Slashdot Mirror


Screw-in LED Floodlights

Anonymous Coward writes "This company claims to have the first LED flood lights that you simply screw in as a replacement for your old bulb. enluxled.com are also claiming it's cool enough to handle, more damage resistant, longer lasting (50,000 hours) and only uses 22w to produce twice the light of a 100w bulb." And hideously expensive, but you never have to change them.

573 comments

  1. Hm, by hfolkers · · Score: 0

    They said something similar about my 'halogeen' spotlights, but it's more like a starving candle...

  2. forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50,000 hours isn't forever...

    1. Re:forever by Ajmuller · · Score: 3, Informative

      no, it's just 5 years of continuious operation.
      Assuming that you use it for 5 hours a week (i would like to put this in to replace the floodlights in my backyard which are mounted high on the house and need to be replaced every year or so) it would last for 192 years. That's pretty much forever, at least long enough so my children and their children won't need to replace the bulb.

    2. Re:forever by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      50,000 hours isn't forever...

      No, but it is 5.7 years ($14/year) of continuous light, or 17 years $4.7/year) of eight-hours-a-day light.

      You can buy about 32 regular flood lamps for $80. They will last about 2,000 hours each. That's 64,000 hours total -- an additional $14,000 hours.

      So for home use, don't bother. For commercial or industrial settings, though, there can be lots of lights, and here is a labor cost associated with changing them. Some organizations change every light at once, to avoid the higher cost of replacing bulbs individually as they burn out. For those types of applications, the longer-lasting LED lights will lower the cost of changing bulbs.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    3. Re:forever by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      And at 22w, assuming 10 cents per kwh, this bulb would cost about $110 over its lifespan in electricity, as compared to roughly ten times the cost for a 200w bulb, or $1100 (for the same number of hours).

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    4. Re:forever by canavan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're comparing just the cost of the bulb itsself and the installation, ist your electricity free?

      Over here, the LED bulb (assuming the 20W instead of 100W incandescant) would save 50000*(100-20) Wh = 4000kWh at more than 10c each - that's at least $400 saved over the lifespan of a single bulb.

    5. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only problem is the kid with a slingshot will still be able to take a single light out. You will never be able to completely get rid of the problem of having to replace of just one light.

    6. Re:forever by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 5, Funny

      shoot a couple kids with slingshots and that problem will go away.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, excuse me, but what do you mean by "saved kWh"? Do you mean that instead of a heating coming from the lightbulb (in the form of "losses") it has to be coming from the heat radiators?

      I don't know much about where you do live, but around here we use heating about 2/3 of the year. (And we typically heat more when it's dark, since it's colder outside.)

      Of course, if your air-conditioning is on most of the time, you don't want it to suck on the energy you just pumped into the house using your lightbulbs.

      But for me, electricity savings don't matter much.

    8. Re:forever by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 1

      not sure if youre being sarcastic, but if youre not: these are floodlights, for outside your house. i tend not to use my heating for that area much.

    9. Re:forever by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      Since we're talking about flood lights and the OP mentioned outdoor use, I don't think the heat is going to help you much.

    10. Re:forever by databyss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On a serious note, since the light source doesn't depend on a fragile fillament in a large glass housing, these enlux bulbs will be alot more resillient to slingshot attacks.

      In normal flood lights, the filament will break from the shock of being hit with a rock or something. These won't. Plus the aluminum fins, for radiating the heat, also provide alot more protection.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    11. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If US$400 don't matter much, please send me a check.

    12. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running radiators off electricity is highly inefficient. If you're heating 2/3 of the year, you should get something better, if you haven't done so already. Gas or oil are at least twice as efficient, heat pumps are a really cool technology, and the flat I'm currently living in gets most of its heating from the sun and geothermal heat (you don't have to live on iceland, hawaii or in japan for this to work).

      If you have airconditioning, you'll be paying extra to have the heat from your light fixtures removed.

    13. Re:forever by psycho8me · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Gas or oil are at least twice as efficient
      Are you talking about electric furnaces, because they are virtually 100% efficient. Very simple as well, just a coil and fan, therefor highly reliable. They are, however, still more EXPENSIVE than oil or gas, but that has only to do with the price of those energy sources.
    14. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Running radiators off electricity is highly inefficient.
      So untrue. All of the electricity--100%--goes into creating heat. There's nowhere else for it to go.

      It is using electricity for anything other than heating which is inefficient--all other things use X% for doing what you want them to, and (100-X)% is wasted by giving off heat (think: computer processor, or stereo, or lightbulb). If you need to heat your house anyways, that "waste" is not waste--it's heat, and it is by definition 100% efficient.
    15. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me the 100% efficient power plant and the superconductive supply lines to your house.

    16. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of that electricity is generated by burning gas, coal or oil at some remote location with much less than 100% efficiency? For a modern coal plant, 45% efficiency are realistic. If you were burning the same coal/gas/oil in your house, you could get more than 90% of the heat out, instead of the measily 40-something that's left when the electriciy finally reaches you.

    17. Re:forever by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Half that, as this puts out the same number of lumens as a 100w bulb, not a 200w bulb.

    18. Re:forever by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and a compact flouresent would save even more at 13 watts for the same lumen output.

      LED lights are horribly inefficent compared to Compact flouresent. and YES, I can buy them that are the semi-directional floodlight design. they simply are a lamp with an integral reflector shining the light out in the one direction.

      the LED ones have only 2 things going for them. Starting in extreme cold without any lag or trouble and vibration resistance. hell you could probably shoot the LED one with a rifle and not take out the whole lamp.

      otherwise it's foolish to think that LED lighting is efficent.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:forever by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He said that electric heaters are virtually 100% efficient, and he'd be absolutely right.

      A heater's function is to create heat. All of the energy coming into it is either spent on heating the air, or creating infrared, which will heat the objects surrounding the heater... And either way you slice it, it's heat. Heck, even the impedance in the power cable will create heat. It's 100% efficient even to the outlet.

      An electric heater is the only 100% efficient device that I can think of. Who cares about the power plant, that's not the subject matter.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    20. Re:forever by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      the website claims twice the lumen output of a 100W bulb - where I shop that's 26W worth of compact fluorescent juice, vs the claimed 22W. As I see it, these guys have built a maintenance-free version of an energy-saver bulb - 5 times the working life, resistant to shock and weather, and just as efficient.

      That's assuming that the website claims pan out...

    21. Re:forever by rco3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's bring a bit more factuality to the situation: The parent poster states that heat pumps are cool technology, and that radiant electrical (resistive strip) heating is inefficient.

      Guess what? Parent is correct.

      Radiant (resistive strip) heating is LESS efficient than a heat pump under many circumstances. "What? No, stupid - radiant strips are 100% efficient! All the power is converted directly to heat!" Yes, it is - but I'm not stupid. Heat pumps are more efficient. Typically, with an outdoor temp of 45F an an indoor temp of 72F, the heat pump moves THREE TIMES as much heat into your fine home as it requires electricity to perform the pumping. IOW, 100W of energy into the heat pump results in 300W of heat into the house. That's three times more efficient than strip heating.

      This is not as pronounced at greater temp differentials, and in fact many heat pumps employ supplementary strip heating for really large temp extremes. However, the parent poster's point is well-made and accurate - radiant strip heating IS, in general, less efficient than a heat pump.

      I live in Florida - north Florida. It's November 21, and my A/C is on. Every watt I save from running fluourescent or LED lighting is effectively 1.3 to 1.5 watts less electricity used and charged on my power bill. A similar argument can be made for a house using a good heat pump - the extra wattage radiated as heat by an incandescent bulb would provide even more heat if it were used to drive a heat pump instead.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    22. Re:forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about that distribution system to get the coal or oil to you? What about the cost of building all that generation capacity? What about the environmental controls that you can't install because of the small scale of operation?

      Think about the bigger picture.

    23. Re:forever by alw53 · · Score: 1

      Now if I can only figure out how to keep them from getting stolen, I'm home free. An eighty-dollar floodlight item that some kid can steal in two minutes.

      I put two 100-dollar solar-powered motion lights on two different houses and they both got swiped.

    24. Re:forever by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I was getting confused, also.

      Electricy heaters have 100% conversion of electricity into heat. This only matters to people who think the point of internal climate control is to generate heat the most effictively.

      In the real word, we want to heat our house with the cheapest, best for enviroment, longest lasting, whatever method, not 'We can turn every watt of this into heat' method.

      Why not just have warm air shipped to your house? Every bit of warm air that made it would be used to heat your house, wouldn't it? If you didn't want to ship it, you could just run your car engine, and put a pipe from the inside the car to your house...every erg of heat that made it to your house would be used to heat it!

      The only thing electric heaters are good for is heating areas very quickly, like a fire, but without the disadvantages of a fire, and under circumstances where a heat pump doesn't work, like when it's -40 outside.

      Of course, at that point, it'd be cheaper to have a gas heater instead of electric, but almost no one has both a heat pump and a gas heater, whereas all heat pumps have electric heaters built in. Gas is what you're really paying for when you purchase electricty, and if you burn it yourself you cut out that annoying conversion to electricity, which does generate heat...for the power company.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  3. How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Energy saving bulbs we have today?

    They only compare them against normal bulbs, and not energy bulbs, wonder why, not nearly as much good marketing maybe :D

    1. Re:How does this compare to... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's with the completely inappropriate "flamebait" moderation on the parent? I'd also like to know how these bulbs compare to other "energy saving" floodlights.

    2. Re:How does this compare to... by womby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They only compare them against normal bulbs, and not energy bulbs, wonder why, not nearly as much good marketing maybe :D

      Well 50,000 hours comes to almost 60 years of continuos operation, the usual advertising on an energy saving bulb is "10 years of normal use" so I would say that we could say that these bulbs offer 6 times more life than an energy saving bulb and are comparable on light/energy stats.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    3. Re:How does this compare to... by womby · · Score: 1

      I cant count, it comes to around 6 years of use which means
      a, I am an idiot
      b, not going to use these on my space ship.

      --
      **** lying is wrong even for sleeping dogs
    4. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well 50,000 hours comes to almost 60 years of continuos operation

      Please cite your sources.

    5. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it suffer the same non-enclosed fixture problem other energy-saving bulb have?

    6. Re:How does this compare to... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      A normal lamp has about 11 lumen/W (a quite low estimate could maybe go up to 20lm/W)
      An energy saving lamp about 64lumen/W (a relativly efficient one)

      Taking the 2 times more light than a 100W lamp this gives us 2200 lumen/22 watts: 100lumen/watt.

      Lifetime for energy saving lamps are about 10E5h.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    7. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in ENGLISH that means?

    8. Re:How does this compare to... by EvilFrog · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with comparing "normal use" to continual use. What constitutes normal use? Some bulbs in my house are only on for a couple of hours a week. Others are on for more than twelve hours a day. I'm guessing that neither of those are considered "normal."

      I wouldn't be surprised if the "10 years of normal use" would only be about 3-4 years continual, if that. When you have a term such as "normal use" the manufacturer gets to determine what that means.

    9. Re:How does this compare to... by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1

      There aren't many energy saving floodlights. Those that there are, look like crap, with annoying yellow light, and they don't last anywhere near as long, maybe a few years at best... The LED lights are wider spectrum and are more efficient than other energy savers. The amortized savings are significant.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    10. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: if you put compact fluorescent lamps into enclosed fixtures (like in a frosted glass ceiling-mounted enclosure), they will overheat and burn out far in advance of their supposed long lifetime. Do LED bulbs suffer the same problem?

    11. Re:How does this compare to... by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Compact fluorescents are not supposed to be used in an 'enclosed fixture'. It usually says so right on the box.

      I'm not sure why though- since they are so much cooler than regular bulbs. But that is what they suggest.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    12. Re:How does this compare to... by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Probably they were comparing it to carbon-arc lamps.

      People selling stuff often do tricks like that.

      (also, environments pushing untenable solutions)

    13. Re:How does this compare to... by russ_allegro · · Score: 0, Redundant

      How does 50,000 hours come to 60 years of continous operation. I must be really missing something.

      50,000/24/365.25 = 5.7 years

    14. Re:How does this compare to... by databyss · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the popular science which they mention these bulbs, they note normal use as 4 hours a day. At that rate it says you get about 35 years out of them:

      50,000 hours / 4 hours a day / 365.25 days a year = 34.2 years.

      At continuous use (24 hours a day) you get:

      50,000 hours / 24 hours a day / 365.25 days a year = 5.7 years.

      Very respectable for any lightbulb.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    15. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn... if you RTFWS in TFA, you would know that they are indeed not designed to be run inside an enclosed space. This is probably due to the heat generated by a) the LED matrix, and b) the power supply they must have built into the device to convert 110VAC to the 2-3VDC used by the LEDs.

    16. Re:How does this compare to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, energy-saving bulbs put out half the light of a regular lightbulb (60 watt) and this one puts out twice as much light as regular light-bulb. which means you need a quarter as many to light an equally sized room. which means you can use a quarter of the materials, etc. which means there really is no comparison.

    17. Re:How does this compare to... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Well let's see. The stats according to Enluxled: their lights cost $80, last 50,000 hours, uses 22 watts, and produces 300 lumens at 15 watts (why the 22 vs 15 i have no idea)

      On the other hand this flourescent floodlight from FEIT uses 18 watts to produce 950 lumens, or 23 watts to produce 1300 lumens, both lasting 6000 hours. I haven't found price listings on the their site, but a quick google on the model number found this site selling the stronger version for $9.

      it's also worth noting that the FEIT webpage seems a little out of date. They list their small flourescent bulbs as "ESL13T" with 800 lumens at 13 watts and a lifetime of 8000 hours. However i recently bought some of their bulbs at Costco that were the same size but had a model number of "CE13T" and list 900 lumens at 13 watts and a lifetime of 10,000 hours, so their floods might have seen similar improvement.

      So all in all it seem the only advantage the LEDs have is lifetime. They last somewhere between 5 and 8 times longer than flourescents, but produce a _lot_ less light per watt and cost almost 9 times as much.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    18. Re:How does this compare to... by Random832 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but regular bulbs aren't nearly as heat-sensitive - it's perfectly fine to bake an incandescent bulb in its own heat, but the same even for the much cooler fluorescent bulbs will fry it.

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    19. Re:How does this compare to... by tho+1234 · · Score: 1

      LED lights aren't wide spectrum- they only emit light at discrete wavelengths (bandgap energy). Most white LED's use phospors to convert light from another wavelength to white light, using the exact same process as flourescent lights, therefore yeilding a similar spectrum.

      And most LED's are actually less efficent than flourescent lights.

    20. Re:How does this compare to... by tylernt · · Score: 1

      "why the 22 vs 15 i have no idea"

      I suspect the missing 7 watts are consumed by the power supply converting the 120VAC to ~3VDC.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    21. Re:How does this compare to... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's been a while, but I think most of the numbers are still correct;

      Lumens/Watt Light Source
      100-190 low pressure Sodium (HID)
      (150 90W low pressure sodium lamp, clear)
      50-150 High pressure Sodium (HID)
      (115 1000W dual arc-tube high pressure sodium lamp, clear)
      100 Sylvania 18 watt low pressure sodium
      84 32W, 48" MOL, T8 OCTRON fluorescent lamp,
      60-65 standard F40T12 cool white fluorescent
      64 250W mogul based metal halide lamp, clear
      60 150W single ended compact metal halide lamp
      48-60 compact fluorescents
      45-55 Super bright Red/Orange LED
      35-45 Super bright Green LED
      17.5 Tungsten Halogen Single-End SUPER-Q Frosted Finish D.C. Bay 100Watt
      17.5 100W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite
      14.5 60W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite (standard bulb)
      6 incandescent night light bulb (7w)
      6w incandescent flashlight bulbs

      For normal home lighting T8 fluorescents are probably your best bet today.
      LEDs are good when you're want colored light, when you want a small amount of light, or when the cost/hassle of replacing the bulb is the major factor.

      Cree recently announced a 75 lumens per watt white LED, but AFAIK they aren't available in quantity yet.
      There's a lot of hope for the future of LEDs, but they're still a few years off.

      -- should you believe authority without question?

    22. Re:How does this compare to... by nolife · · Score: 1

      My local Costco has the FEIT flourescent indoor/outdoor floodlights in stock also. They come in a two pack but I do not remember the price. Off topic but every single light in my house that can fit a compact flourescent has been changed to one. I also look for that fit ability when I buy new fixtures. I've had to get rid of a few wall switch dimmers but worth the savings in electricity to switch them out.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    23. Re:How does this compare to... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Funny
      using the exact same process as flourescent lights

      Is that some process where they coat the inside of the bulb with ground wheat?

      it's fluorescent.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    24. Re:How does this compare to... by ballpoint · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another poster here said 'florescent bulbs'.
      Now that makes me think about tulips...

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    25. Re:How does this compare to... by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A fun thing about how cool compact flourescents are is that you can make paper lampshades (I like to use a good drawing paper, Japanese rice paper, parchment, whatever) and they don't get hot enough to be dangerous. A bit of origami skill and you can make some stylin' lampshades which look weird either lit internally or with the light off.

    26. Re:How does this compare to... by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they probably say this because they are often larger than a normal bulb and so they just don't fit. In my experience, you cannot swap out every bulb in your house for the "compact" flourescents, they are not yet "compact" enough.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    27. Re:How does this compare to... by Technician · · Score: 2, Funny

      For those not in the know...

      In a flourescent light, UV from the arc hits a coating that converts it to visable.

      In LED's, IR is doubled in frequency by a Q cell to make UV which then hits a coating to comvert it to visable.

      Only the last step is the same. The first step is NOT the same.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    28. Re:How does this compare to... by sadomikeyism · · Score: 1
      And most LED's are actually less efficent than flourescent lights. Eau contraire....

      I invented the electroluminescent retrofit kit for exit signs, so I'm a bit of an expert on this topic, as my competition in retrofitting incandescent exit signs (2x20watt bulbs) were compact fluorescent and LED kits. The CF kits ranged from 5 to 13 watts and lasted 2-5 years. The LED kits, my real competition, were 1.5-3 watts. My kits were 1/3 of one watt, though you wouldn't want to use EL lamps as flood lights.

      Furthermore, LEDs, being semiconductors, had a capacitive power factor of about .65, while CF kits typically have an inductive power factor of .5 to .75.

      When it comes to load balancing, the utilities like low capacitive power factors, but hate low inductive power factors (since most loads lean to too much toward the inductive). My kits had a capacitive power factor of .97...

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    29. Re:How does this compare to... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Funny
      In a flourescent light, UV from the arc hits a coating that converts it to visable.

      No, that's a fluorescent light. A flourescent light probably passes a high voltage through ground wheat powder in a vacuum or something.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    30. Re:How does this compare to... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      In LED's, IR is doubled in frequency by a Q cell to make UV which then hits a coating to comvert it to visable.

      Almost, but not quite - frequency-doubled IR ends up as green or blue, not UV. This is how those spiffy green laser pointers work - they use an IR laser diode for the initial beam and then run it through a KTP or other similar frequency doubling crystal to get the (*much* lower power) green light.

      White LEDs are simply blue LEDs with a blue-sensitive phosphor, and didn't really appear on the market until Nichia got the blue ones right.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    31. Re:How does this compare to... by /ASCII · · Score: 1

      Get over yourself. He's kidding. 'Visable' and 'comvert' should be considered hints.

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    32. Re:How does this compare to... by Diamon · · Score: 1
      Well 50,000 hours comes to almost 60 years of continuos operation, the usual advertising on an energy saving bulb is "10 years of normal use" so I would say that we could say that these bulbs offer 6 times more life than an energy saving bulb and are comparable on light/energy stats.


      Check your math

      50,0000 hours / 24 hours per day
      2,083.33 days / 365 days in a year
      5.7078 years

      That's almost 6, not 60 years.
    33. Re:How does this compare to... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Get over yourself. He's kidding. 'Visable' and 'comvert' should be considered hints.

      I don't think he was kidding. Two spelling errors in a dry and otherwise factually correct description of how a fluorescent light works doesn't really clear the bar for humor. Maybe if he'd actually spelled "convert" wrong as you seem to think (look again, he didn't) but as it sits it's not umor. I think he didn't get my joke because he didn't know "flourescent" is the wrong way to spell it, and went on to explain how a fluorescent light works because he thought I didn't know.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    34. Re:How does this compare to... by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      womby (30405) on 02:00 PM 11-21-04 (#10881895)

      I cant count, it comes to around 6 years of use which means
      a, I am an idiot
      b, not going to use these on my space ship.


      Diamon (13013) on 07:13 AM 11-22-04 (#10886958)

      Check your math

      50,0000 hours / 24 hours per day
      2,083.33 days / 365 days in a year
      5.7078 years

      That's almost 6, not 60 years.


      I guess there's a first redundant post for everyone.

    35. Re:How does this compare to... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Actually, incandescent lights tend to last as long or even longer if you leave them on. It's the stress of startup that tends to kill the filament, and cooling after they shut off.

      Instead of hours of operation, they really should have 'number of times off and on'. The average functioning time of a lightbulb without being turned off is unknowable, mainly because no company can test them that long.

      Fluorescent lights aren't effected as much by startup, because, really, they turn off and on 60 times a second. (Although you can kill your ballast, which is a part of fluorescent lights that people tend to ignore. My mother's kitchen has had fluorescent lights for eight years, and one of the ballasts are already screwed up.)

      I have no idea about the LEDs. LEDs don't have a problem with startup, as far as I know. Otherwise they wouldn't always be blinking at us.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  4. flourescent bulbs by Coneasfast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why not use flourescent bulbs, they are a little more expensive, but more efficient than incandescent.

    sure LED's are cool, but for $79.95, i wouldn't think of it as an alternative to regular bulbs.

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he makes a good point, are the mods on crack? how the fuck is this a flame?

    2. Re:flourescent bulbs by mattdm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fluorescent lights have drawbacks of their own. If they're turned on and off frequently, they're _less_ effecient than incandescents (and their lifetime is significantly decreased). And unless you're using an expensive digital ballast, they flicker and an annoying 60Hz. (I assume an even more annoying 50Hz in Europe/Africa/Asia.) And the cold-zombie color of the light they produce is less-than-pleasing. (Not that the LEDs I've seen are much better.)

    3. Re:flourescent bulbs by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reasons for using LED over Flourescent:
      1) When a flourescent bulb fails, it stops giving off light completely. Usually and LED light will only have 1 led fail at a time. Given theis, you don't have large areas of darkness and don't have to replace the bulb immediatley when a part fails. LEDs fail gracefully.

      2) LEDs are more resistant to damage.

      3) The LEDs appear to not need to be replaced as often as Flourescent. The largest "Pain" in lighting is having to replace the bulbs. If these new LEDs last sufficiently longer than Flourescnets, they pay for themselves in labor.

      4) I'm not sure about this, but I don't think I've seend flourescent spot lights before. However, the LEDs might be able to put out more light than flourescents.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:flourescent bulbs by DogsBollocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well up here in Canada eh!!
      Well it can get pretty damm cold outside so I doubt very much flourescent tubes work outside at anything below -10 deg C. I should imagine that the LED's are largely unaffected by the climate.

      One more negative point about some of the compact flourescents is they generate an awfull lot of RFI so they are not really welcomed around Amatuer radio enthusiasts.

    5. Re:flourescent bulbs by TheApocalypse · · Score: 3, Informative
      Because standard fluorescents aren't dimmable. I work in an auditorium and we have regularly dicussed how great it would be to have LED flood lights in the house lights. They do make dimmable fluorescents, but they are very expensive and don't have a "natrual" look that standard halogen lamps do.

      And since we have to walk on a 40' high plaster ceiling that is 40 years old, the lesser trips we make to change house lights, the better it is, no matter what the cost may be.

    6. Re:flourescent bulbs by classicvw · · Score: 1

      And Flourescents don't work in the cold. Most flood lights are used for outdoor security lights.

    7. Re:flourescent bulbs by Jahf · · Score: 1

      The flourecent screw-ins were much more expensive when they first came out, too, but economics is a very useful law.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    8. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends.

      The time savings I gain by only having to change bulbs 1/5 or 1/10 of the time, plus the waste of closet space to store bulbs, is a very good reason I would think to buy these.

      The price now is alot but since I personally hate changing lights, it is a damn good option.

