# EISA compliant improved efficacy lightbulbs are available now



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The EISA requirements take effect in approximately 8 months, starting with 100W class general purpose incandescent lamps and phasing out 75,60 and 45W class lamps over the two years following the 100W class phase out.

The requirements are written in such a way that you can't exploit the phase out by coming up with 98W light bulb and the like. 

The requirements affect the manufacturing and importing of relevant lamps. 

Under the new requirement:
General purpose incandescent lamp shall have a rated life of >1,000 hrs

100W "class"(1490 to 2600 lumens) <72W Jan 1st 2012

75W class (1050-1489 lm) <53W Jan 1 2013

60W class (750-1049 lm) <43W and 40W class (310-749 lm) <29W Jan 1 2014 

Currently, A19 shape lamps in those wattages cost around 25-30cents/ea in a pack of four. 100W A19 is about 1650 lm. 60W is 860lm. Currently available replacement lamps just barely meet the requirement and they're not quite as bright. 

Shown here is a 1,000 hour 43W "60W class" lamp rated at 750 lm, costing around $2.50 a lamp. A standard 60W A19 lamp is 860 lm. While there's a 28% reduction in power, there's a 12.8% reduction in output. 

White: 860lm 60W standard bulb
Clear: 750lm 43W EISA 2014 compliant bulb.
Yellow: Some 12.5W 800lm solid state fluorescent lamp that cost $40 (25,000 hr so they say) 









It's just a double walled light bulb. The outer shell is just there for appearance and safety. The inner "capsule" is a halogen lamp. It's no different from GE Edison or Philips Halogena products thats been around for a while, which looked like miniature metal halide lamps. Those lamps are no more efficient than normal ones, so I'm not sure what they tweaked to make these EISA compliant ones more efficient.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Have you tried the 
Lowe's Utilitech Pro LED A19 40W ?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Have you tried the
> Lowe's Utilitech Pro LED A19 40W ?


No. The light bulbs I'm talking about are still incandescent, but they are meant to comply with the new EISA legislation setting yet another standards on efficacy. 

It affects a significant amount of fluorescent lamps as well.


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

Just picked up 10 Sylvania LED Par20 retrofit bulbs. They're expensive $28/each, but they're rated to last 50 000 hours. The light output is amazing!


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

High efficacy incandescent lamps are improved incandescent that makes no compromise in performance.

LEDs and CFLs are considered alternate technologies, with CFLs having much shorter payback period and a comparable efficacy as LEDs.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Have you tried the
> Lowe's Utilitech Pro LED A19 40W ?


I just did. I find it to be a poor performing product. It is rated 3,000K, but the light is very noticeably off from 3,000K halogen. Visually, it looks much more of cream white, for lack of better words and it creates an ambiance like older type cool white fluorescent, however perception differ from person to person to an extent.

The power supply is of poor design and there is a significant amount of line frequency flicker like magnetically ballasted fluorescent lights. 

Though more objectionable looking, the Philips 12.5W produces much better quality light in my opinion that simulates incandescent much better and there is no detectable flicker using a flicker checker across full dimming range.

Lighting is both objective and subjective. Objective testing can only be done with a spectral radiometer. Photographic devices don't respond quite right or "see as we see" so they're only as good as a narration of observed subjective qualities. 

Camera was manually white balance set to 3,000K using halogen lamp. You can see color distortion even through camera and display. Light appearance is harder to capture on camera.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> I just did. I find it to be a poor performing product. It is rated 3,000K, but the light is very noticeably off from 3,000K halogen. It feels like old school 4100K cool white fluorescent.
> 
> The power supply is of poor design and there is a significant amount of line frequency flicker like magnetically ballasted fluorescent lights.
> 
> Though more objectionable looking, the Philips 12.5W produces much better quality light in my opinion that simulates incandescent much better and there is no detectable flicker using a flicker checker across full dimming range.


I've heard good things about the HA0003 81 LED version here http://www.dealextreme.com/p/e27-81...y-saving-light-bulb-warm-white-180-240v-26514
but have do direct experience with it.

Also. Philips just announced at Light Fair their A21 LED bulb, 75 W replacement http://www.tomsguide.com/us/enduraled-a21-led-lightbulb-philips,news-11224.html
It's a fast market out there.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> I've heard good things about the HA0003 *81 LED* version here http://www.dealextreme.com/p/e27-81...y-saving-light-bulb-warm-white-180-240v-26514
> but have do direct experience with it.


