Slashdot Mirror


LED Lighting As Cheap As CFLs Invented

mcgrew writes "New Scientist reports that a British team has overcome the obstacles to cheap LED lighting, and that LED lamps as cheap as CFLs will be on the market in five years. Quoting: 'Gallium nitride cannot be grown on silicon like other solid-state electronic components because it shrinks at twice the rate of silicon as it cools. Crystals of GaN must be grown at 1000C, so by the time a new LED made on silicon has cooled, it has already cracked, rendering the devices unusable. One solution is to grow the LEDs on sapphire, which shrinks and cools at much the same rate as GaN. But the expense is too great to be commercially competitive. Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem. They included layers of aluminium gallium nitride in their LED design... These LEDs can be grown on silicon as so many other electronics components are. ... A 15-centimetre silicon wafer costs just $15 and can accommodate 150,000 LEDs making the cost per unit tiny.'"

553 comments

  1. Finally! by 1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem.

    Excellent news! Wait, what's this story about?

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Finally! by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't know, but I think that we're getting into something.

    3. Re:Finally! by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      LOL Shrinkage is production that doesn't make it out the door, i.e.: defunct product.

      --
      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    4. Re:Finally! by cjb658 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem.

      Excellent news! Wait, what's this story about?

      That's probably how he was able to get funding.

    5. Re:Finally! by unitron · · Score: 1

      At the retail level shoplifting and employee theft are often referred to as shrinkage.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:Finally! by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      At the store I work at ALL monetary losses due to product damage/theft is called shrinkage. (Superstore (Loblaws), Canada)

  2. My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...

    A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.

    I was so hopeful.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've heard similar reviews from a co-worker who was very motivated to 'go green'. The '40-watt equivalent' turned out to be an over-sized night-light (per her review - I haven't seen it).

      Still, this could be good news. I switched about half-way to CFLs largely to save $$ on electricity, but they're neither as efficient nor as 'green' as LED lights. I priced LED lights but, at the time, they were so damned expensive that it would take ~40 years for the investment to pay itself off. Even if I have to over-rate everything to get the same level of light, it should be better all the way around compared to the current alternatives.

      Still, even though this sounds solid, the ominous 'This should be available in 5 years' always makes me a little cautious.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to see in IR

    3. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't lose hope yet. For one thing, a 40 watt incandescant (you didn't specify if what you were replacing was incandescant or CFL) is damned dim to start with. When I used incandescants, the lowest watt bulb I used was usually a 100 watt (60s in closets and in the basement where there's one every fifteen feet), and used 3 way 250 watt bulbs for reading.

      A 40 watt CFL would be damned bright, I don't know if I've ever seen one. Most of my lamps have 27 watt twirley tubes. They vary in intensity, in color, in startup time, and some grow brighter the longer they're on. The one on the front porch won't light if the temperature gets below 0F, the back porch light has lit every time. It's also dimmer and bluer.

      I'm looking forward to these, but when I finally buy one, I'm not going to pick one that says "equivalent to a sixty watt incandescant", I'm going to get one that says it's equivalent to 100 watts, just to be sure.

    4. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Don't trust their "equivalent to..." things. Look at the lumens which is listed for both the incandescent bulb, and the LED bulb.

      This rule goes for buying CFLs too: They often over-estimate by about one level. (Ex: A "40-watt equivalent" is really a 25-watt. A "60-watt equivalent" is really a 40 watt. Etc.)

    5. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by DFJA · · Score: 1

      Having had a similar experience I'm very tempted to report the suppliers of these products to Trading Standards (UK) as it is a clear case of mis-representing the product being sold. It's perfectly possibly to make an accurate comparison by using lumens, I can think of only one reason why suppliers don't do this - because they wish to misrepresent the product. Having said that, some suppliers do quote lumens in some cases, but it needs to be consistent.

      --
      43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
    6. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Still, even though this sounds solid, the ominous 'This should be available in 5 years' always makes me a little cautious."

      In the Metro this morning the article read more along the lines of "hopefully 2 years, 5 years at most". This is hopeful.

      So now they can make bright LEDs for lighting purposes for pennies apiece. Brilliant. Then you add on the AC/DC convertor thingy, and attach 50 of these LEDs to it to achieve a decent light. Oh, can you have a range of wavelengths please to simulate natural light rather than a single, harsh, light?

    7. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that someday soon we'll be able to buy wall coverings that are LED lighting. I don't care if the light comes from the ceiling or not, give me a whole wall or three of variable light output LEDs. You can even make it the ceiling if you want, I don't care...

      I think we'll be able to do many exciting things with new lighting technologies, and I for one welcome our new overhead lighting LEDs

    8. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? A 40W incandescent is an excellent light source - brighter than a pretty big fire or the largest candle known to man. IMO, a typical domestic living room is nicely illuminated by 3-4 35W tungsten halogen lamps. 100W lamps might be fun for heating the room or some kind of ill-advised attempt to simulate daylight, but why piss your body off? As for using a 250W bulb for reading, I can only imagine the S/N ratio of your eyes is substantially below average. You do realise that about 225W of that rating is just radiated heat, don't you?

    9. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by DFJA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .....and your data source for this claim is where exactly???

      --
      43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
    10. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      Combined pollution from making em + using em + disposing them is order of magnitude worse than conventional lightbulbs.

      ...If you just throw them in a landfill.

      If you properly "dispose" of them (aka "recycle"), you can reuse just about every part of them except the small PCB in the base, and even that you can strip for the metals.

      So yeah, they have a tiny blob of mercury in them - Of which, when properly recycled, 99.999% should end up in a new bulb.

    11. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, you've been smoking something funny if you think a 25W incandesant bulb can light a room. 40W is commonly used for crappy little reading lamps!

    12. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      And who exactly wants to live in something that resembles a hospital?

    13. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'A 25W incandescent is easily bright enough to illuminate a fair-sized room.'

      If you consider 'bright enough' to be just enough illumination to keep you from stumbling over things. A 60 watt incandescent will still leave shadows in a completely empty living room painted white. I know, I've stuck them in lamps while moving in.

    14. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could save a hell of a lot of money by ditching the clutter and painting the room in a bright, happy colour.

      Think about how many electrons you and your countrymen could save by getting with the program and dropping 'u' from "color".

      (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

    15. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

      I switched about half-way to CFLs largely to save $$ on electricity, but they're neither as efficient nor as 'green' as LED lights.

      How so? Recently, in my local walmart, GE started selling Par20 LED bulbs that were supposed to be 40-50 watt equivalent but for 7 watts produced 200 lumens. That's 28.5 lumens per watt.

      My Feit Electric (Costco) 13w CFLs (60 watt equivalent) produce about 800 lumens. That's 61 lumens per watt.

      A 60w incandescent makes around 700-850, depending on brand. Using the 800 as a comparison, thats 13.3 watts per lumen.

      LEDs may have the potential to be more efficient than CFLs, but it doesnt look like they automatically are. Or am I missing something?

    16. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey. You seem like you care, but your argument is flawed. People won't bother with recycling, at least not the nay sayers and anti-change people. You have to concedr people WILL just throw them out.

      Instead point out that most power comes from coal (50%+ in the US) and that coal power releases mercury right into the air. Since the CFL uses less energy, 1/10 to 1/7 for actual lumen equivalence, the mercury released from broken lights is still about a fifth of that of an incandescent.

    17. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      'A 40W incandescent is an excellent light source - brighter than a pretty big fire or the largest candle known to man.'

      In home lighting isn't rated against candles or big fires (unless you are looking for mood lighting) its compared to daylight.

      'a typical domestic living room is nicely illuminated by 3-4 35W tungsten halogen lamps'

      Yeah, I'm sure 110w of HALOGEN would be reasonably bright. But we were referring to indoor lighting. The gas in the bulb would be argon.

    18. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I don't trust lumens either. The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      I don't know the nitty gritty details about why CFL's have no penetrating power and other lights do, only that it is true. I've heard the explanation once but it was long ago.

    19. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      + disposing them is order of magnitude worse than conventional lightbulbs.

      Any home depot accepts any and all CFLs. In fact, it's easier and cheaper to dispose of CFLs properly than it is of Fluorescents.

      Oh, and if your electricity is generated from coal, you are helping put mercury in the air as well.

    20. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by daveime · · Score: 1

      Go have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hJQsvoY6VU

      Once you can get your head around the fact that this is a British guy in a dress, and IF you can manage to understand the accent, then maybe you'll learn something.

      "You say erb, and we say herb ... because there's a fucking 'H' in it".

    21. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      LEDs are directional. Are you saying it was 10 times dimmer *within its illuminated area*, or were you expecting it to light up the whole room?

    22. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I frequently use 25 and 40 watt incandescent bulbs (I'm the OP on this thread); the room I tried the 40 watt equivalent to has other lighting in it; this light is basically the light you turn on when you need to find something or just keep on for general lighting...

      In this particular room I have one of those lamps with the 300 watt halogen bulbs when I actually sit in that room and do stuff (rare).

      I replaced a 40 watt incandescent bulb in the overhead light with this LED bulb whose packaging stated "equivalent lighting to a 40 watt bulb" or some such...

      It was a complete fabrication.

      The first response I got nailed it... it was no better than a 4 watt night light bulb.

      The lamp sitting on my desk right now is 25 watt incandescent and is magnitudes brighter.

      I'm not down on the technology; I have a lot of CFLs (n-vision, available at Home Depot, has a really nice soft light and comes on very fast, I was extremely impressed); like I said, I had high hopes - but this was terrible. Admittedly, my first experience with the harsh white light of the first CFLs I bought was pretty terrible, too, in the exact opposite way of the LEDs.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    23. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Don't look at the wattage comparisons, they are almost always off by quite a lot. Look at the lumens output. Higher lumens = brighter. The current problem is cost/lumen for LEDs. If this new process cuts that down then we are likely see a very bright future. (pun intended)

    24. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by djtachyon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have a 43 Watt CFL FLOOD LIGHT over my driveway. It has 4 tubes, is about the size of a normal flood light bulb, and take about 30 seconds to warm up in the cold.

      --
      "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
    25. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      And who exactly wants to live in something that resembles a hospital?

      Your friendly neighbourhood OCD neat-freak???

    26. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      A 40 watt CFL would be damned bright,

      They're about 150w equivalents. Lowes even sells an 85w that's fits in a regular base and isn't completely humongous but still big>.> (No, it's not Lights of America either).

      The one on the front porch won't light if the temperature gets below 0F, the back porch light has lit every time. It's also dimmer and bluer.

      It sounds like a brand. Mine started up immediately at -5F (as cold as it gets here) without problems, but they are enclosed. I'd say the Feit Electrics at Costco are god, GE at walmart, and sylvania. But not every model under every brand is great. I particularly like Sylvania Mini-Twists at lowes, although they are expensive, they are usually smaller and instantly bright - even their 45w is the about the size of a regular 23-27w CFL.

    27. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I pretty much live in the dark and only turn on the lights for company and reading. I routinely get by with 40w reading bulbs and 5 watt night lights.

      I only turn on the lights for company or cleaning.

    28. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I'll just hang this picture over here... (takes out hammer and nail)...

      Well, you can guess the rest.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    29. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

    30. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by iron+spartan · · Score: 1

      But the mercury from the standard incandescent lights is not concentrated in my living room.

    31. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Of course they're directional, which is why they make the bulbs with the LEDs pointing in (as far as they can) all directions, but I see your point... Any particular areas is only getting light from a fraction of the LEDs. But then what's the freaking point?

      It's further complicated by the fact that I have a frosted cover on the overhead light to diffuse it.

      But the fact is that if it can't work like a standard bulb, they shouldn't make them like a standard bulb... directional for reading lamps and flashlights, maybe, but not a standard bulb.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    32. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...

      A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.

      I was so hopeful.

      What they are quoting is the illumination in the teeny little focused bright spot - the "normal" ligtbulbs illuminate more or less spherically.

      Yeah, they're currently not good for much, hope this innovation enables them to be better. I do like my LED nightlights, though.

    33. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by CKW · · Score: 1

      Two hundred and fifty watts? That's insane! Are you sitting on the other side of the room? Of course my place has light walls and ceilings and carpet, I guess I could see it if as someone says you have darker furnishings and colors...

      I live on the 30th story of an apartment building, and some SOB a half block away has his back-yard lit by one of these ultra-bright incandescents - but they've got no reflector on it! HALF of the light goes pouring into neighbour's hards and into the F'ing sky. And onto my ceiling through my huge windows casting massive shadows and keeping the room literally 10 times brigher than it would otherwise be at night due to city-glow and all other city/neighbourhood lights combined.

      And I'm on the 30th floor, a half block away.

      If I was a neighbour close enough, I would have bought a pelet gun long long ago. Or maybe gave them a light housing/reflector as a chrismas present. One or the other, depending on whether they were nice people or not :)

    34. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

      What hospitals have you been in? The only hospitals that seem to be illuminated by a solitary 40-watt lightbulb seem to be ones in scripted TV dramas.

      --
      Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    35. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by stonefry · · Score: 5, Funny

      And who exactly wants to live in something that resembles a hospital?

      Your friendly neighbourhood CDO neat-freak???

      Fixed it for you. The letters are now in alphabetical order. LIKE THEY SHOULD BE!

    36. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'In this particular room I have one of those lamps with the 300 watt halogen bulbs when I actually sit in that room and do stuff (rare).'

      Seriously? Doesn't it catch on fire? Halogen lighting is what is used for spotlights or a 75 watt is used to deter thieves as an outside floodlight. It's extremely hot, you would need active cooling for a 300 watt halogen.