    9. Re:flourescent bulbs by NitsujTPU · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, but fluorescent lighting is evil...

    10. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What law? The one that says cost follows demand? When has an economist *ever* been right?

    11. Re:flourescent bulbs by Rocky1138 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why are you worrying about the price of the lights? When a person down the street buys one, just go and steal his :)

    12. Re:flourescent bulbs by TWX · · Score: 1

      "And since we have to walk on a 40' high plaster ceiling that is 40 years old, the lesser trips we make to change house lights, the better it is, no matter what the cost may be."

      What kind of plaster? My house, built in the 1950s, has standard wooden studs placed sixteen inches apart, a layer of sheetrock, followed by a plastering in cement that is the better part of an inch thick. We had to remove some sections of wall to make holes for the AV equipment (in-wall cabinets) and we had to break out the ten pound sledge hammer to make any real progress. Punching the wall has absolutely no effect other than severely bruised knuckles.

      If y'all are truly concerned about the safety of the lighting, that's an OSHA violation if anyone has to go there with severe risk of falling through, and the theatre owners need to install a catwalk or have the ceiling actually tested and a safe path demarkated and roped off.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    13. Re:flourescent bulbs by TheApocalypse · · Score: 1
      The ceiling is made to be walked on. But an entire catwalk system isn't feasible with the way it's designed. We have two catwalks for the wash lights, but thats different.

      The ceiling is safe to walk on, just a little nerve racking when you hear it creak once you get on it, but once you start walking it stops and you get your buisness done.

    14. Re:flourescent bulbs by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Can't be more worrying than the theater I work in for AmDram productions. We don't actually know what's holding the procenium arch up - it's counterbalancing the backcloth via two wooden beams and we have a fair amount of lights hung from it (not to mention 3 curtains from aforementioned beams), but nothing is actually supporting it.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    15. Re:flourescent bulbs by jerde · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, these are not dimmable!? Whatever power regulation they're doing to get 120VAC to power their LEDs must not like being dimmed, at least by SCRs. Odd.

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    16. Re:flourescent bulbs by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      I put compact fluorescents in my 3 outdoor light fixtures. IIRC, the ones I have claim to work down to -20degF. It got down to -10 last winter, and they ran a little dim but otherwise worked just fine. (They aren't floodlights however. I'm not sure if any of the CF floodlights are rated for outdoor use.)

      In the two years since I installed them, I figure I've already saved $100 in electricity.

    17. Re:flourescent bulbs by TheApocalypse · · Score: 1

      I saw that when I read the specs. Also they are meant for stuff like track lighting, not recessed which we have. But I think that the main point is the life expectancy(spelling?) on them.

    18. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can have the same "Fail gracefully" concept applied to flouresence too if you use an array of small tubes. This is not special to LEDs. Its just by the bulb design. A single LED just as a single tube will fail in one go, just as an array of LEDs will fail gracefully as will an array of tubes fail gracefully, your argument is flawed.

    19. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in the UK for the last few years, electricity companies and local councils have been giving away compact fluorescent bulbs. I send in the coupons whenever I see tham, and average one or two freebie CF bulbs a year. I've replaced every incandescent light bulb in the house except the one behind the front door that would burn out from repeated on/off, and have spares tucked away in a dawer. And that's after giving away the surplus, because the drawer was getting too full.

      Can't beat that for price!

    20. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When has an economist *ever* been right?

      Whenever one intentionally tried to be wrong?

    21. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) LEDs are more resistant to damage.

      Except maybe to power spikes, unless the driver circuitry is top notch. I don't have any experience with LED lighting in particular, so YMMV.

    22. Re:flourescent bulbs by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, if everything is working normally, an LED will never abruptly fail... it just gradually gets dimmer. LED's have a half life that measures how many hours the LED can be illuminated with a given amount of current before it will be at half the brightness it was. With a low enough current, LED's can last for what may well seem like forever (certainly beyond your or my lifespan at any rate). Although exceeding a certain current threshold will burn the LED out instantly. Manufacturers determine a tradeoff between the desired brightness and acceptable half-life of the LED, and rate the LED's current and half-life appropriately. I don't recall exactly what consumer LED's half-life is for their typically rated current, but I seem to recall it was a pretty high number of hours.

    23. Re:flourescent bulbs by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      If y'all are truly concerned about the safety of the lighting, that's an OSHA violation if anyone has to go there with severe risk of falling through,

      Well, there ya go. Call in the OSHA people and shut the whole theatre down and out of business. That will make it a much safer non-work environment.

    24. Re:flourescent bulbs by gpark · · Score: 1

      Compact Flourescents (and all flourescent bulbs) also contain mercury (about 4mg per bulb.)

      Recycling programs are not really in place, either.

    25. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compact flourescent bulb types:
      http://www.feit.com/compact.html

    26. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and we have a fair amount of lights hung from it (not to mention 3 curtains from aforementioned beams), but nothing is actually supporting it.

      when that shit comes down on an audience you are fux0red... "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

    27. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The drawbacks you list don't exist anymore.

      Your "expensive digital ballast" costs $10 at your local Home Depot. Almost every fluorescent fixture sold nowadays uses an electronic ballast. No flicker, instant-on. You can even buy accurate color rendering tubes that simulate daylight.

    28. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The largest "Pain" in lighting is having to replace the bulbs. If these new LEDs last sufficiently longer than Flourescnets, they pay for themselves in labor."

      If you only need to change fluorescent bulbs once every 5-10 years, and it takes 30 seconds to do it, how much do you pay per hour to chance bulbs?!?!?

    29. Re:flourescent bulbs by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      I think we're fairly safe to be honest. It hasn't fallen down so far despite having no physical connections to the rest of the building.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    30. Re:flourescent bulbs by iwadasn · · Score: 1


      It's more complicated than this.

      Fluorescents also don't work very well in low temperatures or high humidity (outside, or in bathrooms), so the're somewhat picky. Also, CF bulbs are generally larger and only come in "white", no color choices (that I've ever seen).

      In terms of cost though, a CF bulb will clobber a current LED bulb, it puts out more light per watt, and lasts about as long, furthermore it doesn't dim (much) as it ages. Also, CF bulbs are cheaper ($5 or $6 bucks, less if you look around a little, and these are NYC prices).

      Basically, the world would be much better off if there was a $5.00 tax on each incandescent bulb. Use CF bulbs in all the normal indoor fixtures, and then either use LED bulbs where CFs don't work, or bite the bullet and pay the tax. It would save us collectively a mountain of money and energy.

    31. Re:flourescent bulbs by westyvw · · Score: 1

      There are flourescent spotlights. Heck they are for sale just a few blocks from here, and they are about $5-7.

      What keeps me from considering them are 2 things:

      1. They are affected by cold. The colder it gets the longer they take to get bright

      2. No thanks for the mercury. Damn shame about flourescent lights, they are a chemical mess.

    32. Re:flourescent bulbs by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      5) Florescent bulbs put on a dimmer switch create an annoying whining noise and will have a significantly lower life span. I'm not sure if this applies to LEDs.

      --

    33. Re:flourescent bulbs by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

      I dont know if the screw in bulbs are the same as the big tube flourescants, but I have yet to see one of the big ones just decide to fail. Normally when I big one dies it does so over a LOOOOOOOONG period of time. It'll start being slower and slower to come on telling you that hey it's time to change. We have a shorter flourescant at my house that has to be touched before it will come on but I know we've had the same light up there for the last 10 years or so.

    34. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Adam Smith? He still rules a large part of your life.

    35. Re:flourescent bulbs by clambake · · Score: 3, Funny

      1) When a flourescent bulb fails, it stops giving off light completely. Usually and LED light will only have 1 led fail at a time. Given theis, you don't have large areas of darkness and don't have to replace the bulb immediatley when a part fails. LEDs fail gracefully.


      I finally understand the doom 3 lighting scheme...

    36. Re:flourescent bulbs by mt+v2.7 · · Score: 1

      When a flourescent bulb fails, it stops giving off light completely. Usually and LED light will only have 1 led fail at a time. Given theis, you don't have large areas of darkness and don't have to replace the bulb immediatley when a part fails. LEDs fail gracefully.

      A... slow and painful, graceful death?

    37. Re:flourescent bulbs by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Damn straight. Anyone who isn't willing to die or willing to let others die to make a living is a commie. OSHA is a socialist plot to keep those with initiative from being justly rewarded for bold business plans that put the health and safety of workers at risk.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    38. Re:flourescent bulbs by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I use florescent flood lights in my basement, they work nice if you get then 15 dollar brand. and they are a hello of a lot cooler... florescent only for me thank-you.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    39. Re:flourescent bulbs by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      5 to 6 bucks if you want the garbage bulbs.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    40. Re:flourescent bulbs by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      You, too, are just like NASA. Need Another Seated Audience.

    41. Re:flourescent bulbs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I bought a 6 pack of fluorescent floodlights at Costco a couple years ago, so they do exist. I haven't had occasion to use them yet, but the regular style fl's I got at the time are actually a bit too bright.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:flourescent bulbs by darco · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, the factor which is most destructive for an LED's operation is heat. If properly heat-sinked, you can actually drive the LED's at a higher voltage, making it brighter without significantly reducing the life-span. This is probably why these floodlights look so funny--they are mostly heat-sink!

      --
      — darco
    43. Re:flourescent bulbs by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      I have recently found CFs in Colors!

      At the local Menard's hardware store. They are CF replacements to the old colored "party bulbs" They run at 15 Watts and produce as much light as a 60 Watt bulb... which is great when compared to those 25 watt party bulbs.

      For a long time you could get Yellow/Amber CF "bug lights" and sometimes you could find CF Black Lights. But they now come in Red, Green, Blue too! - I found them just before halloween.

      What I'm still looking for is CF colored Flood lights. It's been hard to find a retailer that has CF floods at all reliably around here.. Now you see 'em, now you don't kinda thing. But for Holiday lighting I want CF colored floods! I had thought of using was the old colored filters for floodlights my grampa used to have, I have been unable to find them anywhere :(

      As for a tax on incandescent bulbs... Get Real, the last thing we need is to make up another way to give our money to the government. If you think it will help, think carefully of what you are asking for. Want to talk about waste, just give the government more money, I'll show you a waste.

  5. Re:And you by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Floodlights (eg the ones you put under the eaves of your house, often with motion sensors, to discourage burglars), not foglights (eg the annoying things that people turn on even when its not foggy), or off-road driving lights (eg, the annoying things that many people seem to think are safe and legal to operate on-road).

  6. better than flourecent? by europrobe · · Score: 1

    ...but the important point is; are they better than flourescent? I use all flourescent light bulbs now, and they are all that LEDs seem to be according to the poster - but not too expensive.

    --
    Score:-1, Wrong
    1. Re:better than flourecent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little bit more efficient.

    2. Re:better than flourecent? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Anything is better than fluorescent. I can't believe anyone voluntarily uses those garish headache inducing monstrosities.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:better than flourecent? by NoMercy · · Score: 1

      It's really the fact there spot lights.. though I'd admit to being quite interested in normal light bulbs, light pannels etc with LED's.

    4. Re:better than flourecent? by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Anything is better than fluorescent. I can't believe anyone voluntarily uses those garish headache inducing monstrosities.

      Are you trolling, or have you just been stuck in a cave with ten year old flourescent lights?

      FEIT has a whole line of flourescent lightbulbs, including a couple kinds of floodlights. I've replaced all the lights in my apartment with them and they work great. I can't tell any difference between them and the old incandescent bulbs in terms of color. They also run a lot cooler; you wouldn't want to grab one and hold onto it for awhile but you can unscrew one with your bare hands even after it's been on for a few hours (why you'd actually want to do that i have no idea, but it gives you an idea of its temperature.) The only disadvantage is that it takes them 30-60 seconds to light up to full strength, however you get about 75% of the full light intensity immediately when you turn it on and a slow gradual brightening after that so it's not really a big deal.

      Unfortunatly they seem not to have updated the page very recently, because the bulbs i bought at Costco a few months ago (8 pack for about $12, and i was pissed when i went there last week and found SoCalEdison was offering an instant rebate for $10) are a slight improvement. They're BPCE13T rather than the BPESL13T listed on the site. They're 900 lumens, 13 watts, and a 10,000 hour lifetime. The old GE bulbs i was using were, 840 lumens, 60 watts, 1000 hours.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:better than flourecent? by ballpoint · · Score: 1
      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    6. Re:better than flourecent? by satans_advocate · · Score: 1

      FEIT has a whole line of flourescent lightbulbs, including a couple kinds of floodlights.

      Unfortunately, they are all white. When I was in Hong Kong, IKEA had a range of compact flourecents called 'natural', which produced a yellow glow that was easier on the eyes than even incandescents. I've never been able to find them since returning to Oz.

      Do you know any manufacturers that make such a bulb?

  7. it's about time... by buzban · · Score: 4, Interesting

    boy, this took a while to surface, given that LEDs have been so popular in automobiles, traffic lights, and railroad signals for the past few years...will have to give one a shot.

    1. Re:it's about time... by fossa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Traffic lights, for example, are owned by a city. The city keeps accurate budget information about how its money is spent. Incandescent traffice lights are typically changed on a yearly basis and require a substantial workforce with trucks and ladders to reach the bulbs. One can usually make a convincing case to a city that using LED traffice lights will save $x per year, and so the city opts to use LED lights.

      I personally do not keep track of my light bulb spending, and I imagine most households also do not. Thus the "it saves money in the long run" is a much more difficult argument to make.

      Furthermore, making white LEDs is typically done either with a blue LED surrounded by something that will emit yellow (and transmit some of the blue) when the blue LED is lit, or by using a red, green, and blue LED together.

      The first style has makes a white light that isn't "nice", because it's creating "white" by only combining two colors in the spectrum (blue and yellow). I can't explain it more than that, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can? This style is great for outdoor lighting (street lamps) where "niceness" doesn't matter so much; people aren't trying to read a newspaper but are merely identifying oncoming traffic.

      The second style is great (well, as good as RGB monitors), except for one problem: the different colored LEDs wear out at different rates. Thus the color of the light will drift slowly over time and obtain a green hue (how much time? I don't know... 2 years? 5 years?). So, the LEDs may last forever, but the "whiteness" may not last much longer than a conventional bulb.

      An aside: what is really cool about the tri-color LEDs is that you could potentially have dials to adjust the relative intensity of the colors and thus produce any color of the rainbow (or RGB spectrum at least), leading to many decorative and even utilitarian applications (e.g. a light inside a water faucet that lights the water according to its temperature).

    2. Re:it's about time... by buzban · · Score: 1

      Traffic lights, for example, are owned by a city. The city keeps accurate budget information about how its money is spent. Incandescent traffice lights are typically changed on a yearly basis and require a substantial workforce with trucks and ladders to reach the bulbs. One can usually make a convincing case to a city that using LED traffice lights will save $x per year, and so the city opts to use LED lights.

      That's an excellent point...GE had a program..may still have...that would finance the cost of changing out a city's traffic lights to LEDs based on the savings in electric bills. Very cool.

    3. Re:it's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, making white LEDs is typically done either with a blue LED surrounded by something that will emit yellow (and transmit some of the blue) when the blue LED is lit, or by using a red, green, and blue LED together.

      Umm....when was the last time you saw a "white" LED??? Do you have any clue as to how colors of LEDs are obtained? LEDs are made using semi-conductive materials that emit photons when electrons pass through it. The frequency of the photons is determined by the chemicals in the material. White LEDs do not emit pure white light that is true....but it is NOT the result of 2 other colored LEDs. A single chip of gallium and some other chemicals is used to create the light. Please bother yourself to do some research on the matter since you are obviously waaaay behind the times.

    4. Re:it's about time... by fossa · · Score: 1

      A single chip of gallium and some other chemicals is used to create the light.

      Um, that's one method, as I stated. GaN LEDs are blue to ultraviolet in color. They may be coated with chemicals that emit yellow light, together creating the illusion of white. This isn't ideal for all purposes; light using more of the spectrum is more pleasing (more like sunlight) and so is desireable for indoor lighting, hence tri-color LEDs.

    5. Re:it's about time... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      An aside: what is really cool about the tri-color LEDs is that you could potentially have dials to adjust the relative intensity of the colors and thus produce any color of the rainbow


      The suggests a potential solution to the color-shift problem: add some circuitry to the light that compensates for the color shift by dimming the other colors as necessary to maintain a balance.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:it's about time... by halbritt · · Score: 1

      The first style has makes a white light that isn't "nice", because it's creating "white" by only combining two colors in the spectrum (blue and yellow). I can't explain it more than that, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can? This style is great for outdoor lighting (street lamps) where "niceness" doesn't matter so much; people aren't trying to read a newspaper but are merely identifying oncoming traffic..

      What you're describing is CRI or color rendering index. Yellow-over-blue LEDs achieve a nice color temperature(4500-5500k), but they are relatively imbalanced over the visible spectrum, which results in a surprisingly low CRI from a light source with a high color temperature relative to incandescent lights.

    7. Re:it's about time... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that cities weren't buying $0.99 incandencants to power traffic lights (the expensive part isn't the electricity or the bulb it's shutting down an intersection and paying one or more people to go out and change it (job costs are probably above $60/hr-and that includes any transit time). So the city was already buying pretty pricy bulbs that promised longer lives. To get an accurate calculation you would have to compare the price of those bulbs with the LEDs and then factor in the smaller difference in life and more significant change in electricity use.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:it's about time... by willpall · · Score: 1
      (e.g. a light inside a water faucet that lights the water according to its temperature).

      I don't know if this is your idea or if you got it somewhere. If it's an original, you need to patent that shit now. That is a novel, useful, and non-obvious thingy you got there! Something that actually does deserve patent protection.

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    9. Re:it's about time... by thealmightyegg · · Score: 1

      Speaking of changing the intensity of the colors individually... https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/bkpeters/www/LEDBed/inde x.html

      --


      -----
      120 chairs?! What the hell am I supposed to do with 120 chairs...?
  8. And you-Lite-Brite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And you thought European car manufacturers couldn't find more obnoxious headlights than HIDs."

    What's obnoxious about them? If you want to see, and be seen? Then they're fine.

    1. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I interest you in a set of blue neon lights to go under your running boards ?

      I assure these lights are functional, and communicate absolutely nothing to others about your character and social status.

    2. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is obnoxious about them is that they blind oncoming drivers, especially if they are aimed too high. Of course even more annoying are the pickup trucks and SUV's with Halogens - not only are they blindingly bright - they are right up in your face.

      There should be a law (at least for vehicles driven on public road, do whatever you want in the forest behind your house on your property) as to how high headlights can be above the road surface, and how bright (in lumens) they can be (and I suppose a min brightness too).

      Better technology could be used to decrease power consumption and size, while producing the same amount of light, as opposed to being so bright as to melt the retinas of other drivers.

    3. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are such laws. Not everybody follows them. A lot of the halogen bulbs, though, are still under the max.

    4. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      You mean xenons, right? Halogens are the normal yellowish headlights, xenons are the bluish-white ones that blind you.

    5. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for gosh sake mod this guy up to at least the parent's level. he's right and the parent is wrong & ranting. there are absolutely laws about direction and intensity of car lights. misaligned lights have been an aggravation and danger since cars went to 12 volts. it's got nothing to do with halogens, or height on trucks.

    6. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      I dont care what technology the light uses. Advances should be used to reduce the size or power use of the lights *without* increasing the light output.

    7. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by macwhiz · · Score: 1

      There are laws in the U.S. about headlamp brightness. The problem is, there really aren't good laws about where that brightness should be.

      If you compare the low beams of a traditional American car and a European car, you'll find that the European car is less dazzling to oncoming traffic, but seems to put out more useful light when you drive it. That's because the American D.O.T. headlamp specification is mainly concerned with brightness, whereas the European headlamp specs also specify the light pattern the headlamp should generate.

      If you've ever driven a first-generation Dodge Intrepid, you know just how truly horrid an American car's headlamps can be and still be legal for sale.

    8. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The other difference I've noted with headlights is that in most new cars the headlight optics are simply better, resulting in the car being able to throw more light in front of it with the same wattage bulb. This is part of the reason the headlights on newer cars seem so bright.

    9. Re:And you-Lite-Brite. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Or if you've ever had one oncoming to you, regardless of what you are driving.

  9. LED's are definately the future ... by xmas2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    LED's are definately the way to go, but the price still needs to come down quite a bit. People ask me if I used LED's for my Christmas Lights since when you have 22,000 of 'em (as I did in 2002), that's a lotta electricity. So while there are some GREAT looking LED Christmas Lights (with all the obvious advantages - and don't forget the color stays fairly permanent unlike painted on mini's), they are still really pricey ... especially when I can buy lights after the Holidays at 75% off.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no plural apostrophe in LEDs. Nor in CDs.

    2. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nor in CDs." is not a proper sentence.

    3. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      feck of you feces

    4. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      LED's are definately the way to go, but the price still needs to come down quite a bit. People ask me if I used LED's for my Christmas Lights since when you have 22,000 of 'em (as I did in 2002), that's a lotta electricity. So while there are some GREAT looking LED Christmas Lights (with all the obvious advantages - and don't forget the color stays fairly permanent unlike painted on mini's), they are still really pricey ... especially when I can buy lights after the Holidays at 75% off.


      You can buy a 100 light foreverbrite strip for under $20US (available online at http://www.brite-lite.com/Products/LEDchristmas.ht m)

      If you run lights 12 hours a day for a month (roughly what you'd expect for chirstmas lights) a "normal" 100 light strip burns about $2 worth of electricity.
      A 100 foreverbright strip burns about 1/10 of that, so in 10 years it pays for itself, even if you get "normal" strips for free.

      LED christmas lights are a long term investment, but they are price competitive.

      Flood lights are a different story.

      -- should you believe authority without question?
    5. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by realdpk · · Score: 1

      LED christmas lights, at least the ones I've seen, are awful. They don't spend the extra few pennies to put in a few diodes (rectifier) to conver it all to DC, so the lights flicker. It's especially apparent when the lights move -- such as in windy conditions -- but even when they're standing still you can see it.

      I think they do it so you can run strands of the cables end to end, but they could easily fix that with a few more pennies of wire carrying the AC end to end if they wanted.

    6. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by spiffturk · · Score: 1

      God damn it, it's spelled "definitely"!

      --
      Will

    7. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's rediculous!

    8. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      I think they do it so you can run strands of the cables end to end, but they could easily fix that with a few more pennies of wire carrying the AC end to end if they wanted.

      Or just replace it all with DC. Plug in a transformer and power all your lights via DC. If it was good enough for Thomas Edison, it's good enough for my Christmas light display. Hell, it'd probably be safer than 120 volt AC too.

    9. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'd be even better. Just fashion a different kind of plug (or use the standard plugs you find on any random DC appliance).

    10. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by mike.newton · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are, but here in Canada I can get a string of 70 bulbs for $13 at Candian Tire. If you're going to have such a ridiculous number of bulbs, I would think the energy savings would pay for the LED bulbs in a matter of weeks.

    11. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Technician · · Score: 1

      LED christmas lights are a long term investment, but they are price competitive.

      That's what I thought. However, here is my experiance. I bought some battery operated strings of 20 lights to put in the rear window of my car. I used them last year. I noticed one of the LED's started to dim after a couple weeks. This year I dug them out. I noticed only 3 bulbs are anywhere near original brightness. Most are just bright enought to let me know they are not completely dead. (I don't remember the brand, but Wal-Mart had them) It's hardly an investment.

      I did pick up some Forever lights this year. They don't run on battery power which limits their use in the window of a car. (well they do with in inverter) I picked up the forever lights before I discovered my other lights died in the box. I'm hoping the Forever Lights don't meet the same fate as my battery strings.

      Anybody else have any of the 20 LED battery strings from Wal-Mart? Are they working this year?

      Due to my past experiance, I'm entering the LED lighting carefully until it becomes stable and reliable.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    12. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Technician · · Score: 1

      I would think the energy savings would pay for the LED bulbs in a matter of weeks.

      I like your Canadian math. If one string has a 5 year payback in savings, than 100 strings has a bayback time in a matter of weeks...

      More lights cost more money.. The payback time does not change here in the USA. The cost is fixed X the number of strings, unless you get a real good bulk discount on the lights.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    13. Re:LED's are definately the future ... by Technician · · Score: 1

      They don't spend the extra few pennies to put in a few diodes (rectifier) to conver it all to DC, so the lights flicker.