I absolutely recommend against LED products that do not have specs according to LM-79 & LM-80. The Philips one on first post uses 18 heat sinked power LEDs each running at about 0.6W.

Test results show standard white LEDs without heatsink plate (like the 5mm LEDs) lose around 50% in the first 1,000 hours. They're really meant for portable lights that won't be left on for hours and 100 hours or so is more than adequate reasoanble life time. 

A handful of them is fine but when you run bunch of them in a cluster they have serious overheating issues. 

Poor quality was a big issue with CFLs, but EnergyStar approval process mandated reasonably usable warranty on CFLs as well as performance criteria to be eligible to use the label. It is an issue with LED "light bulbs", especially with bunk brand like Lights of America, and those generic imports.

LoA got sued by the FTC by the way, for making bunk claims.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/9/6





> Also. Philips just announced at Light Fair their A21 LED bulb, 75 W replacement http://www.tomsguide.com/us/enduraled-a21-led-lightbulb-philips,news-11224.html
> It's a fast market out there.


1,100 lumen, 17W, A21 size. It looks like a simple scale up of the AmbientLED 12.5W 800 lumen one they already have available. Efficacy hasn't improved either. It's comparable to CFL (when its new anyways).


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

GE only makes clear one, but Sylvania makes frosted one in A17 form factor, which is the same length as the common A19, but slightly skinnier on the round part of the bulb. 

These products are only there to address EISA regulations and do not offer economic saving at this point as these lamps cost about eight times the cost of standard bulb while only having a 1,000 hour life with minimal efficacy gain. 

They have 28W=40, 43W=60, 72W=100 and they all have 1,000 hour life.

Standard 100 watt has 750 hours, 60W has 1,000 hours and 40W has 1,500 hours. 

The 40W one is useless if you're paying national average rate. 60W is negligible. 100W replacement offers acceptable return. 

28w = 40w x 3 bulbs = 3,000 hours = $6 lamps 
40W x 2 bulbs = 3,000 hours = $0.50 lamps 
0.012kW * 3,000 hrs = 36kWh 
36kWh * $0.12/kWh / national average rate =$4.32 saved 

$4.32 - $5.50 = ($1.18)

43=60W 
3 x 43w = 3,000 hrs $6
3 x 60w = 3,000 hrs $0.75
51kWh saved over 3,000 hours. $6.12 in energy savings 
$6.12-$5.25 = $0.87

There is also the added benefit of being able to use 43W in 40W fixture (close enough) to get 60W bulb output where 60W bulb would have exceed the fixture's permissible bulb size. 

The 72W one lasts 1,000 hours. Normal 100W lasts 750 hours. 

72w x 3 = 3,000 hours = $6 
100w x 4 = 3,000 hours =$1 

84kWh saved over 3,000 hours 
84 * $0.12/kwh = $10.08 saved 

$10.08 - $5 = $5.08 

http://www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/New+Products/HALOGENSuperSaver/

http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/HAL040.436ea68f-4197-4015-9aee-41dcc368a84f.pdf

The color quality and dimming performance are identical to good 'ol bulbs. 

CFLs tend to have trouble smooth dimming, but can be done, but I think they're best used where dimming isn't needed. Light quality is not perfect. The efficacy gain is about 3-4 fold and cost is about the same as these halogen lamps while having a life of 6,000 to 12,000 hours. It is so far the most economical replacement. 

Higher priced LEDs tend to have efficacies comparable to CFLs and color quality similar to CFL. Lower priced ones often have efficacies of 25-30lm/W. Currently, the payback period is many years away and it is not an economically acceptable option

I only think of savings in payback period, kWh savings that translates to $$ saved. I don't care about environmental non-sense.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> I've heard good things about the HA0003 81 LED version here http://www.dealextreme.com/p/e27-81...y-saving-light-bulb-warm-white-180-240v-26514
> but have do direct experience with it.


That vendor doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation. It has had run ins with several federal agencies over exporting illegal products into the US, such as dangerous green laser pointer which got them in a scuffle with the FDA, illegal cell phone jammer, which upset the FCC. 

There are also patents & trademarks infringement with some of products sold there. 

It looks like that product isn't even UL listed, so its out of question for use in the US. 

A company called Lights of America got sued by the FTC for making inflated claims about their junk LED products and it would not surprise me one bit if DX products perform the same way. http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/9/6


----------