    37. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by hattig · · Score: 1

      That 200lm Par20 LED bulb is equivalent to a 25W incandescent.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Power

      How they can say it is equivalent to 40-50W incandescent is beyond me.

      Still, 9 of those Par20 lights should be able to replace a single 100W room light - in a mere 63W of power consumption! Not quite equivalent to the 20W CFLs that are equivalent to a 100W incandescent.

      The thing is, I looked up some LED bulbs, and they all have better power specs than the one you bought. 12W for 1200 lumen for example...

      http://www.everbrightlights.com/screw.html

    38. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I pretty much live in the dark too but I would never strain my eyes trying to read by 40w bulbs. I usually read by backlit display but for paper books a 150w is required. Anything short of that is hurting your eyes.

    39. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Halogen bulbs have been used for indoor lighting for decades. Most torchiere-type floor lamps use them. They are slightly more efficient than regular incandescents. However, it would make more sense to use one 100W halogen over three 35W halogens because incandescent lights are less efficient in smaller wattages.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Three words: sarcasm.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    41. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      I believe you're thinking of the "inverse square law" and it applies to all light sources.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Skweetis · · Score: 1

      I must have gotten the same ones. They came in packs of three, don't illuminate much, and the light has a kind of sickly yellow-green cast to it -- they remind me of propane lamps I used to have before I got electricity. I bought two packs of the damn things, too, enough for my whole house, and they weren't exactly cheap.

      Oh, well -- live and learn, I guess.

    43. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you assume black text on a white screen, then the extra U will be producing LESS electrons. So we should be adopting our English counterparts practices in order to go "green".

    44. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by qengho · · Score: 1
    45. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "you would need active cooling for a 300 watt halogen."

      I'm calling bullshit. I've got a 300w halogen floodlamp. I don't see any fans on it. It's a shell, two ceramic sockets, a reflector, and a cord. I don't see ACTIVE ANYTHING in here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    46. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by fizzup · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 40-watt CFL is about like a 150-watt incandescent. Here's a link to a really bright "compact" fluorescent. It's over a foot long.

    47. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't trust lumens either. The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      It's worse than that, mate. Every time you double the distance, the brightess goes down by a factor of four! So, two feet away, the bulb is a quarter as bright as it was a foot away.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    48. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, not all LED lighting is the same, and there are several ways to produce white or yellow light using blue or ultraviolet LEDs with some sort of phosphor(s). The cheapest variety is blue LEDs hitting a yellow phosphor. Next you have blue or ultraviolet LEDs hitting several phosphors that produce white light, and finally blue hitting quantum dots (commonly called QD-LEDs). A cheaper LED bulb may not produce the same amount of colors as an incandescent and thus the perception of less light.

      I really don't know which is best, and I've only seen video of QD-LEDs (and read about QD-OLEDs, both of which seem to be destined more for TV use rather than lighting). I have seen demos of similar powered LED bulbs that give off vastly different light attributes and whether you get better directional or omnidirectional lighting depends on the bulb, as well.

    49. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You mean those home depots that are closing all over the place?

      And what do you think they do with them? Recycle them? Hahaha, no.

      Electricity is only generated from coal because we're not allowed to go nuclear. It's the ONLY viable option, it's perfectly safe, and it's clean as a whistle.

    50. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      I have the home depot CFLs. My father has Sylvanias. Wattage is the same, and the sylvania's are MUCH brighter.

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    51. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by ryanov · · Score: 1

      And for folks actually speaking "English" I'd go with "fewer" electrons.

    52. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying cheap bulbs that don't use their technology how it's meant to be used is a great way to fuck up science...

      THAT is why LED bulbs don't compare, there are no good bulbs that do what LEDs are capable of because the producers of these bulbs cheap out on their production due to a lack of people willing to buy their products.

    53. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by himitsu · · Score: 1

      comeon, how isn't that modded funny yet?

    54. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Reading in general is hurting your eyes.
      Light or dark makes little difference as long as you can see the text.

      Physically straining to read in low-light is a symptom of broken eyes, not a cause.

    55. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      But those LCDs the environmentalists sold us waste electricity for black text, since the backlight is still on!

      (Hint: He was probably referring to a much lower level - storing that data, hitting that key on the keyboard, etc.)

    56. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by redxxx · · Score: 1

      not every foot or so. It quarters every time the distance from the light source doubles. This isn't exactly surprising behavior for a source of non-coherent radiation.

    57. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I never had an astigmatism until I started using computers 8-12 hours a day...

    58. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Lazyrust · · Score: 1

      What they meant was that the 3 bulbs together were the equivalent of a 40 watt bulb. Did you try screwing all 3 bulbs together into the same socket? Damn those semantics.

    59. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what was it like losing your virginity to a nuclear reactor?

    60. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by thogard · · Score: 1

      The box says 800 lumens. How can you verify that claim? I have a light meter and power meter and a 4xU tube type CLF will produce 1/3 the light on its end as its brightest spot yet its brightest spot seems to be the reference point that someone used to determine its "lumens". The ISO standard also seems to have a test as if all light bulbs are point sources.

    61. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You don't have an astigmatism.
      You have astigmatism.

      All astigmatism means is that your eyes are different.

    62. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Probably... sounds just like mine. Terrible.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    63. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      A 40 watt CFL would be damned bright, I don't know if I've ever seen one.

      I've got a pair of 150W CFLs in my garage. You can't bear looking at them when they've warmed up.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    64. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a -1 Retard moderation option for your posts in this thread. Yes, CFLs get recycled. Yes, it's extremely easy to do it. Get with the times.

    65. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      But the fact is that if it can't work like a standard bulb, they shouldn't make them like a standard bulb... directional for reading lamps and flashlights, maybe, but not a standard bulb.

      I have one in my reading lamp. That's the classic example of an application it's designed for. It's not a general-purpose lightbulb. They make them compatible with a standard socket because standard sockets are what people have.

    66. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...

      A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.

      The problem with current LEDs is that they aren't good for area lighting, they're only good for spot lighting. You want to light up a small area of your desk or want to read a book, I know people don't read books anymore, and they're great but they're terrible if you want to light up a room. There are LEDs for area lighting but the last tyme I saw prices for them they were expensive.

      Falcon

    67. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      probably in the transformer, I think most LEDs are not over 2V, so 70 or so in series wouldn't need a transformer from 110 (DC peak voltage is the important part.) Because inefficient transformers are cheaper and smaller... It is bigger and more costly to make efficient ones. You were likely buying a small enclosure with few leds and a transformer packed in a very small space...

    68. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Any LED bulb under $50 -is- a nightlight, or an accent light anyways.

      The $100 "brighter" ones are supposedly suitable replacements.. ... but no lighting store carries them. Perhaps these expensive ones work well for rich "green" folk, or those living off the grid.

      Based on the disappointments we've seen with the $10 models, LED will be dismissed and a disappointment for a WHILE. I don't think Philips is in it for night lights, so you have to trust they see a future. Developments will continue on a "slow" pace (slow because we're impatiently waiting for the big breakthrough product at the _store_).

    69. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the mercury from the standard incandescent lights is not concentrated in my living room.

      It can be. Just take any cans of tuna you have from your kitchen and put them in your living room.

    70. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'll bet that that 300W Halogen is OUTSIDE, where the breeze blows. He's talking about a lamp in a room containing a 300W Halogen. Heaven forbid you have a lampshade on that puppy...

    71. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how long it would take before someone mentioned that...

    72. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the same story when CFLs were new: marketing triumphing over facts. Now CFLs have passed to the next level of maturity/legitimacy where the comparisons are more trustworthy and the packaging usually posts the actual light output in lumens. Don't believe the marketing crap on the outside: if that's all it is, assume it is lying. Buy it when there is more specific info to go by, such as light output in lumens.

    73. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with coherence. It has to do with the fact that light bulbs spread their light in all directions. Coherent refers to the properties of the photons.

    74. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by redxxx · · Score: 1

      In physics, coherence is a property of waves, that enables stationary (i.e. temporally and spatially constant) interference. More generally, coherence describes all correlation properties between physical quantities of a wave.

      wikipedia seems to thinks it has to do with the waves, mainly I just meant everything in the electromagnetic spectrum that isn't a laser(which don't spread and are coherent). From this description, and a the couple of physics class I've been in that touched on it, Coherent light doesn't spread because all the vectors and frequencies are the same.

    75. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to do, read a book in a room painted matte black with the light bulb on the other side of the room? I can feel 150 watt incandescent bulbs burning my retinas if I'm sitting near them or looking in their direction. I can quite comfortably read with a 25W bulb (also incandescent) in the lamp next to my bed. I tried a 15W bulb, too, but that's a bit low even for me. I realize my eyes are more sensitive to light than most people's, but the rest of my family has normal vision and generally doesn't use much more than 60W bulbs to read by. For overhead lighting, especially for a larger room, sure, you need more than that, but just to read a book... I think the only person I know who uses a lamp that bright to read by is my grandma, who's almost 90. Weird how much variation in vision and lighting preferences there is, just reading through this thread.

    76. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by entrigant · · Score: 1

      CFL bulbs are usually sold as X Watt _equivalent_ since people are use to associating wattage with brightness. E.g. the CFL's I use are 6500K "100 watt", but only 100 watt in that they, in theory, produce similar light as a 100 watt incandescent. In practice it's closer to maybe a 60 watt. The different light temperature might also lower perceived brightness as well.

    77. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and lithium ion batteries and toner cartridges get recycled too.
      Those rivers in southeast asia just grow tons of those naturally.

      Here's how it works:
      Company has a "recycling program" and gets tax credits, looks good, etc. They then ship crap to a larger recycling center.

      The recycling center does the same to a larger recycling center.

      Eventually, someone in a foreign country rips out any valuable materials (value is determined by ease of reclamation, and is watered down by all the middlemen collecting $ along the way.

      Then shit gets dumped, as usual.

    78. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by brentonboy · · Score: 1

      A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter.

      I had a similar experience with a 15,000 lux wake-up light. Too bright to look at yet too dim to read by. It's like saying a laser is equivalent to a 4,000 watt light bulb. That may be true--if the beam is pointed directly at your eye--but it's completely useless for lighting up a room.

    79. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I own two LED lights (one "warm", one "cool").

      The 60 watt bulbs put out a dismal light that lacks radiance and is very directional.

      I finally found the perfect place for them-- my porch lights. They are on all the time at a fraction of the cost- I'm only there for a little while and only need them to show me no one is lurking there and to help me find my keys.

      Ironically, I bought a couple "button" lights (much cheaper with 5 "superbright" LED's) that produce much more "glowy" light.

      The biggest problem with LED's is that they are very direction and lack the ability to "fill" an area with light. I think normal LED's put out intensity "X" and it doesn't really "Add". You could cover the walls with LED's and the room would still be dim.

      I dislike CFL's but not badly. I typically use 4 CFL's and then throw in one incandescent bulb to alter the quality of the light to be friendlier.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    80. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Environmentally light bulbs are a process. The bulbs are released. Some people, most in fact have insufficiently sensitive eyes. They will fall down the stairs, die and fail to breed. Over the millenia humans will evolve big ass eyes like this tarsier

      http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4502/ohnoab6.jpg

      Which reminds me of a joke

      Q) How many envirommentalists does it take to change a lightbulb?
      A) Do you know how much energy is wasted by lighting every year? Polar bears are drowning because of selfish people like you!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    81. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by dragonjujotu · · Score: 1

      +1 for the world's race to make a bigger idiot

      +1 for that particular simpsons reference

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
    82. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good designers would fit them in as wallpaper. Imagine for a kid's room white LEDs colouring in clouds, and that lights up the room. Even a sun too, and flowers. And then at night, you have small blue and (perhaps) white LEDs that are supposed to be stars and stuff, as a nightlight.

      Or have like wavy patterns for other rooms, or just polygon designs. You don't have to put them all over every wall.

    83. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Quikah · · Score: 1

      Huh? You can buy 300W halogen J-type bulbs for Torchiere style lamps. I have one in my living room, don't remember if I put a 300W in there last time I changed the bulb.

      --
      Q.
    84. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      The problem with the LED Vs CFL efficiency thing is that each are more efficient in certain circumstances.

      Lets look at just raw efficiency: The 23W Phillips Tornado in my room is 70Lm/W, 1550lm warm white, (written on the side of the base). The most efficient "high-output" LED I know of is a Cree XR-E which is quoted at just over 100m/W, but only for a cool white at 350mA, by the time you crank them to their 1A max rating the efficiency has dropped to ~60lm/W (calculated from their datasheet)

      It is worth noting that as CFL efficiency increases with higher power, whereas LED efficiency decreases with higher power. So, there is a good chance that the small high quality flashing LEDs in the front of your computer case exceed 100lm/W, but this isn't exactly a useful amount of light for room lighting.

      All those numbers are all well and good, but there is another issue here: LEDs are trivial to focus due to their small emission area, whereas CFLs are comparably very difficult. This means that the overall system efficiency of, say, lighting up a square foot of your desk would be much higher when using a 200Lm ~3.7W Cree XR-E focused onto the small area than using a 1500Lm 23W CFL which sprays light in all directions. This is why LEDs, although not the most efficient technology in raw Lm/W, is used exclusively over CFLs in torches, pushbike headlights etc.

      There are other psychological issues such as continuous spectrum vs discreet spectrum illumination, but that's a rather fuzzy "well, that's just your opinion" argument I don't want to get into. For reference, white LEDs tend to be fairly continuous, nothing like a black body radiator but with far more wavelengths than a CFL.