      Many of the lights use a capacitor to limit the current drawn by the string instead of a resistor. This current limited AC is then fed the string. A diode permits the capacitor to cycle back and not reverse bias the LED's. This is where the flicker comes from. They did not spend the extra to add a second diode and a filter capacitor to the 1/2 wave rectified AC fed to the string. It's easy to mold a diode and mylar capacitor in the plug of the string. It's harder to also include a second diode or bridge diode and filter capacitor to kill the ripple.

      If you make your own supply to power your string, be aware the plug also includes fuses. Changing the plug will void the UL approval.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  10. How many geeks.... by WesG · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....does it take to screw in an LED bulb?

    yay :-)

    1. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      239.

      1 to screw it in. 238 to debate its PN junction bandgap.

    2. Re:How many geeks.... by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

      None. It's a hardware problem.

    3. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only two. But they'd have to be very small geeks to fit in the bulb.

    4. Re:How many geeks.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oops, I thought you said programmers :)

    5. Re:How many geeks.... by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      4. One to climb the ladder and runs out of breath after the first step. Another to climb the ladder and runs out of breath half way. Another to climb to the top and have an asthma attack and can no longer function. And finally one that can climb to the top and change the light bulb.

    6. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five. One to hold the ladder, one to screw the bulb in, and the other three to flame each over in a Linux vs. BSD vs. Mac war.

    7. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two?? Geeks fly solo, one is enough.

    8. Re:How many geeks.... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Does it matter?

      Once you screw in the lightbulb you'll realize that the bulb could be functioning better if you made some improvements. So, you'll only end up unscrewing the lightbulb and leave it on your workbench for 6 months anyways...

    9. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your syntax is wrong. The correct question is: "How many geeks does it take to masturbate in a LED bulb?"

    10. Re:How many geeks.... by Sepper · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think many geek know how to screw anything...

      Ho, you didn't meant that in a sexual manner...

      Well, then probably just one, but because he has never seen anything close to 'true light' he might get burned by it...

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    11. Re:How many geeks.... by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

      What two? the bulb is definetely screwing around.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    12. Re:How many geeks.... by erichschubert · · Score: 1

      One for each LED that is in the bulb, obviously.

      --
      Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
    13. Re:How many geeks.... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      91: 1 to screw in the outer package, and 90 to screw in the individual LEDs inside.

    14. Re:How many geeks.... by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Glad you made that correction, cuz I was about to club you with my wirewrap gun.

    15. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should require only two but there aren't any female geeks so I guess we will never know...

    16. Re:How many geeks.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, none!

      You send your web controlled robot to do it...:-)

    17. Re:How many geeks.... by haxor.dk · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether the switch is ON or OFF.

      No, wait. That was if you had blind people doing it.

    18. Re:How many geeks.... by Infinityis · · Score: 0

      Normally it takes 2, but since we were all born knowing how to count in binary, it normally takes more like 10.

    19. Re:How many geeks.... by dethl · · Score: 1

      You don't wanna know.

      --
      "Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
    20. Re:How many geeks.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      X + 1

      1 to screw it in, and X to blog about it, submit stories to slashdot linking to the blogs, and then comment on the story and the inevitable dupe. And no one will RTFA anyway.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    21. Re:How many geeks.... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      ....does it take to screw in an LED bulb?

      Geeks ? Screw ? Bah ! :)

      Thomas-

  11. I wonder....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if it handles being struck by lightning? I live in a area that seems prone to having building being hit alot. And I don't really have the best surge protection.

    1. Re:I wonder....... by tracker1972 · · Score: 1

      It probably handles being struck by lightning as well as any other bulb. Badly. In fact like most things not specifically for lightning strikes (like lightning conductors) and a few things that get lucky by having a metal cage (like cars), lightning is just bad news. Tracker.

  12. Amish Lights by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I live in the middle of an Amish community. I know that LED has been growing amongst them as a lighting source. An LED table lamp powered by batteries is becoming quite common replacing the hot, noisy and potentially dangerous gas lights that have been used in the past.

    1. Re:Amish Lights by Coopa · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought Amish people didn't use technology, since when are LEDs not technology?

    2. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of Amish folks have cell phones.

    3. Re:Amish Lights by mordors9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually they have a complicated set of rules that varies from area to area. Some areas they are allowed to have rubber tires, some areas not. In our area they have lots of wood shops that used gas powered air compressors. Then they use air tools for their work. One of the most interesting things I saw when I first moved to the area was an Amishman backing his horse and buggy up to a public boat ramp on a lake. He had a trailer with a boat and a Honda motor on it. Alot of them have phones outside in what appears to be an outhouse. Several households will share the one phone. But they can not be in their homes. The list goes on.

    4. Re:Amish Lights by Coopa · · Score: 1

      Didn't know most of that. I can't say there's many Amish people near me (in the UK).

    5. Re:Amish Lights by DogsBollocks · · Score: 0

      Since when did the Amish have the internet? Let alone the fact you first need a computer before you can have Internet. "I've heard they have internet on computers now"

    6. Re:Amish Lights by MrResistor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They aren't Luddites, they just feel it's spiritually important to keep things simple, and not get so caught up in modern consumerism that they forget what's important.

      IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this, where something comes along that is so much better and safer, but no more complicated, comes along. Having grown up off-grid, and having plenty of experience with kerosene lamps and candles, I can definately appreciate where these guys are coming from.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    7. Re:Amish Lights by heptapod · · Score: 1

      According to this article LEDs are being used for their buggies. The allure seems to be the relative safety compared to hot halogens and being energy efficient.

    8. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its "a lot" not "alot", alot is not a word.

    9. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what hardware/software Amish geeks use? Black NeXT cubes with grey-scale displays?

    10. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "it's", as in "it is" rather than the posessive.

    11. Re:Amish Lights by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      I live in the middle of an Amish community.

      And you not only own a computer, but you're an active contributor to Slashdot of all places?

      I must be missing something here, yes?

    12. Re:Amish Lights by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      I am not Amish, I have neighbors who are Amish.

    13. Re:Amish Lights by Hatta · · Score: 1

      They're religious fundamentalists. You can't expect them to be consistant.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Amish Lights by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Many amish who do not believe that life should be so strict will become mennenite and live locally. In addition, there are a number of ppl who were raised amish, but elected not to stay within the community. They will then act as an interface to the outside world.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are religious fundamentalists allowed to be quiet types who don't get in your face? Is this possible?

    16. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this...

      Do they have a website?

    17. Re:Amish Lights by munboy · · Score: 1

      wait, you're on slashdot in an amish town? on a computer?

    18. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "possessive," not "posessive."

    19. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Luddites were not against technology, they were against the use of technology (factory textile mills) in the exploitation of the working class. They watched the industrialists take over their cottage industry weaving lifestyle and force them to become factory laborers in horribly unsafe mills, working very long hours for little pay, and they revolted. There was no OSHA, no labor unions. These were people who used to work at home, with their children nearby, and did not have to worry about being killed or maimed by a power loom or a boiler explosion. Very informative book: Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution : Lessons for the Computer Age, by Kirkpatrick Sale.

    20. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't mess with me, English. We're even reading slashdot these days.

      -- Jedediah

    21. Re:Amish Lights by brad3378 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they'll be able to use fuel cell technology in the future?

      --

    22. Re:Amish Lights by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      And they can be used as guides if you ever feel an urge to go hunt and kill some Amish. Good eating.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    23. Re:Amish Lights by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      I thought Amish people didn't use technology, since when are LEDs not technology?

      It's not technology! It's a magic glowing rock!

      --
      That is all.
    24. Re:Amish Lights by leob · · Score: 1
      IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this, where something comes along that is so much better and safer, but no more complicated, comes along.

      "Comes along", you say? Don't you find their willingness to benefit, as a society, from technological advances without contributing back, as a society, anything even remotely technological, somewhat parasitic?

    25. Re:Amish Lights by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Yeah the outhouse phone dealie is because some of the rules say that they can own a telephone but it cannot be placed in the house and needs to be 'X' number of feet away from the residence. We have a large menonite community where I live and they have some pretty funny rules (IMO. One being that they can use a 95HP tractor to do field work, but 105HP is too much. My buddy tried to sell them one "tuned down" to 95HP but they wouldn't take it. Others can't use a tractor or a phone at all. Others drive a vehicles into town to get some groceries and go to the bar to have a beer. I'd like to see a couple Amish guys get into a big discussion on why its wrong to have a car, while the other guy enjoys his car just fine.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
    26. Re:Amish Lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because they are paying for the technology. They should be able to live as they want to.

    27. Re:Amish Lights by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Just because they aren't pushing the technological envelope doesn't mean they aren't contributing. They might say we're the parasites, taking so much more than we really need.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    28. Re:Amish Lights by TPFH · · Score: 1

      They fly on Airplanes too.
      I was a little confused myself when I first saw this but then I found out about different rules, and that it is mostly for their personal lives or something.

      --
      This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  13. $79 for 1 bulb?!?! by ColdZero · · Score: 1, Insightful

    $79!!! a bulb? At such a steal, I'll be in a big rush to spend $320 to replace the 4 spotlights around my house that are on for maybe 4 hours a day, and I can't even remember the last time we had to replace those. I don't feel like figuring out the math, but how much of a savings is this really going to be for a person who has their lights on a timer/motion activated?

    1. Re:$79 for 1 bulb?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't feel like figuring out the math

      Standard 75-100W Outdoor Flood - $4-5
      Lifespan: 2000 hrs

      LED Lifespan: 50,000 hrs

      Lifespan factor = 25x
      Price factor = 16-20x

      Electrical bill savings...

      On second thought, just go back to sleep, stupid fuck.

  14. when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This is slightly off-topic, but I thought LEDs would make great Xmas lights with their high brightness and SAFER low power. But when I froogle "LED Christmas" I just see see a few knicknacks. Are they too expensive?

    1. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      I was in Target last night and found a string of LED lights in the shape of small Candy Canes. The string of (I think) 50 lights was US$9.99. Not outrageously expensive, but certainly not cheap enough to line your entrie house with them yet. I went to the Target website and can't find a link to the product. Does anyone else have a link to this or a similar product that's on sale now?

    2. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      Ok, just found a link to a site selling LED x-mas lights here. They seem to have a large seletion, but they're all still too expensive to replace the 1000+ light decorations that some poeple put up.

    3. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was down at Wal Mart a few days ago. Picked up a string of 70 indoor mini lights for $9. They are good quality. Four color lights.

    4. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by n6mod · · Score: 1

      I bought several strings a couple of years ago. They were $4-5/string, and that was at the day-after-Christmas half-off sale.

      They had two kinds. One was the usual LED red, green, and amber, and strings that were a color I'd never seen in LED's before: a "candelight" color, maybe 2800K.

      They appeared to be a standard light string with LEDs that fit in the sockets.

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    5. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Those of us into the electronics hobby thing should probably skulk around quite a bit at the after-christmas sales. I still want to build a matrix of LEDs to flash insults at tailgaters on the road, etc. Stupid consumers, and their retailers, always 'blow out' stuff at low-low prices when the calendar tells them the fun is over and back to the saltmine to pay down that credit card debt...

      I suspect the LEDs will strip out of all that Christmas riggery nicely and be useable.

    6. Re:when willthere be LEED Xmas decorations? by Infinityis · · Score: 0

      All it takes is a leader...if I had more time, I'd take an ordinary string of bulbs, convert it to a LED system, and submit it for the front page of Slashdot before people start setting up their Christmas trees.

  15. Cheap LEDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although LED floodlights can be expensive, if you order from the right place they can also be cheap, it all depends on what materials are used. this site has tons of info on them.

  16. Never have to change them? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, I did the math, and it would have to be changed every 5-6 years. 50,000 hours is approximately 2083 days. 2083 days is about 5.7 years. So running one 24/7, and yes, some people seriously do that, I'd have to buy one every 6 years.

    I realize how stupid this comment is, but just felt like pointing it out since the story did say, "but you never have to change them.".

    1. Re:Never have to change them? by technogogo · · Score: 1
      Also, the halogen bulbs I use say 6000hrs on the packet, but I don't get anywhere near that. And yes they are on slow start dimmers to reduce the initial stress when they switch on.

      I suspect that the duration of lights is a bit like the depth ratings for watches. 6000hrs isn't 6000hrs and tested to 10m doesn't mean it a watch will work after a trip into 10m of water.

    2. Re:Never have to change them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Never have to change them? by kevinmf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok - they are guaranteed for 50,000 hours. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll die right then, though.
      A friend of mine has a company that makes LED products, and she says that they don't die at 50,000 hours, she just didn't want to guarantee them any longer than that becuase after that, it's not really cost effective. Granted, they might not last THAT much longer after that period, but still, it's awhile.
      Not to mention the fact that when LED lights die, they don't turn entirely dark, they just get a little dimmer as parts of them stop working, but other parts continue to function.

  17. flourescent bulbs-You light up my life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "sure LED's are cool, but for $79.95, i wouldn't think of it as an alternative to regular bulbs."

    Houses no. Vehicle headlights yes. And the price point puts them there.

    BTW Who's the idiot who's moderating the posts flamebait, complaining about the price? What? You think we all are made of money or something?

  18. rawr by Renraku · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And..

    They willl promptly be shut down for violating some law they just enacted specifically against that company to raise profits of the 'traditional' manufacturers.

    Skeptical?

    Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:rawr by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

      Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.

      We have to protect the companies in order to protect the workers' jobs! In socialist america, anyway. Think "recycling program" -- 12,000 jobs in my state!

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    2. Re:rawr by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, at least in my city (NYC), the recycling program pretty much pays for itself. The paper recycling is profitable, being offset by plastic and glass. Although the program as a whole runs at a loss, it's still a lot cheaper than paying other cities to take our trash and paying for the transportation to move the trash to those out of state dumps.

      As energy prices rise, recycling is set to become even more favored, as all three require far more energy to make out of virgin raw materials than via recycling.

      Recycling also keeps money at home instead of sending it overseas to pay for energy and raw material imports. By reducing demand for said imports, it also lowers the price we pay for the imports we do buy.

  19. What a dilema for students by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    Be cool, trendy and enviromentally friendly like students want to be and get these leds at the price of a weeks drinking money per bulb and also the loss the main heat source in their house.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:What a dilema for students by BillX · · Score: 1

      Ah, those cold college years... At my univ. the new management decided to save money by cranking down the thermostats in the dorms in winter to Downright Chilly. I remember everyone just leaving their lights, computers, monitors and stereo equipment running 24/7 for space heating - electricity to dorm rooms wasn't metered.

      (I wonder if they've calculated yet how much money they are 'saving' :-)

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    2. Re:What a dilema for students by shirai · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. Many people don't realize that if you have an electrical heater, you may as well leave everything else on (when it's cold anyways).

      My girlfriend at first kept worrying about the power loss of leaving her computer on. So I explained to her that with an electric heater balanced at a certain temperature, the computer was moot. Any electricity the computer wasn't using would be made up for by the elctric heater.

      --
      Sunny

      Be my Friend

    3. Re:What a dilema for students by Technician · · Score: 1

      Any electricity the computer wasn't using would be made up for by the elctric heater.


      This is true if you are still using ineffecient resistive electric heat.

      If you are using a more effecient source for heat such as a heat pump, than using the computer for heat is a reduction in heating effeciency.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  20. A little Late by cubase_dag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to work in my highschool stage as an assistant stage manager. and we've been using low power LED Fixures for the last 2 1/2 years. you think somebody would have done this sooner.

  21. The Savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Using their calculator. (One bulb)
    • Current annual electricity costs: $5.69
    • Current bulb life: 20.5 months
    • Current annual replacement bulb costs: $1.76
    • Current maintenance hours per year: 0 hours
    • Current annual maintenance costs: $0
    • Current annual lighting costs: $7.45
    • Enlux LED Flood unit cost: $80
    • Enlux LED Flood wattage: 22W
    • Annual electricity costs with Enlux LED: $1.93
    • Enlux LED Flood life: 50,000 hours or 411 months when used for 4 hours per day
    • Months until break even point: 167 months
    • Total savings with the Enlux LED Flood: $112.06
    1. Re:The Savings by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      mhh so lets expand this math.

      Months LED running after break even point: 244
      Total savings divided by that time: $0.45

      Doesnt seam worth it yet to me.

      Yes i realize these numbers dont account for all factors, and i am just doing a couple of more caluclations. But i think the point is that lets wait till the price comes down a little more then they will be more cost effective.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    2. Re:The Savings by Jjeff1 · · Score: 1

      There are many advantages to these things I can spot right off.
      - My grandparents aren't climbing 15 feet up a ladder to change a bulb in their vaulted ceiling. They'd have to hire someone every time a bulb blew.
      - Many businesses are ruled by unions, only certain people can do maintenance tasks, like changing light bulbs. The time to get a ladder/lift and the employee out to the right place is a lot more than you'd think.
      - Any high stress area, think schools where kids bash lights with books, any gymnasium, raquetball court. For that matter, how about parking lots at night. No lighting in a bad neighboorhood is not a good thing.
      - Automotive, how often do you break the bulb in your trouble light when puttering under your car?
      As far as I'm concerned, the cost savings isn't so much in electricity, but in the fact that it virtually doesn't break.

    3. Re:The Savings by Epistax · · Score: 1

      The site is currently thoroughly slashdotted, but you specify that's for 4 hours a day. Start running it more realistically (12 hrs a day?) for the bulb you're likely to be replacing. The bulbs' lives divide by 3, annual bulb replacement cost triples, electricity cost triple (for both). Without doing any math to check, wouldn't that make the break even point closer to 60 months? Granted that's still a long time, but I'm just trying to throw some more realistic numbers in.

      Also don't forget you're simply using less electricity which is a good fact all by itself.

    4. Re:The Savings by GoRK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also keep in mind that their calculator does not figure the time-value of money into the equation at all. If you plan on doing anything better with your cash than investing in LED lighting products, the break even will NEVER, EVER happen -- at least for a homeowner.

      LED bulbs are making a bit more business sense in certain commercial installations where you actually have to pay a human being a minimum feee for an hour or so of labor to go replace a few lightbulbs. Especially in situations where the bulbs are so difficult to reach that it takes a few hours to actually change them and causes an inconveneince for other people while they are being changed -- the fee to change a bulb could easily outstretch the cost of LED lighting. Often in situations where 'expensive' bulb changes happen, they will change all the bulbs at the same time even if they don't need it simply because all the rigging and labor will be there and ready to go.

    5. Re:The Savings by JAFSlashdotter · · Score: 1
      What about the cost of spending $80 now, instead of keeping it invested in something? $75 invested at 5% (i.e. in your stock market portfolio w/ a lot of your other money) for 1 yr is more than the "annual replacement bulb cost" ($78.75 - $75 = $3.75; $3.75 > $1.76). So paying the $80 up front doesn't save you ANYTHING on the bulb costs over the life of the LED bulb. You do save on the electricity, and you do save if you have high maintenance costs in replacing them, but I think the true "break even" point could be even longer out than they say.

      On the other hand, none of this calculates in the piece of mind and safety of never having to navigate your stairs in the dark, because the LED bulbs should "fail gracefully" instead of working fine one instant and being completely useless the next.

      --
      We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
    6. Re:The Savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Start running it more realistically (12 hrs a day?) for the bulb you're likely to be replacing.

      I did use figures that were realistic. If I bought their bulb, I would be replacing a bulb I currently use less than four hours a day.

      Also don't forget you're simply using less electricity which is a good fact all by itself.

      I don't know that for sure. How energy intensive is the manufacture of the LED bulb versus an incandescent bulb? I don't know the answer to that question.

    7. Re:The Savings by jhoffoss · · Score: 1

      But how much more energy is used in manufacturing and shipping a smaller number of these LED bulbs, as opposed to the [presumably] high-volume, high-efficiency manufacturing process of GE or the like?

      --
      Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    8. Re:The Savings by jonbrewer · · Score: 1

      Current annual electricity costs: $5.69

      Of course this varies widely depending on your electricity costs and maintenance costs. I found a break-even point at 42 months - and I didn't include labour for changing bulbs. Don't discount the real cost of sending someone through a building once a week to check and change bulbs.

    9. Re:The Savings by rbochan · · Score: 1

      Enlux LED Flood unit cost: $80

      Multiply that by 3 or 4 if you live in the northeast USA. That's about how many outdoor floods get lopped off when ice comes off the houses in the winter. :o/

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    10. Re:The Savings by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you're posting anonymously since you said it was your post.. but oh well.

      I don't know that for sure. How energy intensive is the manufacture of the LED bulb versus an incandescent bulb? I don't know the answer to that question.

      Neither do I. If I did I might reverse what I say, but as a green conscious consumer it's my duty to use what I know. Currently that's that LEDs use less electricity. You might be right though. Regardless, it could be one causes more pollution than the other in production in other ways, so I could be making the right choice for the wrong reason. Unfortunately people aren't forthcoming about the facts. Anyway uncertainty isn't a reason not to try to help out. Err on the side of caution, eh?

    11. Re:The Savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Start running it more realistically (12 hrs a day?)"

      most people leave their parents basement/computers for at least a few hours a day... oh wait, this is slashdot...

    12. Re:The Savings by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where I live, electricity is 12 cents/kWh. A 100 W drain is $105 a year. Where I sit, I use the equivalent of a 100 W incandescent 12 hours a day. That's $52 a year with incandescent, $13 a year with fluorescent, $6.50 a year with LEDs. The time value of money can't catch up with savings like this.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:The Savings by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      If you plan on doing anything better with your cash than investing in LED lighting products, the break even will NEVER, EVER happen -- at least for a homeowner.

      Bunk. The concern isnt with the burnt old-tech bulbs. But with the energy consumption. One 22W bulb puts out the equivelent of a 200W incandescent bulb.

      I have 4 bulbs in the soffits of my brownstone townhouse. I will be buying these bulbs.

    14. Re:The Savings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Months until some punk steals your $80 light bulbs: .5

    15. Re:The Savings by GoRK · · Score: 1

      Well, either your math is wrong or you are severely underestimating the amount of power needed for a comparable amount of light output from compact flourescent or LED or both.

      The 100W bulb does cost you $52, yes. But a 30W compact flourescent and a 22W led fixture are actually costing you $15.60 and $11.44 to run respectively. The incandescent bulb costs around a dollar or less. The flourescent about $6, and the LED about $80.

      You have easily justified the use of compact flourescent; however, the argument for LED's still does not hold yet except in cases where there is something other than the cost of electricity and bulb to consider in the replacement, which is exactly what I said. I never said incandescent bulbs would be cheaper. I guess I should have specified vs compact flourescent.

    16. Re:The Savings by GoRK · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your $80 bulbs. I am enjoying the heck out of my $6 30W compact flourescents and saving almost as much energy as you are! Assuming an outrageous price for electricity at 15c/kWh and running your 4 bulbs 10 hours per night, you save 4.8 cents per day versus compact flourescent.

      You will have to hang on to those bulbs for 18 years before they break even.

    17. Re:The Savings by j-beda · · Score: 1
      What about the cost of spending $80 now, instead of keeping it invested in something?

      Don't forget the taxes on the investment income! But you are probably correct that we can treat the cost of an incandescent as essentially $0.

  22. Re:And you by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    At one time I did even think of writing the minister of transportation. These HIDs are indeed obnoxious as hell, and probably dangerous too:

    - They are more focused than ordinary lights. As such, when a car that is equipped with them follows you on an uneven road, the lamps annoyingly blink and even change color in your retrovisor.

    - They are not full spectrum. Certain objects will have absorbtion spectra that cause them to be much darker when illuminated by HIDs than by classic halogen lamps. I hate the off-white color too.

    I don't buy into their ability to provide better illumination. If they're brighter, they are more blinding. It's that simple.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  23. they are not 200 watt equivalents by planetary+gear · · Score: 4, Informative

    They come in 45 watt and 65 watt equivalent bulbs, not twice the output of a 100 watt bulb as stated in the article ;) At this moment a CF bulb can be more efficient than them, pulling as little as 14 watts to produce the same output they do at 22. Tubular fluorescent bulbs are even more efficient. They do look cool though, and LED's get better and more efficient every year. At a watt or 2 there is nothing that can touch an LED as far as efficiency, but as soon as you go to higher power levels then even a halogen bulb can be more efficient. In my 1AA flashlights nothing is better than an LED. Plugged into the wall you're better off with a CF bulb.

