by rectified but unfiltered AC – actually filtered DC (switched at high frequency for dimming) is much preferable because LEDs have no inertia.

You would get a "strobe light" effect otherwise, much more so than with conventional bulbs, which mostly filter out AC components through their sheer inertia.

[Edited 2012-09-30 02:11:01]

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

I try to use as many incandescent as I can. I never found CFLs to be an adequate replacement.

Yes, they consume more, but are a better fit in transiently lit places like the bathroom. CFLs (or rather the electronics inside them) don't like cycles. I have yet to be convinced the energy savings is not cancelled by their price, the environmental impact of their manufacturing and discarding and the 'not as long as advertised' longevity.

Incandescent do waste a lot of energy through heat, but then I do have to heat the place up for 6 months of the year...

We can't buy them anymore around here so I guess it's moot. I'm switching to a mix of CFL, neon and halogen depending on the use of each light.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 8):
I try to use as many incandescent as I can. I never found CFLs to be an adequate replacement.

You should consider using halogen energy saver bulbs, they are a direct replacement for the classic incandescent bulb but with much longer life and lower energy consumption, they also look pretty much the same.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5811 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3435 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
You must have some problems with the power in your home, I've got 40 or so 50w halogen spots in my home, they have all been installed over the past 5 years
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
LEDs waste less energy through heat, but they still get hot, and they are much more susceptible to damage from it. Your LED spots were probably not cooled properly and died from overheating

I'll have to get it investigated: I remember posting a thread on it here several years ago but got no conclusive answer. It's an old house, but I had it completely re-wired 40 years ago.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 10):
I'll have to get it investigated: I remember posting a thread on it here several years ago but got no conclusive answer. It's an old house, but I had it completely re-wired 40 years ago.

I doubt the wiring is the problem; As long as there are no substantial voltage spikes (which is relatively unlikely), external factors are probably not the cause.

Halogen lighting is just completely different from LED lighting in its heat and light distribution if each is designed properly.

LED lighting ideally would use more distributed LED strips with many separate LEDs instead of only a few intense spots as usual with halogen. This way each LED runs much cooler (because the heat is distributed over a much larger area) and lives much longer than only a few very bright LEDs which run very hot if they have no additional cooling and then suffer reduced lifespans.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5811 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
I doubt the wiring is the problem; As long as there are no substantial voltage spikes (which is relatively unlikely), external factors are probably not the cause.

That's interesting Klaus. I don't have a problem with any of the other electrics in the house at all. Seeing that I've had the problem with both halogen and LED bulbs, maybe it's time to buy some new light fittings using CFL bulbs. I've been keeping any eye out for something suitable for a while now without success. I have a fair idea of what I want, but not having much success in finding them. There was one in Ikea that came close, but I want to be completely happy with whatever I go for.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3416 times:

The thing is that LED lighting changes not just the light source, but it also changes how lamps should be designed at all. There are 1:1 replacements, but not for every kind of use. Good LED lighting works differently than incandescent or CFL lighting does. Which are already not 1:1 replacements of each other - even just halogen lamps already drive different designs than regular bulbs, and so do LEDs.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3413 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
You should consider using halogen energy saver bulbs, they are a direct replacement for the classic incandescent bulb but with much longer life and lower energy consumption, they also look pretty much the same.

I am. That's what I clumsily meant by 'halogen'.
They're still way more expensive than a regular incandescent bulb and I haven't made the calculation but given they're only about 15-20% more efficient than an incandescent the price difference, I'm not completely convinced they're really a smarter choice than Edison's originals...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
LED lighting ideally would use more distributed LED strips with many separate LEDs instead of only a few intense spots as usual with halogen.

Exactly. If you concentrate anything above a handful of watts of LED power in a single compact source, you need a massive radiator to keep it cool... The lighting setup of new build houses will have to be radically different.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 5):
In the kitchen I have two tracks of halogen bulbs, which is a bitch as they don't have a great life cycle, for some reason.

Do you have MR16 lamps? They don't have a great life. There are some good LED replacements out there but none that will match output if you're currently using 50w. Philips do a 10w which is close to 35w equivalent.

We have a mixture of incandescent, CFL & LED. As with all technologies buy the good brands otherwise you'll get crappy product. GE, Osram Sylvania, Philips, TCP and CREE (LED) are all good.

I recently did a kitchen renovation and installed CREE CR6 LED fixtures in 6" recessed cans - they're awesome. Great light, dimmable and very efficient. I would definitely recommend LED fixtures over LED screw-ins if you have 6" cans. LED trim fixtures are designed specifically for cans so all the light exits whee it should, whereas LED screw-ins aren't so waste a lot of light in the can itself. They're expensive but worth it.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

My kitchen has six bright spot lights. I moved from incandescent to CFL and eventually to LED.

It makes a noticable improvement in the light, and the electric bill.

We have a lot of CFL around the house, a few incandescent, and use LED reading lights.

I don't worry about the mercury content in CFL. On the overall scale of risks in a typical home - it is way, way down the list. Far below cigarette smoking (which my daughter does - who won't use CFL bulbs in her home because of the risk).

