# The $40 12.5W = 60W LED bulb. Start Saving MONEY 6.2 years later



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I thought LEDs were supposed to be efficient? 12.5W for the equivalent of a 60W incan bulb is pretty much the same as a CFL.


Are you being completely honest with your facts and comparison? You wouldn't be biased for any reason, would ya? :laughing:


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

HackWork said:


> You wouldn't be biased for any reason, would ya? :laughing:


Not one bit. :no: :laughing:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I thought LEDs were supposed to be efficient? 12.5W for the equivalent of a 60W incan bulb is pretty much the same as a CFL.
> 
> 
> Are you being completely honest with your facts and comparison? You wouldn't be biased for any reason, would ya? :laughing:


That is right. The efficacy is about the same as conventional mercury arc CFL.

This is the official datasheet:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/products/led/assets/AmbientLED_60WA19.pdf

If you feel I'm being dishonest, or you don't think the 5 year CD interest rate is a fair rate to use for payback period calculation, feel free to use a different interest rate that you can justify. I feel that is a fair rate to use, because if I put $40 into a 5 yr CD through a bank that does not have minimum deposit limit, 2.4% APY is what I earn.

This thing does look COOL though. I did use one for using in my car with the engine off through an inverter in a work light. CFLs and regular light bulbs are too fragile. 

a 60W bulb is like one headlight, so leaving that on with the engine off for a long time is a bad idea and here 12.5W and shatter proof gives "extended runtime" advantage, rather than energy cost advantage.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I thought LEDs were supposed to be efficient? 12.5W for the equivalent of a 60W incan bulb is pretty much the same as a CFL....


 Yeah, I'm surprised by that, too. :blink: And with only a 25,000 hour life for $40. 

$40 worth of 13W CFLs will last a whole lot longer than 25,000 hours.

-John


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Big John said:


> Yeah, I'm surprised by that, too. :blink: And with only a 25,000 hour life for $40.
> 
> $40 worth of 13W CFLs will last a whole lot longer than 25,000 hours.
> 
> -John


It runs fairly hot too. The heat sink gets to 70C/160F in most ideal condition(free hanging). The package says not to use in enclosed fixture. This beast weighs 6 1/4 oz. Might not work with some desk lamps. 

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/connect/tools_literature/downloads/p-3542.pdf
These CFLs are around $6 each and they use amalgam so the output is maintained even if they get hot inside fixtures. Rated for 16,000 at 3hr, 20,000 at 12hr. The 26W version does about 69lm/W including ballast loss.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Dude I tried so many times to push led and most people just look at you like you have three heads when you tell them how much. I have even made a spread sheet showing the savings versus incandesants to give the potential buyers but still no good..
I have a few Cree retro fits in my kitchen and love them. Light quality is great, instant brightness, and dimmable, but they are almost impossible to sell to Homeowners and businesses alike. I have only sold two to a homeowner of a Mcmansion with 22 foot ceilings... I told them its probably the last time they will have to change that bulb.....
If they want them to sell they really have to get more realistic about the price..
LED technology has been around since the late 60's so im not sure why they are acting like its brand new ......?


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Couple comments here:

The interest rate is practical, but...
you left out the incandescent amortized replacement cost.

With the LED rated for 25000 hours, that's over 15 years at 4 hrs/day.
(using 4 x 7 x 52)
The 60W incand is rated for 1500 hrs (a pack I have), that's less than 1 year.
You would have replaced that bulb almost 17 times
What does a 60W incand cost? 75-cents? = $12.75 saved

Add that savings to the interest savings.

And I've never seen a CFL last that long.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Here's deconstruction of a solid state fluorescent lamp, which people call "LED light bulb".
The kind of light source you see in my user icon is better described as low-pressure mercury arc fluorescent lamp. 

The solid state LED source provides a blue light to excite white light emitting fluorescent phosphor. In this design, it is placed externally to the LED component. In other designs, the phosphor is coated directly on the LED, so the fact that its a fluorescent lamp is less obvious. 










Here is one in operation in demonstration setup proving common white LED light is a fluorescent lamp after all.








As much as the LED industry tries to separate themselves from "fluorescent lights", white LED system, with very few exceptions, are by definition fluorescent lights. The very few exceptions are designs that use red, green and blue LEDs and blend the light together to form white light instead of using a phosphor blend. 


Fluorescent lighting means the use of phosphors to convert light source of one spectrum to another. 

A conventional fluorescent lamp is a low-pressure mercury discharge lamp in an evacuated glass cylinder internally coated with a phosphor blend to convert ultraviolet light to visible light. 

A white LED lamp is a fluorescent lamp that use a far blue visible light source to strike a phosphor coating on the LED assembly itself or a phosphor panel within the assembly or the fixture to create white light. It is more technically correct to call them solid state LED fluorescent lamp as much as the industry considers the word FLUORESCENT a dirty word.









