# Misconception:"LEDs produce almost no heat". LEDs require MASSIVE HEATSINK



## TOOL_5150

WHY do LEDs need such big ass heat sinks? You can power an LED from line voltage with a bridge rectifier, a resistor, and a capacitor. Even though the cap isnt really needed, but smoothes out the DC. Still.. where is all the damn heat coming from?

~Matt


----------



## Electric_Light

TOOL_5150 said:


> WHY do LEDs need such big ass heat sinks? You can power an LED from line voltage with a bridge rectifier, a resistor, and a capacitor. Even though the cap isnt really needed, but smoothes out the DC. Still.. where is all the damn heat coming from?
> 
> ~Matt


At 64 lm/W,the efficacy is about the same as CFLs. Watts of energy radiated as light is a small proportion compared to 12.5 watts of input, so that heat must be rejected. Since it is not allowed to get too hot, all the heat must be dissipated through conduction. 

The large heatsink is needed to provide enough surface area to provide adequate cooling by convection cooling. Thick heat sink is needed to provide sufficiently low thermal resistance from dies to heat sink surface. 

This thing weighs 7 1/4 oz. It does not work with my swing arm desk lamp. It drops it down.


----------



## user4818

I still like my incandescents, thank you very much. :laughing:

Good info though. I was thinking about replacing the 35W HPS security light I have on my garage with an LED as an experiment, but it doesn't make any sense to do that economically.


----------



## TOOL_5150

but what part of the circuit gets hot?


----------



## Electric_Light

TOOL_5150 said:


> but what part of the circuit gets hot?


LED chips themselves. Contrary to common misconception, they're not that efficient. More energy goes out the backdoor through the heat sink than the lens.


----------



## TOOL_5150

Electric_Light said:


> LED chips themselves.


OH, It is interesting that people say LED is low power and runs cool... They run hotter than CFL, Much hotter Ive seen and felt.


----------



## TOOL_5150

Electric_Light said:


> LED chips themselves. Contrary to common misconception, they're not that efficient. More energy goes out the backdoor through the heat sink than the lens.


Is there an average percentage of energy wasted on just heat?


----------



## Electric_Light

TOOL_5150 said:


> OH, It is interesting that people say LED is low power and runs cool... They run hotter than CFL, Much hotter Ive seen and felt.


All light sources we have is fairly inefficient if we compare the radiometric efficiency. (i.e. watts radiated in useful visible light range divided by input watt). As for the rest of the enregy, the less the lamp can reject that as infrared, the hotter the lamp or the fixture gets, given the same wattage.

A high power graphic card can make 150W of heat and requires substantial heat sink and fan cooling, because all the cooling must be made by conduction cooling. A 150W light bulb can just sit along and dissipate all the heat. 

For the enclosed fixture test, it was placed in a lava lamp base, then covered up with a NSF rated plastic cup that can withstand thousands of harsh wash cycles in commercial dishwashers which operates at sanitizing temperature. 








Meant to simulate outdoor enclosed and special application enclosed fixtures like:








Left is before: right is after 










The cup still melted.


----------



## Electric_Light

TOOL_5150 said:


> Is there an average percentage of energy wasted on just heat?


LED datasheet shows 37-53% with the LED bottom held at 25C. 
datasheet shows output drops 10% at base temperature of 100C, which is realistic in open luminaire, but it doesn't say if electrical properties remain the same.

The driver has loss as well, so if let's say 5W of 12.5W becomes blue light.

The phosphor then takes that 5W and converts it to white light.


For a 60Hz fluorescent light, IES Lighting handbook says 53% of electrical energy is converted to ultraviolet light of which 26% is converted to visible light by phosphor coating.


----------



## rexowner

TOOL_5150 said:


> Is there an average percentage of energy wasted on just heat?


100%.

After all the light stops being reflected is absorbed, all the energy is heat.
Where TF else would it go?


----------



## Electric_Light

rexowner said:


> 100%.
> 
> After all the light stops being reflected is absorbed, all the energy is heat.
> Where TF else would it go?


Out the window as IR energy.


----------



## rexowner

This thread is dildos.

You throw out technical terms like someone selling PF correction for
residential. It appears the intent is what we used to call in the
computer industry "FUD", i.e. "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt."

Bottom line is LEDs, fluorescents, incandesents may all have their
place depending on what is needed WRT installation cost, operating
costs, aesthetics, customer preference, code/energy requirements
etc. etc. etc.