    1. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      They come in 45 watt and 65 watt equivalent bulbs, not twice the output of a 100 watt bulb as stated in the article .

      Check out the specs for their colored bulbs, those are probably what the article was referring to.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by endoftheroadmatt · · Score: 1

      Just a question, does anyone know how is light intensity measured? I've heard of a unit called a "lumin" or something like that. Is this the "output" that they are measuring? I was under the impression that a 100W bulb will consume 100W of electrical power, and depending on the efficiency of the bulb, you will get less than 100W of radiated power.

    3. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I noticed that the LED "bulbs" were wildly inefficient, and IMO, a bad choice.

      At less than $5 bulb-replacement screw-in flourescent runs at 15W and emits the equivalent of 60W incandescent at roughly the same looking color as incandescent. Flourescents are available at many different color temperatures, so the complaint that they are too blue in general doesn't hold anymore.

      It also doesn't seem to pulse noticiably unlike the older flourescents, and it doesn't require a massive heat sink either. I won't pay 10x more for a less efficient LED bulb.

    4. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      Just a question, does anyone know how is light intensity measured? I've heard of a unit called a "lumin" or something like that. Is this the "output" that they are measuring? I was under the impression that a 100W bulb will consume 100W of electrical power, and depending on the efficiency of the bulb, you will get less than 100W of radiated power.

      Yes, but it's spelled "lumen" (strictly speaking, output is measured in lumen, intensity upon an illuminated surface is measured in lux). A theoretical 100%-efficient lightbulb will convert 1 watt of electricity into 683 lumens, however no lightbulb approaches this. For example a 100 watt incandescent will typically output 1700 lumens for a 2.5% efficiency. The 14-watt compact flourescent bulbs I bought for $10/6 output 900 lumens for 9.4% efficiency. Enlux's neutral-white floodlight does 300 lumens with 15 watts input (no lumens data listed for their 22W nominal input) for 2.9% efficiency.

      The best low-pressure sodium lamps do 183 lumens per watt, or 26.8% efficiency, however like many high-efficiency lamps they produce only a single output color, meaning that your eye won't be able to distinguish colors of objects illuminated solely by such a bulb. A lamp's ability for it to produce a natural variety of colors is measured by its CRI (Color Rendering Index).

    5. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      a "lumen" is defined as "One lumen is equal to the amount of light emitted by one candle that falls on one square foot of surface located one foot away from one candle."

      And yes, lightbulbls are extremely inefficent. They work by heating a fillament until it glows white hot. A standard 100w lightbulb which rated at 1750 lumens, achieves 17.5 lumens per watt, whereas the "ideal" efficency (100% conversion of electricity to energy) is 242.5 lumens/watt for white light. Most of the power goes to keeping the fillament warm.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    6. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by dabraun · · Score: 1

      Modern flourescent tubes run at around 20khz - the older flourescents just ran at the 60hz wall frequency (in the US.) You still see tubes flickering sometimes because the ballast controls the frequency and not the tube - the ballast does not need to be replaced very often.

      CF bulbs integrate an electronic ballast (in or around the 20khz range) and a tube into a small package. They tube part of the CF could be quite a bit cheaper if it was replacable / seperate from the base - but the interest in replacable CF tubes is limited by the fact that the units are supposed to last for 5-10 years so 'who cares.'

      The reality is that the length of time they last is pretty variable due to the quality of CFs made by many manufacturers. They rely heavily on the fact that no one is going to bring them up on their warranty.

      I replaced every bulb in my house with a CF bulb a year ago. Two or three have already failed.

    7. Re:they are not 200 watt equivalents by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      FWIW, lumens also take into account the spectral response of the human eye. A light generating 683 lumens per watt would be unpleasant for general use, because all of its output would be yellow-green. The ratio lumens/watt is referred to as efficacy (think effectiveness), not efficiency.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  24. They need to broaden thier horizons by DrJonesAC2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would bay $70 a bulb if they made these for indoor use as a replacement for the regular light bulb. They could probably run it at 10 watts. And they would last 10-20 years depending on use. Think of the savings on your power bill!

    1. Re:They need to broaden thier horizons by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

      There are a number of places that sell indoor bulb replacements. I just so happen to have done a bit of researching on this very topic last week before buying several strings of LED christmas lights at Lowes. The bulbs I found that you would probably want are at http://wattbusters.com

      I also found some interesting things at http://superbrightleds.com

      Unfortunately the URLs of most of the other places I found are not with me at the moment but I did remember these two and I just checked them out. The more we buy, the more will become available.

  25. No good in outdoors Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are only rated to -4F. We expect at least -10F every Winter in Minneapolis area.

    1. Re:No good in outdoors Minnesota by markan18 · · Score: 1

      -10 F is so hot, where i come from temperatures can drop below -40F in january and february. Ground and lakes are frozen from november to april and we get lots of snow. That what i call a real winter.

    2. Re:No good in outdoors Minnesota by isecore · · Score: 1

      I grew up in a small town above the arctic circle in Sweden. I visited my parents who live there about two years ago and ended up being invited to a new-years party by an old acquaintance.

      Man is it weird celebrating newyears wearing only your skivvies, standing in hipdeep snow and being quite drunk, all the while gazing up in the sky and gooing "oooh" and "aaah" at the fireworks.

      Oh, right. It was about -45 degrees Fahrenheit outside.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    3. Re:No good in outdoors Minnesota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like a friend of mine from N. Dakota used to say, "40 below keeps the rif raf out."

  26. Amish Lights-Worldview. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I thought Amish people didn't use technology, since when are LEDs not technology?"

    They use technology...intelligently.

    It's not the center of their worldview like it is for us.

    For example the phone is communal, and outside.

    1. Re:Amish Lights-Worldview. by arose · · Score: 2, Funny

      When they want to talk to each other they meet at the phone booth? :-D

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Amish Lights-Worldview. by eric76 · · Score: 0
      They use technology...intelligently.

      Tell that to someone who's lost a close relative who died in an accident after running into a buggy because it didn't have headlights and they didn't see it.

    3. Re:Amish Lights-Worldview. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Headlights? Why exactly was your relative on the wrong side of the road?

      Next you'll be saying the buggy was speeding.

      Obviously, I don't know the details that led to your relative's death. But what you say makes your relative sound more like a reckless idiot than the buggy riders you claim were the main cause of the accident.

      I'm in south central PA and have lived here most of my life. While I've seen buggies and carts on the wrong side of the road, they are always clearly well over on the shoulder and maneuvering into position such as turning into a driveway and have to get over due to the traffic patterns. I've NEVER seen a buggy in the lines on the wrong side of the road, and I drive at all hours of the day and night, and have been driving before lighting was mandatory (including just a red reflective triangle and even before that was common).

      Additionally, most of the people that I've heard who have hit buggies were either drunk, driving too fast, or new to the area and simply ignorant. If you are in an area with buggies, you SLOW THE HELL DOWN and use common sense when coming over the crest of the hill, making turns on blind corners, and the like. I've seen a lot of dumb shit by rushing drivers getting by buggies as well (e.g. 322 east of Ephrata, PA, west of 23/New Holland Pike) and one thing that has been impressed upon me is that the Amish driver is more aware of the vehicles around them than the vehicle drivers are of the buggy.

    4. Re:Amish Lights-Worldview. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your relative was a reckless idiot who deserved to die. i hope the amish horses were okay, but i imagine they weren't, seeing as they were plowed into by a speeding car driving ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD.

  27. Sometime people with mod points astound me by Baron_Yam · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How could the parent possibly be considered flamebait? It seemed like a perfectly straight forward comment to me.

  28. Does NOT generate 100 watts of light with 22 by augustz · · Score: 5, Informative

    THIS IS NOT TRUE!!

    The specs for the light are I beleive 300 lumens. This is more like a 45-60 watt bulb.

    A 100 watt bulb might generate 1500+ lumens.

    It still is significantly more efficient, and with a SIGNIFICANTLY longer life span, but it is not equal to a 100 watt bulb.

    When these first came out (won some awards) I checked them out for this very thing.

    They also are not an all around type light a la a lightbulb, more of a spotlight (90 degree beam angle?), so better for flooding a wall or artwork with color / light.

    Still super cool. Still a bit expensive.

    1. Re:Does NOT generate 100 watts of light with 22 by orz · · Score: 1

      The spec says 300 lumens at 15 watts. But the spec also says that it uses 22 watts, not 15. Can anyone clarify how much light these things produce?

    2. Re:Does NOT generate 100 watts of light with 22 by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      It is a good step forward in the light bulb industry. The cost might be high right now, but the prices should fall as the technology becomes more mature. Hopefully, other companies will see the market in LED lights and start providing competition to drive the prices down.

    3. Re:Does NOT generate 100 watts of light with 22 by Lars+Clausen · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Just checked a CF bulb. It claims to be the equivalent of a 50-60W bulb at 600 lumen. And that's running at 12W. So I'm getting twice their output with less wattage from a bulb that I can get these days for about $6. I'm *so* not impressed.

      -Lars

  29. Why I run a light 24/7 by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    I run a light 24/7 because the hallway is dark, and there's only one light switch in the hallway. I have multiple solutions, I just need the money. And energy is pretty cheap per kilowatt too, I think less than a cent per kilowatt hour.

    1. Installing a switch at the other end, so flipping the switch toggles the light on/off. Hassle if I'm carrying something, but would save energy.

    2. Find a motion detector, if they work with the energy saving light bulb I use now. The heat that's put off from regular bulbs is a bit dangerous I think. And energy saving light bulbs don't necessary like being flipped on/off, and I found this out after they tend to die quicker than normal ones.

    1. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by smatthew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where are you located. In most areas of the US electricity is around 8c/KWH

      --
      slashdot username - at - email.domain.name
    2. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Oops, I was way off. I think I looked at the rebate stuff before. Yeah, I think it's more close to your price than my price.

      I think it also depends on the time of year and environmental factors affecting the power output concerning the resale of electricity.

    3. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I'd just run a three-way circuit, which is technically a two-switch. It is cheap but requires labor to install.

      I never liked motion detectors, I can actually hear the sound most of them emit.

      Flourescents do run more hours of you just leave them on than cycling them dozens of times a day. I think the long term cost savings of running flourescents, as well as the fact that they don't have to be replaced every year worthwhile because pulling out the step ladder can be a pain.

    4. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by meowsqueak · · Score: 1

      Emit? Are those active ultrasound ones? Why not just use a passive IR-detector? I don't think they emit anything at all, do they? Most home-security detectors are passive IR I believe.

    5. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      The problem with energy saving lights, fluorescent I think. Those spiral shape ones.

      In my opinion, they tend to burn out faster than the regular ones. Or maybe they are easier to burn out, if where they're located is often used, i.e. people coming and going, people flipping the switch off and on all the time.

      You cannot use dimmer switches with fluorescent ones I think, without risk of damaging them. Or maybe I'm thinking of those three-way light sockets.

      I liked using a regular 25 watt or so light for the hallway. That burned out, and now I'm using an energy saving one, that is bright as a 60 watt I think, but uses like 12 watts of power. Although I'm saving energy, I do now have the problem of too much light shining.

    6. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've read that you aren't supposed to use compact fluorescents with dimmers (I don't have any dimmer switches, so I've never tried it). But I have several living in old 3-way lamps, without complaint -- they come on at the 2nd level, just like a 60W incandescent does. So far I've only had ONE fluorescent fail, after about 6 years of service (around 8 hours a day).

      I've also found that the newer fluorescents are too bright, compared to the 25W and 40W bulbs I'd previously used in areas intended to be only gently lit. This is why I have a towel draped across the lampshade... looks funny but cuts it down to about what the old old fl. that died was like.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Fluorescent bulbs have built-in transformers that require a specific (peak) voltage. Normal dimmers change the voltage so they don't work with fluorescents. However, you can get dimmers that cut off part of the cycle, leaving the peak in place, and these do work.

    8. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      3-way lamps are often confused with dimmers, but they aren't. Dimmers alter the flow of electricity to a normal bulb, I forget how exactly.

      3-way lights, on the other hand, have two seperate filiments inside a single bulb. One 15 walt and one 40, or something like that. They have two seperate connections on the base to run in power. (And one to let the power back out, duh.)

      Of these two incoming connections, the last one, the bright one, corrospond to the one incoming on a normal bulb, and on any fluorescent designed to plug into a normal socket. So if you put a normal bulb in, you get two 'offs' and two 'ons'.

      This is why, when 3-way bulbs burn out, they sometimes burn out weird. You either lose the high power or the low power. If you lose high, you get off-on-off-on, and if you lose low, you get the off-off-on-on you also get from a regular bulb in a 3 way. (At that point, if you're clever, you can move said low-less bulb into a normal light instead of throwing it out.)

      And, yes, you can put 3 ways on real dimmers, and they work just fine.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I grew up with a houseful of 3-way lamps. In fact in the 60s and 70s, almost any table lamp and most floor lamps were 3-way. (They seem to have become less common over the past couple decades, why I don't know.) As I recall most of the bulbs were 40w/100w -- tho come to think of it, I can't remember when I last saw any 3-way bulbs for sale! I've been using ordinary bulbs (and now fluorescents) in mine for so long, that I almost think it's normal to have to turn on any lamp "twice" :)

      Yep, it was pretty common for just one of the filaments (usually the dimmer one) to burn out first. And then we'd cheaply, er, thriftily continue to use it until the whole thing went dark.

      Um... [thinking] ... [walks over to 3way lamp and plays with it] Nope, on-off-on-off isn't quite right. They had these settings:

      Off
      On low-only
      On high-only**
      On both**

      ** These two settings work for fluorescents and regular bulbs.

      Did you have some that worked differently??

      You know you're "old" when 3-way lamps are a subject of nostalgia :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      They worked this way, let's see if we can make a table:
      - 0 1 2 3
      H - - X X
      L - X - X

      So if the low burns out, or if you're using a normal light bulb, you get off-off-on-on as you click around. I can't count the number of 3-way lamps I've had to turn off and on twice because we always put normal bulbs in them. It gets so it's a reflex to flip the switch twice.

      And you can use the 3-way bulbs, with the low burned out, as normal lightbulbs. (And, of course, you could do that anyway if the low wasn't burned out.)

      However, the weirdness comes about if the high burns out. In that case, the pattern is off-on-off-on, as you can see above. However, you'd never notice that, because that looks identical to the off-on of normal lights! It's really funny if you forget it's a 3-way lamp because of that, and try to use the light bulb elsewhere, or stick a normal bulb in there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Why I run a light 24/7 by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That covers all the cases I can think of offhand... is this the weirdest /. discussion of all time, or what? :)

      Hey, remember those pole lamps with multiswitches, where you'd have one, two, or three lights on depending on how many times you pushed or turned the switch? For extra looniness, design one that takes three-way bulbs, yet still only uses one switch. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  30. How is 1/5 the lumens equivalent? by fmaxwell · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the GE web site, their regular old 90W floodlight produces 1,100 lumens. Move up to a halogen 100W from Sylvania, and you're at 1,500 watts. From what I saw on the Enluxed web site, their 22w (nominal) LED floodlights produce 300 lumens.

    I'm a big fan of LED lighting (having bought three LED flashlights last night as presents), but this is just absurd -- unless there is some kind of misprint or my reading comprehension is not up to par today.

    1. Re:How is 1/5 the lumens equivalent? by mrfantasy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you read closely, the claim that the lights put out twice the light output of a 100w flood only applies to the COLORED floodlights.

      Which makes sense. A red LED floodlight will be made only with red LEDs, which emit nearly all their light in the red part of the spectrum. a 100w incandescent red floodlight is a regular incandescent with a red filter on the glass, which absorbs most of the light. The implication is that a 100w colored floodlight puts out about 150 lumens. I can believe that.

      --

      -- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.

    2. Re:How is 1/5 the lumens equivalent? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      if you read closely, the claim that the lights put out twice the light output of a 100w flood only applies to the COLORED floodlights.

      Thanks for that clarification. Sylvania product number 15623 is a 100 watt red incandescent floodlight. It puts out 650 lumens.

      It's a shame that the synopsis on Slashdot made it sound like they were talking about conventional white floodlights, though.

  31. Great for Grow Ops. by qualico · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the MJ growers that will get the greatest benefits from this technology.

    Strike that.
    It's the electric company they are stealing from that will benefit due to the use of less electricity.

    1. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by CPM+User · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incorrect. LED's currently suck at growing MJ. And don't think that everyone steals electricity to grow it.

    2. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Do you know if these are actually good as grow lights? I don't grow weed, but my cacti and plants might benefit from them.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    3. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by qualico · · Score: 1

      Ya those guys at NASA know shit.
      http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/tec hnology /light_farming_010926.html

      "And don't think that everyone steals electricity to grow it"
      Great! Now I know where I can get ethically growing MJ.

    4. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by qualico · · Score: 1

      I did a bunch of research into this a while back.
      So if I get this wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected here. Too lazy to look up my material.

      Anyway, LEDs for anything is just too expensive.
      Your best bet is a T8 32W Fluoro for now.
      You get great efficiency and it won't burn the plant if its touching.
      On the down side, fluoros have poor penetration because the light has a greater distribution area. Fluoro floods are ok, but a lot of surface area is wasted reflecting into itself.
      So you really have to get them in close.
      I like T5s and T2s but they burn the plants if too close.

      LEDs will become excellent choices for all kinds of things, especially plants.

      The greatest advantage is that they can be designed to feed a particular part of the wavelength that plants specifically use for its life cycle.
      http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/paper/f ig5.gif
      Currently lighting technology wastes a lot of energy in the visible spectrum that the plant does not really use.

      Anyway, the technology is here.
      Now we just have to wait for mass production.

      If I have time I'll check out some links where I found the cheapest sources.
      Google it for now.

      Oh and here is a link to chew on:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi ?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11541670&dopt=Abstrac t

    5. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between growing MJ and growing other plants. Other plants don't benefit from being saturated in UV-B spectrum lighting because there's no THC synthesis going on in them.

      The last thing any self-respecting MJ grower would want to do is give up any shot at having a UV-B spectrum, and I don't see any UV-B LED floodlights getting mass produced any time soon.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Great for Grow Ops. by qualico · · Score: 1

      Never under estimate supply and demand.

  32. Flashing by Skiron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they flash when accessing your hard drive, or toggle on/off pressing CAPS LOCK? Otherwise, no good for us lot here...

    1. Re:Flashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just see it now, the 300 lumen led hard drive hack. Then again if a keyboard did have one of these MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS.

  33. It's called by warrax_666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    the Moderator-on-crack Syndrome.

    --
    HAND.
  34. Colours by __aavljf5849 · · Score: 1

    All LED lights I have seen has had a horrible cold light worse even that flourescent lights. It makes me queasy...

    These may be different, but that remains for them to prove. ;-)

    1. Re:Colours by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      These may be different, but that remains for them to prove. ;-)

      According to their web site, they produce LED lights by using their "Enlux proprietary Light Engine, using red, amber, green and blue LED array" rather than simply using the bluish-white LEDs to which you probably refer. That lets them tune the color spectrum and temperature.

      But that's according to their web page, which also claims that the 300 lumen LED flood will save you money, even though it costs $80 and produces less light than the 11W Sylvania compact fluorescent floodlight you can get at many home centers.

  35. DSL line, residential address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, when their mailing address isn't in a residential area, and they find enough money to move their web site from a DSL line, then maybe I'll think of them more seriously.

  36. I wonder how this compares by bigberk · · Score: 1

    The big guy so far has been Lumileds , e.g. their Luxeon Star is one beast. I think it's now included in the headlight fixtures of some cars. No harm in having more competition, but those luxeon stars really would be tough to beat. Impressive engineering.

    1. Re:I wonder how this compares by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

      $595/100 for the lumiled warm white 20 lumen on tape reel. So 8 of these for 160 lumens and you have to mount them.
      They are impressive looking. Maybe when I build the new house...

  37. Four! by dark-br · · Score: 1

    One to hold the bulb and 3 to sping leader arround :)

  38. Not much better than flourescent... by david.given · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The site's slashdotted, so I can't actually go and see what they've got, but I know that in the past white LEDs had problems because they don't do white very well. I wonder if they've managed to solve them...

    Flourescent lamps work by using a mercury vapour discharge tube to produce ultraviolet light, which excites a phosphor coated on the inside of the tube to produce white light of various colours. They work pretty well; my house pretty much only uses 22W flourescent bulbs, which are roughly equivalent to 100W incandescents. The colour's not bad, but the spectrum is a bit weird, and some things look a little strange. (My parents have a glass vase that shows up purple under sunlight or incandescent light, but green under flourescent light.)

    White LEDs can use the same system, with a UV LED that excites phosphor, but these are inefficient and very expensive. (Or at least were, the last time I looked.) A more common way is to use a red, green and blue LED in the same package. These can be cool because you can change the colour by simply changing the relative brightnesses, but they produce a spectrum that makes flourescent tubes look normal. Compared to incandescents, they're very blue, and some things look really strange.

    Does anyone actually know what these things are?

    1. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      Slashdotted? Here is the mirrordot link, here is the coral cache link, and in case all else fails, here is the google cache.
      A slashdotting is no excuse to not RTFA, anymore ;-)

    2. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by daedel · · Score: 1

      Flourescent lights are awful for getting true color. When I was professionally photographing houses for an old job, I had to go through hell to get a decent result. I'd stand in between two rooms: one with incandecent, one with flourescent. One picture would show the walls at a slightly pinkish hugh, the other, white. It normally would not be a huge deal, but in this job it was. Imagine spending several minutes getting the hugh right in a picture a few hundred times. Ugh.

    3. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by mforbes · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason for this is that standard flourescent tubes are not full-spectrum. Tungsten bulbs may or may not be natural daylight-balanced (daylight-balanced are bluer & also more expensive), but at least every part of the spectrum is represented. Not true with flourescents, unless you pay out the nose. I don't know what the spectrum on white LEDs looks like, they weren't yet in vogue when I was a photo major.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    4. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That vase has to be uranium glass. Sometimes called vaseline glass. Hold a GM counter next to it.

      Oh, and do you really want fluorescent tubes in your house? Studies have revealed higher skin cancer rates if you're under those a lot of the time, with their high UV emissions, I mean.

    5. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      There are two main ways to get white light from LED's-

      Phosphur coated bulb that is actually Blue or UV. The blue based LED tends to range more in to the Blue spectrum. The UV is pretty clean but extremely expensive.

      The other way is to use an array of different LED's. A Led produces light at a specific wavelength of say 430nm. Combine that with say 550nm , and 670nm (basically Blue, Green, and Red), and focus it properly and you have something appears to be white. Increase the number of LEDs and it will give very nicely white balanced light. The only problem is that shadows will have colored edges.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    6. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by david.given · · Score: 1
      That vase has to be uranium glass. Sometimes called vaseline glass. Hold a GM counter next to it.

      It's not, it's very good lead crystal.

      My father actually had one of those uranium salt vases. He was a physics teacher at an old school, and they had all kinds of interesting stuff tucked away in the cupboards. At one point he went through with a Geiger counter and dug out all the radioactive sources, and lined them up on the bench in order of intensity.

      The vase, which was a gorgeous colour, came somewhere in the middle, next to the lump of pitchblende (uranium ore). At the bottom, just below the americium smoke detector, was the official issue radioactive source for schools. At the top was something that was so radioactive he handled it with tongs: a WWII-era aircraft instrument dial, painted with luminous radium paint. Aaaah!

      As for skin cancer rates... got any references? I'd expect that that applies mostly to people who work under them, in places where there are banks of those old-fashioned two-metre tubes. Home flourescents use miniature coiled-up tubes that fit into the space a bulb normally takes. I'd expect those to produce a tiny fraction of the UV output.

    7. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you said fluorescent tubes I assumed you meant actual tubes rather than energy saving bulbs. I'm sitting under an energy-saving bulb right now.

      Yes, the studies I read about were about working under them, but obviously I don't know your circumstances. Unfortunately I read about it in a newspaper.

    8. Re:Not much better than flourescent... by Technician · · Score: 1

      Any electricity the computer wasn't using would be made up for by the elctric heater.


      Many times when I have to shoot buildings, I bring along a bunch of slave strobes. Hang them off the existing lights or place them in the fixtures. Take flash only photos if possible. Then your color tempurature correction needs only done once. To make your temprature corrections easy, use a grey card or a color checker card.