There is a misconception among some people that LEDs produce "almost no heat". I think this thing runs hot enough they need to label it "Danger HOT, DO NOT TOUCH"


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> Here's deconstruction of a solid state fluorescent lamp, which people call "LED light bulb"
> 
> The solid state LED source provides a blue light to excite white light emitting fluorescent phosphor. In this design, it is placed externally to the LED component. In other designs, the phosphor is coated directly on the LED, so the fact that its a fluorescent lamp is less obvious.
> 
> ...


You really need to look up fluorescent lamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

There is no mercury vapor gas or high voltage ionization inside the LED.

Are you sure there no bias there?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> You really need to look up fluorescent lamp:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp
> 
> There is no mercury vapor gas or high voltage ionization inside the LED.
> ...


You really need to check the credibility of reference. Good portion of that article is uncited.

Clear metal halide or mercury HID are not fluorescent lamps, because they do not employ the principle of fluorescence to create visible light.

The word "fluorescent" in what people call "fluorescent lights" is there, because the white light is generated through fluorescence of phosphor coating, which is excited by ultraviolet light generated by low-pressure mercury arc.

Common white LEDs use blue LED to excite phosphor, therefore *is* a fluorescent light. 

"common" fluorescent lamps use 253.7nm deep ultraviolet produced from low pressure mercury discharge to excite phosphor coating. 

So the mechanism of producing phosphor exciting source is different, but they both produce white light by means of phosphor fluorescence, therefore they're both fluorescent lights. 

I think the pictures speak for themselves VERY clearly. 

Here is fluorescence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence

This is not a matter of bias. I'm stating the facts.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> You really need to look up fluorescent lamp:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp
> 
> There is no mercury vapor gas or high voltage ionization inside the LED....


 There doesn't need to be. When an LED fixture uses higher energy blue light to cause a phosphor coating to emit lower energy white light, it meets the exact definition of "fluorescent."

This also explains why these things are surprisingly inefficient.

-John


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Your tearing apart the lamp like you are an L prize partner. 
http://www.lightingprize.org/partners.stm
The cost of that lamp may go down after Philips is awarded the L prize. I hope they get at least the $10 million back that went into the R & D. 
http://www.lightingprize.org/overview.stm
*About the L Prize*

_The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 authorizes DOE to establish the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) competition. The legislation challenges industry to develop LED replacement technologies for today’s most widely used and inefficient products, 60W incandescent lamps and PAR 38 halogen lamps, and also to develop a new “21st Century Lamp.” The EISA legislation establishes basic requirements for each category and authorizes up to $20 million in cash prizes; the exact amount of the cash prize for each category will be determined based on DOE Congressional appropriations. The first entrant in each category to successfully meet the full competition requirements will receive a substantial cash prize as well as L Prize partner promotions and incentives. To date, 27 utilities and energy efficiency program partners stand ready to promote and develop markets for the winning products. Up to two additional entrants may be eligible for program partner promotions – in effect increasing the number of possible qualifiers in each category to three. Potential opportunities for future federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and other incentives for winning products may far exceed the value of the cash prize. For more details on the L Prize competition, visit_ _www.lightingprize.org__._


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> Your tearing apart the lamp like you are an L prize partner.



I can tear apart whatever things of mine I want as I please.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> Here is fluorescence
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence
> 
> This is not a matter of bias. I'm stating the facts.


Your original post raising this subject stated "fluorescent lamp" but you keep referring to the single word "fluorescence" which are not equivalent. Fluorescence is one light producing principle used within the "lamp."

In patent language, both the white LED lamp and the fluorescent lamp can use "fluorescence" within the preferred embodiment specification. However, neither as a "lamp" is complete without definition of their own exciting UV source, and various other things. 

Thus, Wikipedia and other sources define "fluorescent lamp" with 2 claims of the full embodiment, those 2 stated in the original 2-word term.

The "facts" are that two different terms are being used interchangeably when they are, in fact, not mutually interchangeable.

Clearly these are different embodiments, which clearly explains why there are opposing camps, i.e. solid state verses gas ionization. 

This grammatical misunderstanding could go on, but only with someone besides myself.


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> I can tear apart whatever things of mine I want as I please.


Can you show a fluorescent lamp which meets the L prize competition requirements?
*60W Incandescent Replacement Lamp* 


More than 90 lm/W
Less than 10 watts
More than 900 lumens
More than 25,000 hour life
More than 90 CRI
Between 2700–3000 K CCT


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> Can you show a fluorescent lamp which meets the L prize competition requirements?
> *60W Incandescent Replacement Lamp*
> 
> 
> ...


Besides the Light Emitting Diode, other light sources produce light only as a bi-product of heat, produced in some fashion. This can be a heated resistance element, a gas plasma, etc. Gas will not ionize below certain temperatures. Light is not produced below certain temperatures, whether resistance or gas.

The LED produces light first, and heat is a bi-product. The light comes from electron-hole recombination, and can occur instantly with the die at sub-zero temperatures. LED heat is produced as a function of simply electrical resistance in the path of the flow of electricity.