The one problem I have with CFL bulbs is that they are not available in certain color temperature ranges. In my model railroad, and a couple other places - I want a very specific color temp for the light. Incandescent gives me the most flexibility, though I vastly prefer flourescent when possible to do lower energy usage and heat generation.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16):
I don't worry about the mercury content in CFL. On the overall scale of risks in a typical home - it is way, way down the list. Far below cigarette smoking (which my daughter does - who won't use CFL bulbs in her home because of the risk).

When they are operating, the mercury will be in vapour form. If the glass breaks in that state you'll have a major contamination event – particularly if you breathe it in. That can be very unhealthy including long-term damage, a lot more than "just" smoking cigarettes, which is bad enough by itself.

Recycling is also a major issue since the mercury is effectively toxic waste which is difficult to recycle from (C)FLs. LEDs are not entirely environment-friendly through their entire life cycle either, but at least they're not directly toxic.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 14):
I'm not completely convinced they're really a smarter choice than Edison's originals...

Problem is in Europe you can't buy Edison's originals anymore so halogen energy savers are you only real choice.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 14):


Exactly. If you concentrate anything above a handful of watts of LED power in a single compact source, you need a massive radiator to keep it cool... The lighting setup of new build houses will have to be radically different.

There in lies the problem, most light's on sale today are still designed with traditional lighting methods in mind, when you convert these to LED they generally don't work very well.

A really good example of a floodlight designed specifically for LED is the Glamox FX60. The back is a completely open heatsink



Compared to a traditional halogen or high pressure sodium like the GFX

http://www.jgarraio.pt/images/produtos/comercial/equipamentos_iluminacao_maritima/projectores_para_atmosferas_explosivas/norselight/eexd/16199.jpg


It's a completely different design philosophy, the GFX could have been converted to LED but it would have been compromised. The best advantage of LED is the ability to work in cold temperatures, the FX60 is certified for use to -50 whereas the GFX is limited to -30.


User currently offlineplanejamie From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 576 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

I have 8x LED spots in my bathroom, they essentially replaced Halogen fittings (albeit a completely rewired system, not just a bulb replacement) and I've had no problems with heat at all, I can leave them on for hours and there's zero heat from the bulb itself if you touch it, compared to touching a halogen or incandescent bulb where you'd probably fry your fingers. Each fitting has 3 LED bulbs arranged in a triangle and they generate a nice even soft light. I think if you want to go for LEDs you'll need to spend the money putting new fittings (they can fit exactly where the halogen ones did) and a whole new "system" in for them (transformers etc). They work off a normal lightswitch so nothing fancy there, but they've lasted 18 months so far and didn't require that much extensive work to put them in (simply removing the old transformers for the halogen bulbs and sticking the LED system in).

However, the people fitting the new kitchen advised us to keep our existing halogen bulbs (which we've never replaced since buying the house, so that's 9 years at least) as they've heard about people having issues with the LED systems catching fire?

As for CFLs or "energy saving" bulbs, you can now get the ones that look just like incandescent bulbs (even the "flame" looking ones) and they only take a few minutes to warm up, as I live in the UK and (unfortunately) we're part of the EU you can't get 60W or 100W incandescent bulbs anymore. The CFLs we have seem to last a while the last one I replaced we had for 7 years and bought from IKEA I believe. For a kitchen I quite like the Triphosphor bulbs we have under the cupboards, they cast a nice warm glow and warm up instantly (no flickering) and are quite a low wattage/heat output. They're also very slimline.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5811 posts, RR: 31
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 15):
Do you have MR16 lamps? They don't have a great life.

I'm using a mix of different makes as I usually stock up with a couple of packets when I run out of replacements, so I haven't a clue what types I'm using at the mo.


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

MR16 is the type, not a brand. They're 2' in diameter. Like this:

http://www.affordablequalitylighting...0w-mr16-12v-halogen-bulb-surecolor

They get very hot and are susceptible to vibration - eg from someone walking on the floor above.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
Why not?

Because LEDs are made of semiconductor wafers, so putting many around a big radiator gets expensive.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
Because LEDs are made of semiconductor wafers, so putting many around a big radiator gets expensive.

Single high-power LEDs can be even more expensive than several mid- or low-power ones and they need more cooling because they dissipate a lot more heat in about the same area as one of the smaller ones.

With lower-power LEDs good cooling can be a lot easier since the heat production is already distributed.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 1):

Because of concerns over the mercury content of CFL bulbs, I'm still using incandescent bulbs in my home

There is debate whether the decreased power plant mercury emissions caused by CFL use offset the mercury issue. Ideally, I'd go for all LED's, but that would be a proposition of a few hundred dollars in a rental house that would basically be a donation to the landlord. The CFL's are much cheaper and save us a lot on energy.

Quoting comorin (Reply 2):
2. I have been lurking in India the last few months and the CFLs you get here tend to be blue-ish (6500K) - what color temperature are your CFLs? I can't stand the 'cool' tones - reminds me of the tube lights of the 50's. I did find CFLs with great difficultly that were warmer, but 2750K is too yellow.