      They can be found here;
      http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/ graysca landc.html

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  39. Projector by orz · · Score: 1

    So, what does this mean for the DIY projectors that /. linked (here)to a few days ago? Those projectors were supposed to be fairly loud, due to the cooling required for the 400 watt light bulb. If this thing is 10 times the efficiency of a normal light bulb, it could probably get by without the primary cooling system, making the projector much quieter.
    On the other hand, it sounds like it's a bit dimmer than the 350 to 400 watt bulbs, so maybe it's not practical yet, though it likely will be soon. The color spectrum produced by these things might not be as good as that of the incandescent bulb it would be replacing, and the secondary fan used to cool the LCD screen would probably still be needed. These are a little more expensive, but imagine many would consider the extra $50 or so to be a good bargain for a quiet projector.

    So... am I on crack or will projectors soon be much quieter?

    1. Re:Projector by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      I believe that for a projector a POINT light source is required for optics to function properly.

      But yes, this, indeed, looks promising. A bit of adjustement for optics and the result could be really impressive. Not to mention the fact that LED's don't loose their color temperature over time.

    2. Re:Projector by orz · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, that does put a crimp into the idea of this sort of thing as a drop in replacement in a projector. I guess they'd have to be custom designed specifically to use such a bulb. I guess that pushes it farther into the future.

  40. site down by pvt_medic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    look i think we know why its so expensive, the site already down. They must be spending a fortune on their website.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
    1. Re:site down by saur2004 · · Score: 1

      Ya they could probably save the $80 on one, seeing how thier servers are glowing bright enough.

  41. Series or Parallel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume that if one LED goes out the rest won't. So what does 50,000 hours mean? At 50,000 hours it would still be putting out 95% of rated light? 90%? If it gradually degrades past 50,000 hours that would add some to the value.

    Can it be dimmed?

    1. Re:Series or Parallel? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The standard for this kind of thing is that when it puts out 50% or less of the light than when it was new, it's "burned out". From what I have seen from LED traffic lights, they have serveral circuits of LEDs wired in series, and when they start to fail, parts of the light will be dimmer than others.

  42. company name by null-sRc · · Score: 1

    enlax...

    sounds like a laxative :|

    --
    -judging another only defines yourself
    1. Re:company name by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Or a mix of enlarge and relax, which sounds like a spammer pill that didn't make the grade.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  43. Disruptive technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are absolutely right, the screw-in flourescent bulbs are a much better bet for most applications. However, these will find some small market that the flourescents can't fill. For instance, it seems to me that these are much more rugged. So, they might be better in high vibration environments or where explosive gasses may be present or where their longer life provides a significant cost saving.

    The race is then to see if the cost of these fixtures will decrease or their performance will increase. Right now, it is worthwhile to manufacture these for a certain price to fill a certain small market. Later it seems likely that the price will decrease and the market will therefore get bigger. Let's see if flourescents are still better in ten years.

  44. Motion Lights by Fone626 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've got flood lights on motion sensors. The idea is to drive off the theives from stealing stuff around my house.
    With these LED lights my stuff would be further protected by having the light itself worth more than anything else lying around worth stealing.
    Hmmm, maybe I should get motion lights for my motion lights.

  45. I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps... by deragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps. I hate the pure white light that they emit. I like a light with a yellowish hue. That is why I still prefer incandescents bulbs, despite all the advantages of fluorescent lamps.

    I wonder why they do not paint fluorescent tube with a yellowish hue to make them warmer. I bet if they would do this, they would conquer a greater market.

    --
    Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
  46. Projectors by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it would be a good idea to use LED based lightbulbs for projectors, i hear those bulbs are pretty expensive and don't last very long...

  47. In soviet Russia.... by djsmiley · · Score: 0

    the leds screw you...

    Sorry had to be done, but on a more serious note people are saying about the cost of using these, you seem to be totally ignoring the point that they are much cooler... wonder where they could be used now?

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  48. Re:And you by jhobbs · · Score: 4, Funny
    -snip-
    retrovisor.
    -snip-

    What an incredibly cool word! And to think that as an American I am stuck looking at my rearview mirror.

    Spock, bring up the image in the retrovisor!

  49. Re:And you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What? That is definitely not a sentence.

  50. How many? by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many blondes does it take to Screw in LED Floodlights?

    --
    "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    1. Re:How many? by BillX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Two, but how they got in there is anybody's guess.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  51. Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although a big incentive may exist in using existing lighting fixtures, by making a standard point-source light, they totally miss the advantage of using LEDs as a light source. If you want a point source of light, you get more light for less energy by using a fluorescent.

    Now, with a point source of light, you need it much brigher than the levels you want at, for example, a wall/floor 10 feet away. Just a simple matter of applying an inverse square law.

    The big potential in LED's lies in allowing people to effectively get around the distance part of the same inverse square law... They tend to produce very directional light, and they cost little per unit (unlike these Luxeon monstrosities, which cost an arm and a leg).

    Imagine, rather than a desk lamp or a ceiling light, that your entire ceiling has a grid of LEDs spaced every six inches. The combined light output measures far lower than a single incandescent (or fluorescent) bulb, but provides better overall illumination of the room. As a result, you have no glare, better light, and impressive electricity savings even over a fluorescent.


    As much as I hate marketing buzzwords, the switch to LED-based lighting shift will have to coincide with a paradigm (ugh) shift in the entire way we think about room lighting. Only then will we really see why LEDs can provide superior illumination for less power. Trying to force a million fireflies into a bottle just pisses off the fireflies.

  52. Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough by Twid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is anyone else annoyed by the trend by hotels with replacing EVERY bulb in a room with compact fluorescents? One hotel I was at recently (the Boston Westin) did this, and I've seen a trend towards this more and more. With every light in the room on, it was still a bit dim and uncomfortable to read a book on the bed. Pretty annoying. It seems like much of the savings of fluorescent and other "cost saving" bulbs are from dimming the lumens of output.

    Given that these LED bulbs are dimmer than a normal one too, the savings seem questionable. It's like saying that you can double your gas mileage in a new car assuming you drive it half as much.

    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    1. Re:Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      That reminds me to stop by Menards and pick up the cheapest incandescent bulbs they have before the next time I stay at a hotel. Just swap in a dollars worth of the cheapies and take home fifty bucks of the good ones in a suitcase. I doubt if they'd notice the swap before a half dozen or so guests have been through the room...

    2. Re:Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough by Twid · · Score: 1

      hahahah best idea ever. Make sure you underspec the bulbs though (put a 40W in the place of a 60W, etc.) - otherwise the brightness of the room is sure to tip them off. :)

      --
      - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
    3. Re:Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough by Malc · · Score: 1

      The only thing that annoys me about it is that it didn't happen sooner.

      I replaced 90% of the bulbs in my home with CF ones years ago. I can light up a room more than I did before and still use less electricity. This part of my effort towards meeting my governments Kyoto commitments, and more.

      The great thing about these bulbs is how long they go for. In the last 4 years I've replaced two: one I broke, one burnt out.

      I find the biggest difference between CFs and incandescents is that the CFs seem to be a larger light source so a little more diffuse. This is probably what makes them harder to read by and energy savings could still be made even if higher power bulbs are used.

    4. Re:Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Compact flourescents nowadays are bright. The compact flourescents rated to replace 60W and 100W bulbs are brighter than the bulbs they replace.

      The problem with hotels is that many of them converted over to flourescents early on, and still continue to run the dated fixtures.

  53. LED's don't need to "heat up" by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

    All of the compact florescent's I've run into take at least a minute or two to come up to full brightness. LED's should be 100% as soon as they're turned on.

    Not sure that's work $80, but it's an improvement.

    1. Re:LED's don't need to "heat up" by JAFSlashdotter · · Score: 1
      All of the compact florescent's I've run into take at least a minute or two to come up to full brightness. LED's should be 100% as soon as they're turned on.

      And longer in cold temperatures, like my front porch in the winter.

      One thing I've taken to doing when there are multiple bulbs in a fixture is to put in a mix of incandescents and compact fluorescent bulbs -- the incandescent come on at full strength immediately, and the fluorescents gradually build up. Saves some money over just populating the fixture with only incandescents, but I find it less annoying w/r/t spectrum and time to sufficient illumination.

      --
      We apologize for the preceding message. All those responsible have been sacked.
  54. How long has it been... by gaijin99 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Your information seems to be badly out of date. The early model compact florescent bulbs did make a really hidious color light, but not any more. I use compact florescent light exclusively at my house. Since about two years ago they have made nice natural color bulbs. Meantime, my electric bill has gone down by about $5-$8 a month and I haven't changed a bulb in about two years. Overall I'm quite happy with my compact florescent bulbs.

    --
    "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
    1. Re:How long has it been... by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Informative

      Additionally, the 120Hz (not 60Hz) or 100Hz (not 50Hz) flicker is also gone, thanks to solid-state ballasts which re-generate the AC at significantly higher frequencies, typically in the 10-20kHz range.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    2. Re:How long has it been... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm using a compact flourescent blub on a computer desk lamp and I definitely do like them for one reason: they run far cooler than incandescent bulbs. You can actually touch the metal shade cover around the lamp and it is completely cool to the touch.

      Yes, flourescent bulbs do take about a minute or so to get to full brightness, but I don't find that to be a problem.

  55. Re:And you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the OP probably speaks french as a first language. It's rétroviseur.

  56. first? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    how it is first?

    such things are already there for quite a while, not very bright, though

    just search for led e27 in google. here is the first hit:

    http://www.superbrightleds.com/MR16_specs.htm

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  57. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to point it out, but these fluorescent lamps already exist. Like you said, they paint the tube with a different phosphor which emits a different spectrum of light, a warmer one that is.

    I've only seen these phosphors in conpact fluorescent lights, though. There are usually 3 light temperatures avaiable: the usual "annoying" neon white, soft white bulbs and day glow, like day glow incandescent bulbs.

  58. LEDs are a great untapped resource by ReeprFlame · · Score: 1

    Going mainstream in the home for LEDs is not somwething we are accustomed to. I believe it is a great untapped resource not only because they use less power and have so many color options but they have the potential to be super bright... For example, LED flashlights [quality, SuperBright ones only have 3 LEDs and shine better than most incandessants with a smaller size]. Also, I seem to have noticed LEDs on traffic lights [maybe THAT is just me but I swear its a cluster of LEDs] and they are much more attention catching, brighter, and longer-lasting. And if one burns out, you have about 100 more that still keep working! GO LEDs!

    1. Re:LEDs are a great untapped resource by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      That is the case. Traffic lights with LEDs are becoming commonplace, and for good reason. They're MUCH more apparent during the day than other methods. I know one intersection downtown where a few of the lights are LEDs and the hanging one in the middle is incandescent. The red light of the incandescent trio facing one direction has burned out, and they haven't bothered fixing it. The LEDs shine on, and are much brighter at that!

  59. lower voltage increases life by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

    Also, in cases where it is very hard to replace bulbs, one trick is to use lower voltage. That will drastically increase bulbs' life. Unfortunately, I do not know exact benefit for specified voltage decrease.

    Still, you should have in mind that spectrum will change; peak of the spectrum will be more close to red.

    --
    No sig today.
  60. NOT the first. by outanowhere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "This company (enlux) claims to have the first LED flood lights that you simply screw in as a replacement for your old bulb. "

    This claim is false.

    Commercial white LED floods and other replacements for high-voltage incandescent bulbs are available for any standard base in the world, including the funky euro and russian bases. They are available at three colour temperatures and in any other LED colour, including IR and UV.

    They have been available for more than two years.

    Enlux had no such products available a year ago.

    Seems they define "flood" a bit broadly: According to their own data, it illumines a narrow region like a spot would.

    50K hours seems a little short-lived.

    And white LEDS dim quite noticeably over a very short time. They will most likely be too dim long before 50K hours. Most likely in a bit less than half that time, around 20K hours.

    If they are willing to lie about being the first, and deceive about the useful life of their lights, what else will they lie or cheat on?

    Wonder if enlux will do for LEDs what Lights of America did for fluoros...

    1. Re:NOT the first. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Scary.

      The Lights of America fixtures I bought were shit. They weren't a whole lot better than incandescent. The manuals didn't say that they couldn't be used in a 3-way circuit. The warranty was crap too. Something like pre-paying $10 for the return shipping. For a $25 fixture, shipping it there, +$10, with the prospect of getting another crap fixture, I just bought a competitor's fixture instead.

    2. Re:NOT the first. by Malc · · Score: 1

      Funky euro? Is that like the bayonet bases they have on bulbs in the UK? I gotta say I much prefer that than these funky N. American ones. Perhaps it's because I grew up with them. I emmigrated 10 years ago, but I don't recall every having problems like I've had over here. Things like cross-threading and breaking the bulb trying to twist it out. It's also a lot easier to remove a hot bulb when it's just a case of push, small turn and release.

    3. Re:NOT the first. by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but the life of an incandescent bulb is about 1K hours.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    4. Re:NOT the first. by mike.newton · · Score: 1

      Disgruntled ex-employee perhaps? I'm always suspicious of people who are this bitter. BTW I've never seen any other LED-based replacements for standard bulbs. Care to enlighten us?

    5. Re:NOT the first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fingers broken? Try doing a google search for led light bulbs.

    6. Re:NOT the first. by smyle · · Score: 1
      The manuals didn't say that they couldn't be used in a 3-way circuit.

      They can. 3-way circuits still only provide two wires (hot and neutral) to the bulb.

      Perhaps you meant a dimmer?

      The warranty was crap too. ...

      Just take it back to Wal-Mart and let them take care of the return.

      I just bought a competitor's fixture instead.

      Interesting. Not discounting your experiences, but I've had a lot better luck with LofA than with the GE bulbs, and have resolved not to buy any more GE. Actually I've had rather good luck with "Commercial Electric" (Home Depot's in-store brand).

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

  61. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are fluorescent lights that shine with a light-temperature equal to that of regular incandescents bulbs. I'm not shure what they are called in english.. Full spectrum perhaps.

  62. Proper spelling is definitely the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no a in definitely. Is that so difficult to get right?

    1. Re:Proper spelling is definitely the future ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello checking mate

      luv u

  63. living a simple life by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the grandparent said, this "complex system of rules" is just religion oriented rule utilitarianism in action. The point is to live a simple, happy life in service of God.

    A story I once heard on the radio: some Amish people are outside doing their laundry by hand, as a group; laughing, playing, and having a grand old time.

    Meanwhile a person living a modern-lifestyle goes miserably jogging by. This person was not enjoying their jog, plus stressed out by a job that is used to buy expensive labor saving machines (washer/dryer) that STILL required time to load and operate.

    The Amish doing their laundry by hand were getting exercise and camaraderie, and as a bonus they got their laundry done all at the same time. They were also not involved in an time-consuming job to pay for expensive gadgets.

    See how it all works? Over time, the rule utilitarianism builds up to a happy life.

    Of all the things modern society has to offer, you might think that wandering a modern store the Amish would be most amused by modern electronic gadgets. This is not the case - the simple pleasures always win out. Check out any Amish people in a modern store and you will certainly find them, especially the children, trying out high sugar snacks and beverages.

    Pop - one of the most pleasurable modern amenities :-)

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    1. Re:living a simple life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad we couldn't all live Amish. Without a strenuous technology-based life style, we would have weak technology-lacking armed forces. Our simple-minded asses would be whupped and we'd all be enslaved. :-( So much for a simple life.

    2. Re:living a simple life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, perhaps you've forgotten the reason that people want to whup your asses. It has something to do with that decidedly NOT weak or technology-lacking armed forces you're so glad you have.

    3. Re:living a simple life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt you can blame the lack of community activities on the machines. Big cities have always been like that, more money but also a lot more stress. Even before washing machines were invented.

      Strangely enough the more people you have around you, the less you get to know. One thing I have never dared to do was to compare the number of people I know in flesh and bone to the number of people I can recognize by their sigs.

      And that's why I never use a sig.

    4. Re:living a simple life by ajayvb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Awww....give me a break. Have you ever washed clothes by hand? I have. I lived in India, and when I lived in dorms during my engineering days, we had no laundry facilities. "Going home to do the laundry" acquires a totally new dimension then (My parents had a washing machine at home). Try wringing out a pair of jeans to dry on a cold morning at 40 F , and then we'll talk.

    5. Re:living a simple life by OneDeeTenTee · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough the more people you have around you, the less you get to know. One thing I have never dared to do was to compare the number of people I know in flesh and bone to the number of people I can recognize by their sigs.

      And that's why I never use a sig.


      Mind if I use that as a sig?

      --
      Stop the world; I need to get off.
    6. Re:living a simple life by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Washing clothes by hand _alone_ is not much fun. But I can understand how it might be fun in a community.

      The Amish may be taking things to an extreme, but I think there are at least a few things we can learn from them.

      AFAIK most of us don't really have that much time in this world.

      Playing games/doing stuff all by yourself isn't as fun as doing stuff with friends.

      Spending most of your life earning money just to stay in the same spot on the Modern Life Treadmill (and making the Billionaire Boss even richer - but not that much happier either) isn't a good goal in life.

      Making more and more friends is a good goal in life. After all if it turns out there is eternal life, it'll be more fun to have friends for eternity than to just to have things (counting your billions gets boring after a while). If there isn't eternal life, I still don't see a big minus with having more friends :).

      --
    7. Re:living a simple life by jackbird · · Score: 1
      The first volume of Robert Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Lyndon Johnson contains an absolutely harrowing chapter entitled "The Sad Irons" devoted to describing what life was like for a poor Texas farm wife in the early 1930s before rural electrification.

      I recommend giving it a read and then thinking a bit more about the joys of doing laundry by hand.

      Not that I don't see the Amish's point regarding the sometimes questionable benefits of modernity, but that's a terrible example.

    8. Re:living a simple life by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't know the book, but for several years I did laundry by hand, and while if you're efficient about it, it's not too hard, nonetheless it's certainly a nuisance, and hand-washing requires some skill to get the clothes really clean.

      I don't know the Amish rules, but I wonder if some of the goal is to discourage "lazy" behaviour. It certainly is lazier to pitch clothes in the washer and dump in a cup of detergent, than to haul and heat water, make your own soap, etc.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:living a simple life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This person was not enjoying their jog,

      Find another way of keeping fit. Jogging is often a solitary activity - what about football or another team sport?

      plus stressed out by a job

      Find a less stressful job.

      that is used to buy expensive labor saving machines (washer/dryer)

      Washer/dryers are not that expensive. They are a lot less expensive than some of the things the Amish use.

      that STILL required time to load and operate.

      Please. The difference between washing your clothes by hand and using a washing machine is immense.

      The Amish doing their laundry by hand were getting exercise and camaraderie,

      They could have got that elsewhere, doing something more fun.

      and as a bonus they got their laundry done all at the same time.

      BFD.

      They were also not involved in an time-consuming job to pay for expensive gadgets.

      Doing chores like hand-washing is a time-consuming job. The only difference is the Amish don't get paid.

      Of all the things modern society has to offer, you might think that wandering a modern store the Amish would be most amused by modern electronic gadgets. This is not the case - the simple pleasures always win out. Check out any Amish people in a modern store and you will certainly find them, especially the children, trying out high sugar snacks and beverages.

      How do you think those high sugar snacks and sweets were made?

    10. Re:living a simple life by rarkm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's some truth to the saying "You think that you own things, but actually they end up owning you". Anyone with a cluttered garage, attic and garage will understand this.

      --
      [Insert pretentious and semi-clever sig here: ______ ]
    11. Re:living a simple life by PMuse · · Score: 1

      A poster wrote: Actually they have a complicated set of rules that varies from area to area. ... In our area they have lots of wood shops that used gas powered air compressors. Then they use air tools for their work.

      Another poster wrote: The Amish doing their laundry by hand were getting exercise and camaraderie, and as a bonus they got their laundry done all at the same time.

      You may find the rules less complex if you ask yourself whose work the modern device would make easier. Modern devices have entered the out-of-home work of Amish men somewhat faster than they have been allowed to relieve the in-home drudgery of Amish women.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  64. Re:when will there be LED Xmas decorations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can personally guarantee you that the Blue-only sets are absolutely stunning in the dark!

    but then everyone will think you are a kike. You aren't a kike, are you?

  65. subject line here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd have to replace em in 5.7 years of continual use...

  66. in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LED floodlights spam on the rise...

  67. About your tinfoil hat... by SunPin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I was shopping for energy efficient lights years ago, Target had some tucked away in the corner of the lightbulb aisle.

    The manufacturer was Sunbeam. GE dominated the rest of the row with incandescent and halogen bulbs.

    Today, Sunbeam is gone. GE still dominates this row but within that GE domination, compact fluorescent lights rule the area.

    Companies want to make profit, sure. But to think they want that profit coming from any particular product is not understanding capitalism. Markets change and companies change with them.

    Just type random stuff into eBay. Consumers are certainly not facing constricting choices.

    As for skipping through commercials or forwarding through trailers, that's an entirely different issue that has no bearing on manufacturing goods.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  68. 5 if you count the DDR coach by tepples · · Score: 1

    4. [Three to run out of stamina a]nd finally one that can climb to the top and change the light bulb.

    And one to teach the other three to play Dance Dance Revolution, starting with level 1 songs, so that they can get in shape.

  69. Time Value Of Money by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Of course estimates like this always ignore the Time Value Of Money. If you were to invest the money at a modest rate of return that you are saving by going with incandesent things don't look as rosy. Add to that the early adopter fee you pay for jumping on the bandwagon first. Wait a few years and the cost will be significantly lower. Newer LED technologies like the Luxeon Star will boost output per Watt too.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Time Value Of Money by tepples · · Score: 1

      Of course estimates like this always ignore the Time Value Of Money.

      That's because residences and many businesses tend to think only in the short term.

      In addition, as others have pointed out, LEDs come out way ahead in installation labor costs.

    2. Re:Time Value Of Money by ran-o-matic · · Score: 1

      I agree with your view on the short term thinking of businesses, but if you consider the time-value-of-money, it actually favors the option with the lower initial cost. If you are able to keep your money rather than spending it, you can invest it in something with a better return.

    3. Re:Time Value Of Money by j-beda · · Score: 1
      if you consider the time-value-of-money, it actually favors the option with the lower initial cost

      It can get a bit more complicated in that investing money in a technology that will decrease your future costs, is not exactly equivalent to investing money that will provide future income. Future savings are sort of like tax free income in that if you save a dollar in the future you will be a dollar richer, whereas if you earn a dollar in the future you will need to pay taxes on that dollar, which can amount to a significant fraction of that profit.

      Business which can deduct some of these expenses from their income of course have a different calculation to make.

      Home Power magazine had a fairly good article on this type of thing a few months back (or maybe last year?) where the author concluded that investing in compact flourescents was a better return than the stock market, while LEDs were much less of a good investment. Similar articles in the past have shown that the really best investment one could make with a few thousand dollars would be to install a solar hot water system to supliment whatever hot water system you currently have - with returns on investment of 15-30% all tax free... but I digress.

  70. Why no recessed cans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Product literature states "Cannot be used in recessed cans or fully enclosed fixtures." Anyone know why not? If they are supposed to be cooler, there shouldn't be any problem. Right?

  71. The heat issue by SunPin · · Score: 1

    Did you figure out why they recommend against putting these in recessed enclosures? My house is designed around indoor flood lights. The operating temperature should be lower than even compact fluorescent. What's your impression?

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
    1. Re:The heat issue by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      My theory is that the LEDs fail at a substancially lower operating temperature than a regular lamp. So while they might not heat up the same as an incandescent or flourescent bulb, they can only survive at a temperature much much lower.

      Semicondutor junctions are just like that, those are the breaks.

    2. Re:The heat issue by SunPin · · Score: 1

      I followed the link in your sig... what kind of retarded shit is that? If an 8 year old kid wrote it then, whatever, but I fear it was written by someone who should have known better.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
  72. Health Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember health issues concerning LEDs years ago, can anyone confirm this?

    1. Re:Health Issues? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      If you chew them well before swallowing, there should be no significant risk

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  73. Re:And you by Ed_1024 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Europe, more and more cars are being originally specified with HID headlamps - 'Xenons'. Maybe our regulations are different here but they provide a much better field of illumination than standard headlights and are less annoying to oncoming drivers when dipped. I have them on my car and it makes night driving so much easier (and safer). They are auto-stabilised so don't 'flash' at oncoming vehicles, even when on a bumpy road or with a heavy load in the rear.