There are many variations in packaging that interfere with the LED, but heat production preceding the light production in other sources indicates why no other source can ever beat the ultimate LED luminous efficacy. Electric_Light probably knows all this but doesn't like to publicly agree with it.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Couple comments here:
> 
> The interest rate is practical, but...
> you left out the incandescent amortized replacement cost.


My calculation was generous. It assumed you have no better use for the money and that you have no debt and the cash you lay down won't be missed(no opportunity cost).

Say you're going to do all 50 bulbs in a house at $2,000 for the purpose of getting positive return on investment after 6.2 years. 

Realistically its not like that. Many people have debts with interest expenses. A cash payment of $2,000 towards highest interest debts will immediately realize interest expense savings, not 6.2 years later. 

Alternately, the $2,000 can be invested on something with a better return, or used to purchase something that provides immediate gain without having to take out a loan. 

Cash is very useful in routine business operation and personal finance. This is why companies have PBP and ROI requirements for capital equipment improvements.

People take out a loan to get a vehicle as it gets them something they can not afford right away so they can have a car they like. 

Something like this solid state fluorescent lamp provides no tangible benefits other than energy reduction. It is like upgrading your Dodge Neon with $20,000 cash payment upfront to triple the mileage with absolutely no gain other than improved mileage and a simple payback break-even point 10 years later. 




> With the LED rated for 25000 hours, that's over 15 years at 4 hrs/day.
> (using 4 x 7 x 52)
> The 60W incand is rated for 1500 hrs (a pack I have), that's less than 1 year.
> You would have replaced that bulb almost 17 times
> What does a 60W incand cost? 75-cents? = $12.75 saved


Something like $1 to $1.29 for a pack of 4. $4.25 sounds like more realistic material cost. Considering I overlooked the opportunity cost of putting down $40 immediately, I think we can overlook an annual material cost of $0.25.



> Add that savings to the interest savings.
> 
> And I've never seen a CFL last that long.


And you've seen LEDs last that long? Both LEDs and CFLs have warranty, so premature failure will be claimed on warranty in either case.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> Can you show a fluorescent lamp which meets the L prize competition requirements?
> *60W Incandescent Replacement Lamp*
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not aware of anything in that wattage range in polychromatic non-fluorescent solid state, solid-state source excited fluorescent or mercury discharge excited fluorescent system. 



LightsRus said:


> Besides the Light Emitting Diode, other light sources produce light only as a bi-product of heat, produced in some fashion. This can be a heated resistance element, a gas plasma, etc. Gas will not ionize below certain temperatures. Light is not produced below certain temperatures, whether resistance or gas.
> 
> The LED produces light first, and heat is a bi-product. The light comes from electron-hole recombination, and can occur instantly with the die at sub-zero temperatures. LED heat is produced as a function of simply electrical resistance in the path of the flow of electricity.


All the lighting technology we have dissipates most of incoming energy into heat, LED included. "by-product" is a relative term depending on which output is desired. For an engine, acoustic noise is a by-product. For a speaker, it is the product. 




> There are many variations in packaging that interfere with the LED, but heat production preceding the light production in other sources indicates why no other source can ever beat the ultimate LED luminous efficacy. Electric_Light probably knows all this but doesn't like to publicly agree with it.


I'm not sure about the theoretical aspects of various sources, but in applied systems, solid-state excited fluorescent lighting technology is below or at best, comparable to mercury arc excited fluorescent systems or high wattage direct discharge lighting technology(metal halide, xenon short arc,etc) in lighting applications but cost is disproportionately higher. 

solid state polychromatic (R,G,B LEDs) or solid state fluorescent may reach 150 lm/W at component level with forced or refrigerated heatsink after you ignore the power lost within the driver and power used for forced cooling system.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Payback and ROI*

I am posting this so the real numbers and industry approach can be seen by those with a serious business interest.

Industry standard payback calculations apply dollar amounts that would have been spent, to expenses for a widget that does the same job as what it replaces. You cannot apply the money to light a space to money invested in a CD, unless you want to be in the dark. And a Dodge Neon doesn't produce any light.

Philips literature payback examples are based on 4 hours each day, 7 days a week, every day of the year. Applying 10 cents per kWhr and comparing the 12.5 Watts to the original 60 Watts for an annual energy savings of $6.92

The new bulb claims 25,000 hours and my package of 60 Watt bulbs is labeled 1,500 hours. 
That's 25,000 / 1,500 = 16.7 bulbs you would buy in the life of the new one. Use 50-cents per bulb and round the previous to 17 for $8.50 saved on bulb purchase in the LED lifetime.
At 4-hours per day, the 1500 hour incandescent lasts just about 1 year, 
so look at 17 years X $6.92 for $117.64 in energy savings.