    85. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, a 20W CFL is no where near the output of a 100W incandescent. More like a 60W incandescent.

    86. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is exponential decay 'better' then an inverse-square law??

    87. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Plekto · · Score: 1

      A 40 watt CFL would be damned bright, I don't know if I've ever seen one. Most of my lamps have 27 watt twirley tubes. They vary in intensity, in color, in startup time, and some grow brighter the longer they're on. The one on the front porch won't light if the temperature gets below 0F, the back porch light has lit every time. It's also dimmer and bluer.
      *****

      I have seen these.

      http://www.lightbulbs4sale.com/category/2-to-200-Watt-Spirals.aspx?gclid=COz-h7CJtZgCFRtKbQodNThoUA
      Actually I have a 85W CFL in my living room to replace an old school halogen type lamp. It's hellishly bright at full power. 5000 lumen. The ballast can dim it, thankfully.

      Note how the claims are all over the place, though, for the equivalence for bulbs on that page. The truth is that a 27-28W CFL is roughly the same as a good 100W incandescent bulb(The best put out about 1750 lumen) And by simple math, about 17W or so for a 60W bulb. They're not the enormous power saving devices as the ads state, but even at roughly 30% the power required, it's worth considering as a replacement if it will work for you.

      Though, replacing your old fridge will save way more power per month...

    88. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      40w would be quite bright, but you would soon get used to it. I have a giant 85w CFL in my living room, and it is much better than the old 20w CFL, but even that's a far cry from the kind of illumination you get during daylight, or in some shops.

      In the end, I plumped for a 1 KW halogen floodlight. It's much better, but I still want more :)

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    89. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by localman · · Score: 1

      I haven't tried LED yet but I hear you and I have had similar experiences with CFLs.

      I'm a green minded guy, but I think that pushing some of these green technologies while they're still, ahem, green, is a bad move. Most people I know hate CLFs because they a) don't come on immediately b) aren't as bright as they claim to be and c) have lousy color.

      I know that you can find high quality CFLs that do not have these problems, but it's not easy and most people will just mentally mark CFLs as being annoying environmentalist crap and move on.

      I firmly believe that we can live very well and sustainably by advancing technology. However pushing out environmental products that suck next to normal products just cements in people's minds that green tech is annoying.

      Cheers.

    90. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'However, it would make more sense to use one 100W halogen over three 35W halogens because incandescent lights are less efficient in smaller wattages.'

      The reason argon bulbs and not halogen are used for typical indoor lighting are twofold. First they are incredibly hot and while the lumen per dollar rating might be better it would be seriously offset in A/C and comfort costs. Second they require a ballast which is expensive.

    91. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by aqk · · Score: 0

      And who exactly wants to live in something that resembles a hospital?

      Well, none of us, of course, but perhaps we should start acclimatizing ourselves to it...
      BTW, I bet you still haven't made out a will yet. -

    92. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by aqk · · Score: 0

      Is this a CRT or an LCD?
      citation needed.
      (ducks - possibly from a tomato, or a tohmahto)

    93. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'but the rest of my family has normal vision and generally doesn't use much more than 60W bulbs to read by. For overhead lighting, especially for a larger room, sure, you need more than that,'

      Actually a 60-100w in an overhead bulb will nicely blanket a room. You need much brighter lighting in a kitchen, a reading lamp, or anywhere you perform fine work. Age shouldn't impact the light you need to read. The only thing that happens is that as you age your eye muscles weaken and lose the ability to refocus, that affects your need for reading glasses and to strain in low light. You shouldn't be reading under low light and causing your eye muscles to work in the first place.

    94. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      500W halogen floods are regularly used in the UK - see with any incandescent, the more it heats up, the greater the resistance becomes and so it's all kind of self limiting. Usually these are outside, but no reason why you couldn't place one in a warehouse or something. Active cooling, active bollocks more like.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    95. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shaitand's model and Camperdave's model are equivalent going from 2 feet to 4 feet distance. Then both cases show a reduction with a factor four.

      Going from 4 to 8 feet, Shaitand's model reduces with a factor 16, whereas Camperdave's model reduces with a factor 4. Which is definitely not worse.

      O.t.o.h., going from 1 feet to 2 feet leads to halve the light in Shaitand's model and four times less light in Camperdave's model. Which is worse.

      Therefore it can be concluded that Camperdave's parents have a tiny basement.

    96. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by dkf · · Score: 1

      I don't trust lumens either. The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      It's worse than that, mate. Every time you double the distance, the brightess goes down by a factor of four! So, two feet away, the bulb is a quarter as bright as it was a foot away.

      OTOH, your eye perceives apparent brightness logarithmically, so the light will appear to decrease linearly in brightness with distance. It's not all doom and gloom!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    97. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Two hundred and fifty watts? That's insane!

      That's a three way bulb. You wouldn't use the highest setting unless you were doing very fine needlepoint or reading six point type with fifty year old eyes. Do you listen to your TV with the volume cranked all the way up?

      The guy down the block probably has a halogen, or a 600 watt floodlamp, or something.

      I'd go with the Xmas present regardless of whether they were nice or not. Shooting out their lamp could land you in jail if you got caught.

    98. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Fine - Mr. Pedantic (thanks BTW). It's still something I didn't have until I was 21 or so, after five straight years of 8-12+ hours of computing. Could have just been old age, I suppose...

      Though each eye is still 20/20, my ability to resolve fine detail with BOTH eyes is definitely getting worse.

    99. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by CKW · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, I remember using three way lights when I was a kid in the living room. But I wouda thought they were 60/100/150. Maybe I'm too used to dimly lit rooms nowdays. Or maybe that was back in the day when lampshades kept half the light inside them, and it actually was a 250?!

      My landlord has replaced all the incandescents in all the apartments with CF. Not very intelligently mind you - my bathroom is dazzling bright (4 sockets w 14W CF plus regular fluorescent), and the living room is dark as heck (1 socket, removed 100W incand, put in just a 14W CF). I'll have to move some from one to the other.

    100. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually there were two strengths of 3-ways I knew of, one was 50-100-150 (two filaments, a 100 watt and a 50 watt). I don't remember what the two lower wattages of the 250 were, but you're right, a large room (especially with dark walls) and a shaded lamp pretty much screams for 250 watts.

  3. Sweet by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except I've already switched most of my house to bulbs that last longer than incandescents. Maybe the flourescents will start burning out by the time I can get some good cheap LED bulbs.

    1. Re:Sweet by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Same here; the only two incandescants left are in sockets in the bathroom, and they're the candelabra type (it's a 1930s era house) by the irrir and a twirley bulb won't fit.

      Those will be gone soon too, as I've recently seen some CFLs that will fit. I've been using CFLs for a decade now, I haven't had too many burn out yet.

    2. Re:Sweet by internerdj · · Score: 1

      We've been slowly replacing over the past 4 years. One of my first purchases was a 3-way but it has really been the only one that I've lost from burning out. I've lost a couple to knocking-over the lamp.

    3. Re:Sweet by aonaran · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you live, but I bought some of these at IKEA. I have a 4 bulb vanity fixture above the bathroom mirror, I have kept one bulb as incandescent just because the CFL versions take a second to come on and I had guests flipping the switch up and down, frustrated that the light wasn't coming on instantly.

    4. Re:Sweet by dragonjujotu · · Score: 1

      I've gotten some of those candelabra-base CFLs (stupid ceiling fan). Individually they weren't as bright as the lone incandescent one I had lying around, but combined they use the same wattage as it did, a fair trade-off for me.

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
    5. Re:Sweet by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Maybe the flourescents will start burning out by the time I can get some good cheap LED bulbs.

      If you can catch them before they've burned too long, you might get some good bread out of them too.

  4. If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

    most people want to be able to use dimmers and every customer I have wants to use lighting automation.

    They need to work on that second right after figuring out how to get the lumens up to that of CFL lamps.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I wonder if discrete stepping for dimming an LED bulb would work... you know, 5 steps: off, 1/4 of the LEDs, 1/2, 3/4, and all?

      I would imagine that you could work the logic into the bulb depending on how much juice it's getting, but then I have a pretty good imagination.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've not used the commercial LED light bulbs, but standard LEDs dim just fine (at least to a point). I see no obstacle that would stop the bulbs from dimming too.

      In fact, a very quick check on the bulbs available at Amazon indicates that they do dim. Is there a dimming problem that you're aware of that's not made clear in the Amazon reviews?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can trivially dim LEDs using PWM, which is more or less the same method used by regular dimmer switches. An LED light which was as simple as a chain of LEDs designed to run off rectified 110VAC/240VAC should work fine with a regular dimmer.

    4. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

      most people want to be able to use dimmers and every customer I have wants to use lighting automation.

      They need to work on that second right after figuring out how to get the lumens up to that of CFL lamps.

      As long as your dimmers are the electronic PWM based kind, LEDs will work with them. (CFL's have issues when they're only given part of the sinewave). If you use the crappy rheostat dimmers LEDs won't work with them.

      The only thing I question about LEDs is... will they give us headaches from the flicker? It's my current annoyance with LED christmas lights - they can flicker quite horribly. CFLs not so much, and neither the standard flourescent lamps (flicker at 120Hz, plus smoothed out by phosphors).

      I forsee cheap LED lamps not using a full bridge rectifier (= 120Hz flickering), and just hooking them straight up in series, so they're off half the time.

      It's also one of my concerns with OLED displays - they have these really fast refresh times, but if you don't refresh them fast enough, flicker! (I've seen it on cheap MP3 players, annoying. I've also seen it on the Sony OLED TV... Sony sales guy blamed it on the 1080p24 source, but I'm not sure.)

    5. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by jjmcwill · · Score: 1

      See this article on how dimmers work.

      http://www.icanhome.com/downloads/iLIGHT%20Binder-HowDimmers.pdf

      You'd need a circuit that detects the average power supplied, as opposed to looking at the voltage level of the rectified peak output. I haven't done EE in like 12 years, so maybe this is simple to do. *shrug*

      It sounds like a cool project.

      --
      Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
    6. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Uhh led lights are dimmable... without flickering and all that... But they are just not bright enough atm to be worth anything.

    7. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you should be able to use a standard dimmer switch on these things. Unless someone is doing something I've never seen before, there's no logic in them, just the diode and a resistor. Maybe a capacitor if they were really ambitious.

      I'd expect control with an LED to be much better than an incandescent, because the fact that the 'light emitting' voltage stays relatively constant between the on state and off state, so you should get better effective rangability and control.

      Yes, I'm a control systems geek. :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
    8. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by pla · · Score: 1

      You can trivially dim LEDs using PWM

      Yes and no...

      If you boost the frequency to a few thousand Hz, yes, you could arbitrarily dim them via PWM. At 60Hz (half-wave rectified, ugh) or even 120Hz (full-wave, better but still noticeably particularly with a duty cycle less than 50%), you just can't do that without making half the people in the room nauseous.

      As currently implemented, even the dimmable LEDs really, really suck. Of course, I personally couldn't care less about true dimmability, as long as I can get at least a few different levels by simply turning off N out of every M LEDs.

    9. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know about a SINGLE component in the system.

      First, LEDs are definitely variable in a non-binary sense. Anyone who has ever used an LED in pretty much any application ever can tell you that light output can be changed by altering the current.

      Second, a dimmer isn't a variable resistor. It cuts the AC waveform, reducing the current available to an incandescent light bulb.

      Pulse width modulation is definitely NOT the only way to vary the light output of an LED.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by cmr-denver · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this is a stupid question, but since most of these LED "bulbs" are just an amalgamation of several individual LEDs, wouldn't just turning off some percentage of them be better than trying to do PWM?

    11. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      LED's can be dimmed one of two ways, by varying the current or by varying the duty cycle. The duty cycle method does work better however. Conventional incandescant lamp dimmers use Triacs or SCRs to vary the duty cycle, so they will work just fine. The ballasts of CFL's don't take kindly to short duty cycles (they tend to explode) so unless the CFL has a special ballast adapted to this use they can't be dimmed.

    12. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes. el-cheapo dimmers work on SOME of them. But high end dimmers all need a minumum load and most LED lighting designs do not meet this. the units that are a decent output (3 3W luxeon led's) are NOT dimmable as the electronics inside dont like it.

      The garbage LED lighting that is simply a wad of cheapie T1 led's and a bridge rectifier are not what are the most useful as they do not have high enough light output ot be a good replacement.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Headaches... it's an excellent question. There were LED lights decorating a place that I went to last year, and one particular strand of them made me sick/dizzy/lightheaded. All the others were fine, but these were definitely not.

      Fluorescent lights can do the same thing, though. It's a "weird" light and does make quite a few people that I know feel somewhat sickish.

    14. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The only thing I question about LEDs is... will they give us headaches from the flicker? It's my current annoyance with LED christmas lights - they can flicker quite horribly.

      I think this is due to the 60hz you're getting off the AC. It's easy enough to overcome: simple AC-DC converter, like the wall-wart for your laptop (but no need for one capable of 70 watts or whatever your laptop draws, so it can be itty-bitty), but as always, it adds cost.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    15. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by ninjackn · · Score: 1

      LEDs are not "binary". To dim an LED all you need to do is limit the current, which can be achieved one of many ways.

      If you did decide to limit the current by turning it on and off really fast then you would probably want to change the duty cycle, not the period.