While you're at it, why not throw in that the LED driver electronics
can cause harmonics? Oh, I forgot, you are pushing fluorescents,
and the same thing can happen there.

Another good one would be the change in efficacy/light quality
over time.

For simpletons like myself good LEDs have excellent Lumens/watt,
as well as excellent lifetimes. Negatives include high initial costs,
possibly declining output over time, etc. If people want good quality
light, and can afford them, Cree and others make some excellent
products.

To just throw out a lot of random technical comments on LEDs, and
stupid pictures of plastic cups melted, without relevant context just
seems useless to me.

If you want to market your product, I for one would appreciate
being spared the BS.

Just my opinion.


----------



## drsparky

A LED runs off .6 VDC, to use 120 AC they need a step down transformer and a rectifier, this is were the power is lost due to heat. LED itself produce very little heat.


----------



## Lampyridae

drsparky said:


> A LED runs off .6 VDC, to use 120 AC they need a step down transformer and a rectifier, this is were the power is lost due to heat. LED itself produce very little heat.


Sorry, but very little of that is correct.

Power LEDs use somewhere between 3.3 and 6 volts depending on manufacturer, model, and manufacturing variances.

LED lighting fixtures generally use constant current switched mode power supplies rather than linear power supplies. Heat generation by the power supply is non-trivial and must be sinked appropriately to avoid overheating the driver. The principles involved are not too far removed from the principles behind electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps.

Heat generation within the LED, however, is extremely non-trivial and must be dealt with through fairly large heat sinks to avoid burning up the wires that connect the LED die to its case. Running a bare power LED without a heatsink will destroy the LED very quickly.



See the datasheets and design guides for Cree's XM-L bare LED:

http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp_xml.asp


----------



## Chris Kennedy

rexowner said:


> This thread is dildos.


I'm not so quick to dismiss EL. I PMed him to find out his position on this and now can say that he is just doing a little more research than others and I for one welcome his posts.


----------



## drsparky

Lampyridae said:


> Sorry, but very little of that is correct.
> 
> Power LEDs use somewhere between 3.3 and 6 volts depending on manufacturer, model, and manufacturing variances.
> 
> LED lighting fixtures generally use constant current switched mode power supplies rather than linear power supplies. Heat generation by the power supply is non-trivial and must be sinked appropriately to avoid overheating the driver. The principles involved are not too far removed from the principles behind electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps.
> 
> Heat generation within the LED, however, is extremely non-trivial and must be dealt with through fairly large heat sinks to avoid burning up the wires that connect the LED die to its case. Running a bare power LED without a heatsink will destroy the LED very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> See the datasheets and design guides for Cree's XM-L bare LED:
> 
> http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp_xml.asp


I guess I'm behind the times, I am familiar with old school LEDs used in automotive and electronics. I haven't had the chance to tear apart the newer high output type.


----------



## jza

I just picked up 10 LED PAR20's, the light output is awesome. They're guaranteed to last 15 years.


----------



## Electric_Light

rexowner said:


> stupid pictures of plastic cups melted, without relevant context just
> seems useless to me.
> Just my opinion.


you don't have to read it if you don't want. Add me to ignore list if you will.

Just my opnion, but stupid picture of relatively heat resistant plastic that melted because of LEDs DOES raise a question about "LEDs producing almost no heat" for those that believes/believed such a thing.



jza said:


> I just picked up 10 LED PAR20's, the light output is awesome.


And you've had it for how long? The TRUE efficacy is? 



> They're guaranteed to last 15 years.


Or the life of company, whichever is less. Many LED sales company have existed for less than 1/5 the length of warranty they boast. Even if it's a lifetime guarantee, its not necessarily good. Most Harbor Freight Tools hand tools are lifetime guaranteed. When the junk breaks, they give you another junk, repeat as often as necessary. Time and fuel expense not covered. Would you pickup your entire set of tools of trade from Harbor Freight?


----------



## LightsRus

*re: Misconception:"LEDs produce almost no heat". LEDs require MASSIVE HEATSINK*

LEDs used in illumination require heat exchangers.

There are three modes of heat mobility with any lighting technology to be understood by someone wishing to get to the core of that subject comparison.

You have known of this LED heat phenomenon all along; it's amusing to see that point raised by yourself.

This is called a Straw_man argument, and comes from your dislike of LEDs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> LEDs used in illumination require heat exchangers.
> 
> *You have known of this LED heat phenomenon all along*; it's amusing to see that point raised by yourself.