If the price is about $40 for the LED, payback on energy and bulb savings is 5.5 years. 
Can we say the next 10+ years are basically free?
Based on these numbers, the ROI is 189.5%
Is that a darned good investment or what?

You can change any of the numbers, I used 50 cents per bulb. Maybe you can buy a barrel of them for 20 cents each, but if that's the number you use, be sure to price a barrel of the LED version as well. This math is NOT LED SPECIFIC and will work equally with CFL or any competing technology.

Yes, here's the rub: How many homeowners can run out and spend $400 to replace the 10 incandescent bulbs in their home? Do we suggest that Home Depot start a Residential targeted ESCO and the home owner sign a 5 year agreement?
Or does the local Electrician or Contractor do this?
We do need some alternatives before the Edison antiques run out. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Industry standard payback calculations apply dollar amounts that would have been spent, to expenses for a widget that does the *same job as what it replaces*. You cannot apply the money to light a space to money invested in a CD, unless you want to be in the dark. And a Dodge Neon doesn't produce any light.


That's actually exactly why I compared a standard Dodge Neon vs specifically modified Dodge Neon with $20,000 option boasting triple the mpg. They're identical except for the fuel consumption and cost. 

People don't buy expensive decorative fixtures or Mercedes S500 for energy cost. 




> The new bulb claims 25,000 hours and my package of 60 Watt bulbs is labeled 1,500 hours.
> That's 25,000 / 1,500 = 16.7 bulbs you would buy in the life of the new one. Use 50-cents per bulb and round the previous to 17 for $8.50 saved on bulb purchase in the LED lifetime.


They're usually around $1.00 for 4, I used $0.25 ea which is what you will realistically pay at Wal-Mart, Target or the like. 



> At 4-hours per day, the 1500 hour incandescent lasts just about 1 year,
> so look at 17 years X $6.92 for $117.64 in energy savings.
> 
> *If the price is about $40 for the LED, payback on energy and bulb savings is 5.5 years. *
> ...


I am talking about real world. Where do you get to borrow money for free in real world? We can't ignore the *TIME VALUE OF MONEY* or *opportunity cost of cash* which LED sales people and students do in high school economics and first few sessions of intro finance class for the sake of simplicity. TIME VALUE of money that is the bread and butter of the banking industry. 

We also need to adjust the energy saving to using 30.5W rather than 47.5W from 1/1/2014 and on, since improved efficacy 43W incandescent will replace 60W one. 



> You can change any of the numbers, I used 50 cents per bulb. Maybe you can buy a barrel of them for 20 cents each, but if that's the number you use, be sure to price a barrel of the LED version as well.


A single 4-pack is usually $1 to $1.29 each. Basic 60W lamps are usually around 99cents for a 4 pack at supermarket, in the real world. 



> Yes, here's the rub: How many homeowners can run out and spend $400 to replace the 10 incandescent bulbs in their home?


Exactly! Do they have any pre-existing debt? If so, the interest expense that could have been saved by adding $400 on next payment is the cost of this purchase. If you finance it by means of credit card, interest carrying cost needs to be added to cost in payback period calculation. Saving is absolutely zero until you reach the break even point. 



> Do we suggest that Home Depot start a Residential targeted ESCO and the home owner sign a 5 year agreement?
> Or does the local Electrician or Contractor do this?
> We do need some alternatives before the Edison antiques run out.
> Any thoughts?


Whichever way you do it, you incur *interest carrying cost* which extends the payback period. 

See what local contractor would hook you up with zero down $5.79/mo 75mo financing on material cost for ten of these puppies.

Would you sell me 100 of these $40 bulbs valued at $4,000 on 84month zero down financing with $47.62 monthly payment? 

This $400 expense isn't like going on a vacation or buying something you want. 

You get exactly the same function as existing 60W light bulbs and the sole purpose is to start saving money 6.2 years later using a very generous estimate (opportunity cost of cash ignored, 2.4% is not even close to the rate you have to pay to finance it on a credit card).


----------



## kaboler (Dec 1, 2010)

You are generous. I was paying 5c / kwh in the spring and now I'm paying 8c.

A crappier comparison would be a CFL to an equivalent LED. You save 3 watts, which is next to nothing when you're doing a load of laundry, or turning on the stove.


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

IMO, the LED may be the wave of the future. The price needs to come down to where the consumer will realize the savings. Myself, and many of you , use LED flashlights. They work well but do not give the light as a 3 d cell Mag Light. The CFL has improved and dropped in price, I would expect the same for the LED.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

crazymurph said:


> IMO, the LED may be the wave of the future. The price needs to come down to where the consumer will realize the savings. Myself, and many of you , use LED flashlights. *They work well but do not give the light as a 3 d cell Mag Light.* The CFL has improved and dropped in price, I would expect the same for the LED.


Bologna. 

Maybe you are talking about the $10 craplights at the cash register of supermarkets. Any decent LED light will destroy a 3 D cell maglite.

My Surefire E2L is about the size of a MiniMag and gives out about 2 times as much light output as my 4 D cell Maglight.