Most CFL's here are 2700K to 3000K. The 2700K is slightly yellower than an incandescent. The 3000K is slightly bluer, but not unpleasantly so like 5,000K+. I find that when most of the house is lit by them, it's hard to notice the yellow.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 8):
Yes, they consume more, but are a better fit in transiently lit places like the bathroom.

For places that have a lot of on-and-off, LED or incandescent is the way to go. Especially for motion-sensing lights.

Quoting planejamie (Reply 19):
As for CFLs or "energy saving" bulbs, you can now get the ones that look just like incandescent bulbs (even the "flame" looking ones)

I do have candelabra bulbs. They make good light, but they're ugly and have black writing on the side.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

We use CFLs where possible and, when affordable, will move to LEDs.

I'm actually surprised that there are not multiple LED light factories already built and competing vigorously.


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Because of concerns over the mercury content of CFL bulbs, I'm still using incandescent bulbs in my home

There is debate whether the decreased power plant mercury emissions caused by CFL use offset the mercury issue.

I watched a video of the CEO of TCP (one of the largest CFL mfrs in the world), in it he took the mercury from a typical CFL on his finger and ate it. It was a minute amount. I'm sure some of the early CFLs had a lot more mercury, but that was then and this is now. Likewise the first generation of CFLs were poor CRI (effectively the light quality), poor CCT (the colour of the light) and they took forever to warm up. As a result they got bad press. I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a new, decent quality CFL and an incandescent. I'm in the lighting business and I can't.

There are some poor LEDs out there now like there were poor quality CFLs - but stick with the big brands and they work well. The Philips A19 is a great LED - I have a few in the pendant lights in my kitchen and they're superb. Very little heat is a great benefit to the lower wattage.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

CFL's give me a headache, I'm not sure why buy they do. So I use a mix of incandescent, halogen, and LED. I've been replacing the incandescents with halogen as they die. The only exception has been the recessed lights, and those get LED. I just have not found an LED bulb that disperses light in the same way an incandescent or halogen bulb does in a lamb. They are very omni-directional which is great for the downlight needs of a recessed light but looks very strange when you place them in a lamp and the entire bottom 30 degrees is lightless.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Hubby and I are looking into buying a place. I wonder how expensive a built-in system is with adjustable colors...

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 26):
I challenge anyone to tell the difference between a new, decent quality CFL and an incandescent.

I have CFL's that are three months old that take 5 minutes to full brightness. And start comically low. That said, I have CFL's that I've had for four years and still work fine, even with the warm-up period.

The light, however, is fantastic. Less glare than incandescent, too.

After reading this thread, I decided to install LED's in my own personal lamps (not in the house fixtures). And so I priced it out online. Just the 40w candelabra bulb replacement (5W LED) alone would cost $226. And that doesn't count the two 60 watt replacements and the 100 watt replacement that I'd also need.

[Edited 2012-09-30 21:51:36]

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
I'm actually surprised that there are not multiple LED light factories already built and competing vigorously.

There are, Osram, Philips & GE all have factories, plus there are multiple factories in China spewing out cheap LEDS.


User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 2):
CFLs you get here tend to be blue-ish (6500K)

Y'know, in case you need them, there are a few lighting shops in BLR that sell the warm coloured CFLs. But yeah, everyone uses the bluish lights. For me, it's a force of habit. We used to have tube lights of the same hue at home. I get mildly annoyed when I have to read under any other hue of light.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
After reading this thread, I decided to install LED's in my own personal lamps (not in the house fixtures). And so I priced it out online. Just the 40w candelabra bulb replacement (5W LED) alone would cost $226. And that doesn't count the two 60 watt replacements and the 100 watt replacement that I'd also need.

Yep, it can sure be expensive. How about changing just the most regularly used fixtures? You'll get the best energy savings for your expenditure that way. I bought a chandelier (on a dimming circuit) with 5 lights for above a dining table - I put all 60w incandescents in even though I'm quite efficiency-minded. They were around 40c each whereas dimmable CFLs or LEDs would have been $15 each. I use them for about 5 hrs/week. Would take me forever to realise a financial benefit from the LEDs over the incandescents. I like saving energy but not at that cost.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5811 posts, RR: 31
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 21):
MR16 is the type, not a brand. They're 2' in diameter

They are similar to the one in the pic, only with small cylindrical contacts at the end of the pins. The LED bulbs that I tried had a similar life to the halogen ones. One set of LEDs I bought wouldn't even fit the sockets -- they had a more bulbous ceramic base, which made them slightly too large.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 31):

Yep, it can sure be expensive. How about changing just the most regularly used fixtures?

That makes more sense and that's the approach I'm taking. For certain applications in the house (four motion-sensing floods and the dimmable globes over the mirror in the bathroom), I use incandescents. The motion sensors run maybe 30 minutes per day and need to turn on instantly. LED's of similar power would cost $200 for the four bulbs and save negligible energy. CFL's are wholly inappropriate for a motion sensor given the frequent cycling and the extended warm-up time.