You and I know this, but many do not and some of the replies are quite indicative, like the statement "LEDs produce almost no heat, their driver does".

I think a video and a photo make it easier for those who believed it as such to let go the belief than simply me saying LEDs get hot.


----------



## LightsRus

*re: re: re: Misconception:"LEDs produce almost no heat". LEDs require MASSIVE HEATSIN*



Electric_Light said:


> You and I know this, but many do not and some of the replies are quite indicative, like the statement "LEDs produce almost no heat, their driver does".
> 
> I think a video and a photo make it easier for those who believed it as such to let go the belief than simply me saying LEDs get hot.


The Professionals in LED lighting are quite aware of the propaganda, and we find it comedic rather than a threat. 

As evidenced by such propaganda, a few incorrect statements and assumptions can go a long way, but that is not an invitation for non peer-reviewed information to replace it. If you want to educate, you must remove the personal and emotional anti-LED bias from your commentary. 

Your profile tag line stating that LEDs are least economical design, besides being incorrect, does advertise your personal bias.

Readers with a sincere interest in learning about LED lighting will probably know better than to get their sole teaching from this forum, and especially beware of imbibing in your flavor of kool-aid.


----------



## BBQ

LightsRus said:


> Your profile tag line stating that LEDs are least economical design, besides being incorrect, does advertise your personal bias.



It does so very clearly as it is not true in all cases.


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> The Professionals in LED lighting


Who are the professionals? I'm sure CREE and other LED manufacturers' engineers are well aware of shortcomings of LEDs, but as we all know, engineering and marketing split their path.

LED lighting is fairly new. IES LM-79 & LM-80 standards are even newer. CREE sales department is heavily involved in internet social network to raise brand recognition and awareness of LED lighting. Marketing is trained to market the product and sales personnel are trained to close deals. 

Salesman may know all the highlights of LED lighting, but some use antiquated fluorescent system that is no longer legal to install as benchmark reference to accentuate whatever it is they're trying to sell. 

Perhaps LED sales people are trained to compare and contrast LEDs are mercury free and fluorescent lamps contain mercury 

The consumer user, purchasing department of the user and specifiers may not even be aware of issues that go with LEDs. 



> If you want to educate, you must remove the personal and emotional anti-LED bias from your commentary.


Emotional and personal? No. I recognize common non-sense I see in sales claims. Here I produced counter evidence, experimentally. 



> Your profile tag line stating that LEDs are least economical design, besides being incorrect, does advertise your personal bias.


You really can't take a user tag literally. 



> Readers with a sincere interest in learning about LED lighting will probably know better than to *get their sole teaching from this forum*, and especially beware of imbibing in your flavor of kool-aid.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. I strongly endorse checking out multiple resources and where I cite references, I strongly encourage you to check the said reference yourself and evaluate the credibility of references I name yourself. 

I do hope though, that my posts regarding LEDs bring specifiers and designers new thoughts and questions.

Example questions: 
The LED system under consideration is listed as tested per LM-79 & LM-80 standards. The life is said to be 50,000 hours. 

I wonder how life is interpreted for LEDs?

What can I do to ensure that foot candle level remain within what I specify over the duration of stated life? 

What factors should I use for lamp lumen depreciation and luminaire dirt depreciation for this LED system?

How hot does it get where the system will be used? Would the system live up to sales person's claim both in long and short run in actual use? 

This warehouse is not air conditioned. If we use LEDs, can we still meet the footcandle guideline while still staying below the maximum permissible W/sq.ft after we take thermal derating into consideration? 

How do LEDs fare in efficacy under our usage environmental conditions compared to CMH HID or amalgam fluorescent system? 
----
In IES LM-80, L70B50 means the life in hours before half the fixtures in a large install drops to 70% of initial output. L50 = 50%, L70= 70%. For some reason those are the milestones used. 

It's worth nothing that for F40/CW, 20,000 hour life and a lumen maintenance of 84% after 14,000 hours of use was typical at least 39 years ago (1972 IES lighting handbook). That was a very common lamp. We've been using that particular lamp type for probably around 50 years. 

That lamp was outlawed in 1995 by EPACT 1992. 

It is an unbiased fact that LM-80-2008 useful life threshold let solid state lighting get away with much lower lumen maintenance than a 1972 vintage fluorescent. 

Let's ask this way, in 1972, using LLD of 0.84, initial lumen had to be at least 20% higher to maintain designed output for most of lamp's useful life. Add dirt accumulation depreciation and it was even more. 