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

Hackwork, I do not agree. The LED flaslights do not have the distance of the D cell maglight. Go play with your FleshLight.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

crazymurph said:


> Hackwork, I do not agree. The LED flaslights do not have the distance of the D cell maglight.


 From personal experience as well as the knowledge gained from over 8 years of participation in multiple internet flashlight forums, I can accurate say that you are wrong. Just about all decent LED flashlights will have much more output than a 3 D cell Maglite. Any of them that are made for throw will easily out-throw the Maglite as well. Even something like the "$18 Walmart Brinkmann" light will give you much more output and throw than a much more expensive 4 D cell Maglite, and that Brinkmann has an old Luxeon LED. Anything with a Cree will blow it out of the water. 


> Go play with your FleshLight.


That is a childish response and an immature way to show that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## HugoStiglitz (Apr 11, 2011)

crazymurph said:


> Hackwork, I do not agree. The LED flaslights do not have the distance of the D cell maglight. Go play with your FleshLight.


All light travels the same distance, at least in this world.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> It is available in retail stores for about $40. Philips uses 4hrs/day 365days/yr for usage calculation, so lets see how long it takes to pay this thing off assuming 1460 hour annual usage.
> 
> http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_...g&parent=7593748565&id=us_en_products&lang=en
> 
> ...


In my opinion it is always wise to pay off current debts before incurring more. I would buy one lamp just to know that I am TRYING, but spend the bulk of any extra money that I had to pay off the smallest debt first. By the way, if you buy something else when you currently owe money to elsewhere it is the same as incurring more debt.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

A 120v 100W A19 incandescent lamp is around 17lm/W and rated 750 hrs. 
40W 120v is only about 11-12lm/W 
Automotive H2 62W lamp produces 1800 lumens (29lm/W) but its only rated at 225 hrs 

Those tiny flashlight bulbs, Christmas light bulbs typically under 3W are very inefficient since a large proportion of energy is lost as conducted heat through filament lead wires. AA powered flashlight bulbs are usually under 2W and the efficacy is probably in low single digit lumen/W. Gas discharge lamps are not practical at this power level. LEDs can however, produce efficacy of 10-20lm/W fractional watt power range. In this application, energy cost is probably measured in dollars per watt hour. The LED element efficacy maybe higher, but 10-20 is about right for a common LED flashlight after you factor in series resistor or electronic driver loss. 

LEDs are great for flashlights, because the efficacy doesn't change much as the battery voltage drops and they are resistant to breakage if they're dropped while powered on. The efficacy of incandescent lamp drops dramatically at reduced voltage. 

At higher power levels used in general lighting, LEDs can not keep up with gas discharge lamps in cost. Resistance to failure in the event the fixture is dropped in a disaster or vandalism is not part of consideration in general lighting. 

LEDs are very practical for battery powered flashlights, indicator lamps and colored signs requiring vibrant colors.

Flashlights and general lighting are different ball games.



RIVETER said:


> By the way, if you buy something else when you currently owe money to elsewhere it is the same as incurring more debt.


Exactly. This is why its stupid to buy a different car for the purpose of saving gas, unless you're dealing with vehicles only worth a few thousand dollars. Trading in a beater 8mpg truck that you really only use to get around places and haul stuff once a year for a 30mpg Civic when your annual fuel cost is $1,500 is a wise decision. 

Trading in your paid-off 18mpg Buick for a Prius for the purpose of accomplishing a positive ROI is not. If the purpose is gaining privilege to legally drive alone in HOV lane, it is very just.

Fuel expense is not the primary motivation for people to upgrade cars. Self-pleasure is the dominant reason, something a new vehicle, vacation, a nice dinner out and such brings, but energy saving bulb that costs $40 that accomplishes the same thing as an existing bulb does not.

In conclusion, for general lighting, LED excited solid state fluorescent lighting is currently the Least Economic Design.


----------



## kaboler (Dec 1, 2010)

crazymurph said:


> Hackwork, I do not agree. The LED flaslights do not have the distance of the D cell maglight.


I have a LED Maglite 3 D cell.


----------



## HugoStiglitz (Apr 11, 2011)

kaboler said:


> I have a LED Maglite 3 D cell.


I have a black screwdriver.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

LEDs don't have this problem though.....http://www.naturalnews.com/021916.html


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Man, you lighting guys sure like to play a game of technical superiority. :nerd:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Jmohl said:


> LEDs don't have this problem though.....http://www.naturalnews.com/021916.html


That was just a case of over-reaction and not a surprising action by everyone involved to wash their hands from liability by referring to someone and making it someone else's problem. In the end, the consumer got the most conservative advise. 

Take a look at this:
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Acetic_Acid_5_-9925518

That's basically vinegar. 
"in case of eye contact, seek medical attention immediately". In a industrial setting, the worker would probably go see the company nurse immediately. 