For the bathroom, again they are low-use and dimmable LED's are expensive. For dimmable LED's of that power (20W each incandescent), if I can even find globes that aren't fugly, I'm looking at $80 which goes into improving the value of the house that I don't own.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 3):
I have an old-style long fluorescent tube lights in the (1980's vintage) built-in kitchen ceiling fixture

When I was in Hawaii this summer in an elevator, I looked up and noticed that the old fluorescent tubes where replaced with direct fit tubes of LED's. They were stunning. I'm guessing the existing fixtures had to be retrofitted with the old "starters" being removed from the old fixtures, but they looked good. Looked some up when I got home and they were around $50 on sites like Ebay. Too much for a "toy." When they get cheaper, however....

This place has them but they are way more expensive, but will give you an idea of what they look like:

http://www.lightbulbdepot.com/department.asp?sub=253&dep=T-8



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 34):
When I was in Hawaii this summer in an elevator, I looked up and noticed that the old fluorescent tubes where replaced with direct fit tubes of LED's. They were stunning. I'm guessing the existing fixtures had to be retrofitted with the old "starters" being removed from the old fixtures, but they looked good.

Actually, I think they're designed to slide right in without any modification. And because the LED's are spaced out, a huge heat sink is not necessary. Once they're placed, they can stay there upwards of ten years before needing replacement and especially in a place like an elevator where they will be on essentially all the time, they will more than pay for themselves.


User currently offlinenickh From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am slowly starting to replace my CFLs with incandescent-look-alike LED lamps - they have a "cleaner" ~3K color BUT - the transformers in the base (at least in the brand that I've been buying - Philips) - are a lot more succeptible to power fluctuations than the cheaper CFLs.

I Dislike the yellower light (2700K or so) of commercially available CFLs here in the U.S. - the L.E.D.s are brighter at the same wattage and have a more pleasant color temperature.

I wish that I could find some Pure White CFLs - I'm sure that they make them, just without the artificial tint inside.

I'll have to look around on the net.

-Nick



"We all have wings, but some of us don't know why..."
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting nickh (Reply 36):
I wish that I could find some Pure White CFLs - I'm sure that they make them, just without the artificial tint inside.

"Pure White" is a 5,000K or 6,000K bulb. While it's a perfectly good color to work under, it's not very relaxing.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Well, I ordered three 800 lumen LEDs for my own fixtures. They come in those annoying rigid plastic things that are impossible to cut open without ripping your fingers to shreds in the process. The bulbs are this yellow color when turned off, but when turned on they look just like an incandescent. I dropped two of them on the hardwood in the process and they still work fine (that's an advantage!). The entire ensemble was $90, though. I won't replace the CFL's I placed in the house fixtures. The next tenants can worry about that.

User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):



I've always been a fan of the less heat output the better. Even growing up in my parent's house which was mid 1950's tenement especially the bathrooms there was a fluorescent tube over the mirror.

Personally, all the lights in my apartment are CFL with the exception of my front porch floods which are the incandescent bug lights. Here in Baltimore we get many warm snaps and out come those pesky bugs including the flying cockroach and stink bugs plus moths galore. Also my porch light is photo electric cell hard wired into the electric. The on at dusk off at dawn feature is null and void when CFL's are in place. LED street lights are starting to pop up on the streets of Baltimore, (finally something progressive in our city). At first the street looks darker than the orange Sodium vapor they replace but upon further notice actually give off a brighter natural concentrated light that illuminates the street and surrounding sidewalks. Also the WN 737-800's overhead passenger individual lighting are LED and look great.
LED bulbs are slowly starting to come down in price and hopefully soon will be competitive price wise. I'm also hoping they come out with an outdoor LED flood lamp that is yellow/bug repelling and works with the photo electric dawn to dusk feature. Keep looking for sales and specials for LED bulbs.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
The bulbs are this yellow color when turned off, but when turned on they look just like an incandescent.

That's because they're actually blue LEDs coated with a layer that converts some of the blue light into red and green (=yellow) which together with the remaining blue light looks white. The ratio between the two determines how "warm" or "cold" the light will appear.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 40):
That's because they're actually blue LEDs coated with a layer that converts some of the blue light into red and green (=yellow) which together with the remaining blue light looks white. The ratio between the two determines how "warm" or "cold" the light will appear.

Yeah, I figured that out.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 39):
LED bulbs are slowly starting to come down in price and hopefully soon will be competitive price wise.

I wonder how much. The current generation of LED lamps is typically advertised as lasting 2-3 decades. I do think that LED is the last form of high-efficiency lighting we will see for the forseeable future, but imagine how efficient they will be in 2 decades.

So the bulbs can't get *too* cheap or they'll never make money on them, because a house built today with LED's installed throughout might need two or three bulb replacements in its lifetime, so they can't make them too cheap or they'll never make money. The only solution is to make newer bulbs that are so much more efficient that they justify the cost of replacement. And given that a modern 100W-equivalent LED uses less than 20W, even a 1W replacement would have to be pretty cheap to justify replacing it. So I think that there's a force towards pricing them higher because the market will saturate quickly.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

I have been switching over to CFL's as my old bulbs go out.

The only exception are those lights that are on a dimmer switch, and in my unheated crawl space whe I put a cfl and incandescent on evey other socket so that I would have some light immediately. I have noticed that CFL's do take a bit longer to warm up in cold weather.