If LLD is 0.70 at end-of-life on fixtures rated under LM-80-2008 standards, we need to make initial lumen AT LEAST 42% higher than required to meet the design FC throughout the entire useful life, but what is the expected lumen maintenance at 70% of rated life???


----------



## BBQ

And yet still ........ you can't find it in you to tell us your true motivations.

Now obviously I am speaking just for myself but to my mind that is a clear indication that you are not out to educate but trying to sell. So I look at your claims much like you look at LED salespersons claims.


----------



## Electric_Light

BBQ said:


> indication that you are not out to educate but trying to sell.


I don't hate LEDs. I hate non-sense claim they pull out of thin air. Am I selling anything here? No. 

"uses 1/10 the energy" (omitting along with substantial loss of output), "makes almost no heat", "all new superior T5 ' technology ' (as if its anything special besides the glass tube diameter being smaller) and such are what I'm talking about.


----------



## LightsRus

*re: re: re: Misconception:"LEDs produce almost no heat". LEDs require MASSIVE HEATSIN*



Electric_Light said:


> Who are the professionals?


Professionals are those getting paid for a service. To them, technology doesn't matter, but the application of that technology is paramount.



> Emotional and personal? No. I recognize common non-sense I see in sales claims. Here I produced counter evidence, experimentally.
> 
> You really can't take a user tag literally.


Emotional commentary will have plenty of embellishment and exaggeration. Take the title line for example: "MASSIVE HEATSINK"
This is not quantitative, it is purely subjective and tells the reader someone is rattling their saber over _something._

Perhaps many tag lines are for entertainment, but how is that true with yours? Are you saying yours is a joke?


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> Professionals are those getting paid for a service.


I disagree with this. A good salesman getting paid on commission selling some BS snake oil is paid, but BS is still BS. 



> Emotional commentary will have plenty of embellishment and exaggeration. Take the title line for example: "MASSIVE HEATSINK"


Qualifiers are almost always relative. 
"My uncle's got a huge truck". Well maybe his F-650 is huge relative to F-150, but it's small compared to a semi. It's tiny compared to a titanic.

Look at CREE LR6-DR1000. The thing is only like 12W, and its like 3 pounds, most of it in heat sink. The heat sink is massive, relative to equivalent performance lighting source such as incandescent or CFL.


----------



## LightsRus

BBQ said:


> And yet still ........ you can't find it in you to tell us your true motivations.


Motivation? It's a drug. 
Each thread started is for the purpose of debate, eventually and ultimately twisted and turned against LEDs. Possibly traumatized by an LED clown in early childhood?


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> Qualifiers are almost always relative.
> "My uncle's got a huge truck". Well maybe his F-650 is huge relative to F-150, but it's small compared to a semi. It's tiny compared to a titanic.
> 
> Look at CREE LR6-DR1000. The thing is only like 12W, and its like 3 pounds, most of it in heat sink. The heat sink is massive, relative to equivalent performance lighting source such as incandescent or CFL.


"Massive" is not a suitable adjective. Remember, you are hoping to persuade a technical audience. 
In heat exchanger language, it would be quantified (measured) as square inches per watt, and further, degrees per watt thermal resistance from the junction to ambient.
You have no clue how large that heat exchanger is compared to any other. Surface area is not weight or mass.

We do know that it causes your desk lamp to sag.


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> "Massive" is not a suitable adjective. Remember, you are hoping to persuade a technical audience.


My target audience is install tech level to moderately technical. I'm not trying to write something to be published in IES or IEEE. You're just arguing semantics.


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> My target audience is install tech level to moderately technical. I'm not trying to write something to be published in IES or IEEE. You're just arguing semantics.


Are you now telling us that your audience doesn't appreciate an objective and unbiased assessment?

The irony is, the statement that apparently had you so ticked off, something on the order of LEDs produce very little heat, was started by someone with insufficient information. They paraphrased what little they had, and began spouting what they thought others wanted to hear.

How is that any different from what we see you up to?


----------



## BBQ

LightsRus said:


> How is that any different from what we see you up to?


The difference is he said it and we should all just understand he is 100% correct and unbiased. :laughing:


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> You're just arguing semantics.


Presuming you are referring to surface area vs weight vs mass?
Those are distinctly different measurements; surface area measurement applies directly, mathematically to the heat exchange subject, the other factors just tag along.

One should hit the books and Labs on thermodynamics before jumping in with nonsensical statements and calling it semantics when failing to grasp.