    Road markings and animals stand out much more clearly on country roads and the full-beam performance is immensely better than the old incandescent/halogen bulbs. Not to mention they will probably last the lifetime of the car.

  74. Re:fluorescent bulbs by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

    I have a fluorescent ($9) flood light in the kitchen. It's in a recessed fixture right next to an incandescent ($3.5) flood. The package promised more light. Well that's not the case, at least in the part of the spectrum my eyes work in. The flourescent also needs to cook for a half hour before it's making full output. The incandescent is full on in a fraction of a second. I find that I don't turn the flourescents off because of this so I'm seeing no energy savings over the incandescents.

    OK, so $9 for something that lasts two years (my experience for the fluorescents) or $80 for something that lasts 10 years and puts out twice the light of the fluorescent is not objectionable ,to me.

    But here is the problem:
    The manufacturer says, "For use only in "open air" or nearly "open air" fixtures, such as exposed track and outdoor fixtures. Cannot be used in recessed cans or fully enclosed fixtures. Open air fixtures: -4F to 105F (-20C to 40C)".
    The environmetal specs make it useless. I'll need all new fixtures. In the kitchen, my ceiling temp regularly exceeds 40C so even in open air, I can't usethem in the kitchen. The lamps in the living room and dining room are on so seldom that incandescents last 5 years. Besides the LED guysare "not dimmable". If I had 'tree lighting' in the yard, they would be great. I just don't get 'tree lighting'.

  75. specs kinda suck by austad · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just installed a ton of recessed lights in my house, and I bought 21 Ushio PAR-20 floods for the 4" cans.

    Specs on the Ushio's are:
    50 watts at 120 volts
    600 lumens
    2900K
    45 degree flood

    These are pretty damn good specs for a 50par20. The Enlux Neutral White is as follows:
    22 watts (says 120 volts, but could be 130. Why are they listing figures for 15 watts? Odd.)
    300 lumens
    3300K
    80 degrees

    Half the light output. So I'm getting double the light output from just over double the wattage. The color is a bit whiter, which is nice, but I prefer a warmer color. I had a 2800K bulb that I compared to the 2900, and the 2900 was about right. Enlux makes a warmer bulb around this range though, so it's no big deal.

    The wide 80 degree flood may be nice in some applications, but spreading 300 lumens over that much area is going to give you very dim light. You want to overlap your lights anyway, but you would need to do much more overlap to get a decent amount of brightness down by the floor. So just popping the bulbs in might not be sufficient if you're picky, you may have to change your lighting layout for optimum coverage and intensity.

    I'd like to get ahold of one to compare to some of the bulbs I purchased for testing and comparison, but it's not worth $80 to me.

    Note that even if you could put them in recessed cans, the 80 degree width would likely be detrimental because much of your beam would hit the diffuser around the edge and you would lose a ton of your light.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:specs kinda suck by BP9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These aren't apparently any good for indoor area lighting (I have dozens of ceiling can lights I'd love to use such a thing in): per the website they cannot be installed in can's (temperature issues?) and cannot be dimmed (which leads me to wonder how you run them at 15W to get the rated lumen output rather than 22W as speced).

      No dimming is the reason I haven't switched to using excellent warm compact flouresecent lamps.

      Maybe they just stuck a resistor in series with a bunch of LED's and they're burning the other (large) chunk of power in heat. Nah... if they did that at least it would be dimmable. I wonder how they could make a PWM thing generate so much heat you can't use it in an enclosed fixture.

      Sigh.

    2. Re:specs kinda suck by austad · · Score: 1

      Dimming on LEDS is usually accomplished by high frequency "blinking". Sure to give one headaches. If you ever see a device with a dimmable LED, pick it up if you can and move it quickly across your field of vision. It will appear to form a dotted line.

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    3. Re:specs kinda suck by BP9 · · Score: 1

      Most incandenscent dimmers use PWM to dim as well. I've wired up LED's in a passive configuration and used them with an AC dimmer w/o any problem (the 30hz frequency is a little annoying since there is no filament to cool off slowly and smooth it out). It still seems to me someone would have to go out of their way to make an LED fixture not dimmable using off the shelf dimmers.

  76. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by mforbes · · Score: 1

    Standard flourescents are not pure white. Pure white includes the entire spectra from red through violet. If you break a flourescent down through a spectrograph, you'll see entire missing bands. There are some more expensive flourescents that do give off the entire spectrum. These are usually used in rooms where full-spectrum light is required, such as art museums, or for photographing a room that is normally lit by cheaper flourescents.

    --

    Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
    Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  77. flourescent bulb color by khrtt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not just the color, it's the actual spectrum. Use a CD as a diffraction grating (look at a reflection of the bulb in the shiny side, at an angle), and you will notice how the bulb produces several rather narrow spectral lines. The combined color seems a decent approximation of white to the human eye, but the pigments in the paint and dyes have their own spectral anomalities, so some colors change in weird ways when lit up with fluorescent light. Some fluorescents have a better, more even, spectrum, though. They might be less efficient and more expensive.

    I always do the CD test before buying bulbs a non-trivial quantity. And, besides, I usually get them for $1 or $2 at Walmart, so I'm not interested in a $80 LED bulb for that reason.

    Now, white LED's spectrum has a narrowish blue line from the LED itselt, and a very wide line across the yellow part of the spectrum, from coumarin-6, which is dye they coat the blue LED with to make a white LED out of it. Definitely better than cheap fluorescents, but not quite there yet.

  78. Re:And you by EvilFrog · · Score: 1

    Having rode in a car with HID lighting, I can vouch for the fact that they do provide much better illumination than standard headlights.

    They are also more directional than standard lights, which means that it's mostly the road and curb that get illuminated, not the oncoming traffic.

    I've also been oncoming of a car with such lights before, and yes, they are brighter. But having been in both situations, I'd say that (this part is simply my opinion) the amount of increased visibility for the driver of the car with the lights is much greater than the decreased amount of visibility for everyone else.

  79. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by Hank+Reardon · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting idea. Are you thinking 5mm LED packages with this? Looking at some of the stuff available at The LED Light.com, there are some interesting options on this. The quad-colored LEDs looks particularly cool.

    It looks like I could outfit my computer room with LEDs for about $200 for just the diodes. Figure another $100 in hardware and the time to scavange power supply parts, wiring and assorted other fiddly stuff from the office, and this could pay for itself within a year, easily; my lighting currently consists of halogen torchiere-style lighting to keep reflections to a minimum.

    We're looking at a house at the moment, so this is going to factor into my decision. Ideally, I'd like to get one where overhead lighting is pretty much nonexistant so I can in an place LEDs in every room. I imagine some sort of controller based on a BASIC stamp where I can send X10 signals or some sort of encoded data over the serial interface to change pulse width and duty cycle to affect the overall brightness (or color, with those quad-packages). Interface this with a home automation controller PC and you could have some double-plus fun!

    I can't wait to get started.

    --
    There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
  80. Eh? by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    What is an HID?

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HID = High Intensity Discharge

    2. Re:Eh? by Lifthrasir · · Score: 1

      High Intensity Discharge. It's basically a light created by a high-voltage arc inside the light housing.

      --
      No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
  81. One more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5) LEDs are more environmental friendly. They don't contain mercury.

    Can't wait for the organic LEDs to pick up momentum.

  82. Sulfur Microwave Lamps by lhaeh · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Sulfur Microwave Lamps are the most efficient light source, in terms of visable, white light.

    The article is really old, there have been major improvements since then, but it gives you a good idea of the basic principals of operation.

    I want to try makeing one of these, just put some sulfur and argon, both easy to get, into a glass tube. Toss it into the microwave and see what happens.

    1. Re:Sulfur Microwave Lamps by unfortunateson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sulfur Microwave lamps have two major disadvantages:
      1) They're big, not designed for desk lamps and such
      2) They use a 2.45GHz microwave generator. That number should sound familiar.... yup, they jam 802.11b/g. For that reason alone, many government installations can not use WiFi.

      --
      Design for Use, not Construction!
  83. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by Curious+Blabber · · Score: 1

    I most definitely know what you are talking about. I have spend a significant amount of time in the bush, and off grid. I have used kerosene lamps (Aladin), white gas lanterns, battery operated lamps, propane lamps, and natural gas lamps.

    Of the total, I find that the kerosene lamps put out the most pleasant colour spectrum. I have several LED flashlights. They are perfect for an application such as this. You want light that is bright, and will allow the battery to last. However, they have a definite blue colour, and are painful to the eyes, much more so than a regular flashlight. In a flashlight, this is not necessarily a problem (few things look natural under a flashlight anyhow). However, in the home, it would not be the most beneficial. For the best spectrum inside the house, I would suggest the salt crystal lamps with a regular lightbulb inside. They are extremely restful on the eyes, and when the lightbulb heats the salt crystal, it produces negative hydrogen ions, which are beneficial to the air inside your home, and you as they destroy free radicals.

    There are new varieties of white LEDs that do not have the blue tinge. However, no-one is using them for much of anything yet. I was talking with a friend about this, and came to the idea of simply cracking a lighbulb around the base, taking out the filament, and soldering one or more of these new white LEDs (with current limiting resistor). Then the glass could be reaffixed to the base. This is a cheap and effective solution that would require much less than $70.

  84. Build it yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. Research by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there research somewhere a while back that supported the idea that working in fluorescent-only light promoted mental instability?

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Research by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've heard the same. I looked for it, and couldn't find it. When I'm fortunate enough to have any say in the matter, I don't use it.

  86. A blonde answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blonde's response, "I don't use LEDs, I'm on the pill".

  87. Comparison. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    How does this compare to...Energy saving bulbs we have today?

    Power usage for a given amount of light is slightly better (22 vs 26 watts for a 100 watt equivalent).

    Life is a lot better. (50,000 hours vs. 6,000, or about 8 1/3 compact fluorescents to match rated lives with one LED lamp.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Comparison. by uhoreg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the summary says that the 22W LEDs produce twice the light of a 100W incandescent. So it's more that slightly better than compact fluorescent.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    2. Re:Comparison. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Actually, the summary says that the 22W LEDs produce twice the light of a 100W incandescent. So it's more that slightly better than compact fluorescent.

      Right - I missed that.

      OK, better than two-to-one improvement on power versus compact fluorescent. Still 8 1/3 to 1 better on number of replacements for a given lifetime (though you're now replacing different sized "bulbs").

      If the color spectrum produced is good and the price comes within sanity we have a winner.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Comparison. by Avidiax · · Score: 1

      Life is alot better if you are running on an isolated bench supply like they probably test on. One of the things that easily kills line-connected LED's is any kind of static discharge or spike. They are much more susceptible to that than any sort of regular bulb (incandescent or flourescent).

    4. Re:Comparison. by nospmiS+remoH · · Score: 1

      They are $80 each. For me that is not what I consider "sane." Perhaps for a business with a bunch of flood lights on 24/7 this would be okay, but I just don't see it for residential. Plus it says they can't go in recessed "can" fixtures (i.e. most residential flood lights) and they are not dimmable. Still, it's good to see LED light "bulbs" start to hit the market.

      --
      !hoD
    5. Re:Comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the light flux is twice as dense as a 100W incandescent, but the viewing angle is much poorer. The overall amount of light produced (integrate flux over surface area) is not twice as much.

  88. Watt to lumen ratio worse than compact florescent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cheap compact florescents I have run 20 watts --> 1200 Lumens. These 79$ lights run 15-22 watts for 300-320 lumens according to their spec sheets.

    This ratio doesn't compare with compact florescent, admittedly LEDs are cooler - but this very expensive and not as energy efficent as the alternatives

  89. No, you really wouldn't... by lxt · · Score: 1

    Working in stage, how many LED profile lights have you seen? Because I havn't seen any. Ever. Pleanty of woderful washes, but no spot lights. There's a reason. Think about it (it's to do with optics...). Until someone can come up with a way of creating an LED profile, they'll never truly enter the theatrical market.

    1. Re:No, you really wouldn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are high-brightness LEDs on the market with beam angles anywhere from 7 up to 180 degrees. And then, for even more choices, there's this wonderful thing called the lens... I think it's the limited color temperature options keeping them out of the theatre.

  90. Re:And you by Rightcoast · · Score: 1

    //another opinion, and not directed at anyone personally You keep thinking that, until you kill me, because my escort is right in the path of that luminosity. I can see it now...I hit the curb, boucing off and colliding with you head on. You of course will be fine, my escort is very small. It is unfourtunate that the toddler in that car seat of yours didn't have the neck musculature to withstand the impact of a head-on though. Ohh well, at least the paramedics will have light to see by.

  91. Expensive by ExileOnHoth · · Score: 1

    And hideously expensive, but you never have to change them.

    Actually, the expense is to cover their bandwidth costs, now that they've promoted themselves here.

  92. Not only not the first... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    ...but not the most flexible, or widest variety.

    LEDtronics has had LED bulbs and retrofits for just about every kind of application, voltage, and base around. They've got floods, conventional bulbs, automotive and truck retrofits, signage, in just about every color and brightness imaginable. They've even got an incandescent cross reference guide, which lets you use the Incandescent Bulb Number, type, base, or voltage to search for LED replacements. And, they've got a much wider selection of LED floods, and replacements for just about every kind of household bulb out there.

    Yes, they're more expensive, and the nature of LED light means it needs to have some fancy design and optics to make it sensible for conventional lighting use, but it uses much less power than even compact fluorescent, and is potentially even more durable and reliable.

  93. Referring to color temperatures? by Glytch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It depends on the specific bulb. Color temperature is measured in Kelvin. A home incandescent tungsten bulb is usually around 3200K. The higher the color temperature, the "colder" it appears. Daylight is around 5000K, plus or minute 200 depending on the situation.

    For some people, colder light is the best kind one can get. In photography, most films are designed to work with daylight and flashes (which are themselves designed to mimic daylight) and you end up with really ugly red-orange tones on everything if your only light sources are regular incandescent bulbs. For 35mm photography, the closer the light source is to 5000K, the better.

    I'm eager to get my hands on a couple of the cold-white bulbs this place is selling. These 50000-life-hour 4800K cold-white bulbs will make a great replacement for the 3-life-hour, $5-per-bulb 4800K photofloods I currently use for close-ups and portraits. In my case, these LED floods will pay for themselves after only 48 hours of use!

  94. Re:And you by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Floodlights (eg the ones you put under the eaves of your house, often with motion sensors, to discourage burglars)

    And those of us folly enough to take a walk at night. Good grief, I go out at night so people don't have to watch my sorry fat ass walk around in sweats and huff n' puff because I'm out of shape, and as I walk, I go from one house to the next, and lights flicker on one by one. My eyes just finish adjusting to the night, and then I get this 100 billion watt bulb come on and incinerate my cornea. Yea, a freggin light's gonna keep me from lighting your damn house on fire ya schmuck. I'v got a constructive, old fashoned solution; it's called a gun. They're relitivally inexpensive in the U.S. The other old fashoned option, is a barracade.

  95. neat but a poor bargain by timothy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    LEDs make great close-range flashlights, and in some cases they make good medium-range ones (I keep looking for the blind-perps-at-80-yards handheld LED light, but so far no luck), and all kinds of specialty applications are great for them. (One of those 60-LED floodlamps would be great for night-time home video if you don't like the green-grainy stuff.) Too much of my copious spending money ends up in the hands of LED flashlight purveyors :)

    I am tempted by this light, just because, well, LEDs, shiny. Maybe as some commenters have noted, they'd be good for businesses which only change lights en masse every few years. But at this price, the tradeoff is terrible for (even somewhat typical) householders ... I could buy more compact flourescents than I am likely to use in the next few years for the same price. YMMV; if you have a 30-foot ceiling with bitch-to-get at recessed fixtures ... I'm sure there are edge cases.

    And *after* the next few years, what will have been the opportunity cost of this ultra-cool LED bulb? You won't have the same money to spend on the next-gen version with twice the output at half the cost (if that happens), and if uniform-brightness lighting panels come into vogue, with ceiling-mountable thin-film illuminators that work for free and cause dopamine release in all who bask in their glow, won't you feel like an idiot? :)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  96. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern compact fluorescent lamps- the spiral kind with a standard screwbase- have a warm color to them. The vast majority are around 2700k. You can also buy them in 3000k and 5000k varieties. The 2700k are almost identical in color temperature to the incandescents they replace. For me, there was no reason not to switch my house entirely over to CFLs.

    A 60w incandescent equivalent CFL only uses 14w of electricity. Home Depot sells these in packs of six for about $10.

  97. Mirrors Here by Kinetic · · Score: 1

    The site seems to be crawling. The link is mirrored at MirrorDot.

    --
    ~Jay
  98. Depending on the lumens produced by Rooked_One · · Score: 1
    I think marijuana growers would disagree.

    :) note - I don't even smoke weed, just saying...

  99. Re:fluorescent bulbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might consider getting a new flourescent bulb. I have five floods in my kitchen, and they operate a little better than what you describe. They do take about 1 minute to warm up to full brightness, not 30 minutes like you say. And they are considerably brighter than the 60w incandescent floods I replaced. These are so bright I can't look at them. I offered one to my mother for her own kitchen but she couldn't handle how bright it was... stayed with the dimmer incandescent floods :)

  100. CFLs are more efficient. in terms of lumens/watt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a pretty good savings, but then again, compact flourescent lamps offer just about the same savings.

    In any case, it's smart to replace old incandecent flood lamps with just about anything else. Given the power savings, you can save lots of money on your power bills.

    Here are a couple references:

    On the efficiency of LEDs isn't as good as those of CFLs
    A guy who switched out his incandecents to save $$$

  101. Versus Compact Flourescents by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

    I'm not fond of CF bulbs: most of the reasonably-priced ones I've installed lately have a slow warmup period, during which time they're very red in color, and rather dim.

    You also can not EVER use them with a rheostat (dimmer). If the LED-based lamps can be used with dimmers, they've got a market advantage (I was trying to find out when the site got slashdotted)

    CF bulbs started in the $20-30 range, and were somewhat large and bulky. The current 60-100 watt direct replacement lamp bulbs are as cheap as 3 for $10 at Ikea.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
    1. Re:Versus Compact Flourescents by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      Not only that, the screw-in CF lamps don't work well in the cold, which makes them useless for outdoor lamps in the winter.

      I rather enjoy putting them in the porch lights during the summer, so I can leave them on all night if I want, but during the winter, I have to go back to the regular incandescents.

      Yeah, I know. You're not supposed to use them outside because of moisture. Well, the fixtures keep the water out of the lights. : )

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:Versus Compact Flourescents by Malc · · Score: 1

      The only ones I've seen with this problem in recent years have had a low profile and looked a little like a regular bulb in shape. I also found they buzz too when warming up. Not as bad as 10 years ago, but still annoying. Most CF bulbs these days don't seem to exhibit this. Perhaps with these ones its something to do with making the ballast so small...

    3. Re:Versus Compact Flourescents by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      There are CF bulbs you can use with a dimmer. GE makes one. It's a 100w equivalent, it uses 29 watts and puts out 1750 lumens. 10,000 hours lifespan.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    4. Re:Versus Compact Flourescents by Technician · · Score: 1

      If the LED-based lamps can be used with dimmers, they've got a market advantage (I was trying to find out when the site got slashdotted)


      I did look this up before they got slashdoted. Due to the LED driver, they are not dimmable. I was looking into the possibility of using the colored ones for stage work. The colored ones put out more colored light than a white light with a filter.

      Maybe the next gen will work with dimmers. Until then, I'll just have to work with LED panels and LED compatible DMX dimmers.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  102. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Negative hydrogen ions?? whaaaat? I say bollocks to that. Why would you like to have flammable, protons with two electrons around you? The chances are it will get into reaction with oxygen so fast, you will even not see it. Especially with that heat around, increasing the reaction rate.

    What you wrote is just pure bullshit.

  103. Re:Expensive to screw a bulb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    they pay for themselves in labor
    LOL.. now you know why our jobs are going offshore.. . if "screwing" a lightbulb is THAT expensive, then, maybe we should ask somebody from India to do it for us.. that way we can "Save" on labor! (BAH)
  104. Re:fluorescent bulbs by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1

    Which model are you using? I have a NEW fluorescent flood that claims to be equiv of 100W yet it's not as bright as my 60W incandescent flood! Having them side by side it's easy to see the brightness gradually increase of 30 min. Maybe because the kitchen is cold when I'm not cooking. I keep the house around 55F in the winter time. Gas is too expensive.

  105. fluorescents are a better deal by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    fluorescents are actually more efficient. they have 7w fluorescents with a 60w incandescent equivalent. even if you stretch it and call that even ... the LED bulbs last about 6x longer than the fluorescents, but they are 10x more expensive. fluorescents are a better deal. this is not to mention that very, very few people will ever spend ~$80 for a light bulb, regardless of the efficiency or life span. that being said, great potential. get it down in the $20 range.

  106. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get flourescent tubes in "warmths" or color balances; daylight, cool white and warm white were the standards a few years ago. Try warm white. Check with a local electrical supply house or lighting fixture store.

    These LED floods also come in a few flavors of white color balances, warm to cold plus plain RGB and Amber. Check their web site by clicking them from the text of this ./ article.

    By the way, you can get tubes dipped, but it's a custom job.

    When I was a kid I was working for a New York City electrical contractor on the "new", Toots Shor's watering hole on west 52d Street. It was decided that the fluorescent tubes for the cove lighting in the dining room were too "cold" compared to the incandesant main lighting. We went to a Broadway theatrical lighting house and had them dipped pink.

    So far, so good. But when main light were dimmed down a bit for "ambience" (it was a fairly fancy dining room), the bright, pink, undimmed, wall-wash, cove lights gave the joint the ambience of a french whore house.

    Suprise, dismay, "Well.I'll be dipped"

    I had to drive up to Hartfort, CT and back "toot sweet" to pick up some special dimmers that we could put the fluorescents on.

  107. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why stop there ? Put them in a grid on walls and ceiling and wire them in a matrix. You could be playing funky patterns.

  108. Re:And you by nolife · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not specifically to addressed to you but..
    Foglights are not just for fog (although the name implies). They have a very wide pattern and should be physically placed very close to the ground and as far out as possible. The purpose is to light up the area directly in front and side of the car where the low beams do not cover very well. When aimed correctly, they should not bother anyone and are a great help. Laws vary by state but typically, they can only be powered in conjuction with the cars low beams. Driving lights are more like spot lights. Narrow beam aimed level with the car and project very far. They are used to light up the direct path of the car and far ahead. They should be placed higher on the car. Again the laws very by state but when allowed, it is only to be used with the cars high beams. The problem comes from people that buy driving lights, put them on the car in the place the fog lights should go and do not aim them correctly and wire them up so they are on more then with just the high beams. That combination of lights and location serves no purpose at all to the driver and hinders other drivers. The lights themselves are not the problem, the idiots using them are.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  109. Yet more lies or misconceptions... by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and only uses 22w to produce twice the light of a 100w bulb."

    A 100-watt light bulb puts out around 1500-1600 lumens. These lamps are rated at 280 and 320 lumens. A more accurate statement would be "and uses one-fifth the energy to produce one-fifth the light"

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  110. And when will there be NON-FLICKER strings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last year I thought I would invest in a set of these from Brookstone. Horrendously expensive, but figured between the electricity and the hassle of changing bulbs every year, it would be worth my while. My wife is very much anti-color when it comes to Christmas lights (they have to be white, go figure, she's the only person I've ever met who doesn't like colored tree lights), so I was happy when I saw that white was available.

    So when they showed up in the mail, I was pretty psyched. The good thing is that the color temperature is on the cool side, so they give the impression of ice. But the thing that really, really turned us both off was the flicker. They obviously only have a half-wave rectifier built into the plug, so the overall effect is that of a flickering flourescent bulb, only worse.

    All you have to do is dart your eyes a bit and you can see the fact that the LEDs are flickering at line frequency. And even if you just look at them without moving, the flicker is still there, kind of like having your CRT at 60hz rather than 70 or above. It pretty much blew the whole effect for us, and would have detracted from the overall warm welcoming effect of the tree.