I think my brother stocked up on 100 watters before they sold out, he hates CFLs



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
And because the LED's are spaced out, a huge heat sink is not necessary.

All LEDS need a heat since, LEDS produce more heat than light.

The really cool thing about LED is that the variety and form factor of lighting is going to change drastically in the future, we will no longer have to put up with lights that the bulb dictates the shape of the fixture.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 35):
And because the LED's are spaced out, a huge heat sink is not necessary.

All LEDS need a heat since, LEDS produce more heat than light.

No, that's the great thing about LEDs: Many smaller ones can be spaced out so that their regular mounting mechanism is already sufficient to dissipate what heat they produce.

The issue here is energy density. Distributed LEDs can have a very low energy density and thus keep absolute temperatures even at the LEDs themselves low, while few very bright LEDs or conventional bulbs concentrate large amounts of heat in a very small space.

And since it's not so much the total heat output that's a problem as rather the absolute maximum temperature, a big LED with concentrated heat output will quickly exceed its own maximum operating temperature (and get progressively less efficient even below that) and may need a heat sink or even active cooling (a fan) while smaller spaced-out LEDs can dissipate their heat much better even without any dedicated heat sink if done properly.

That's pretty much the whole point about LED lighting (together with LED's much greater sensitivity to heat).


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Do the LED lights need FDA approval? just curious.

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):
Many smaller ones can be spaced out so that their regular mounting mechanism is already sufficient to dissipate what heat they produce.

Which is acting as a heat sink, I see LEDS pretty much every day on account of working in a lighting factory and selling light. All of our LED products have heat sinks, heat management is the key to getting long life out of LEDS. There is also a big difference between a designed for LED product and something designed for incandescent or florescent lights, you just have to look at industrial fittings, designed for LED fittings are completely different from traditional fittings, also converted to LED fittings aren't in general very good, efficient or with a long life.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 46):
Which is acting as a heat sink

When the distribution is wide enough, you could even suspend them in thin air and they would still not burn out.

A high-power LED providing the same amount of light would burn out in a matter of seconds (if that) without a substantial, dedicated heat sink.

We could be splitting hairs, but this is a rather substantial difference to incandescent bulbs which are inherently very hot due to their operation principle and distribution is not just impractical (not least due to their low lifespan) but also of limited utility, since their maximum temperatures don't and can't go down that way, contrary to LEDs.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 45):
Do the LED lights need FDA approval? just curious.

Given that they are neither a food nor a drug, I can't imagine why they would.


User currently offlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1304 posts, RR: 10
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

We have all different kinds of lighting in my home (old-school incandescent, fluorescent, CFLs, etc.)... but I think all but the bathrooms and maybe one hallway are on dimmers. Helps when your mother is a lighting designer and gets cheap fixtures 

-J.



Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
Given that they are neither a food nor a drug, I can't imagine why they would.

I guess they fall under Laser category Class I . There may be other regulations if not FDA, I believe.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 50):
I guess they fall under Laser category Class I . There may be other regulations if not FDA, I believe.

No. Lasers emit monochrome, coherent, tightly focused (actually, parallel) beams of light which is completely different from regular LED light, particularly with respect to its lack of focus and thus its much lower energy density again, which is the crucial issue why lasers are regulated.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting nickh (Reply 36):
I wish that I could find some Pure White CFLs - I'm sure that they make them, just without the artificial tint inside.

I live in CA and our local big-box hardware store has CFL's in a variety of color temperatures ranging from 2700K to 6000K. You'd probably like 4000-5000K best if the "warmer" colors (which are cooler color temps...very confusing) are offensive to you.

I tend to find that the "bright white" 4000+K color is great for the office and places where work is done, but "warm white" at 2700-3000K is better for home, which is where I am usually relaxing.


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 51):
No. Lasers emit monochrome, coherent, tightly focused (actually, parallel) beams of light which is completely different from regular LED light, particularly with respect to its lack of focus and thus its much lower energy density again, which is the crucial issue why lasers are regulated.

Yes, technically they are not lasers but safety wise they are/were subjected to the regulations of laser.
http://ledsmagazine.com/features/2/6/4
60825-1 sets accessible emission limits (AELs) for classes, which are used to give an indication of the risk from the beam of the laser or LED. Class 1 is by definition safe, and the majority of LED products fall either into this class or are exempt. LED and laser products are exempt from 60825-1 if the emission level does not exceed the AEL of Class 1 under all conditions of operation, maintenance, service and failure.

New dedicated standards must have come out for LEDs since in the past few years LED lighting has been common.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 53):
Yes, technically they are not lasers but safety wise they are/were subjected to the regulations of laser.

Interesting, but not really justified.

This statement from the article sounds quite plausible:

Quote:
It remains a bone of contention that LEDs are treated in the same way as coherent laser sources by IEC 60825-1, but this might not remain the case for long.