If you literally follow the advise, you will rush yourself to the emergency room because you got salad dressing in your eye.



Peter D said:


> Man, you lighting guys sure like to play a game of technical superiority. :nerd:


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that an energy saving investment that requires a large upfront cash outlay and a very long/almost never break even point is unwise, but unless the specifics are presented LED believers will try to BS their way through, like pretending that energy is the almighty resource, but cash is an unlimited resource with no opportunity cost that you can borrow an infinite amount with no interest.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

Uhhhh, What? comparing MERCURY to vinegar? don't get it :blink:, Over the years florescent tube mfgs have steadily reduced the amount of mercury in tubes. today's eco-logic tubes have a minute amount of merc in them. CFLs on the other hand have quantities that compare to the older, more toxic tubes. Not a good trade off based on my research. LED is not the right solution for all applications, but in some, I feel it is far superior.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Jmohl said:


> Uhhhh, What? comparing MERCURY to vinegar? don't get it :blink:,


Did you read that MSDS? In this litigious society, over-reaction is the trend to addressing chemical exposure. The procedure for exposure to 5% acetic acid/vinegar is consistent with liability reduction protocol, but it defies common sense just like that widely published isolated mercury incident that LED advocates frequently reference. 

If you get vinegar in your eyes, you should wash it out, but it is not "get immediate medical attention" material.

Mercury is not good for you, but one broken CFL does not warrant that level of reaction. 



> LED is not the right solution for all applications, but in some, I feel it is far superior.


Simply define variables in Excel like this:
cost per kWh to 40c/kWh. Cost to borrow money: 0% interest. Cost to dispose one CFL = $5/ea. voila LED is just.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

Actually, we (myself and the division engineering VP) did just that. Had a vendor came in and demo'd his 93w Retro. Engineer sat down and crunched numbers and ROI worked out in our situation to just over two years. Five year guarantee (with option for ten), 93W vs 456, next to zero maintenance for the life of the device, no hazardous waste to dispose of when it goes bad. Engineer was pretty impressed. Are we gonna get them? maybe, maybe not. Point is, incandescent is dead. We are at a tipping point where we need to decide if we are gonna stick with minor improvements on legacy tech, or are we gonna go with the completely new tech? Me personally, I didn't have an issue with incandescents, just the tree huggers forcing the issue.


BTW, we did side by side with T8 6tube fixtures


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Jmohl said:


> 93W vs 456, next to zero maintenance for the life of the device
> BTW, we did side by side with T8 6tube fixtures


You're omitting important details. Power usage of existing fixture at 456W and comparison with 6 lamp T8 sounds like you're talking about a 400W MH. 

Does the 93W solid state fluorescent light produce anything remotely close to 25,000 mean lumen using measurements acceptable in the lighting industry? This means none of that "seeable lumen" or "S/P ratio" non-sense. 

25,000/93 = 269lm/W. There is no practical lighting system that provides this kind of efficacy at this point. 

If you're allowed to dramatically reduce output, its easy to shave off energy cost. 

400W MH delivers 25,000 mean-lumen * optic efficiency using 450W. 

6-lamp T8 system delivers 20,600 mean-lumen * optic efficiency using hi-lumen rated lamp using 215W. 
(6 x General Electric F32T8/HL/SPX41, General Electric GE632MAX-H90 electronic ballast, 277v power ) 

93W LED might match a near end of life 400W MH with 50% opaque yellowed lens and soot covered optics.


----------



## Jmohl (Apr 26, 2011)

Right now, we aren't going forward with LED just yet. The vendor is bringing back a yoke type retro to try out. need to get a light meter to measure f/c from M/H, the T8s we already have, and the LED. If we don't go with it now, it will probably just be based on the initial cost.  Co I work for is very conservative when it comes to capitol investment. If not now, maybe someday soon. I do believe that LED is the Future. Maybe not in resi, but for sure in com and industrial.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Jmohl said:


> Right now, we aren't going forward with LED just yet. The vendor is bringing back a yoke type retro to try out. need to get a light meter to measure f/c from M/H, the T8s we already have, and the LED.


So, wait. depreciated and dirtied up lamp + fixture vs a clean brand new fixture? Sounds like a fair comparison. Don't think that solid state fluorescent fixtures(white LEDs) don't depreciate or get dirty. Are you going to take the light reading within in a few minutes of turning on the LED before it has the chance to fully warm up? (LEDs become less efficient at higher temperature) 

400W metal halide is around 40,000 lumen new for traditional. 44,000 new for pulse start. To be fair, you should at least re-lamp and give the existing MH fixture you'll use as a benchmark a really good clean up. If it's got a plastic cover that's yellowed, that needs to be replaced first. 

LED fixture needs to be left on for a few hours to allow it to reach full operating temperature. If the space for retrofit consideration is not a fully air conditioned space, this should be done in middle of the day in middle of summer. 

The electrical power input should be measured along with FC reading. 