    So... anyone hear of attempts to mitigate this? Presumably filter capacitors at the power source would have a size issue, and a small capacitor on each LED would add to the already high cost. But until this problem is fixed, we'll be using our power-hungry strings and spending the hour or so it takes to ferret out and replace the spent bulbs.

    Ack.

    1. Re:And when will there be NON-FLICKER strings? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I've heard of people building bridge rectifiers to solve this. You basically use four diodes, and use this to reverse the negative part of the AC wave when the LED isn't on. Click for more information. You will still get some flicker with the bridge, but you can throw in a largish capacitor and that will get rid of most of it. Otherwise, if you can get your hands on a higher voltage DC power supply (100-150V or so) you could probably drive the LEDs off of that.

  111. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    You are probably not very critical of lighting quality then:

    1) As some posters already have pointed out the emission spectrum of a fluorescent is discontinuous. So is the reflection spectrum of most paints, laquers, anything that has color. The result is that your colors will turn out very dull. Think of the emission spectrum of a CF as a bitmask with lot of zeroes. The same goes for the reflection spectrum of things you want to light. AND the two bitmasks together, and the result will have a lot of zeroes. A standard lightbulb has a continuous spectrum. Its bitmap would contain all ones, so the AND produces the correct color.

    2) Most CFs are rather large. This means you won't get highlights. Objects will look dull - the difference between a sunny and a cloudy day. Next time at a jewelry store look at how tiny lights are used to make everything sparkle. For indoor lighting you need to combine a diffuse background lighting with small size accent lights.

    Now combine 1) and 2) and you'll see that by only using CFs everything will have dull colors, and no highlights. Very depressing. For your wellbeing, be careful.

    PS: The stated light output equivalence between CFs and incandescents is only true if you light spectrally pure white objects with a continous spectrum. Because of the bad overlap of the spectra of lighter and lightee you typically will need much higher powered CFs than advertised. CF promotors don't tell you that.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  112. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by jrockway · · Score: 1

    LEDs explode when you plug them into the wall. Part of that $70 is circuitry to convert the voltage to something usable by the LED. Also, just one LED won't provide enough light to light a room. The inside of your computer? Yes, but a room, no. They have to use an array of expensive LEDs to get enough light to be useful, so that's why it's $70.

    --
    My other car is first.
  113. But you didn't answer ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the obvious question:
    does your beowulf cluster of LED work on Linux ? ...
    I'm soo drunk.

  114. Inside? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    I notice on their website that these are for outdoor use only.

    I'm looking to install LED (preferably white) lighting inside my apartment with either ceiling fixtures, or floor/table lamps, but have been unable to find any websites that sell the lamps. Can anybody point me to some websites with some info on interior residential LED lamps and lighting?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Inside? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Oooo, almost forgot, are there any white LED bulbs that screw into regular lamp sockets? That would be absolutely fantastic. Haven't managed to find those either though, so if somebody knows a website, please linky linky.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Inside? by lakin · · Score: 1

      I can find many. One i remember seeing a while back turned up in a google i just did:
      http://www.theledlight.com/120-VAC-LEDbulbs.html
      But they seem quite expensive. Another couple:
      http://host205.ipowerweb.com/~goldenga/product_inf o.php?products_id=32
      https://secure530.sectorlink.com/led-bulbs/eShop/1 0Browse.asp?Category=Mains
      I dont think there is much demand for them at the moment though, and i doubt the ones with ~14 standard leds are very bright. Luxeon Star LEDs would seem like a better choice, but would get expensive quick, and I havent come across anyone who has tried putting them in standard bulb fittings.

      --
      Paul
    3. Re:Inside? by Technician · · Score: 1

      Luxeon Star LEDs would seem like a better choice, but would get expensive quick

      Before you invest in Luxeon Star LED's, recheck the life expectancy. They are not long life LED's.

      If you need a point source of very bright light, they make sense, but for general lighting, there are more cost effective solutions.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  115. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by pla · · Score: 1

    The quad-colored LEDs looks particularly cool.

    I agree... I had actually thought mostly in terms of the so-called "white" LEDs, as they seem to produce the most light for the buck, but since you mention it, I imagine it would look really nice to not only change the brightness, but the warmth/coolness of a room's lights as well.

    And it sounds like you have an ideal situation to try something like this... As I said, it would require a fairly different way of thinking about a room's illumination, which for most people would mean a hefty remodelling (or new construction that takes it into consideration). Though I suppose one could retrofit a drop ceiling without too much extra expense.

    If you seriously plan to try something like I suggested, I'll share two thoughts on the matter...

    First, for wiring, I would go with a row/column addressing scheme. Unless you plan to try to actually use it as an ultra low resolution display, that would suffice for smooth color/intensity changes over the span of the room, for a lot less wires than individual addressing would take.

    Second, consider each LED as disposeable and self contained... So ideally, each would have its own socket and current-limiting resitor. That way, you can replace them (they may live a very long time, but not forever) without needing to break out the soldering iron.

  116. Light quality ? by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hope those provide better lighting quality than the so-called energy-saving bulbs. I just moved into a new appartment and decided to use those ESB. They are a scam IMO:
    • they absolutely are not '5 times brighter than normal bulbs'. The 100W equivalent lits about as much as the old 40W bulb that was there.
    • their color sucks, depending on the model (I bought several different), they are either greenish or even more yellow than a tungsten bulb
    • They take time to lit to full output.
    • They cost a lot.
    After a month of trying to get used to them, I threw them away. So I hope LEDs can do better, but since I already have several headlamps with while LEDs, I expect some problems. In particular the headlamps I have (Petzl and Black Diamond) are way too blue, they are blinding.

    So, technical issues or marketing issues ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Light quality ? by thogard · · Score: 1

      So, technical issues or marketing issues ?
      You for got religious issues.

      It seems that the environmental religious nuts love them as they love to say how much better for the environment they are. And the ESBs are better than incandescent if you forget about their manufacture costs or their landfill / recycling costs. There are about 100 different very toxic chemicals that go into making the different parts of the screw in energy saving bulbs and they take far more energy to produce. When you throw them out, they end up in the land fill where they leak mercury into the area.

    2. Re:Light quality ? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      I guess that's a problem that many people never acccount for: The overall cost to the environment.

      Granted, one of the ESB takes less power, but how much energy does it take to make one?

      Same goes, btw, with the papercup at the coffee shop. It might seem more environmental friendly to take the normal ceramic cup, but if you factor everything in one comes to realize that the papercup is actually better for the environment.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    3. Re:Light quality ? by robfoo · · Score: 1

      I had the same problems. What I found was the energy-saving bulbs took a while to 'warm up', in that when you first flick the switch it's quite dim and very yellow, but after an hour or so it's as bright as the label says and closer to white.

      So IMHO the energy-saving bulbs work, but only for lights you're likely to leave on for a decent amount of time. My parents have one in their pantry, which comes on when you open the door. Doesn't work at all well there.

    4. Re:Light quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please name the source for the "100 different very toxic chemicals". Have you determined that those elements, if they exist, are not found in a LED-based lamp ?

    5. Re:Light quality ? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      Get the ones that are *NOT* made in China. They cost more, but they last longer, are brighter and have a much nicer colour quality.

      There are different variants of the ESB's, both good and bad.

      Then again, I love my Petzel LED headlamp. I have both a zoom and a Tika. Granted, the Zoom gives more light than the Tika, but the Tika lasts for 150 HOURS on 2 AAA batteries, that is nothing to scoff at. It is small, and works as a great backup and reading light. In fact, I had it stashed in a pocket on a recent hiking trip, and we got back 4 hours late, everyone was really glad I had it as no one else had a source of light. (I was prepared, they were not.)

      So, maybe I am more tolerant of the other mediums, I don't know. Personally I am happy with ESB's in my kitchen and my Petzel Tika.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    6. Re:Light quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about the spectrum of LEDs off hand, but I know for instance, that Compact florescent
      bulbs tend to have a deeper range, with more intensity on the blue/ultra violet side, and a slightly weaker red/infrared band side.
      The LED bulb costs $80 for a 60,000 hour bulb, higher quality CF bulbs have a 10,000 hour life, and cost $15-20. yeah you can get cheaper CFs, but as you'll notice most of them don't claim anywhere near 10,000 hours most claim 6,000-8,000, and the reason for this is lower quality compents in the base, that lead to premature bulb failure.
      power savings and bulb replacement costs are not nearly as compelling, compared to florescent, but it does look like there is some.

    7. Re:Light quality ? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      um, you have to pay more for the better quality bulbs, and the instant ons take about 5 minutes to warm up to their full brightness
      they are not a scam, they are worth every penny.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    8. Re:Light quality ? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      how is a paper cup better for the environment than a ceramic cup that will last me my life time?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    9. Re:Light quality ? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      if you get the phillips instant on ones it takes about 5 minutes to get up and runing at full speed.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:Light quality ? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      The paper cup contains carbons that used to be floating around in the air, and when you throw it away those carbons go into the ground where they don't cause global warming.

      I'm not saying that the overall balance is better for paper cups. I am saying that when someone says that X is better than Y for the environment, frequently I notice that they only mean in only one limited sense like the example I gave above.

      And just brainstorming here: if a paper cup causes more pollution in the form of chlorine bleach pollution, but sequesters a lot of carbon in the ground, it might make sense depending on what threat we face. Is CO2 in the atmosphere a more dangerous problem than paper making waste in a river?

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:Light quality ? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      This was aimed towards the coffee cup at starbucks.

      I can't find the link to the research right now, but consider this:

      - The Material has to be pulled out of the earth.
      - Shaped.
      - Burned
      - Transported (a lot heavier than a paper cup).
      - The water / power that is used for the wash every time.

      Also they calculated an "average" life time for a coffee cup in a place like Starbucks and the papercup came out ahead.

      The other thing is: Once the paper cup is used up it could be "recycled" to compost and thus "brought back", while the ceramic cup is pretty much around for the rest of time.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    12. Re:Light quality ? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Newer compact fluorescents are quite a lot brighter than they used to be. In fact, I had to hang a towel over my main lamp because I couldn't find one that was as dim as either the original 60W bulb, or the old fluorescent that finally went bad after about 6 years of use. (This is the ONLY one I've had go bad, so far, and I've got a bunch in use.)

      While I expect LEDs will have better "colour control"... the trick with compact fluorescents, in areas where you need really clean or more natural-looking light, is to use one incandescent bulb and one fluorescent. That way you get much of the energy savings (significant, in my experience) without too severely compromising lighting quality.

      I have fluorescents in most of my lamps in areas where you don't really need sharp-edged lighting, such as the living room and bedroom. I have mixed types in the kitchen and workroom, where hard light is needed. And in the bathroom, where it has to be absolutely sharp, it's all incandescent.

      As to floodlights, fluorescent floodlights have been around for a couple years now. Regardless of configuration, they are all down to about $2 each, and as noted the longevity is spectacular and the energy savings are real (about $20/month at SoCalEd's evil rates, for a bulb that's on 8 hours a day).

      So while they aren't right for everything, and sometimes need to be used in conjunction with regular incandescents, they do have their benefits.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Light quality ? by Technician · · Score: 1

      They take time to lit to full output.

      I found this varies a lot between manufactures.

      I've used it to my advantage. In the bedroom and in the living room, I use some that were designed to go into completly enclosed fixtures such as the globes on fan lights. They come on very slow. It's the perfect light where you don't want to be blasted by bright light first thing in the morning or after your movie. I also use them in the headboard light of the bed. They are dim enough to not blind you when you want to find the clock to check the time and they warm up bright enough to make an excelent reading light for reading a good book. They are very nice for that. In the kitchen over the sink, I use the ones that are instant on. Don't knock them just because your small sample doesn't fit all your needs. CF lighting is definately not one size fits all.

      When I install them, I write the install date on the base with a sharpie. It gives me a good idea of the life. One of three in my stairwell fixture died. It was installed in 2001. It beats getting on a ladder in a stairwell once or more time per year.

      BE cautious on how LED lamp assemblies are made. If they are made using the original manufactures encapsulation, they should be fine. However, if they use bare un-encapsulated LED's and then mold their own custom shape, beware. I bought some battery operated LED christmas lights last year. (I don't remember the brand) The string of 20 only has about 3 that light up anywhere near full brightness this year (it's not a battery problem). I think the resin or other LED poison has severly degraded the LED's. I'm not buying LED's with custom bulb shapes until it's a proven technology. So far, I've seen a very high infant mortality rate on christmas lights.

      This year, I picked up some Forever lights. I'll see if they are still working next year before I buy more than a sample size. The blue strings are awsome. It's one of the very few bright blue strings manufactured. I hope they last.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    14. Re:Light quality ? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yes, don't mistake me, I love my Tikka too (I have 3, one per backpack so I won't forget it) and use it all the time. It's a huge improvement on the old classic Petzl with 4.5V flat battery, particularly as you notice in terms of duration. But the light is blindeningly blue, leaving you with blind spot when you turn it off. I just purchased a red Tikka in online astronomy accessories store, thinking it would have red LEDs, but was dispointed to see it's just a red filter...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    15. Re:Light quality ? by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      Energy-saving bulbs contains mercury and should be recycled rather than thrown away. Shame on you.

      --
      Martin
    16. Re:Light quality ? by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      In particular the headlamps I have (Petzl and Black Diamond) are way too blue, they are blinding.

      Being a card-carrying NSS member myself, I spend a good amount of time undergound relying on similar equipment.

      Quality is everything when you want a focused, bright, white LED; they're almost impossible to get without some kind of flaw (too violet or blue, or a blue halo effect). Caving with low-quality LEDs can be migraine inducing to say the least... I'd hate to see what they would do to someone in their home.

      Like you, I'm a bit pessimistic about this LED-floodlight thing.

    17. Re:Light quality ? by boodaman · · Score: 1

      Are you sure?

      AFAIK, cups used in food service industries have a wax coating on the inside. This prevents them from being recycled cheaply (if at all) because the wax coating requires special treatment. Using cups made with recycled material isn't the same as offering cups that can be recycled.

      McDonald's is the largest user of recycled paper products in the food service industry...they're using recycled paper in their food boxes, tray liners, napkins, etc, but not their cups.

      Back in the day (15 years ago) I managed a McDonald's in a very "green" city (Ann Arbor, MI). I used to get a kick out of the little kids coming in to order food and demanding that everything be wrapped in paper instead of the then-current styrofoam. Whenever I pointed out that waxed paper couldn't be recycled but styrofoam could, they refused to believe me. The lesson I learned there was "alternative viewpoint != open mind".

      If you had a program where the ceramic cups used in a Starbucks, for example, came only from local artisans, you'd minimize things like transport costs while providing a market for a community.

    18. Re:Light quality ? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Well, actually they are at the bottom of the drawer, but I didn't know this, so I won't throw them away.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    19. Re:Light quality ? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I've got a Petzel Tika headlamp, and the walk down from Sunrise to White River after dark was pure hell. The lamp didn't give off enough light to see the trail, so I had to hike two miles by touch.

      For chores around the campsite, or as a frontlight for a PDA, it's perfect, but for hiking after dark, give me an incandescent that'll go though four "D" cells in a hurry.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    20. Re:Light quality ? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Even though the paper cups are "waxed" you can still compost them, not "recover" them as in making new cups, but still.

      And yes i agree with your Starbucks idea, but that's not how it works, is it?

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    21. Re:Light quality ? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      One of these chemicals, not in the base but coating the actual bulb, is mercury. (So you throw it away even in a normal fluorescent lamp, not just those that plug into a normal light socket.) It's what make fluorescent lights 'whitish' instead of ultraviolet, IIRC.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  117. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by jonbrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder why they do not paint fluorescent tube with a yellowish hue to make them warmer. I bet if they would do this, they would conquer a greater market.

    Compact Fluorescent bulbs come in colour temperatures from 2700-6500K. Higher colour temperatures equal "cooler" light with more blue.

    Check these links for an explanation:

    * http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/f -rh-white.shtml
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White

    I started using CF bulbs a few years ago simply b/c of the geek factor. I've found that quality varies and few remain bright throughout their entire useful life. Some run hotter than others. Also found that different rooms / applications call for different colours. YMMV.

  118. Re:And you by ballpoint · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LOL. I really thought that it was actually an English word.

    But no, French is not my first language. It's Dutch, and we call it an 'achteruitkijkspiegel':
    'achteruit' = backwards
    'kijk' = look
    'spiegel' = mirror.

    Like German, Dutch tends to concatenate words to make a new, very long one.

    But I would appreciate it if you could introduce 'retrovisor' into common English. That would be cool indeed.

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  119. CORRECTION by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    Move up to a halogen 100W from Sylvania, and you're at 1,500 watts.

    The word "watts" should obviously have been "lumens." Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

  120. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by Curious+Blabber · · Score: 1

    Actually, my post covered that. As I stated, one or more LEDs in a socket. Depends on how many lightbulbs are in a room. Many light fixtures are for two or three light bulbs, and many rooms have more than one light fixture.

    The resistor is the simplest manner of current limiting an LED. However, one may create a simple constant current source with a couple BJTs, or DC/DC synchronous buck converter for the cadilac solution. None of this justifies a $79 price tag, and all are available to the electronics hobbiest.

  121. Color me LED by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Instead of the straight white lights they're selling, how about a mix of the red, green and blue light elements they also sell, in one "bulb"? And a remote w/ USB connector to create moods? That extra HW might bump the cost up to $100 per bulb, instead of $80, but the extra features for automated mood lighting would make them worth it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Color me LED by Fatllama · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Color me LED by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's kinda the sort of function, but not exactly the effect. Rather than a glowing object, I want a lightsource that colors my environment. These LED bulbs shed 300 lumens for $80, while that Ambient Orb won't light a room, and costs twice as much. And is way too smart: I want the logic in software, sending state commands to the USB. As long as my dreams are coming true on Slashdot, I might as well dream more specific :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Color me LED by Fatllama · · Score: 1

      I feel ya; being able to take your living room to Yellow Alert is not just a good idea, it should be an inalienable right. Well, discretes with individual red, green, and blue channels exist already. Now I guess they just need to get crazy bright and then someone around here can make the front page by building the USB based DAC. If you can't wait you could just move into this place and fiddle with the dials yourself.

  122. Logistics by notcreative · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is how to get the girl INSIDE the LED Floodlight.

    1. Re:Logistics by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      duh! they mean the area that the light shines on, like your yard.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  123. Re:And you by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These HIDs are indeed obnoxious as hell, and probably dangerous too:

    - They are more focused than ordinary lights. As such, when a car that is equipped with them follows you on an uneven road, the lamps annoyingly blink and even change color in your retrovisor.

    Ooooh, BLINKING. I can TASTE the danger!! Seriously though, more focused beams are less likely to throw light into eyes of the other drivers (say, in an oncoming lane).

    ...I hate the off-white color too.

    Actually they hit closer to white than halogen (which are yellow tint). I do agree that the real high color temperature ones (the purple and blue) are dumb, not only because of the color of the light but the fact that they produce less light.

    I don't buy into their ability to provide better illumination.

    It's not like this is magnet therapy, there's a measurable difference: HID lamps give more lumens at the light source, and are therefore brighter. Brighter lights help you see oncoming road contitions further ahead, giving you more time to react.

    The only thing dangerous is you driving around with a dirty windsheild and blaming every light that shines on it at night.

  124. Re:And you by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    Sure, it may be safer for you. But not for oncoming traffic. If you want more reflected light, you have to emit more light to begin with.The illumination pattern is exactly the same as modern incandescents; it is specified by technical regulations.

    Auto-stabilization is new to me; a good and necessary move, but one that will drive up the already high price even more.

    While they may last a lifetime, they cost a lot upfront (if optional, else it's hidden in the total package) and in case of damage. I have changed 3 halogen headlights in two cars with a total of 370000km on the odometers. Not too bad for a 10EUR lamp.

    All in all I still feel it's a complicated and expensive technology, with a low benefit/cost ratio. The carmakers' goal may be to keep the price up. But if you like it, good for you. I hope our paths won't cross too often ;-)

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  125. Twice the light? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Since when is 230 lumens twice the light of 1300 lumens (the 100w incandescents)? In any case, the fluorescent bulbs I got at Ikea for $5 are 1000 lumens for 20W...

  126. Zumtobel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather go for some of these: http://www.zumtobelstaff.com/Phaos/default.asp?lan g=2 Simulating sunset in the morning seems much nicer better than the normal alarm clock beeping like hell.

  127. beamshots? by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the other LED fanatics out there will agree with me when I say...where's the beam shots!?! How can they expect us to believe em without a side by side comparison against a regular incandecent flood?

    --

    If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
  128. bubba speak is more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here in the south we just call it the "meer". That's it, and when you are in the car or talking about a car everyone knows what you are saying. example: "I looked inna meer and seen them blue lights and knowed I shudda stopped at 6 beers"

    1. Re:bubba speak is more efficient by farmerboy1967 · · Score: 1

      Damn, You must live REAL close to me 8)

  129. not gonna happen - geeks can't get dates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh.

  130. You get what you pay for... by Thargok · · Score: 1

    So it has been well established that it is worth the cost; but we are talking LEDs here. How can they get away with charging ~$80 a pop when it shouldn't cost much more than $20 to build one yourself (that is with some flex) considering it isn't too hard to get your hands on cheap, good LEDs.

    1. Re:You get what you pay for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody gets away with raping you with prices. Take Puff Daddy. He has a t-shirt made in a sweat shop for about $0.75 and sells it for $95.00. Nike shoes are a real profit maker, they make them for $3.00 and sell them for $200 !!!

      IBM takes open source software, ships it to India for a little makeover by slaves and then sells it for thousands of dollars. Fuck IBM.

  131. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by Sunnan · · Score: 1
    So ideally, each would have its own socket and current-limiting resitor.

    That sounds really expensive.
  132. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by Garak · · Score: 1

    Well all you have todo is use alot of LEDs in series. Depending on the LED the voltage drop accross one LED is around 1.4 volts @ the operating current(~20mA). So to run them off AC @ ~170 volts peak(120V RMS) you need around 120 LEDs. You may also want to add a rectifier so that they don't flicker and are on for more of the cycle of the AC sine way. They could also add a Capacator to smooth out the wave form to DC so they LED's would be on steady.

    --
    God, root, what is the difference?
  133. Colored lighting of water.. quick, patent that! by kt0157 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Now that is a smart idea. I can see these in a swanky International hotel where the discerning traveler isn't quite sure what the water is going to do (labels of C and F or V and K?).

    K.

    1. Re:Colored lighting of water.. quick, patent that! by fossa · · Score: 1

      Not my idea. I saw it in a magazine article about faucet design, but I like the idea very much.

      Here's something from google: student project

  134. don't bother...the company will close soon by fluke72 · · Score: 1

    since the lights don't burn out, the company will go belly up as soon as everybody will have bought their lights... :)

    as in "if there is no thief, you won't need the police"

  135. Re:Expensive to screw a bulb? by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    The actual cost of changing a lamp is more than what you see on the surface. Sometimes, after receiving a required job order, someone, perhaps a skilled person, has to drive out to the job, go to the store perhaps to get the proper bulb (if it's available), setup a ladder, and so on. The job is so much trouble that sometimes bulbs go un-replaced for years - or maybe forever. Then there is the cost of problems occurring because of a light being out. An accident may happen, something may get lost, and in a commercial situation, efficiency may be lower or work may not be able to proceed at all. It's simplistic to just look at the act of screwing in a new bulb.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  136. LED Floodlights by Peale · · Score: 1

    My friend's company has been making them for years:

    Led Dynamics

  137. I am against them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And hideously expensive, but you never have to change them.

    Future generations may begin losing the ability to appreciate a complete genre of jokes.

  138. Re:And you by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    They are often twice as bright as the cars low beams, and when they are on (with the low beams) there is as much or more light coming from the front of the car as with the high beams alone, and are just as blinding to oncoming traffic (or traffic you are following)

    Unless you are in an offroad condition, the only white lights illuminated on the front of your vehicle should be the factory low beams, with the only exception being if it is foggy/driving snow, an amber/orange set of foglights (if they are white, they arent fog lights).

  139. Ceramic vs. Paper by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

    You need to factor in how much energy it takes to produce the ceramic cup, plus how much energy & water to wash the cup each time between uses (assuming you wash your dishes between uses).

    And do you really think you'll be using the same ceramic mug for the rest of your life?