The difference between lasers and all other light sources is that a laser beam retains its energy density almost regardless of the distance from the source (which is one of the main points why they are being used), while regular light sources like strong incandescent or LED lamps can have a high energy density directly at the lamp, but contrary to lasers the energy density falls off very quickly with distance.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Another significant difference between LEDs and incandescent light is frequency range. Incandescent light tends to be spread out over a broad range while LEDs tend to produce light over a very narrow range (aside from white LEDs which produce light through secondary effects). For a given frequency range at a particular distance, the LED output is either going to be close to zero or much stronger that an incandescent source of similar total output. So I suppose the potential for damage may exist for high power LEDs (say for certain infrared or ultraviolet frequencies) at moderately close distances over longer periods of exposure.

Does anyone own an ultraviolet LED flashlight? Does it come with any kind of warning labels?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 55):
For a given frequency range at a particular distance, the LED output is either going to be close to zero or much stronger that an incandescent source of similar total output. So I suppose the potential for damage may exist for high power LEDs (say for certain infrared or ultraviolet frequencies) at moderately close distances over longer periods of exposure.

Infrared or ultraviolet are separate cases since the human eye by definition (as in the "infra" and "ultra") cannot see those frequencies and cannot detect excessive radiation in those ranges.

The eye has only receptors for red, green and blue frequency ranges and it doesn't care whether the light is spread out over a larger range within each base colour or if it is only a peak at one single frequency. The total energy contained in it is what matters, so there is no additional risk of damage from LEDs.

There is a cosmetic difference, however, with object colours which have pronounced dips in their frequency response as well: Such objects can look very different in daylight and in artificial light with a noncontinuous spectrum. But that applies to fluorescent lights just as much as to LED light.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 56):
Infrared or ultraviolet are separate cases since the human eye by definition (as in the "infra" and "ultra") cannot see those frequencies and cannot detect excessive radiation in those ranges.

Also, "UV" LED's are actually "near-UV." It's one of the applications where a fluorescent tube is clearly superior.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 56):
The eye has only receptors for red, green and blue frequency ranges and it doesn't care whether the light is spread out over a larger range within each base colour or if it is only a peak at one single frequency. The total energy contained in it is what matters, so there is no additional risk of damage from LEDs.

But the issue isn't visual response -- the risk is from physical damage due to reactions at specific frequencies -- an equal amount of energy in the IR or UV range (for certain frequencies) can do far more damage than an equal amount of energy in the red, green, or blue range. I'm assuming that damaging frequencies aren't used routinely, but am just pointing out that it's not (necessarily) total energy but how the energy is distributed that can affect how damaging a light source can be. The fact that LEDs concentrate the energy in a specific range means that a bit more care has to be taken when considering what damage might be possible for a given total energy output.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):
But the issue isn't visual response -- the risk is from physical damage due to reactions at specific frequencies -- an equal amount of energy in the IR or UV range (for certain frequencies) can do far more damage than an equal amount of energy in the red, green, or blue range. I'm assuming that damaging frequencies aren't used routinely, but am just pointing out that it's not (necessarily) total energy but how the energy is distributed that can affect how damaging a light source can be. The fact that LEDs concentrate the energy in a specific range means that a bit more care has to be taken when considering what damage might be possible for a given total energy output.

But within the visual light spectrum, LED's are no more capable of causing damage than incandescents.

Frequency does make a difference, but not within the visual spectrum. A joule of UV photons contains fewer, higher-energy photons than a joule of IR photons. It is ultimately the energy per photon that causes damage in diffuse light. The intensity makes a difference, but the intensity has to get truly immense before it causes damage at visible wavelengths.

In highly collimated light (laser) it is the intensity that causes the damage, not the frequency.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2447 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 59):
But within the visual light spectrum, LED's are no more capable of causing damage than incandescents.

Frequency does make a difference, but not within the visual spectrum. A joule of UV photons contains fewer, higher-energy photons than a joule of IR photons. It is ultimately the energy per photon that causes damage in diffuse light. The intensity makes a difference, but the intensity has to get truly immense before it causes damage at visible wavelengths.

In highly collimated light (laser) it is the intensity that causes the damage, not the frequency.

Yes, I agree. I'm trying to come up with some line of reasoning that would explain why a standards body would want to treat LEDs and lasers somewhat the same way. The only thing that I could think of was that they were being cautious in the event that an unusual concentration of energy at some particular frequency might have an unanticipated effect. It is a stretch -- but 15 years ago I served on an ANSI committee and have a good feel for how these committees "think". I'm having a bit of a flash-back.  


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):
But the issue isn't visual response -- the risk is from physical damage due to reactions at specific frequencies

No, that is not true to my knowledge, and in both respects:

First, physiological response is actually a critical concern here. It is the reason why it can be highly dangerous to use sunglasses which only attenuate visible light but have no matching UV filter, because the eye automatically adjusts the size of the iris aperture to the ambient light. But it can only use the visible part of the spectrum for that (since only that part is detected by the eye and via nerve signals provided to the nervous feedback system), so shoddily made sunglasses could cause the eyes to open the iris wide, letting a damaging dose of unfiltered UV hit the retina.

Second, I am not aware of any frequency-specific reactions in the retina. To my knowledge the respective R, G and B receptors react exactly identically to the same photonic energy being absorbed, regardless of the width of the spectrum. The receptors have a wide-range response with a continuous sensitivity curve, but they do not actually distinguish between individual frequencies in any way.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):
an equal amount of energy in the IR or UV range (for certain frequencies) can do far more damage than an equal amount of energy in the red, green, or blue range.