      The "problem" with dimming LEDs comes from the fact that the power we get to our houses are AC. The AC has to be converted to DC for the LEDs and the regulators and probably are doing too good of a job compensating for when the AC voltage drops ala the standard light bulb wall dimmer knob.

      --
      [FUCK BETA 2.6.2014]
    16. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      most people[who?] want to be able to use dimmers [Citation needed]

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    17. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      None of that's true. Firstly, you CAN dim an LED by reducing the current through it. Secondly, incandescent dimmer switches are not variable resistors they are triacs.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    18. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by shaka999 · · Score: 1

      Normal incandescent bulbs work by lowering the voltage over the bulb. If I understand correctly this isn't a good approach for LED based lighting. You really want to do pulse width modulation (PWM) where you switch the device on/off at different rates to dim the light. A simple circuit in the bulb could do this based on changing voltage but it would add some cost.

      Oh, and I'm sure we will have people saying they can see the blinking even if its in the Khz range...

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    19. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've not used the commercial LED light bulbs, but standard LEDs dim just fine (at least to a point). I see no obstacle that would stop the bulbs from dimming too.

      In fact, a very quick check on the bulbs available at Amazon indicates that they do dim. Is there a dimming problem that you're aware of that's not made clear in the Amazon reviews?

      You should walk through any of the Station Casinos in Vegas. You'll quickly see why you shouldn't use LEDs with triarch dimmers. The LEDs don't create enough load on the dimmer, so they just flicker.

      Also, you actually believe Amazon reviews?

    20. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'An incandescant dimmer is simply a rheostat (variable resistor), but Light Emitting Diodes are binary - either all the way on or all the way off.'

      Spoken like someone who has never actually used an LED before. Get yourself a battery, an led, and a number of various sizes of resistor. Report back when you are ready to recant your story.

    21. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by zenyu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you should be able to use a standard dimmer switch on these things. Unless someone is doing something I've never seen before, there's no logic in them, just the diode and a resistor. Maybe a capacitor if they were really ambitious.

      Nope. LED fixtures on an Edison base incorporate ballasts, just like CFLs, and incandescent dimmers do not work well with any ballast. You are probably making the incorrect assumption that an incandescent dimmer just takes a sine wave with a ~ 170 V peak and outputs a sine wave with a lower peak. It would indeed be easy to create a dimmable ballast if that were the case. But instead these things just cut out portions of the wave creating all kinds of nasties on the house current. This is because it is cheaper to do, and all you need to do to dim an incandescent is to reduce it's average current consumption.

      There are a number of solutions to this problem. The one that's most likely to happen is that a new type of dimmer will be created which does something sane for ballasts like reduce the peak voltage, and labeling will be created for both such dimmers and the CFL and LED light bulbs with compatible ballasts. Another solution would be to simply put the dimming entirely within the ballast itself, then the switch would just send a message to the bulb via radio or another out-of-band channel to the bulb circuitry to dim. But while this would be more efficient, this is not going to happen in today's fragmented home automation market without a government mandate, or at least the threat of a government mandate, to standardize.

      PS There already are dimmable CFLs and CFL compatible dimmers, I have some in my house. They are not perfect, and both cost 2x as much as conventional CFLs and incandescent only dimmers; and there is no branding to tell the consumer they are compatible. This means you need to do a lot of frustrating web research before you buy the things. I also bought one bright LED Edison base lightbulb to satisfy my curiosity and it was both very expensive and non-dimmable.

      PS2 My biggest frustration with buying lighting on the web is that no one shows you a spectral diagram of the light output of the bulbs. If there are any lighting web retailers reading this, please do this and you will win some early adopter business and appear expert in the eyes of even those who don't know what they are looking at. Use, trademark and reasonably license compatibility marks and you will make a killing.

    22. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'If you use the crappy rheostat dimmers LEDs won't work with them'

      Why not? Adjusting resistance dims and brightens LED's just fine on a breadboard.

    23. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      You should be able to use a simple resistor based dimmer, but it would be much sweeter to use a switching transistor that changes it's duty cycle to match how much light you're wanting to give it. That way, you're not losing energy through resistive losses.

      --

      -Bucky
    24. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Compholio · · Score: 1

      An incandescant dimmer is simply a rheostat (variable resistor)...

      No, REALLY old school dimmers are rheostats - modern dimmers are made with a triac (a special kind of rectifier) and are used to reduce the time that AC signal is high or low. Google if you must, be a modern dimmer will work just fine on an LED.

    25. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by hattig · · Score: 1

      That sounds sensible. It would require a small device that could take input current, and depending on its strength, activate a number of output currents, dividing the input current between the active outputs.

      You'd want it to do it efficiently of course.

      Anyone into electronics know what this type of device is, what it would cost, is it available in chip form that could be stuck on the circuit board that the LEDs are mounted on as well, etc?

    26. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by SkyDude · · Score: 1
      I can't speak to the technology involved in making LEDs dim; others here have done so quite well. I will note that LEDs have become very popular with the 100,000-lights-on-my-house Christmas decorators, mostly because of the tiny amount of current they draw. Instead of running up a $2,000US electric bill in December, a decorator who replaces his old incandescent lights with LEDs will see an increase of less than $50 - $100, depending on how many thousands he's using.

      The major drawback that decorators have discovered is that LEDs won't last very long when used on computer controlled dimmers and flashing systems. Some have reported the LEDs are dead after just a few hours of being attached to a controller.

      Any one here have any thoughts on this?

      And yes, Virginia, there really is a website devoted to the Christmas geeks: http://www.planetchristmas.com/

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    27. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by evanbd · · Score: 1

      My understanding (from a friend, I haven't used them) is that LED xmas lights are half-wave rectified, so they have a 60Hz flicker. If you get out the soldering iron and install a full wave bridge rectifier, and optionally replace the ballast resistor with a somewhat larger one, it will stop flickering. (If you leave the same ballast resistor, it will be twice as bright, but should work just fine.)

    28. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulse width modulation is definitely NOT the only way to vary the light output of an LED.

      True. However, it's the most efficient, reliable, and easiest way to do it. Only a fool would do it by changing the current.

    29. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by pz · · Score: 1

      standard LEDs dim just fine

      Not really; not like an incandescant. An incandescant dimmer is simply a rheostat (variable resistor), but Light Emitting Diodes are binary - either all the way on or all the way off. To dim an LED what you do is turn it off and on faster than the eye can see. The longer the off period, the dimmer it appears.

      Dimmers for LED lamps will most likely come on the market, but the dimmer that's on you wall now won't work.

      Half right. The last half. Sort-of.

      LEDs have a quite nice linear lumens-vs-current regime as long as you're above threshold and below saturation (and you keep them temperature stabilized). OK, it isn't quite linear, but it's pretty close. It certainly isn't binary.

      However, traditionally, LEDs were engineered so that the standard current for reasonably bright indicator use was 20 mA. Why 20 mA? Because that's the standard output current that a TTL gate can push. So, with a normal TTL logic chip, you can directly drive one LED, get good indicator use, and remain within the limits imposed by the TTL specification. This led to widespread use of LEDs as indicator lights -- thus an unwitting assumption that they only operate as on/off devices.

      That said, the standard dimmer circuitry for incandescent bulbs, either the very old fashioned rheostat or the modern phase-adjusted SCR trigger, will work just fine with an LED load. The problem is that LEDs, unlike incandescents, have effectively zero emission inertia: you can switch them on an off very, very fast. Even a run-of-the-mill LED will switch on or off in microseconds, max. An incandescent bulb, in contrast, takes hundreds of milliseconds to turn on or off, and so the sharp switching waveform from SCR style dimmers is no big deal: the thermal inertial of an incandescent smooths them out. An LED on that kind of a dimmer is pure torture (I've tried it) since it's 50/60 or 100/120 Hz of full-field flickering light. Not pleasant in the least. New dimmer designs will have to be made for LEDs that include some smoothing within the dimmer, or the LED bulbs themselves will have to incorporate waveform smoothing.

      But, the last suggestion -- that the apparent brightness of an LED can be modulated by changing the duty cycle -- is correct. If there are any designers reading this: PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN THE MODULATING FREQUENCY IS ABOVE 200 Hz (curious? I'd be happy to explain). The current rash of 60 Hz pulse-wave modulated LED illumination everywhere is driving me nuts.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    30. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Altering LED brightness is just an exercise in voltage. This is really easy to see with LED's in series on a breadboard @ say 12V. Plug in 5 LEDs, pull one out, watch brightness go up.

      Hey, I didn't say anything about them lasting long. :-)

    31. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me. I have no use for dimmers, so when LEDs finally get cheap enough and bright enough for the average household, I'm all over it.

      I don't know what your habits are, but in my experience dimming just isn't that useful in the average household, certainly not mine.

    32. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Cormacus · · Score: 1

      You have clearly never actually used LEDs in a project. They only achieve full brightness when you have supplied them with full voltage - BUT - they most definitely will give off light at slightly lower voltages.

      If you look at this diagram, as long as Vin < Von but Iforward > 0, you will have some light emission.

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    33. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Cormacus · · Score: 1

      . . . and then I read down and saw that other people had already yelled at you about this. Sorry!

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    34. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Modern", meaning "at least 30 years old". We were using triacs in a dorm-made theater-light-board back then. And before triacs, it was big-ass variable transformers. I cannot imagine regulating dozens of kilowatts resistively; that would be one heck of a hair-dryer.

    35. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Explain, please. I'm this close to putting a PWM dimmer on my bike light. Are you suggesting that causing epileptic seizures in oncoming traffic would be unsafe? How can we be sure if we don't test it first? :-)

    36. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I bought 2 4w LED bulbs off ebay for $20 just to try them out. They were advertised as being dimmable, so I put one in the bathroom and it worked just fine. The light was pretty unpleasant, though, even as only one of 4; as soon as my wife saw it it was banished. I'm sure the light temperatures will get better over time, but dimming at least seems not a big deal.

    37. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm a control systems geek.

      Are you sure? I was definitely under the impression that LED screens (as seen in stadiums) do shades of colours by changing the duty cycle - this involves a lot of control circuitry (since it is done per sub-pixel). That is digital, i.e. an LED can only be on or off, and the switching time is very fast. But dimmer switches reduce the voltage available and turn it into heat. That is analog.

      But I guess the LED lamp must be converting the AC power supply into DC anyway, so perhaps the rectifier could convert the varying voltage into a varying duty cycle, and so fit into existing houses.

    38. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by godztempus · · Score: 1

      Well some people can see the flicker of PWM. A friend of mine can have a migraine set off by them. Changing the current would be the only way he could have dimable LEDs in any area we was in.

    39. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Teun · · Score: 1

      An incandescant dimmer is simply a rheostat (variable resistor)

      Your statement about the binary nature of LEDs has already been shot down, let me spoil it even more by stating regular dimmers for incandescent bulbs are not at all rheostats.

      If they were you'd in no time notice the smoke coming off them :)
      Effectively they're cutting the sine waves up in tiny segments and allowing only so many to pass through, effectively lowering the applied Voltage and thus current drawn and light emitted.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    40. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

      PWM works fine as long as the oscillating frequency is above what the visual system can respond to (IAAVN ... I am a visual neuroscientist). The maximum frequency that the visual system responds to depends greatly on a large number of parameters, including contrast levels, and individual sensitivities, but, generally, the upper limit is about 150 Hz.

      If your intention is to draw attention, then 5-to-10 Hz is excellent for this.

      If your intention is to make even illumuniation, then oscillating at or above 200 Hz is certain to not appear to flicker.

      These days, fewer and fewer people recall the horror of using a CRT computer monitor at 60 Hz refresh. It is painful. Seizure-inducing. But increase the refresh rate on a CRT to 85 Hz and most people don't see the flickering anymore. Increase it to 160 Hz, and it is nearly undetectable even in a laboratory setting. That's for a light that essentially goes full-on to full-off.

      For light sources that are modulating at less extreme levels (like most LCD monitors, where each pixel is essentially constant in light output as long as the image does not change) a much lower refresh rate is necessary. 60 Hz is just fine.

      The most recent laptops that have LED illumination are, unfortunately, modulating brightness with a typically 60 Hz PWM driver. This makes it much more like a CRT because the light source is pulsing on and off. I can see my laptop flicker easily, but it's only milding annoying (120 Hz, and it would not have been an issue -- and the thing is, a 120 Hz PWM driver isn't any harder to design than a 60 Hz one).

      For a bike light, where you are using the illumination to see where you are going, I would recommend at least 100 Hz, if not 200 Hz. Do you have a choice in PWM drivers, or are you designing you own?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    41. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      My guess would be instead of using single chip LEDs in series which would flicker at 60 Hz (and cause reverse voltage damage), I would use dual chip LEDs where the two chips are connected in parallel but with anode to cathode and vice versa. That way each chip will be on for half a cycle, making the LED seem like it's flickering at 120 Hz (and the forward drop of chip 1 will protect chip 2 from reverse voltage damage).

      As you said, the better alternative would be to spring for the 4 el-cheapo diodes and go full-wave (no reverse voltage concerns for the LEDs).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    42. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by ca111a · · Score: 1

      Close the lid of a Macbook Pro and look at the light on the lid button. Slowly going up and down.

    43. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I am still at the phucking around stage -- which is to say, as an engineer, it is mighty embarrassing to learn that you are just as vague about expressing your design goals as anyone else who asks you to build something.

      The dimming would come from a BuckPuck, you can control the output current from about 0mA up to 1000mA. So PWM is possible, it's even possible to PWM between brighter/dimmer (might get you a wider apparent spectrum). Controlling the PWM, either a 555 clone, or a PIC.