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    1. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I might. I have one that I have been using for almost 15 years now.

      the fact that you are just naming crap that costs energy shows you are talking out your ass.

      to wash coffee out of a cup takes almost no water. if you use cold water, no energy.

      we are not in a battle against entropy here pal, we are in a battle against waste build up.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      we are not in a battle against entropy here pal, we are in a battle against waste build up.

      With enough energy we could bury the waste miles deep or shoot it into space.

      We don't have that kind of energy. Have you seen this? http://peakoil.org/

    3. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a papercup decomposes, so in essence it doesn't add net to the waste pile.

      Most cups, btw, aren't washed with cold water, but in a dishwasher. AND there is energy involved when it comes to the clean drinking water you get delivered to your home: Burying of pipes, pumping of water, cleaning etc.

      Welcome to an interconnected world.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    4. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      And you don't think it takes water to make the paper cup in the first place? As the son of a paper maker, I can tell you, it takes a lot of water to make that paper cup.

    5. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by MKalus · · Score: 1

      I am aware of the paper production, but it is easier to recycle the water in such an environment than in every single household. There literally is no reduce, reuse, recycle in the home these days.

      Make the following the next time you are at a fast food store (whatever you frequent in the day) and try to think what is all invovled in the product you just buy.

      I played that game a couple of times and it becomes scary very fast when you come to realize just how much stuff goes into even a cup of coffee.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    6. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take any energy to purify the water and pump it to your house?

    7. Re:Ceramic vs. Paper by putaro · · Score: 1

      to wash coffee out of a cup takes almost no water. if you use cold water, no energy.
      This will also get you a visit from the health department if you're doing it in a restaurant.

  140. Re:And you by Brianwa · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's wrong with using high beams on the road? You only turn them on when there are no other cars near enough to be bothered by them, and they greatly increse the distance you can see. Great for country roads where you need to see ahead to look for deer/dogs/people.

  141. Re:forever but has drawbacks by Technician · · Score: 1

    These lights are not to be used in fully enclosed fixtures. That limits many of the outdoor uses including many poolside locations.

    They are also not dimmable. This keeps them out of amature, and DJ and band applications where dimmable lighting is a requirement.

    I'll wait for the prices to come down and the feature list to go up.

    When they are compatable with dimmers and enclosed fixtures, let me know.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  142. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by pla · · Score: 1

    That sounds really expensive.

    Expensive? I expect it would add perhaps $0.25 per light, so around $100 total for an average sized room, but consider the time saving in the long run compared with having to un-and-re-solder 400-600 LEDs every 5-10 years.

    And, the current-limiting resistors aught to improve that lifetime somewhat (otherwise you'd tend to lose however large of an area you have on the same resistor all within a short period of the first dying, since the rest get to bear its load).

    So, at least hardware-wise, I wouldn't call LED lighting cheaper than more conventional forms, at least until modular units enter the realm of commodity hardware. But in terms of TCO, I'd say it probably at least breaks even; And, what other lighting tech in even the same pricing ballpark could you literally chose over the entire RGB palette in terms of color and intensity?

  143. LED likely not the weakest point. by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
    I have had very bad experience with compact flourescents. In theory, they should last much longer than incandescant bulbs. In practice, they do - but the compact "ballast" that produces the high voltage for the flourescent bulb doesn't. Worse, you can't buy the base without a bulb. So I ended up with a shelf full of perfectly good flourescent bulbs with no fixtures to run them in. I did install some traditional ballast fixtures to use some of them, but overall it was a boondoggle.

    I am very skeptical about these new screw in LED bulbs. I understand that the LED itself is very reliable - but what about the power supply?

  144. First? Hardly by al701 · · Score: 1

    These "screw-in" blubs you speak of are typically known as Edison bulbs. Reason should be fairly obvious.

    That aside, LED Edison blubs have been out for quite a while. They are rediculously expesive, but I remember researching this as far back as when VOS Pad was posted on /.

    Here are some quick links I found just by going to Google.

    Link 1
    Link 2
    Link 3

  145. BAH. by irving47 · · Score: 1

    My room is already illuminated by LED's from all my computer gear!
    Anyway, I'd consider it a geek badge of honor to be the first person blinded by LED flood lamps.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  146. Re:And you by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    Ok, fine, when you are offroad, or where there are no other cars around. My point was is that so-called 'driving lights' should be turned off, just like you turn off your high beams, when there is oncoming traffic. They should *NOT* be on automatically with your low beams.

  147. Am I the only one who noticed? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Here's a paste from their site:
    LEDs offer increased efficiency over incandescent bulbs. When comparing white light, LEDs offer more than two times better efficiency. For red, green, and blue lights, LEDs are more than 10 times more efficient.

    Only the colored LED bulbs produce as much as a 200W incandecent bulb at 22 Watts. The white ones only produce as much as a 45W incandecent bulb. Always make sure you read the fine print.

  148. Commercial settings don't use incandescent bulbs by ftzdomino · · Score: 1

    [i]So for home use, don't bother. For commercial or industrial settings, though, there can be lots of lights, and here is a labor cost associated with changing them. Some organizations change every light at once, to avoid the higher cost of replacing bulbs individually as they burn out. For those types of applications, the longer-lasting LED lights will lower the cost of changing bulbs.[/i] A commercial setting would use high pressure sodium or fluorescent instead of incandescent bulbs. The efficiencies and costs on the LED 'bulbs' seems similar to HPS and fluorescent lighting.

  149. My fluorescent lights died early from overheating by dr_db · · Score: 1

    I replaced nearly every light in the house with cf's. I tossed the receipts, stupidly, and have had nearly every light fail since. Most of my fixtures are the closed glass domes (rental for you) and I suspect they ran too hot in the contained space.

    So I can either replace all the lights fixtures in a rental house, or live with regular bulbs for longer. Which is too bad, because I did make an attempt at reducing energy usage.

  150. Re:And you by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are often twice as bright as the cars low beams, and when they are on (with the low beams) there is as much or more light coming from the front of the car as with the high beams alone, and are just as blinding to oncoming traffic (or traffic you are following)

    If you are refering to fog lights you are greatly mistaken. Legal fog lights are 55 watt bulbs (model H1 infact), equivelent in power to a typical cars low beam. When they are aimed as they should be, they do not shine up at all and will not "blind" anyone. If you are blinded by a factory or aftermarket fog lights that are aimed correctly (much lower then the headlights), you should not be driving at night yourself. Stand about 20 feet in front of a car with the low beams and fog lights on, look at the light patterns on your legs as you walk toward the car. You should clearly see both light beams and where they are aimed. For a better perspective, bend down and look into the lights, you will see the different heights that they are aimed as noted by the extreme brightness change. There is no way the eyes of an oncoming car are that low to the ground.

    Here is are two links that debunk your yellow theory also.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  151. Are any of these bulbs dimmable? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I have some installed right now, and an annoyance I have is that they are not dimmable. Are any Fluorescents?

    Also, they make a high-pitched noise... I'm probably going to go for the LED models.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Are any of these bulbs dimmable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, they make a high-pitched noise...

      "They hum like angels! You're never alone with a fluorescent light on in the room."

      - Ned Flanders

  152. Lights of America by Mal-2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Lights of America ballasts are fine, though the color of the lamps themselves are horrid. But for setting up a cheaply blacklit room, there's nothing quite like a $6 ballast and a $6 tube. I helped a fledgling rave promoter get their equipment together on a small budget -- they allocated $50 to blacklights, and I managed to get the entire room covered for that cost (found a supplier that would take the white bulbs back for $2 credit, so got 5 blacklights for $50). I also gave them a laser show unit on "indefinite loan", which meant they paid nothing out of pocket (I already had the unit built) but I got VIP'd in every single week until the city of Pomona passed a shitload of anti-rave ordinances. After that, they just paid me $50 outright to let them keep it because they thought it was cool. I didn't mind, I'd already built improved prototypes by then, and they cost about $30 to make even without any efficiencies of scale.

    The cheap fluoros are also decent if you wrap them with stage lighting gels. It's not like they get hot, so the gels can be rolled into tubes and placed directly over the bare bulbs. The gels eventually fade at the ends where the filaments are (I'd imagine from escaped UV) but even this doesn't really affect the color of the output. If you have a sudden need for bad white light, just remove the gel.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  153. Scientific application; advice anyone? by Fatllama · · Score: 1
    Does anyone out there have enough experience to compare these products to those offered by Lumileds? I actually use their Luxeon Star (and Star III) LEDs with narrow-band interference filters in a physics lab to drive optical atomic transitions in single trapped ions. I combine the light from a blue and orange LED with a dichroic mirror and then image the beams (roughly 1:1) using f/2 camera optics. Typically I can drive one (electric dipole) transition in 100ms and I won't spill the details about spot sizes, etc. unless anyone is interested.
    What is important to me is
    • Fast turn on/turn off times. No more than 10ms.
    • High total brightness, but particularly around the wavelengths 455nm and 615nm.
    • Small source size, narrow emission cone since the light must be captured and imaged.
    Anyone out there know if I can do better with these or any other solutions?
  154. Is it just me? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder at the fact that light with more red than blue is deemed "warmer", though such light comes from COOLER incandescent objects? I guess it's just an artifact of times when people didn't understand the physics, just as diodes are drawn the "wrong way 'round" on schematics.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  155. speaking as a grower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone previously experience with this "industry" I can tell you it's all about the lumens. The favorite growlight is your standard 1000 W high pressure sodium bulb. It has the highest lumen/watt ratio over any other growlight. Technically the color output isn't the best for plant growth, but it is much more efficient at that colored output than metal halides, and has a longer service life. You can pay more for fancy bulbs of course, but I stick to the plain old amber ones.

    LEDs are an evolving technology, but they're not ready for primetime in the hydroponic industry. Currently the newest lighting technology that offers promise are those electrodeless sulfur lamps that are energized by a microwave magnetron. They are bar-none the most efficient lamp you can buy, and the service life is so long, they give you an extra magnetron because it's expected to fail before the lamp does. I'm not sure yet though, if I want be sticking my body so close to an active microwave source yet (I've got enough growlamp burns on my elbows already thank you.)

    For the record on power theft, I personally have no problem paying for all the power I use, and the power company is welcome to profit from my use as much as they want. However if they wants to condemn me for how I use it, then they lose my business and lot of kilowatt hours.

  156. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by Fatllama · · Score: 1

    Something else to keep in mind is that high brightness LEDs do not tolerate much heat and since the light-emitting area of an LED is very small compared to, say, a filament, heat must be pumped away either passively with a heat-sink (much like your CPU) or actively with a thermo-electric cooler (much like some people's CPUs). Here comes the expensive engineering problem.

  157. Another way to save energy by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 1

    How about we just turn off the damned floodlights already.

    Any light that goes sideways and up is not just wasteful, it's an assault on everybody around, and it's contributing to the screwing up of the planet, and floodlights are almost always mostly sideways. I can hardly even go outside after the sun falls. When I drive at night, not only do I have to contend with shriekingly bright headlights at the level of my head, but the street lights are those stupid cobra-head lamps, parking lights are brightly lit all night long, and idiot business owners, and even neighbors, have floodlights blinding me. Security lights, my ass!

    Save energy. Let there be dark.

    1. Re:Another way to save energy by bhima · · Score: 1

      The Bank next door has started leaving the lights on all night, rather than using a movement detector. I'm buying a pelet gun soon.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  158. Ventilation Requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The LED floodlights have the following ventilation requirements: For use only in "open air" or nearly "open air" fixtures, such as exposed track and outdoor fixtures. Cannot be used in recessed cans or fully enclosed fixtures. My incandescent floodlights don't have these restrictions. I wonder why the LEDs have these requirements - especially of they are supposedly more efficient.

  159. How many geeks does it take to screw... by liftwatch · · Score: 1

    ...in an LED floodlight?

    Answer: Just two, but how did they get in there in the first place?

  160. Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by afxgrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    The initial delay until the bulb turns on is really only limited to fluorescent bulbs. Compact fluorescents are pretty much the same as the regular fluorescent tube lights and require a ballast to start the light up. The reason they need a ballast is due to the initial higher current required to energy the mercury vapor inside the bulb. After the tube is energized the resistance drops considerably and hence requires less current. The ballast is used to control the current between the initial activation of the bulb until it reaches it's normal operating current.

    Part of the reason compact fluorescent bulbs were not available until the last 10 years is due to advancements in making the coiled glass, and reducing the size of the ballast. Old ballasts were magnet based and had a longer delay before working and were larger in size. Then electronic ballasts were created and allowed for the ballast to be made smaller. Hence why compact fluorescents are a feasible solution to some lighting problems.

    LEDs on the other hand, require DC current like Fluorescent do, but there is no need to reduce the current after the LED turns on initially. So we should be seeing the short turn on time with LED lamps.

    Colour rendering should also achieve more full spectrum light, but again, we're all probably used to various incadescent bulbs which have warmer colour rendering. (more yellowish) The enLux website shows neutral white bulbs being available, and should achieve the colour rendering you're looking for.

    Newer compact fluorescent bulbs should achieve the colour rendering you want, but again, they still have the initial delay and are difficult to put on a dimmer switch. According to the enLux website, the LED floodlamps they provide are also non-dimmable. This is unfortunate since dimmer controls should simply cause a corresponding number of LEDs inside the bulb to turn off, this would provide some dimming effect. (but would certainly increase the price of the bulb even further) There must be a means of converting the analog voltage level into a corresponding digital signal to turn off a proportional number of LEDs...

    1. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      LED turn on time, for the record, is better than incandescent turn on time.

      The dimmer problem for CF and LEDs has to do with how current dimmers, designed for incandescents, work. They, as you said, are basically variable resistors - they change the voltage supplied to the bulb, which changes the current through the filament, which modulates the emitted light.

      Your idea about turning off various LEDs would work; however, there's a better way. And, bonus, its actually simpler to implement.

      LEDs are easily dimmable; the easiest way is to provide a variable series resistor, allowing you to change the current. However, there are a number of reasons this is a dumb approach (easy to burn out, very non-linear response, etc.). A much better approach is to use a variable duty cycle PWM drive waveform at constant voltage; this allows an incredibly good range of dimmability for LEDs. The downside is it requires somewhat more complex electronics; that said, a 4 bit microcontroller or even a (cheapish) custom ASIC could easily handle the switching; hell, you could even make modules to convert traditional analog voltage dimmers to LED dimmers (ADC to micro, based on sampled voltage set the PWM duty cycle).

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually - they aren't variable resistors, they are thyristor control. If you look at the size of a 1W resistor, imagine how big the resistor would have to be for 240VAC, 60W.

      The thyristor control basically chops off part of the AC wave form that arrives at your light bulb - so on dim, you have very very short pulses (so the tungsten filament doesn't get very hot, and therefore not very white) and as you turn the light up, the pulses get wider (until you reach full brightness, which is the normal AC waveform).

    3. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just realized how dumb my comment was in that regard. They're basically a very stupid AC PWM technique.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    4. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be far simpler to use an analog circuit with a tunable oscillator and a Schmitt-Trigger.

    5. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by rthille · · Score: 1

      Actually, looking at the size of the filament in some of the lightbulbs around here, the resistor wouldn't have to be very big, just encased in a vaccum and given room to radiate lots of heat... :-)

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    6. Re:Turn on Delay and Colour Rendering by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      No, not really. When you're talking about 25c microcontrollers, you actually save more money by saving package size and part count than you do by having slightly cheaper total BOM.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  161. We have the technology!!! by Godman · · Score: 1

    Did anybody think that maybe we already HAVE lightbulbs that last forever? All the lightbulb companies would go out of business if everybody bought just enough and then stopped buying them. Not that there wouldn't be a market, for new homes, etc..., but the market would decrease greatly Also, is it possible that the lightbulb manufacturers would buy this technology from the inventor, and just not release it, so that they can continue to make money?

    --
    I have this really funny quote that I like to put here. Unfortunately, there's this really annoying thing called a char
  162. Flicker Factor? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    Has anybody encountered flickering in these kind of LEDs?

    For example, if you look at an LED light source and move your eyes rapidly, it breaks a previously solid light into a series of lit dots.

    Depending on how much flicker there is in the LED bulbs, that could lead to some serious eyestrain and migraines, with many preferring to get the cheaper, considerably higher Hz flickering flourescents.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  163. what, no dyno power? lazy amish :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously, i'd have thought the amish
    would opt for something dyno powered
    rather than batteries

    shows how much I know about living simple,
    after all I find it great workout to crank
    up my am/fm/weather radio flashlight

  164. Re:Floodlight? Totally misses the point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to realise that each of those current limiting resistors limits the current by dropping voltage across itself (Ohms law - I = V/R)
    So each resistor is dissipating power in the form of heat (Power = Isquared x R)
    Therefore, your efficiency and power savings are not nearly as good as you think. A much more efficient solution is to drive series strings of LED's off a higher voltage and use one resistor per string, so your heat loss per string is much less. Better still, drive the LED's with a switchmode power supply.

  165. Hardly first by Adam+Wiggins · · Score: 1

    This is a great product, but hardly a first. For example:

    http://superbrightleds.com/MR16_specs.htm

    A few years back I decided I was tired of hot, pressurized gas bulbs providing the lighting in my home and decided to step into the 21st century by upgrading to LEDs. Ultimately I settled on purchasing strands of LED christmas lights which I string up around the upper edge of every wall. It provides even, consistent lighting which I can leave on all the time in most of the house.

    You can buy them from here, among other places:

    http://www.christmas-treasures.com/AboutUs/Christm asTree/ForeverBright/LED2004.htm

    I recommend the white for functional lighting, and the blue for areas that you want to be more relaxing (living room, for example). The purple is nice too but they are quite dim compared to the other colors.

  166. Serious Shortcomings of LED lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) not dimmable

    2) not usable in recessed cans in ceiling

    1. Re:Serious Shortcomings of LED lights by esonik · · Score: 1

      You can dim LED lights by operating them in pulsed mode and changing the duty cylce. You can do this up to MHz frequencies (for red LEDs - I don't know about white ones), so people (and video cameras) will not notice any flickering. Of course you need a special power supply.

    2. Re:Serious Shortcomings of LED lights by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      1) not dimmable

      2) not usable in recessed cans in ceiling


      If you limit the current flowing to an LED, it will dim in much the same way an incandecent does.
      Even those cheap dimmer switches you use for incandesant bulbs will work.
      And there's no theoretical reason an LED "light bulb" couldn't be shaped like anything.

      Maybe you're thinking of Compact Flourescents?

    3. Re:Serious Shortcomings of LED lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Maybe you're thinking of Compact Flourescents?

      No, I am thinking of these lights they are advertising here, they say, NOT DIMMABLE

  167. traffic lights by ahkitj · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised it took rather long to supposedly come out with these. Traffic lights around NZ have used LEDs for some time, and since they arrived a few years ago, I've been waiting for consumer bulbs in the supermarket. I see they're not uncommon in other countries, though, a la howstuffworks and Google (the howstuffworks link explains the benefits and another google search explains some history).

    At least there's LED torches to keep me happy in the meantime while I wait for those floodlights to make their way here.

    --
    Jonathan Ah Kit - Lower Hutt, New Zealand - jonathan@metalab.unc.edu
  168. LEDs and air conditioning by XNormal · · Score: 1

    In a cold weather areas the waste heat indeed counts against your heating bill so that energy is "free" and LEDs appear less attractive.

    But in areas where air conditioning is the rule LEDs are a particularly good deal. Your energy savings will be well over twice the waste heat because it takes more than 1 watt of air conditioning power to remove 1 watt of waste heat.

    I have heard the new terminal in Israel's international airport is lit by LEDs, probably for this reason.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  169. Re: weird spectrum by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
    The colour's not bad, but the spectrum is a bit weird, and some things look a little strange.

    I've noticed that fluorescent lights have a discrete spectrum, versus the continuous one in incandescent bulbs. It's not surprising because the light is originally UV, which is converted into visible light by fluorescent materials, and you need basically one material for one wavelength. Thus there are a few different fluorescent materials to give an overall nice spectrum.

    An object whose colour lies between these wavelengths would look black. It's not exactly the case in practice, as colours can be mixtures of wavelengths, but the visible colour will be distorted anyway to some extent.

    You can easily compare the spectrum of lights by reflecting it off of a CD. At least the difference between discrete and continuous becomes apparent.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  170. Re:And you by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    I am referring to whatever lights people like to put on their cars, that are *not* aimed at the ground and/or are at least as bright as highbeams, that they *think* are foglights (or 'driving lights' - there is no such thing - the only 'driving light' for on road use are more commonly referred to as 'headlights' anything else would be 'OFF ROAD driving lights'), and that they keep on all the time even on a completely clear night.

    As far as yellow/white, white lights dont do much in fog other than create more glare anyway. Anyone who thinks white 'fog' lights do any good is a fool.

    Regardless, on a clear (nonfoggy) night, when there is other traffic oncoming and/or aheead of you, the only bright white lights you should have illuminated are your normal low-beam headlights (And if you have an SUV or a 'huge' pickup truck, you should rip them off their typical placement and remount them at the same height as everyone elses lights - take a look at how/where semi headlights are for an example)

  171. I can save you money right now... by freeze128 · · Score: 2, Funny
    No, but it is 5.7 years ($14/year) of continuous light, or 17 years $4.7/year) of eight-hours-a-day light.
    Well, that's the problem right there. You should consider using the floodlights at NIGHT...
  172. Water Faucet labeling by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    As opposed, of course, to Quebec, where they're labeled C and C, cold and chaud...

    For those not getting the joke, "chaud" is French for hot and Quebec has always been proud of being bilingual.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  173. Halogens by arete · · Score: 1

    I have a Halogen fixture at home - it uses what claims to be a 35W bulb shining the equiv of a 100W incandescent, and the color is perfect in my opinion. Is this lying about it's power requirements?

    Admittedly it requires a special fixture, but I was putting new ones in anyway. (Also, the common halogen "torchiere" design wastes a lot of light by throwing it at your ceiling which is an entirely seperate problem.)

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  174. EverLED Flashlight Bulb Replacements by Hallucinosis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought a EverLED Flashlight Bulb and installed it in a 4 D Cell Maglite. It's far better than any of the other LED flashlight solutions I've come across. Although it's not as bright as the Xenon bulb upgrade from Maglite, it uses far less power and it's brighter than the bulb that comes with the 4 D Cell Maglite.

  175. Another advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One advantage I haven't seen mentioned is that it's probably possible to turn these LED bulbs on and off as frequently as you want without damaging them.


    Fluorescent lamps take a while to build up to their full brightness, and although they can last for a very long time (the world record is decades) they break prematurely if you turn them on and off very often. These LED lamps might have a big advantage for hallways and bathrooms.

  176. Prices by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
    Also, CF bulbs are cheaper ($5 or $6 bucks, less if you look around a little, and these are NYC prices).
    Those are Canadian prices as well.

    Another way to save money is to encourage people to buy the ballasts and bulbs seperately. The ballasts tend to wear out with lots of "oning" and "offing". If the bulb is good, then why replace it? Just replacing the ballasts could make us more efficient also. If the ballast only costs $.01 [totally hypothetical], then it would be worth turning it off to save electricity.
  177. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there an ideal application where a user would want the lighting to be dull, and price isn't as significant an issue?

  178. I love you sig. [nt] by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1
  179. Think I've seen this before by TonyMeatballs · · Score: 1
  180. Re:I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps by plover · · Score: 1
    Security.

    It might be "nice" to have full spectrum lighting so you can see on the videotape that the bad guy is wearing khaki instead of taupe, but it's really going to be irrelevant as far as prosecution. But "even" lighting is far more important than "dynamic" lighting -- you want light all around, no dark corners, no bright wash-out spots.

    Anyway, price is always a factor for commercial installations. But price doesn't just include the cost of the bulb plus the cost of the electricity. The labor cost of replacing a hard-to-get-to bulb can be many times the cost of the bulb itself. Think of the cost of renting manlifts to get to those third-floor ceiling bulbs. If you have to replace an incandescent once a year, or a CF once every seven years, the electricity savings pale in comparison to the bulb changing savings.

    --
    John
  181. Re:Amish Lights & Improvements by jrockway · · Score: 1

    LEDs can't act as rectifiers. They ARE diodes, but if you put too much of a voltage across it the wrong way, you'll blow it up.

    --
    My other car is first.