No. IR is pretty much entirely harmless unless you crank it up to a level where you feel it as intense heat as from a very brightly burning fire, but then other protective instincts will usually prevent any further damage.

UV can be dangerous, but primarily for the reasons explained above and besides that largely to your skin.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):
I'm assuming that damaging frequencies aren't used routinely, but am just pointing out that it's not (necessarily) total energy but how the energy is distributed that can affect how damaging a light source can be.

I know of no evidence to that effect. Do you?

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):
The fact that LEDs concentrate the energy in a specific range means that a bit more care has to be taken when considering what damage might be possible for a given total energy output.

Nope. I'm not aware of any such concern. The primary reason why a continuous spectrum can be desirable is that certain narrow-spectrum object colours can change their visual appearance if they don't happen to respond well to badly matched narrow-spectrum light, but even there it's the exception rather than the rule and more an issue for fashion-conscious women, I would expect.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 60):
I'm trying to come up with some line of reasoning that would explain why a standards body would want to treat LEDs and lasers somewhat the same way. The only thing that I could think of was that they were being cautious in the event that an unusual concentration of energy at some particular frequency might have an unanticipated effect.

As far as I'm aware it is the sometimes very high energy density with very bright LEDs, since they can be extremely concentrated light emitters, even more so than many incandescent lights.

The thing is just that regular non-laser LED light is emitted with a high dispersion, so it gets a lot weaker with distance while laser light (ideally) retains almost its full energy density even at long distances.

I'd expect that they'll eventually specify critical energy densities which would put stronger LEDs under regulation unless built into lamps which took care of dispersing the light enough to get below that threshold again. Lasers never get there (unless forced into divergence via lenses or non-planar mirrors), so they should be under much tighter regulation.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 61):
Second, I am not aware of any frequency-specific reactions in the retina. To my knowledge the respective R, G and B receptors react exactly identically to the same photonic energy being absorbed, regardless of the width of the spectrum. The receptors have a wide-range response with a continuous sensitivity curve, but they do not actually distinguish between individual frequencies in any way.

Correct. One requires trichromatic vision to form a full-spectrum image. This is done by the brain integrating the different intensities from different photoreceptors.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 61):
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):an equal amount of energy in the IR or UV range (for certain frequencies) can do far more damage than an equal amount of energy in the red, green, or blue range.
No. IR is pretty much entirely harmless unless you crank it up to a level where you feel it as intense heat as from a very brightly burning fire, but then other protective instincts will usually prevent any further damage.

This wikipedia article illustrates the types of eye damage that can occur at various frequencies (yes we all know that lasers are more dangerous than diffuse light) but it illustrates the effects of various frequency ranges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety#Laser_radiation_hazards


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 61):
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 58):I'm assuming that damaging frequencies aren't used routinely, but am just pointing out that it's not (necessarily) total energy but how the energy is distributed that can affect how damaging a light source can be.
I know of no evidence to that effect. Do you?

Exposing a chicken to 100 watts of incandescent light for a minute doesn't have the same effect as exposing a chicken to 100 watts of xrays for a minute.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 64):
Exposing a chicken to 100 watts of incandescent light for a minute doesn't have the same effect as exposing a chicken to 100 watts of xrays for a minute.

We're talking about visible light here, not X-rays. X-rays are regulated differently.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 65):
We're talking about visible light here, not X-rays. X-rays are regulated differently.

Sure were talking about visible light here; again I'm just making the point that both frequency and total energy can affect how electromagnetic radiatiion interacts with an object. Personally, I think the odds are not good that some particular visible frequency at high levels might have more of an adverse affect on the eye than other frequencies, but it's only been in the last 50 years or so that there's been an abundance of high energy monochromatic light sources in our everyday environment. Surprisin effects are discovered from time to time in every branch of science.

[Edited 2012-10-14 09:41:15]

User currently offlinesuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40066 posts, RR: 74
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Incandescent light bulbs for me.
I HATE CFL lights!
Why on earth would anyone want their house to have comfort of a factory or the DMV?

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you like in your home?

Incandescent light with a few Osram Halogen lamps over my cocktail lounge.

Quoting comorin (Reply 2):
1. You should change your name to DocLighting.

  

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 6):
I would use Osram Halogen Energy Saver Lamps

I have a few on those in my condo. They were already there when I moved in.




I stand with Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) 100% when it comes to CLFs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv59PJ30WeM

DocLightning, I know you're a pet owner so pay close attention from 1:49 onward.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

Quoting superfly (Reply 67):
DocLightning, I know you're a pet owner so pay close attention from 1:49 onward.

That's why I'm transitioning to LED's. You can drop an LED from chest height and not only does it not break; it still works.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 66):
Personally, I think

Personally, I think the Moon is made of green cheese. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 66):
Surprisin effects are discovered from time to time in every branch of science.

Yes, they are, but in this case, monochromatic light has been used in pretty much every experiment on the molecular dynamics of photorhodopsin and retinal photoreceptors since the science in this field began. If there was going to be some big surprise, I think it would have appeared by now.