This 330W drop-in replacement saves energy immediately. Out of the box, it doesn't have the same output as a brand new standard metal halide, however the amount of decay is about half(20% vs 40%) and have the same *mean lumen*, which is what matters. An added benefit is the increased color rendition, which is 90. 
http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/browseliterature/download/p-6000.pdf

Added labor cost is zero. You just wait until the next group re-lamp cycle. Energy saving isn't quite there with fluorescent retrofit, but the initial cost is heck of a lot less. 



> Co I work for is very conservative when it comes to capitol investment.


Good. If they're not, they're stupid and they're basically investing to lose money. 



> I do believe that LED is the Future. Maybe not in resi, but for sure in com and industrial.


Because they perform more or less comparable to CFLs, but financially non-sustainable?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> This is not a matter of bias.



OK, lets call it BS.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

BBQ said:


> OK, lets call it BS.


Everyone knows you can get 12,000 hour 13W=60W CFLs for $3.50 each and that the store takes spent ones back for free.
http://www.lowes.com/pd_15128-3-29730_0__?productId=1215093


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Right now the only place I have LED's is in my flashlights and I use them for panel indicators. I've seen LED tech come a long way but it's not there yet. 




crazymurph said:


> Hackwork, I do not agree. The LED flaslights do not have the distance of the D cell maglight.


:laughing::laughing:

Who caries a D cell light anymore? I'm with Hack, Surefires will out throw just about any D cell light.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> Everyone knows you can get 12,000 hour 13W=60W CFLs for $3.50 each and that the store takes spent ones back for free.


 ... and everyone knows emerging technology takes time to mature.

I don't have any LED for home lighting, I have a large number of CFLs but I do find it comical how hard you try to down play LEDs like the LEDs of today are as far developed as they are ever going to be. :laughing::laughing:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

BBQ said:


> ... and everyone knows emerging technology takes time to mature.
> 
> I don't have any LED for home lighting, I have a large number of CFLs but I do find it comical how hard you try to down play LEDs like the LEDs of today are as far developed as they are ever going to be. :laughing::laughing:


Have you seen CREE's site? Talk about anti mercury discharge fluorescent lamp there
http://www.creeledrevolution.com/criesforhelp

Not every application is appropriate for "new technology" though.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Payback Calculations*

I pre-loaded one of our payback calculators with the values previously used in discussion on that Philips A19 LED replacement bulb.

This is usually an industrial type calculator, so it has maintenance intervals, fixed job costs, and maybe other things that don't apply for residential use. I set these to have minimal effect, but you might enter fixed job cost with the transportation and installation costs to drive to the store and then screw in the light bulb. 

Thank you Electric_Light for your input.

I set the interest at 10% and that can be adjusted. I used $38 for the LED cost and of course that can be adjusted. Remember to adjust both sides of the equation similarly, i.e. if you reduce light bulb cost, reduce the LED cost by some amount as well.

With this, you can quickly see the delicate numbers, and the not so delicate issues. Even with 10% interest, there is a modest ROI.

Note - there may be unfound bugs in this, but we can fix those.
http://streetlightingfla.com/roi-philipsA19.html


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Since its a consumer product, I would use 15% for interest, reason being, average APR for credit card is 14.9% right now and that's how over-the-counter products are usually financed. 

I just discovered there's an overstatement of power saving by almost 7%. 

I have a 4 pack of Philips 60W bulbs. Rated 860lm 60W 1,000 hrs.

This LED thing is 800lm / 12.5W Lumen output is actually 7% less than 60W bulb. 

I discovered there is such thing as 57W 780lm A19 bulb commercially available, which is closer to 800 than 860 is, so I think cutting the power reduction from 47.5W to 44.5W is fair. This doesn't take LED lamp lumen deprecation into factor.

and electric rate is 11.5c/kWh national avg in 2009... 
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile7_4.pdf


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Yes, this price will not survive in the consumer market.

I understand there's a Philips LED Savings calculator for iPad from the app store. I have not used it, has anyone here??? Maybe that shows the trick?

Thank you for the heads-up.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Yes, this price will not survive in the consumer market.
> 
> I understand there's a Philips LED Savings calculator for iPad from the app store. I have not used it, has anyone here??? Maybe that shows the trick?
> 
> Thank you for the heads-up.


Nope, but I'm almost positive that it ignores time value of money. Consumer energy saving calculators ALMOST always ignore this. Even commercial & industrial capital improvement calculators are configured to dream world to downplay time value of money.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

I understand the Philips A19 is now at $9.97

That makes for a very good replacement.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I usually stay out of Home Desparates, but during my sidework adventure I was looking at their medium-base LED lamps, and I wasn't impressed: 

They didn't have any for sale that were better than a 60W "equivalency" and when you actually compared lumens on the lamps, some of these "equivalent" LEDs came up short by almost 20%.

Given that, and the rate-of-failure you see in a lot of LED traffic signals, I worry about the price-vs-performance of possible cheap LEDs. But I definitely would like to try a reliable version.