----------



## 10492

The only misconception in this thread, is your ability to grasp how LED's work.

Heat sinks have been around for eons. Even circuit boards use them.

I guess all circuit boards are junk too?:jester:


----------



## jza

Electric_Light said:


> Or the life of company, whichever is less. Many LED sales company have existed for less than 1/5 the length of warranty they boast. Even if it's a lifetime guarantee, its not necessarily good. Most Harbor Freight Tools hand tools are lifetime guaranteed. When the junk breaks, they give you another junk, repeat as often as necessary. Time and fuel expense not covered. Would you pickup your entire set of tools of trade from Harbor Freight?


So you think Sylvania is likely to go out of business?

I don't understand. So LED's produce heat, got it. Are you saying they're dangerous? Or are you just steaming mad that they produce heat?


----------



## LightsRus

*re: Misconception:"LEDs produce almost no heat". LEDs require MASSIVE HEATSINK*



Electric_Light said:


> Just my opnion, but stupid picture of relatively heat resistant plastic that melted because of LEDs DOES raise a question about "LEDs producing almost no heat" for those that believes/believed such a thing.


Commentary like this tends to deteriorate credibility. Why would an LED replacement bulb be installed inside a plastic cup? I expect there are warnings on the package, true?? (Yes, the plastic cup came with a warning to avoid contact with light bulbs.)

Every light source produces heat. Most of us might have dispelled that silly LED vs heat myth long ago, but it suddenly reappeared. From the posts here, it appears that at least *one* remains mystified by this heat, so I want to help if possible.

Do you know that a single 60 Watt incandescent bulb has burned down a house? Of course you need to ignore the warnings, and it needs the right set-up, such as paper kindling, etc. E_L may have had a hand in that (kidding). Remember that a 25 Watt soldering iron can reach 800° and melt solder in a second. 

Given the thermal formulas and net product, Watt for Watt and lumen for lumen, LEDs produce less heat than an incandescent, about the same heat as fluorescent and a little more heat than HID. This is all mathematically predictable by the source luminous efficacy. Remember, that's NET heat in some contained environment, not a single point you can measure.

It seems that where at least one person is mystified is the effect of heat in a given area, or how that heat may be distributed. Heat is dissipated by conduction, convection and radiation. In the simplest of terms, conventional light sources produce light from heat, and therefore thrive on heat; they will produce no light without it. LEDs on the other hand, produce heat while producing light, but heat can destroy them. 

Conventional light sources rid a great deal, perhaps most of their heat with radiation, whereas LEDs cannot do this. It is for this reason an exchanger must conduct the chip heat to convective cooling fins, or somewhere. Conventional sources also conduct heat, and then every surface becomes a convection cooler.

All three heat mobility modes in all devices must be accounted for prior to any direct comparison. You may liken the LED chip to that soldering iron tip; it may be about 1mm square. The heat exchanger is a thermal transformer; the ratio of 1 square millimeter to some larger surface area of square inches can predict the temperature that LED chip will reach, given ambient temperature and wattage dissipated. 

This principle is science, it is physics, it is math, and is not something to be alarmed by. Any science can be converted to black magic, and the very start of this thread was based on what sales people may preach to scare others away. 

Is there another message here?


----------



## jza

So all this just to say that LED's do indeed produce heat, but they aren't dangerous and the technology is will on its way?

Dude, get a life.


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> Every light source produces heat. *Most* of us might have dispelled that silly LED vs heat myth long ago, but it suddenly reappeared. From the posts here, it appears that at least *one* remains mystified by this heat, so I want to help if possible.


Some that you know does not meet the burden of proof of "most". What was your basis for coming up with this statement? 



> Do you know that a single 60 Watt incandescent bulb has burned down a house?


Of course. I would hope that light bulbs operate hot is as common of knowledge as knives are sharp, although I suspect "LEDs run hot" is not quite as common knowledge just yet. 



> Given the thermal formulas and net product, Watt for Watt and lumen for lumen, LEDs produce less heat than an incandescent, about the same heat as fluorescent and a little more heat than HID. This is all mathematically predictable by the source luminous efficacy. Remember, that's NET heat in some contained environment, not a single point you can measure.


25W LEDs produce as much heat as 25W incandescent which produces as much heat as a 25W fluorescent. I don't see how luminous efficacy is relevant.

A 50% efficient light source that produces light at extreme long end of visible red spectrum has a much lower luminous efficacy compared to a source with same efficiency that produces light at green that our eyes are most sensitive at. Lumen is a quasi subjective measure since its weighed to human eye sensitivity. 