I will also point out that natural daylight is not a smooth curve. There are gaps and spikes corresponding to emission and absorption bands of solar and atmospheric materials even within the visual spectrum. That's why the sky is blue.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 66): Personally, I think
Personally, I think the Moon is made of green cheese. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

I was thinking Swiss (all the holes) ...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
Yes, they are, but in this case, monochromatic light has been used in pretty much every experiment on the molecular dynamics of photorhodopsin and retinal photoreceptors since the science in this field began. If there was going to be some big surprise, I think it would have appeared by now.

That's a solid argument against any unexpected effects turning up -- a point which I thought I conceded in my prior post  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 68):
I will also point out that natural daylight is not a smooth curve. There are gaps and spikes corresponding to emission and absorption bands of solar and atmospheric materials even within the visual spectrum. That's why the sky is blue.

Not to be a nit-picker on this one -- but a hole in a spectrum isn't quite the same as a spike (if one is looking for energetic effects at a frequency)


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 69):
Not to be a nit-picker on this one -- but a hole in a spectrum isn't quite the same as a spike (if one is looking for energetic effects at a frequency)

There are gaps AND spikes. Absorption AND emission.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

I started with LED replacements for Par 20's (50watts ea x 10) for the lights in the eve of the front of my home more than 5 years ago. They operate off a photo cell and operate everyday for 10+ hours a day.
The main benefit is that I have not had to go to the Orange/Blue box and buy a 6 pack of incandescents and replace them with the use of an extension ladder every month. That was costing me roughly $50.00 per month for bulbs plus time.
The cost of the LED's were about $32.00 each.
Roughly the LED costs were made up in about 7 months for replacements. That was over 5 years ago and yet to have an LED fail. I used GE's.
As far as heat build up I can tell you that the heat from a 7 watt LED is infinitesimal compared to a 50 watt incandescent in or near the fixture.
The other side of the coin is that the LED's run about 7 watts vs 50 watts, that is now consuming 70 watts for lighting vs 500watts. I am happy and Ms Okie is happy that all the bulbs are always burning heaven forbid one burns out and the front yard could not be used for a football game or surgical suite.

I have replaced a few of the Halogens with LED's in the house with generally satisfactory results but eventually the lighting fixtures will have come about to fit the design of the LED instead of trying to make the LED fit the fixture.

Just my opinion of course but the concept of the government forcing 80 year old CFL technology with the use of mercury contaminates over LED is just exactly why the government does not need to be in the technology business.

Okie


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

I just picked up a pair of 90 watt LED Indoor/Outdoor flood lamps for my front porch. They were Home Depot's house brand and do not have that "ET look" of many LED's. They actually look like the frosted flood lamps and give off a
bright white color. They were on sale and the total after taxes was under $60. These replaced the GE outdoor "bug lites"
(yellow orange color and incandescent). They gave off much less light and got super hot and you'd meed to turn off the light for at least 15 minutes for them to be safe to touch. This light has a photo electric system hardwired into the electric line so the light comes on at dusk and off at dawn. The bug lite bulbs would burn out every three or four months. They were maybe on eight hours a night ops. I actually turned them off once home from work to save electricity. Now with the new LED's (they each use 16 watts but put out 90 watts) I will just leave the switch on the on position and let them come on at dusk and off at dawn. So far they are working fine with the photo electric system.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineANCsupercub From United States of America, joined May 2007, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

All this conversation reminded me of a wimp video I watched the other day.

http://www.wimp.com/futurebulb/


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27308 posts, RR: 60
Reply 74, posted (2 years 2 months 4 days ago) and read 2099 times:

I changed last year to LED in 99% of the house inside and out. There was a deal at the local supermarket which had 50% off. I had bought a few online on Ebay from China and they did a good job for a while but these ones were made by Phillips and were alot better and warmer light.

Spotlights Kitchen and living room :



Bedrooms and bathrooms :



Really glad I made the switch.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2545 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

In my home (a three room apartment, if you also count the hallway and the kitchen), I have one bright CFL for each room, and additionally weaker ones, one each for the bedside and my desk.

Rarely, I light candles.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Thunder And Lighting During A Snowstorm!? posted Wed Dec 31 2008 19:04:42 by SXDFC
Solar Outdoor Lighting Recomendations posted Thu Dec 11 2008 14:32:02 by Cptkrell
LHR's New Runway Lighting ;-) posted Sat Jan 19 2008 05:38:52 by BlueShamu330s
Our World, Environment, Polutions, Real Solutions. posted Wed Jun 6 2007 11:32:19 by Keesje
Solutions For Iraq posted Mon Apr 30 2007 17:04:36 by Dougloid
How Does India Get Their POWs Back - Solutions. posted Mon Feb 19 2007 04:38:47 by HAWK21M
Any Lighting/electrical Experts In Here? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 18:50:19 by Braybuddy
New Christmas Lighting: On Traffic Lights posted Fri Dec 2 2005 20:13:18 by Runway23
Simple Solutions To US Politics posted Thu Oct 7 2004 15:50:03 by Boeing7E7
Spending Too Much Time At A.net, Solutions.. posted Thu Jul 3 2003 16:53:21 by Keesje