      My suspicion is that I only want PWM for very-dim; going from 350 to 1000mA, you get a slightly sublinear increase (which is to say, 35% on of 1000mA is dimmer than 100% on of 350mA). I normally run them at 350mA (CREE XRE, 100 lumens, dadgum bright) so they come on at low speeds, but at high speeds, I am looking for places to dump power (from a hub alternator, which seems to spit out 9 or more watts at 20mph. and which will inflict component-cooking voltages if you do not use all the power it provides). PWM would give me even better low-speed performance without annoying flicker.

      I also have amber low beams -- do not aim white power LEDs at pedestrian's remaining eye.

    44. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You can get a dimmable CFL at Home Depot for about $7. I found them 2/$6 at Ocean State Job Lot recently. I use them on motion sensors.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    45. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by russotto · · Score: 1

      Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

      It's easy to dim LEDs; they respond nicely to pulse width modulation.

    46. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by willy_me · · Score: 1

      There are a number of solutions to this problem. The one that's most likely to happen is that a new type of dimmer will be created which does something sane for ballasts like reduce the peak voltage, and labeling will be created for both such dimmers and the CFL and LED light bulbs with compatible ballasts. Another solution would be to simply put the dimming entirely within the ballast itself, then the switch would just send a message to the bulb via radio or another out-of-band channel to the bulb circuitry to dim. But while this would be more efficient, this is not going to happen in today's fragmented home automation market without a government mandate, or at least the threat of a government mandate, to standardize.

      I'm not sure exactly how LED bulbs are powered, but they likely do not use ballasts. The high operating voltage of a CFL is why they require a ballast - LED lights require the opposite. If I were to design a circuit for powering LED lights I would simply rectify the AC into DC then utilize a switching power supply to produce a constant current output. But the point is mute as you are correct that current dimmer circuits would not work. (And who knows, what I described might be considered a ballast to some.)

      The point you make about requiring the logic to be in the switch is an excellent one. But it is potentially even easier then you think. First off, don't limit it just to dimmer switches - all switches should have the logic. There is no need to transmit a signal to the bulb. The switch is responsible for limiting the DC current to the bulb. The bulb is now greatly simplified, the cost is lowered, and the environmental damage associated with replacing the bulb is reduced.

      A potential problem arrises when multiple lights are connected in parallel. New houses could replace the wiring between the switch and light with wire that more closely resembles twisted pair. Each light would have a dedicated pair of wires providing ~100mA. Compared to how houses are currently wired with #14 Cu wire - this might even be cheaper. The more lights required the more expensive the switch but at least it is only a one time cost.

      Existing houses would be more difficult. For these, a system as you described would work - but forget about wireless as it would cause way too much grief. Instead, the switch could output a DC voltage with a small control signal modulated on top. Electronics that decode the signal and produce a steady DC current could be added to the lighting fixture boxes. Now no wiring is being changed and the same LED lights (simple lights with no extra electronics) could be used in either system.

      Personally, I like the first idea the most. Using a different kind of wire for the lights assures that electricians would not get confused. The second solution is acceptable but only because the wiring is already done so there is little chance for error. One would simply have to be careful when installing as sometimes things such as bathroom fans are connected to the lighting circuit.

    47. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by russotto · · Score: 1

      Turning off some percentage of lights in a multi-LED fixture would be tricky, as it would screw up the light pattern and possibly the color (if multiple colors are used). But it's not a technically difficult trick; the device you're looking for is basically an ADC and a slightly modified demultiplexer, with the outputs of the demux controlling transistors which control banks of LEDs.

      (the modification to the demux is that instead of outputting 1n for an input of n, it outputs (1n)-1)

      Another option would be using PWM but varying the phase of the PWM across LEDs in the fixture.

    48. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by amcdiarmid · · Score: 1

      I saw an article that said that the EPA rated bulbs for acceptiblity: Essentially they said that current LED lights are not going to be too acceptible as replacments for Incandescents, except for under counter lighting...

      However they seemed to like this CFL:
      GE Lighting Model: 21710 FLE15/2/DV/R30/SW
      claimed as a 65Watt Incandescent replacement: Dimmable.

      I think I'll buy a bunch for the recessed lighting, and revisit the issue in a few years when they burn out;)

    49. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by acohen1 · · Score: 0

      I use a custom LED PWM driver at work. 1.36 KHz, 8 bit control. You need a scope to see the oscillation. No headaches. I could sketch out how to do it with a simple rheostat as the input too.

    50. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by pz · · Score: 1

      Interesting design parameters you've set for yourself: a voltage source with varying output voltage, a load that prefers constant current, and make the whole thing adjustable.

      I hadn't heard of the BuckPucks before, but they sure do look nice. The dimmable version claims to have full range dimming, and have a pretty wide range of input voltages. You sure it won't do the trick alone without additional PWM circuitry? Or am I missing something?

      A reverse-biased (heavy-duty) zener diode might do the trick for shunting extra voltage/power from your alternator at higher speeds.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    51. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Having experimented with analog dimming (on a sidewall-driven system, not the same thing), it only sorta-works. Their dimming range is sort of three segment linear -- two flat on and off sections at the ends (to make TTL and classic 555s happy for on/off) and a linear bit in the middle. You could do it, but it would take some fiddling. Also, at low power, things get temperature-sensitive and fiddly; the diode knee moves around a little.

      "A" zener is not enough. I built a voltage shunt using a 22-volt Zener to switch on a 10W (but inadequately heat-sinked) power transistor wired as a 350 mA constant current source. I cooked the transistor -- charred some epoxy, even. Not sure if this was an intermittent fault, I hooked up a power LED as an indicator (that's the 350mA constant current source rationale), and saw it flicker on at 10 mph, get lit bright at 15, and hard on around 17-18 mph. Right now I'm using a string of power LEDs as a power dump, but it's really ugly.

    52. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      If by "Only a fool" you mean "pretty much everyone".

      You'd have to be a fucking idiot to stick a PWM regulator next to each and every LED you ever use. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, sticks a current limiting resistor to set the brightness of an LED.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    53. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, there's more than one application for LEDs on the planet.

      Millions and millions of indicator lights are controlled with a current limiting resistor. I've done it, every engineer I know of does it that way, every tradesman I know of does it that way. Sticking a PWM supply next to each and every LED on the planet would be a total clusterfuck.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    54. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by aqk · · Score: 0

      Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

      I have several string of LED xmas lights that just happen to be on standard dimmers. The dimmers were for the old incandescent xmas lights.
      The LEDs do dim, and in two years not one has burned out yet.
      And lazy boy that I am, the lights stay up all year, and are lit almost every night.
      An interesting thing- when the dimmer is turned COMPLETELY down, the lights still stay dimly lit. If you want them completely off, you have to switch the dimmer 'off'.

      .

    55. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by aqk · · Score: 0

      thoughts?
      Yes, see my post elsewhere in this thread (posted before I had read yours)

      -

    56. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To dim leds all you need to do is flash them faster than the threshold which humans can preceive and they will appear to be on continuously but much dimmer.. You can dim them further by changing the on-off ratio as long as it does not creep below.

      If you ask me LED lighting sucks. All of these hacks (see above) and piss poor spectrum coverage make the light they produce make me want to throw up. I've never seen a led light that I liked.

      They are not even more efficient than other common forms of lighting that have been around for several decades. The real problem with CFLs and is lack of consumer education and credible recycling programs.

    57. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by grgyle · · Score: 1

      Yes, agreed. I'm a lighting engineer, and do a lot of LED dimming and color-transition-effect arrays of LEDs. In the case of arrays, some LEDs may be driven full bright and the output color may still appear to at full bright, but you can still get flicker when one of the RGBW LEDs in the array is being driven at a low frequency to achieve a particular output color for the array.

      I'm very sensitive to flicker, and can definitely notice many of the dim states at low frequencies.

      For reference, an 85 Hz CRT was barely tolerable for me, and I needed 100 Hz or greater to avoid piercing headaches at the end of the day.

      --
      ----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.
  5. Clap on? by Pentomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a Clapper that I've been unable to use with CFL bulbs. I'd like to know whether these new LED lights work with the Clapper and other remote-switching appliances.

    1. Re:Clap on? by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They won't work with the clapper.

      Cheap automated switching devices like the clapper and some timers include the bulb as a resistance element in the switching circuit. They count on the bulb acting almost like a short when the light is off. This works with incandescent bulbs, since the resistance of the filament is very low when it is cold. CFL and LED bulbs act exactly the opposite way. They are almost an open circuit when off. With no current flow, the automated switch is unpowered.

      There are switches that will work with these types of bulbs, but they generally cost more.

    2. Re:Clap on? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Wow, I just figured the parent was on crack. I couldn't imagine a reason that the type of bulb would affect that, but that was quite interesting.

    3. Re:Clap on? by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you. The image of a crack addled addict struggling in a vain attempt to clap some life into a dead CFL bulb is one that I am sure will stick with me the rest of the day.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Clap on? by nsayer · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I believe you could work-around this problem by putting a resistor across the clapper's output in parallel with the load. You need to use the highest value resistor that will still allow the clapper to function.

      If I'm wrong, then it's because the resistor value must be so low for the clapper to work that it winds up being an inefficient heat-dump when the thing is on (potentially even a fire hazard).

      If I were going to try it, I'd try it with a 1 watt 25 k-ohm resistor. If that doesn't work, then forget it.

      I bought a timer switch once upon a time for some lights in the driveway. This particular timer is nice because you tell it your latitude and longitude and the date and it knows what time sunset and sunrise is. It is, however, designed to work in 3-way switch configurations, which means that it requires a conductive load, just like the clappers do.

      Fortunately, the CFLs that I use (apparently) understand this dilemma and offer a resistive load when turned off, since the whole thing still works correctly.

      I bought another one of these switches for working the outdoor low-voltage lights, but this time bought the one that is set up for higher power switching. That one requires access to both the hot and neutral, but has the virtue that it continues to work with no load attached. I used an outlet box to rig up a sort of ghetto power strip, but with sun-timer control. Worked very well.

    5. Re:Clap on? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      These types of switches are actually really common in timers that you install in place of a standard light switch. When you are replacing a switch, through the bulb is frequently the only path to neutral, and they can't make it use ground as a default current path.

    6. Re:Clap on? by DTemp · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I have CFLs on a Clapper that work fine. Actually three CFLs on the same plug into the Clapper, so maybe the combined resistances in parallel allow it to work.

  6. Whoopie for cold light! by arugulatarsus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These are going to be awesome in an office environment. Especially since the ceilings are so high and nobody likes changing the lights. But I have yet to find truly warm non-tungsten/halogen/mercury/fire/quartz/evil light for home use. I could not picture LEDs (which are basically antennas radiating a frequency that we happen to see) overtaking the other lights (heat sources that coincidentally give off visible light) in terms of color richness.

    1. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they can cluster LEDs in a way that simulates natural light (ie, a few at one frequency, a few at another frequency, etc) then I don't see how it's impossible... impossible for a single diode, perhaps..

    2. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by bahwi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Check out BlueMax full-spectrum CFLs, very nice lighting, matches sunlight very well. Mercury amalgam, and much less mercury than incandescents shot into the atmosphere by coal power plants.

    3. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      LEDs have almost nothing to do with antennas, aside from the fact that both emit EM radiation. Specifically, there is no oscillator in the LED. The photons are a direct result of the diode band gap -- each electron-hole pair combining emits one photon with energy equal to the electron charge times the forward voltage (ie a 3V forward voltage LED emits photons with 3eV of energy, aka blue visible light). The Wikipedia page has a fuller explanation.

      The reason LEDs produce weird light is that their spectrum is a sharp band, as opposed to the broad hump of a black body. This can be fixed (somewhat) by using a phophor to shift some of that frequency (most white LEDs), but the usual techniques for that leave a gap between the LED emission and the phosphor emission. Better, though more expensive, is combining enough different color LEDs that the narrow individual bands blend together to simulate the blackbody output. Eventually, that will get cheap enough to be common, and then you'll see LEDs in common usage as lighting.

    4. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by arugulatarsus · · Score: 1

      I'm luckily in Quebec and running on clean caribou killing hydro power.

    5. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by pz · · Score: 1

      These are going to be awesome in an office environment. Especially since the ceilings are so high and nobody likes changing the lights. But I have yet to find truly warm non-tungsten/halogen/mercury/fire/quartz/evil light for home use. I could not picture LEDs (which are basically antennas radiating a frequency that we happen to see) overtaking the other lights (heat sources that coincidentally give off visible light) in terms of color richness.

      Um, incandescent bulbs are also antennas that are radiating a band of frequencies we happen to see. Same with fluorescents. LEDs tend to have narrower spectra, but not the so-called white LEDs, which operate very much like fluorescents: they excite a phosphor.

      You should try a high-quality fluorescent. They exist but are not inexpensive. However, they are very very good for doing color-accurate work. Even decent daylight fluorescents can be refreshing, if not entirely color accurate.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    6. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by arugulatarsus · · Score: 1

      with enough hardware, anything is possible.

      Here's a heads up on how LEDs work (not just for you, but in general). If you look at the frequency response of most leds, it will resemble an impulse function. Here's a pdf, on page 4 you see 4 peaks. You add them up, it makes a very uneven spectral response. http://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Optek%20PDFs/OVTL09LGAx.pdf

      The way I can see it working is by using a phosphorescent surface. It could even out the frequencies a bit by adding harmonics. Still not as nice as a warm fire light though. You can make leds work and make the most perfect white light measured by a colorimeter. The main issue is that its frequency response will be empty still and it will make your world look at best, askew and at worst like it's trapped i the uncanny valley.