> It seems that where at least one person is mystified is the effect of heat in a given area, or how that heat may be distributed. Heat is dissipated by conduction, convection and radiation. In the simplest of terms, conventional light sources produce light from heat, and therefore thrive on heat; they will produce no light without it. LEDs on the other hand, produce heat while producing light, but heat can destroy them.


Which means 25W LED dissipates more energy at the fixture compared to a 25W incandescent, because it can't reject as much heat as infrared radiant energy. There's really no solid boundary between "heat" and "light". 

Incandescent lamp has a much greater radiometric efficiency than LEDs, that is watts of radiant energy per watt of input. 



> Conventional light sources rid a great deal, perhaps most of their heat with radiation, whereas LEDs cannot do this. It is for this reason an exchanger must conduct the chip heat to convective cooling fins, or somewhere. Conventional sources also conduct heat, and then every surface becomes a convection cooler.
> 
> All three heat mobility modes in all devices must be accounted for prior to any direct comparison. You may liken the LED chip to that soldering iron tip; it may be about 1mm square. The heat exchanger is a thermal transformer; the ratio of 1 square millimeter to some larger surface area of square inches can predict the temperature that LED chip will reach, given ambient temperature and wattage dissipated.


Which means that LEDs require additional means at the fixture to dissipate heat sink which requires <insert modifier here> heat sink. Also, it can not get below room temperature and this will cause LEDs to struggle in high-bay where temperature can exceed 50C. 

Fluorescent lamps can handle fairly high temperature with amalgam fill, just like its done with some CFLs, HO lamps, and induction lamps.



jza said:


> So all this just to say that LED's do indeed produce heat, but they aren't dangerous and the technology is will on its way?


Correct, but some believe LEDs produce no heat. Its no more dangerous than an incandescent. Although when it is used in enclosed fixtures by users not aware of the fact they produce more than negligible amount of heat, it can cause the fixture to overheat (since heat can't be rejected by radiation) and cause the LED to fail. 

It is dangerous if it is used with an assumption it makes "almost no heat"


----------



## Jmohl

:sleep1::sleep1::sleep1::sleep1: As a pretty clever fellow once said....
This thread is dildos.
Electric_light, u don't like LED. Got it!:thumbsup::whistling2:


----------



## Electric_Light

Jmohl said:


> Electric_light, u don't like LED. Got it!:thumbsup::whistling2:


And LightsRus apparently love LEDs, assuming "LED Lighter" in his user text means something and probably because it brings him money. 

You apparently like it too.


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> And LightsRus apparently love LEDs, assuming "LED Lighter" in his user text means something and probably because it brings him money.


I really don't care what you use to melt your plastic cups.


----------



## Jmohl

In some instances, yep. I work food grade mfg. If I drop a fl. tube in my lift and it shatters all to bits, every bit of the product in the area has to be discarded to the tune of thousands. Machines have to be cleaned up which lead to thousands more in lost time. If I can make a go of getting retro leds in my facility. which will result in less maintenance for me as a bonus, Hell yea!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> I really don't care what you use to melt your plastic cups.


You already knew, but there must have been some that didn't know, LEDs will melt plastic cup(or in reality, luminaire lens), damage enclosed fixtures and self-destruct from heat.


----------



## Electric_Light

Jmohl said:


> In some instances, yep. I work food grade mfg. If I drop a fl. tube in my lift and it shatters all to bits, every bit


That's why they have something like this:
http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resour...ct_brochures/downloads/covRguard_brochure.pdf
Or you take precautionary measures like covering stuff that maybe damaged if a lamp is dropped. 

If you drop anything its still very likely that you'll have a damage claim to the tune of thousands in property damage or personal injury liability depending on what it hit.


----------



## Jmohl

every t8 we get in here is shat-r-shield. 6tube f32t8 16k lumens at 192w. replace every two to three years at 10 per tube, reballast at about 5y ap. 30$, dispose of said tubes at 70$per 35, m/h to do said tasking who knows?


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> That's why they have something like this:
> http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resour...ct_brochures/downloads/covRguard_brochure.pdf
> Or you take precautionary measures like covering stuff that maybe damaged if a lamp is dropped.


Just maybe, the LED also has a cautionary statement to NOT OBSTRUCT AIRFLOW.
Ya think?

If you balance the equation (read the instructions for BOTH products) you might not be so hard on yourself.


----------