-John


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

I haven't seen the Philips A19 at that lower price from a store on the Internet. It may be that some of those sales outlets are still marking them up as much as possible.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## ME LC (Dec 30, 2011)

Thank-you. That was great!

MELC


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The 940 lumen 10W model is out. $50. OUCH. The L-Prize bulb. What can I say... other than that... it mimics 60W bulb well. It consumes 9.6W on my meter. It dims well but it buzzes loudly on dimmer.. and it costs $50.

This product: 
http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm


The sample I bought weighs 175g, while a 60W bulb weighs 25W. 7 times as much. 

This will really stress horizontally mounted sockets. 

Subjective testing. There's an issue with dimming these things. 

Visually, it dims nicely on a incandescent dimmer. This basically ruins my only practical application I had in mind... It was to run it on a small 50W power inverter meant for cell phone charging. It puts out a square wave. Efficacy wise, this is great, but the amount of buzzing is unacceptable for my liking. 

Acoustically, buzzing is extremely loud compared to a regular light bulb. 
Personally, I would rate regular bulb at almost not noticeable except in a small range near half output. This Philips bulb on dimmer at maximum setting is at objectionable level to my ears.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> The 940 lumen 10W model is out. $50. OUCH. The L-Prize bulb. What can I say... other than that... it mimics 60W bulb well. It consumes 9.6W on my meter. It dims well but it buzzes loudly on dimmer.. and it costs $50.
> 
> This product:
> http://www.lightingprize.org/60watttest.stm
> ...



Ok we get it. 


Oddly enough, your very first post in this topic makes the most sense...



Electric_Light said:


> And onto blah blah blah blah blah...
> .


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Ok we get it. .


But it weighs seven times as much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laughing:


----------



## noarcflash (Sep 14, 2011)

I'm convinced the LED technology is not there yet... at least for spending my money on it.

Very few applications seem to look right with LED lighting.


----------



## Lynx Electrical (Jul 15, 2012)

70 Celsius is too hot for a long lifespan and less rapid decline in its light out put over time, it really shouldn't be over 65 Celsius.
The other advantages of a SSL ( solid state light ) or LED is the fact its far more environmentally friendly from a disposal point of view compared to a CFL, only dodgy LED still contain lead on the solder, what little harmful material ( and i mean trace amounts compared to a CFL, is safely locked inside the LED's encapsulation. In a light fitting ( not enclosed ) a quality LED light ( one with a good thermal pathway from the LED's thru the PCB and onto the heat spreader ( heatsink) should last a good 20-30k hours. ( i forgot to mention the driver and its capacitors are also of a good quality for this to be achieved also). most of the LED light is recyclable compared to the CFL being a problem in land fill. anyways in countries paying 26 to 30c/kwh its a no brainer, not to mention they don't affect people with the refresh rate like cfl, or skin conditions like lupus like cfl.. anyways customers can make an educated choice nowadays they are becoming more knowledgeable with the technology


----------



## mbednarik (Oct 10, 2011)

I purchased 7 Sylvania 8w 40w= dimmable LED lamps. Advertised service life of 50,000 hours. $15 each - $5 mail in rebate - $7.50 utility rebate puts me at $2.50 a lamp. The standard 50 watt R20 lamps were $5.00 each. The = CFL's were around $10. These lamps produce more usable light than the 50 watt R20's that were installed. So cheaper initial investment, lower energy cost, full lumen output at startup, multiple starts will not shorten the life, dimmable and no disposal problems. Sounds like CFL's need to step it up.


----------



## aprillove1719 (Jul 17, 2012)

The LEDs involved may be conventional semiconductor light-emitting diodes, organic LEDs (OLED), or polymer light-emitting diodes (PLED) devices.

i used led lamps, they are a solid-state lamp that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as the source of light. LED lamps offer long service life and high energy efficiency, but initial costs are higher than those of fluorescent and incandescent lamps.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

mbednarik said:


> I purchased 7 Sylvania 8w 40w= dimmable LED lamps. Advertised service life of 50,000 hours. $15 each - $5 mail in rebate - $7.50 utility rebate puts me at $2.50 a lamp. The standard 50 watt R20 lamps were $5.00 each. The = CFL's were around $10. These lamps produce more usable light than the 50 watt R20's that were installed. So cheaper initial investment, lower energy cost, full lumen output at startup, multiple starts will not shorten the life, dimmable and no disposal problems. Sounds like CFL's need to step it up.


IMHO Led's are overrated. They work wonderful in coolers etc. where heat build up isn't an issue and their color rendering is far superior to fluorescent's. But if you look at lumen maintenance they fall down. You can get fluorescents with a life of 40 to 45,000 hours and the lumen maintenance is far superior. I'm talking about linear fluorescents as the CFL's are junk in my opinion. The cheap ballasts on CFL's just can't take the heat in any type of enclosed fixture. This is just my opinion!!!


----------