    7. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Wrong, there are plenty of 'warm' LED lights available now. Check our CREE lighting, they are the leader in LED tech:

      http://www.creelighting.com/residential.htm

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    8. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 1

      Even with narrow-spectrum LEDs, you can mix a set of them to obtain the color you'd like. Pick a red LED, a green, and a blue, and mix them with the appropriate currents to get the warm light you'd like.

      As pointed out, though, Cree (and others, I'm sure) have been working towards warm single-LED lighting.

      Check out the candlepowerforums.com site for exhaustive discussions on LED lighting and related topics.

    9. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I have yet to find truly warm non-tungsten/halogen/mercury/fire/quartz/evil light for home use.

      I thought the same for the first week after we started migrating our home to CFLs. I've since come to understand that "warm" is a synonym for "ugly yellow".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by grgyle · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is exactly what's done. I'm a lighting engineer, and you simply tailor an array of Red/Green/Blue/Yellow/White LEDs with a controller to get whatever light mix you want. Individual portions of the array can be PWM controlled separately, letting you essentially design to almost any spectral output you desire (money permitting, of course.) Typical for a "comfortable warm incandescent feel" is White with Yellow.

      --
      ----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.
  7. Cheap? Yes. Practical? Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if they make LED lighting as cheap as CFLs, the light given off is still brutal compared to other forms of lighting(basically 255R+255G+255B=white), and they're still not as efficient as CFLs.

    The biggest perk is insane reliability and shock resistance. We won't be seeing LED lighting in our homes any time soon, but I could see white LED lighting replacing incandescent bulbs in cars, trailers, and other applications where you don't want to deal with a burned out light bulb.

    1. Re:Cheap? Yes. Practical? Well... by Sj0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ouch, I get on the first page then click "Post Anonymously"...

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Cheap? Yes. Practical? Well... by slim · · Score: 1

      I bought a set of LED GU10s for my kitchen.

      I had no problem with the colour or the brightness of the light. The problem was that the spread was way too low, so there were pools of adequate brightness directly below the lights, while the rest of the room would be uncomfortably dim.

      Of course, if they used a lens or something to spread out the light, maybe nowhere would be acceptably bright.

      Still, I'm optimistic for improvements. These were *nearly* good enough, which is more than I can say for CFLs.

      The same place sold colour-cycling LED GU10s. Those were dim, but cool :)

    3. Re:Cheap? Yes. Practical? Well... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Traffic lights in my city have replaced the single bulb Red/Amber/Green lights with LED's. Even the indicator lights on the buses have been replaced with LED's.

      Hopefully this will mean that the CCFL tube in a LCD screen (laptop or monitor) can also be replaced with LED's.

      Can this technique be modified to support optical computing, where photons are used instead of electrons?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Cheap? Yes. Practical? Well... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Whoa, watch out for colour blind drivers then!

      My former assistant was red/green coulour bind, the only way he could tell the colour the light was by position!

      We have LED traffic light globes, but in the conventional 3 light traffic light!

  8. British invention by EdZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    And it all came about because it's hard to achieve 1000C in a shed.

    1. Re:British invention by Cally · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say this. I happened to hear the Professor on the radio this lunchtime & he mentioned a company in Durham called RFMD that will allegedly be producing these things on an industrial scale. Suffice to say that rfmd.co.uk is a domain holding page, but google turns up some interesting stuff...

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:British invention by Kentari · · Score: 1

      And it all came about because it's hard to achieve 1000C in a shed more than once and keep it intact.

      fixed it for you...

  9. Are they going to be tiny? by javilon · · Score: 1

    A 15 cm silicon wafer: 15x15=225cm2
    If they fit 150000 LEDs you get 225/150000=0.0015 cm2 per led.

    Aren't they too small to be used for home lights?

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    1. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      that's not the size of the LED, it's the size of the gallium components.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Wafers are a disk, so pi * 7.5^2 = 176.7144375 cm^2 so you get area/150000 = 0.00117809625 cm^2/led.

      Also, 1 LED != 1 LED "lightbulb" is also != 1 LED with package size.

    3. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      Wafers are usually circular (since they are sliced off a cylindrical ingot), so the calculation would actually be:

      ( pi*(15cm/2)^2 )/150000 = 0.0012 = 0.12 mm^2

      Which is slightly smaller. But this means that each LED is roughly 0.3 mm in size, which is about the size of any LED I've ever encountered.

      I presume a real lightbulb would require multiple LEDs bundled together somehow. Which is actually cool, because it would allow for more interesting bulb shapes, and should allow for dimming (by controlling how many LEDs are lit). Of course it also means that the real cost of a bulb is higher than a single LED. But even if a bulb needs 100 LEDs, if the price quoted in the summary is correct,* bulbs will be very cheap.

      (* The price quoted in the summary is probably not correct. The cost of the wafer doesn't include the manufacturing costs or the costs of the materials you need to deposit onto it.)

    4. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The actual diode is always tiny, the main visible part of what one would call an LED is just a plastic lens. If you look at the full-resolution version of this close up on Wikipedia you can get a fairly good view of the tiny wire filaments connected to the actual LED inside the reflector.

      Of course, even the completed component is still only ~5mm in diameter so a bulb would still use an array of them, just like they do now.

    5. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's just what women SAY to make LEDs feel better, but in the end, they always go home with some huge frosted incandescent with a harsh light. And the day after, they'll be crying to their LED friends about how much energy it wasted the night before, how it kept getting hot and leaving burns on her, and how it burned out after only a few thousand uses. And the LED will listen and be supportive, but you know she'll never give it a shot.

      Not that I'm BITTER or anything...

  10. Cheap by what measure? by ChilyWily · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?
    If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

    1. Re:Cheap by what measure? by slim · · Score: 1

      My impression is that they'll last pretty much indefinitely. I have 12 halogens in my ceiling, and seem to replace one every couple of weeks. Upgrading from 26 per year to none, would be a big plus.

    2. Re:Cheap by what measure? by rift321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?
      If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

      Just by quick examination, it's an enormous energy payoff - think about how incandescent bulbs are produced, or even CFLs, then imagine a boatload of Si/Ga wafers being produced (uses a bit of energy), and then 150,000 LEDs coming from each wafer. Then each low-wattage LED running for about 70,000 hours.... each LED bulb that replaces 70 incandescent bulbs, or 7 CFLs (approximately). LEDs use far less energy than either of those. It's not like manufacturers love using tons of energy to produce a silicon wafer.... they make the process as quick and efficient as possible - the cost of production ($15) is directly proportional to how much energy is consumed in the process.

      Let's do a quick estimate, shall we? $15 per wafer, with a wafer yielding 150000 LEDs, 25 of which are needed for an array for a bulb = $0.0025 per bulb (just leds). I'd say the energy savings will be on the plus side after manufacturing.

    3. Re:Cheap by what measure? by Knackered · · Score: 1

      Try a different brand of Halogen. I've replaced one bulb in two years, but this was after a period where new bulbs would burn out in 3-4 weeks. The common factor was all of the new bulbs that burned out were made by Sylvania. None of my Phillips or GE bulbs have burned out, so I just don't buy Sylvania anymore.

      --
      a.
    4. Re:Cheap by what measure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it'd be about as cheap as making anything else on a silicon wafer, production costs don't really vary much depending on what you're putting on the wafer. I imagine that means they'll be as toxic to produce as microprocessors, but energy wise it'll be a big improvement over incandescent, or even CFLs I imagine.

    5. Re:Cheap by what measure? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      More accurately:
      "So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights compared to current light bulb manufacturing?"

      "If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service compared to current light bulb manufacturing?"

      SO many people get hung up on the energy costs of something new, they fail to compare those costs to what it will replace.
      The piles of shits at Greenpeace are notorious for doing this sort of crap.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Cheap by what measure? by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?

      If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

      Market distortions aside (subsidies, etc.) the cost of R/D, production, transportation all get worked into the retail price in the end. If the energy cost is obscene, count on bulbs that don't sell well on the 'pays for itself in one year' model. In those situations, the cost of physically replacing the bulb factors into the purchase decision. This is usually the case where the bulb is in some hard-to-reach location and you'd have to pay an employee a fair amount to replace them.

    7. Re:Cheap by what measure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can assume that if the LED somehow reins it's increased cost in over it's lifespan, and that price is partially tied into energy use, there's a net decrease in energy use spent. Logic FTW!

  11. Gallium by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't we already in short supply of gallium? Do we really want demand for this rare metal that already has so many uses? We have plenty of ways to generate light, let's use one that doesn't require one of our rarest and most useful materials.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Gallium by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Aren't we already in short supply of gallium?

      This is a very thin layer of gallium applied to a substrate. Contrast this to the use of gallium in cell phones, where IIRC it is being used as the substrate. I don't think LED production will come anywhere close to denting the gallium supply compared to cell phones.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Gallium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. We need to conserve our gallium supply. We especially need to make sure the most useful products like energy efficient lighting are not sacrificed by this new technology.

    3. Re:Gallium by meza · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia doesn't imply that Gallium is rare and lists Semiconductors and specifically LEDs as one of the main application.

      Even if you are right I don't think we are talking about much Gallium here. The article doesn't say anything about layer thickness but I would assume it is in the order of 1um. Assuming a square wafer 15cm * 15cm * 1um = 0.0225 cm3. Density of Galium is around 6g/cm3 so on the wafer we need 0.135g of Galium (ignoring that the layer also includes aluminum and nitride).

      I have no idea of the efficiency of material use when depositing the layer but even if you need 10 gram of Ga it doesn't sound like that much to me for 150 000 light bulbs. World production in 2007 of Ga was 184 tonnes (wikipedia) so giving up some of that should give us plenty of light bulbs for everyone. And it would seem like a pretty useful cause to me since changing to LED would reduce energy use and CO2-emissions from households quite a lot.

    4. Re:Gallium by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      Aren't we already in short supply of gallium?

      I'm pretty sure there are massive quantities of gallium in France.

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:Gallium by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I think you have confused it with Francium.

  12. Oblig seinfeld reference by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lightbulbs getting out of a pool I guess.

    1. Re:Oblig seinfeld reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the size of it, that was not in a pool. It was in the southern ocean.

  13. What about the production? by Erioll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all for getting away from CFLs, as their production alone is NOT environmentally friendly (most of the mercury in the world is mined in China, where HALF of it is "lost" to the environment during production, which means "polluted"), not to mention the ratio thrown out.

    But what about the LEDs? How toxic (or not) are the materials they're talking about? And what about the production of such? And heck, back on the pollution thing, WHERE they are produced makes a big difference, since if it's in China, forget any environmental disposal of chemicals used, whereas if it's in a developed country, it'll probably be OK.

    Not insurmountable problems, but I do want to know how those things will work out.

    1. Re:What about the production? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you only replace them at 1/10th or 1/1000th the rate then its unlikely it could be bad for the environment....

    2. Re:What about the production? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      If they are produced in a typical fab then the technology is known & proven and the environmental issues too...most fabs are outside China and subject to pretty draconian environmental controls.

      Also, these things are pretty small, so consume less raw materials and require less transport...

      All in all, a win all around, although - as someone has mentioned here - LEDs are not that 'bright' compared to traditional lighting.

    3. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not sure about the details but some sources say that the new Aluminium gallium nitride could be mildly toxic. this set, raw exposure rather then in-blub is toxic for other bulbs too.

    4. Re:What about the production? by lagfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      All in all, a win all around, although - as someone has mentioned here - LEDs are not that 'bright' compared to traditional lighting.

      I take it you've never seen a high power LED. All I can say is: don't look into high power LEDs with remaining eye.

    5. Re:What about the production? by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Gallium is very toxic. Its not something you just want to throw out with your daily trash.

    6. Re:What about the production? by danep · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please stop spreading the FUD about the amount of mercury in CFLs, which is negligible. The mercury in CFLs constitutes 0.1% of what we dump into the environment annually, and CFLs contribute far less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

    7. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it's in China, forget any environmental disposal of chemicals used, whereas if it's in a developed country, it'll probably be OK

      This is a very poor choice of words. China is hugely developed. It's not some backwater peasant village. China has over fifty cities with a population of 1 million or more, and Shanghai is the fourth most populated city in the world and absolutely dwarfs most American cities in size.

    8. Re:What about the production? by Erioll · · Score: 1

      True that it's small now, but it's not a reason to start dumping more either. And considering that (and I quote) "nearly all CFLs are produced in China" do you really want to rely on THEIR production standards, or mining standards? Which is why I'm enthusiastic about the original article, as it heralds an alternative, but I just hope it's better than what's already here.

    9. Re:What about the production? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      Population has ZERO to do with development. Other than that, your statement is fine & dandy & true. Of course, no one is going to take it seriously, posted by an AC and being ignorant about what makes for a developing country and all...

    10. Re:What about the production? by mikael · · Score: 1

      And strangely enough, nobody seems to get worked about the Mercury in the CCFL or CCFL's of a laptop LCD screen.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:What about the production? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a very poor choice of words. China is hugely developed. It's not some backwater peasant village. China has over fifty cities with a population of 1 million or more, and Shanghai is the fourth most populated city in the world and absolutely dwarfs most American cities in size.

      This is a very poor choice of statistics. The size of cities doesn't make a country developed. What percentage of the population lives in cities, how many on farms? How many jobs are unskilled manual labor? Surely you could come up with better statistics if you believed in your proposition.

    12. Re:What about the production? by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, the blue/red LED light bars becoming increasingly popular with public safety agencies are sometimes so bright as to be actually painful to look at, especially at night. Also, my LED flashlights are extremely bright, although the light is admittedly being focused into a tight beam.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    13. Re:What about the production? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Case in point: Surefire. Those cheap 3-9 LED flashlights you get at the flea market are cute, but this is ONE LED that puts out 60-120 lumens. I have a G2 LED and it is brighter than my 3 D-cell Maglite.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      And strangely enough, nobody seems to get worked about the Mercury in the CCFL or CCFL's of a laptop LCD screen.

      Probably because there aren't any politicians creating laws forcing us to buy them.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    15. Re:What about the production? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That's a huge stretch. We all know that coal power is nasty, and over time, we should expect it to decrease to zero. At that point, the CFLs will still be polluting our environment by creating mercury plumes from garbage dumps, while those incandescent bulbs won't be releasing any mercury. Besides, not everybody's power comes from coal. There are a lot of places where the majority of power comes from nuclear and hydro. Some folks have solar panels on their roofs. And so on.

      Also, the real risk of CFLs is caused by the fact that any pollution from it is local and concentrated as a point source, e.g. the risk of contaminating your house by dropping one. Mercury is nasty stuff. I don't even use lead-based solder inside my house. Mercury? Yikes. Also, consider that the plumes from garbage dumps invading your water supply are likely to be a heck of a lot more problematic for the human population than trace mercury emitted into the atmosphere a hundred miles away from the city....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:What about the production? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Please stop spreading the FUD about the amount of mercury in CFLs, which is negligible. The mercury in CFLs constitutes 0.1% of what we dump into the environment annually, and CFLs contribute far less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

      Yes..... and no. CFLs are putting mercury in the home, yes a wet-bulb mercury switch has a billion times more elemental mercury in it, but they don't put those in new products for the home much, and the mercury in CFLs is in vapor form, virtually impossible to clean up, and much more likely to react into something nasty.

      If you do have traditional flourescent tubes in your house, they have lots more Hg vapor then the CFLs, but not everyone has (or wants) those tubes in their home. Some countries have talked about mandating CFLs.

      Personally, I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.

    17. Re:What about the production? by bahwi · · Score: 4, Informative

      More mercury from coal plants used to power incandescent bulbs, 100% of it lost to the environment. Look at whole life, not just one part.

    18. Re:What about the production? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And yet most manufacturers are moving from CCFLs to LEDs. Hmm. Guess people are getting worked up about it after all.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:What about the production? by gfxguy · · Score: 0

      Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    20. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iron is very toxic too and you're willing to eat it. Maybe toxic doesn't mean what you think it does.

    21. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quit buying crap CFL and just rig your place with T5HO linear fluorescent.

      One 54 watt bulb is all I need to light my living room or my kitchen, and it's 5,000 lumens INSTANTLY, no warm-up.

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:What about the production? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.

      Don't need to. Go to target or walmart, they will have lights in the $15-$30 range that do 120 lumens too.
      The bare emitter is only a buck or two, so even "cheaper" flashlights are starting to use them.

      Unfortunately, even the brightest emitters can't do much more than 800 lumens and still cost in the $10-$15 range, so real incandescent replacements for the home are still either underpowered (a 90 watt incadescent can do roughly 1800 lumens) or prohibitively expensive.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about spending $70 on a fleshlight?

    24. Re:What about the production? by philspear · · Score: 1

      Greenstapo? I can see you're not biased.

    25. Re:What about the production? by gpig · · Score: 1

      Coal contains mercury, along with other nasties. If the power used to light the bulb is from coal (in the US, it likely is), then an equivalent incandescent bulb results in more mercury release than its CFL equivalent.

      http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-mercur-1.php

    26. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem with CFLs is not the mercury spread into the environment during production, is the spot concentrations of mercury 1. in your home, when you break a bulb, and 2. in the landfill, when people toss them out like regular bulbs, not understanding that these are hazardous waste and need to be disposed of in the proper facilities.

      When you break a lamp, the state of Maine says "The next time you replace a lamp, consider putting a drop cloth on the floor so that any accidental breakage can be easily cleaned up. If consumers remain concerned regarding safety, they may consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situations where they could easily be broken. Consumers may also consider avoiding CFL usage in bedrooms or carpeted areas frequented by infants, small children, or pregnant women. "

      Here's what the EPA says to do if a CFL bulb breaks in your home:

      Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

      • Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
      • Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
      • Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

      Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

      • Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
      • Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
      • Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
      • Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

      Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

      • Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
      • Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
      • If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
      • Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

      Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

      • If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
      • You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
      • If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

      Disposal of Clean-up Materials

      • Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
      • Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
      • Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    27. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only true if the electricity for the light bulbs comes from coal (which releases mercury when burned). If you live in a place where most of your electricity comes from another source, e.g. hydro, nuclear, then there is little or no mercury emission when using incandescent bulbs. So, if you're in China, or large portions of the U.S., this is certainly true, but there are lots of places (e.g. Norway, which gets virtually all it's power from hydro) where it isn't.

      Regardless, I don't think mercury emissions, or the lack thereof should be a significant deciding factor in choosing CFC over incandescent. For me, the long lifetime of CFC is by far the major deciding factor - indeed, saving trips to the store to buy more lightbulbs probably is a significant energy saving for me.

    28. Re:What about the production? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.

      Just what kind of nerd are you anyway?

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    29. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people have your head in the sand.

      Nevermind the Hg content of CFLs or CCFLs. What about the Hg content of CCCFLs?.

      Dont even get me started on the CCCCFLs

    30. Re:What about the production? by thegameiam · · Score: 4, Funny

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    31. Re:What about the production? by mlynx · · Score: 1

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      So that's what they call it now...

    32. Re:What about the production? by sexconker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      LOL.
      Reminds me of those youtube videos of morans breaking fluorescent bulbs on their backs.

      I won't be buying them anymore (despite the 3 for $1 "deals" (taxpayers picking up the tab) they have all the time.

      They produce shitty looking spirals of light, aren't instant-on, look ugly as fuck, are never the proper color, die way earlier than standard light bulbs, still don't fit in a lot of fixtures, and don't illuminate shit.

      The only benefit I see to them is that they damage the environment.

    33. Re:What about the production? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the environmentalists who won't let us build dams, water wheels, nuclear power plants, or anything that actually makes sense.

    34. Re:What about the production? by caladine · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yet, we have enough people that have posted to the CFL discussions with evidence that even with this, you're releasing less mercury into the environment overall. This is mostly due to the fact that a huge amount of electric power is generated with coal, which releases a fair amount of mercury.

      (Yes, this is a [citation needed] moment, I apologize.)

    35. Re:What about the production? by redxxx · · Score: 1

      It's in fairly minute quantities and it is encapsulated in non-biodegradable plastic.

      I'm not really sure how much environmental impact just throwing them out would have. They could always mandate recycling, but I'm not really convinced it would be necessary.

      Compared with the amount of pollution a coal plant would be kicking out for incandescent, or even CFL, it seems like it would be well worth it.

    36. Re:What about the production? by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      Greenstapo? I can see you're not biased.

      I can see your sense of humor has already been affected, probably by mercury.

    37. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know you're joking, but that's what I actually grow with T5HO.

      Pot only gets cloned and starting veg under fluorescent, then it's HID all the way.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    38. Re:What about the production? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      The high-powered LEDs are indeed very bright. I use them for SCUBA diving; the reviews from others are "it's like a train coming at you."

      My primary light has 3 x 3W LED lights. It's really bright.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    39. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The mercury in CFLs happens to be in an organic form meaning its already bonded with Carbon. That is the best form to enter the waterways and the food chain. Its on the order of more than trillions of times more likely to enter the food chain than elemental mercury.

    40. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 0, Troll

      I've got two of those for my lights above my UPS system. They take 193 watts in total with the ballast. Funny thing is a 100 W incandescent produces more useful light and only uses 100W.

    41. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      The coal plaint isn't a short drive up the water table from you like your local land fill may be. How much lead is in the glass in the CFL? How many other toxic things are in it as well?

    42. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Even if all 50 of those cities had the same population, it still means that more than 700 million people are living in rural poverty.

    43. Re:What about the production? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up their recommendations for cleaning up a standard incandescent bulb for comparison.

      As far as land fill problems, putting them in the land fill puts less mercury in the enviroment then using an incandescent bulb. Assuming your power come from coal, and not a clean alternative like nuclear.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    44. Re:What about the production? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You are aware that you could throw out a CFL after you're done using it, right into a landfill, and you've still put less mercury into the environment than you would lighting an incandescent bulb powered by a coal factory, correct?

    45. Re:What about the production? by Facegarden · · Score: 0, Troll

      How about spending $70 on a fleshlight?

      But you don't need to, they're having a 15% off sale right now!

      Not that, um, i would know....
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    46. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suggest you look up their recommendations for cleaning up a standard incandescent bulb for comparison.

      I looked and didn't find anything. Care to provide a link?

      As far as land fill problems, putting them in the land fill puts less mercury in the enviroment then using an incandescent bulb. Assuming your power come from coal, and not a clean alternative like nuclear.

      The concern here is spot concentration -- what goes into the landfills tends quickly to go into the groundwater. If you've got a coal plant 150 miles away, you're not going to be getting much of it. Here's a link that says mercury in landfills is a bigger problem than mercury in the air.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    47. Re:What about the production? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's not like I have to breathe the air near coal plants or anything. You'd be surprised how many coal plants are near major urban areas.

    48. Re:What about the production? by bendodge · · Score: 1

      But you're still required to evacuate if one breaks. That in itself seems reason enough NOT to mandate them.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    49. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm calling bullshit.

      The largest T5HO bulb only uses 54w of power, two of those would be 108, plus ballast which in reality should be far, FAR more efficient than that, should use no more than 125w of power.

      My 4-lamp T5HO system uses 230w according to Kill-A-Watt, that's 216w in light bulbs plus 14w energy conversion loss in the ballast. I toss out 20,000 lumens.

      Your 100w incandescent only at most pumps 12-1800 lumens.

      So either you bought some bullshit lighting or you're talking out of your ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    50. Re:What about the production? by Peepsalot · · Score: 4, Informative

      LEDs appear very bright when viewed directly for two reasons:

      1) They are nearly a perfect point light source.
      2) They light output is typically very directional.

      But when you try to illuminate a room with one, you have to spread out this concentrated beam so much that it's not nearly as bright as your first impressions might make you think.

    51. Re:What about the production? by philspear · · Score: 1

      You're right, mercury does make lame wordplay seem lame.

    52. Re:What about the production? by John+Straffin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since you don't appear to be using it, can I have your pinball machine?

      --
      My contempt for the behavior and beliefs of the two major political parties cannot be adequately expressed in 120 chara
    53. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It's not a full pinball machine. It's a zazzle minature for home use, and I doubt you'd want it unless you replaced the absolutely crappy solenoid switches for the paddles and upped the power of the bumpers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    54. Re:What about the production? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      It's funny how everyone is bitching about this now.

      Those big long fluorescent tubes they use in office buildings? They have many times the mercury of a CFL and are used in much greater numbers.

      But oh no, nobody cares about them. We must pick on CFLs because they are new and "hip".

      Environmentalist extremists are just as bad as the "rape the world" conservative types. I wish both sides would just STFU already.

    55. Re:What about the production? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      The coal fired power station is going to put out just as much mercury running one incandescent bulb as it will running the four CFLs I've fitted to replace it.

    56. Re:What about the production? by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

      Wow... Are they dimmable? How is the color temperature? And what about the aesthetics of the fixture?

      --
      Sent from my iPhone
    57. Re:What about the production? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all about the tight beam. LED lighting is much dimmer overall than CFL, but if you only shine light in a 12 degree arc it will be 100 times as bright as the same light in a 120 degree arc. If you *want* a narrow beam, LEDs are a clear winner. If you want to light a room, not so much.

      In any case, gallium is scarce and there's not an easy way to increase production (there's no such thing as a gallium mine, we get gallium as a byproduct of aluminum production). If there suddenly a spike in gallium demand there will be a huge spike in gallium price. Any LED or solar technology that needs gallium or indium will be quite expensive if it becomes popular.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    58. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only applies to the US. A lot of countries don't use any coal in power production, so the amount of mercury in a CFL is still a concern to us.

    59. Re:What about the production? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0

      But the coal fired power plant is going to put out less mercury running four CFLs then it would running four incandescent bulbs. Your logic = FAIL

    60. Re:What about the production? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      More mercury from coal plants used to power incandescent bulbs, 100% of it lost to the environment. Look at whole life, not just one part.

      I get my power from HYDRO!!!!

      Stop trying to force mercury in my home just because others have stupid power sources.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    61. Re:What about the production? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Bizarre, don't they know that whole generations of people have played with large mercury gobs for fun, or used them to clean dirty coins? Hell, most small placer operations use mercury to concentrate gold. Mercury probably isn't the safest thing in the world, but I really REALLY doubt that it is near as harmful as we decided it must be.

      I remember in high school, some moron broke a vial containing less than a single ounce of mercury, they evacuated the whole building (probably around 150 students).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    62. Re:What about the production? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0

      But the coal fired power plant is going to put out less mercury running four CFLs then it would running four incandescent bulbs. Your logic = FAIL

      If I had four incandescents, I would need sixteen CFLs. Your reading comprehension = FAIL.

    63. Re:What about the production? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      In fairness, a state agency would gladly come out with a three page document explaining the proper way to clean up a dropped peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and it would probably warn away pregnant women and children.

    64. Re:What about the production? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      Your intelligence fails. What retard thinks they need more than one CFL to replace one incandescent bulb?

    65. Re:What about the production? by russotto · · Score: 1

      How toxic (or not) are the materials they're talking about?

      Well, "Arsenide" should be a big clue.

      Give me a halogen or HIR bulb any day... actually do last as long as CFLs are claimed to, provide the same color temperature and CRI as incandescents, and require no mercury.

    66. Re:What about the production? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention coral. I've got t5HO on my reef tank.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    67. Re:What about the production? by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      The concern here is spot concentration -- what goes into the landfills tends quickly to go into the groundwater. If you've got a coal plant 150 miles away

      My coal plant is 5 miles away, you ignorant clod.

    68. Re:What about the production? by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get my power from HYDRO!!!!

      Are you hooked up to the grid or do you have a micro hydro system?

      Tell that to the environmentalists who won't let us build dams, water wheels, nuclear power plants, or anything that actually makes sense.

      Dams are not environmentally clean, neither are nuclear power plants.

      Falcon

    69. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switch to HPS for anything past the initial vegetating, especially the flowering. You will get much denser, bushier, less stretched-out plants.

    70. Re:What about the production? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In this case, though, it's because Maine really knows what they're talking about when it comes to mercury. The amount of mercury in the rivers, I believe primarily from the paper mills, led the state to recommend limiting how much fish people eat so that they don't overdose on mercury.

    71. Re:What about the production? by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      Yet, we have enough people that have posted to the CFL discussions with evidence that even with this, you're releasing less mercury into the environment overall.

      So what's better:

      1) Use incandescents and mercury in the air is X ppm
      2) Use CFL and mercury in the air overall is X/2 ppm, but in your house is 16X ppm?

      The rational choice is #1, use incandescents even though they are worse overall for the environment.

      CFL is simply not a good source of lighting, it's just that they cost somewhat less than incandescents and to many people cost (including labor to replace bulbs) is more important than the negatives. Aside from cost, to individual people CFL are worse in every respect... incandescents have better color temperature, are instant on, are less prone to fires*, are dimmable, don't humm or hiss, and don't interfere with electronics.

      * - don't forget that CFLs have complicated electronic ballasts and other electrical components, which can fail spectacularly and catch fire. When you talk about environmental hazards, also include fire-proofing chemicals in the plastic bases. Although granted halogen torch lights have probably caused more fires than CFLs ever will...

    72. Re:What about the production? by Bobnova · · Score: 1

      My power comes from methane. Only 54% or so of the us's power comes from coal. If you're part of the 46% that isn't powered by coal, cfl lights mean more mercury.

    73. Re:What about the production? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Dams are not environmentally clean

      Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.

      I know there's a mercury thing about flooded valleys, but that lasts 10 years and the dams are older than that. I do wonder why they don't just harvest those trees instead of letting them rot and release their accumulated heavy metals, though.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    74. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      The wikipedia article on mercury poisoning says that "Quicksilver (liquid metallic mercury) is poorly absorbed by ingestion and skin contact. It is hazardous due to its potential to release mercury vapour." Perhaps that's why it's not immediately dangerous to play with the block from a broken thermometer.

      So it looks like the real mercury is from mercury vapor and from mercury that's already in the food chain.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    75. Re:What about the production? by wooferhound · · Score: 1
      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    76. Re:What about the production? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0

      Yo.

      When I went to CFL, I had to
      a) use more of them
      b) use higher ratings (75w CFL vs 60w Incandescent) for the light to "feel" right*.

      For one room, I have two 5 bulb silver "hydra" lights. When I'm alone one will do but when we are playing games, we have to pump the light up with all 10 bulbs for it to be comfortable.

      *And i still had to mix in one incandescent.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    77. Re:What about the production? by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see it a different way.

      If gallium becomes scarce and expensive, then aluminum prices will drop. This will bring us cheaper, stronger, lighter, and less bio-degradable cars.

      I, for one, welcome our gallium-based LED lighting overlords.

    78. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You are dead wrong. Red light from an HPS INCREASES internode length and causes stretching.

      You obviously failed horticultural science. Blue wavelengths for growth and compact internode spacing because blue light is higher energy potential. That means Metal Halide, Mercury Vapor, or Ceramic Metal Halide, or T5HO lighting at 6500K color temperature.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    79. Re:What about the production? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Your intelligence fails. What retard thinks they need more than one CFL to replace one incandescent bulb?

      People who don't want to trip over things stumbling around in the half-dark.

      It seems to be a popular myth that low-power CFLs produce as much light as incandescent lamps. They don't.

    80. Re:What about the production? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      These kinds of lights generally aren't dimmable. Color temperature varies by the bulb you buy - generally tube lighting tends to be pretty white in terms of color temperature. You can get them with more of a tungsten temperature, or ones for good color reproduction.

      I spent all of probably $80 on shop light fixtures for my basement. They are DIRT CHEAP. What used to be a fairly dark dungeon with all 400w of incandescents burning is now about as bright as a Walmart with slightly less power usage.

      Those tube lights not only are far more efficient than incandescents, they're also cheaper to replace than CFLs and their shape tends to evenly spread light over a wider area. There is a big difference in 50W of light coming from a CFL and 50W of light spread over a 3-4 foot tube. Everything is just much more even.

      With the rise of fluorescents I'm surprised that better fixtures haven't become more popular. The CFL is really a non-ideal design. Separating the balast greatly lowers replacement costs, and it also tends to increase balast life since it stays cooler. You could have enclosed fixtures with this kind of design. Making the bulb bigger also casts more even light.

    81. Re:What about the production? by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      BULL-fucking-SHIT. The ~3 MILLIgrams of Hg in a CFL are in an entirely inorganic metal amalgam form. Stop pulling wacky pseudoscience scare tactic shit out of your ass and claiming it as truth.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    82. Re:What about the production? by clodney · · Score: 2, Informative

      Manufacturers are moving from CCFLs to LEDs for laptops primarily because of power issues - lower power consumption == better battery life.

    83. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mercury in CFLs happens to be in an organic form meaning its already bonded with Carbon.

      Citation please??

    84. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      The key word is "should". I have about 20 of the cheapest fixtures the builder could find that were wired into one switch but I had a cord put on one so I could plug it into my UPS. My Kill-A-Watt told me 193 W. As far as which is brighter, I don't care about lumens since I can't measure them but I can measure lux and where I need to work when the power is out, a 100W incandescent will provide more light.

    85. Re:What about the production? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "While not considered toxic, the data about gallium are inconclusive. Some sources suggest that it may cause dermatitis from prolonged exposure; other tests have not caused a positive reaction."
      -wikipedia

      You must be thinking of a different metal.

    86. Re:What about the production? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Aluminum is seldom used in car bodies because you can't stamp aluminum sheets into the right shapes (it's not ductile), not becuase aluminum is so expensive. Sorry, I'd like an aluminum car too (or, failing that a stainless steel car - I hear they double as time machines).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    87. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Who is trying games with the truth? The 3 mg is a long range target and they hope to get under an average of 5 mg this year to keep Europe happy. That patent you talk about is an extension to the slow start technology used decades ago not what is in most modern bulbs. CFLs go bad because either their ballast go bad or their mercury is no longer in an excitable state which happens when it bonds with other stuff in the tube so it doesn't matter what alloy was put in the thing at the factory if it breaks down and bonds with the phosphorus coating stabilizers.

    88. Re:What about the production? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      you can build engine blocks with it, afaik

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    89. Re:What about the production? by unitron · · Score: 1

      What retard thinks they need more than one CFL to replace one incandescent bulb?

      Those who have actual experience with trying to achieve acceptable brightness levels when replacing incandescents with CFLs?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    90. Re:What about the production? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The CFLs that I use are instant on, have good color temperature, I buy dimmable ones where needed, they don't humm or hiss, and they don't interfere with electronics. They also don't have any mercury on the *outside*. I don't know where you get *your* CFLs, but I'd avoid the ones with mercury dripping off of them.

      Your post seems to be 100% FUD.

      I just want bright lighting without turning the room into an Easy-Bake Oven.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    91. Re:What about the production? by FromellaSlob · · Score: 1

      Just make sure that you don't accidentally your fleshlight.

    92. Re:What about the production? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Inorganic mercury in the environment (wether it's by burning coal at power plants or from light bulbs) eventually reaches soils, which get wet with water, and as most of the water on land eventually does, washes into aquatic systems (water cycle).

      Microorganisms in the aquatic environment then convert it to methylmercury (what he was talking about).

      After that, it's the same old story you already know: Aquatic system is contaminated so the mercury (actually methylmercury) bioaccumulates its way up the food chain until it gets to the humans who eat the fish. The higher up the food chain the carnivore is, the more toxic their exposure is. This should be of personal concern to you if you are a whale, shark, big fish (like tuna) or human.

      It really doesn't matter what type of mercury is in those bulbs.

      All forms of it that get into the environment do eventually turn into the very type that hurts us most.

    93. Re:What about the production? by NickW1234 · · Score: 1
      Agreed, There are LEDs which are just bright, plain and simple.

      The classic "super bright" white 5mm LEDS do fit that Narrow beam, bright point stereotype. They don't actually make that much usable light.

      Some of the newer high power leds are a different story entirely. I have a cree MC-E based flashlight. If I turn it on and stand it on my coffee table it lights the room up pretty well. Not brightly, but well enough to see. Probably around the same as a 40W bulb. (It's rated at 700 lumens. A 40W incandescent does about 500 lumens)

      The colour is quite good too. Not like the old blueish spot with a yellow fringe that was common in early/conventional low power white leds.

    94. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I second this. I bought a "shop light" with instant-start electronic ballast and two one-inch tubes (F32T8). The first time I turned it on was like night turning into day. Efficiency is about 80 lumens per watt, which is better than compact fluors (50-60 lm/W).

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      And leaf lettuce and spinach.

    95. Re:What about the production? by Iceykitsune · · Score: 1

      Apparently you do not own a cat.

      --
      GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    96. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CFLs that I use are instant on, have good color temperature, I buy dimmable ones where needed, they don't humm or hiss, and they don't interfere with electronics. They also don't have any mercury on the *outside*. I don't know where you get *your* CFLs, but I'd avoid the ones with mercury dripping off of them.

      Your post seems to be 100% FUD.

      Which CFLs are these? They aren't the ones that have been sold by Home Depot, Lowes, or Target in the last several years since I've sampled those and they are only instant on to ~30% brightness (those that are instant), they don't dim, they are audible especially when they get older.

      I've had one almost catch fire (the plastic melted and there was arcing) and another where the glass exploded at the base, releasing mercury dust. It sounds like my personal experience is worse than most people, but countering that it's FUD because or your personal experience buying what $20 per bulb lights is not helpful.

      Also, I like how you say the CFLs that you use rather than buy. How many have you bought that didn't meet those standards that you threw or gave away?

    97. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If you can measure lux you can measure lumens.

      Example: lux takes into account the area over which the luminous flux is spread. A flux of 1000 lumens, concentrated into an area of one square metre, lights up that square metre with an illuminance of 1000 lux.

      You are now officially full of shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    98. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T5 are the most efficient type of lighting currently available, more efficient than the best LEDs. They are producing around 100 lumens/watt, the best LEDs on the market are mmm.... like a little bit less than that.

    99. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      And how do you compensate for the fact that light is not evenly distributed over the area? I guess the proper solution is to takes lots of readings than integrate over a steradian. But that still leaves the question of which steradian do I use? Most CFLs range from full intensity to less than 1/3 intensity depending on which angle you look at.

    100. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already at 5 mg for most manufacturers.

      For perspective, this is about the same amount as is in the FDA recommended allowance of canned tuna for one year, but you eat the tuna. How many light bulbs do you eat per year? Heck, how many do you break, vacuum the mercury out of, and then inhale said mercury from?

      You're side-stepping the root issue addressed by the GP, which is the erroneous statement that CFL bulbs contain the more easily bio-absorbed form, methyl-mercury. This is most assuredly false. Although the elemental mercury can form methyl mercury due to bacterial action when released into the environment, the concentration of mercury from CFL's mixed with typical amounts of household trash is approximately the same as the natural occurrence of mercury in the earth's crust. This means that by the time this disbursal and methyl-conversion has taken place, there is no net effect on environmental concentrations of mercury.

      No matter how you spin it, mercury in CFL's is about as close to a non-issue as you can get. It ranks up there with the formation of small amounts of carcinogens when baking bread as a pressing issue facing mankind.

    101. Re:What about the production? by euri.ca · · Score: 1
      I used to live a short walk from downtown in a Chinese town of several million, and one day my walk to work was blocked because a donkey cart spilled and covered the dirt road. One building I worked in had no running water, a bowl in each room was filled with water carried by hand. This was 3 years ago, everyone had cellphones and plastic shopping bags were slowly covering the entire countryside.

      90% of China is so different from the west that comparing city sizes is near-pointless.

    102. Re:What about the production? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Easy there.

      The entire room may be better and more evenly lit with the big tubes, but when you need a lot of light in a small area, bringing a lower-output source closer to where you need it will give you the same or better illumination at the target surface. By your own numbers, the tubes are putting out somewhere around 16x the light of a 100w tungsten bulb. Meaning that your 4-lamp T5HO rig four feet from a subject will light it about as well as the 100w bulb at one foot, which are realistic numbers for comparing say a hanging shop-light to a desk lamp. (Inverse square law - 4x distance = 1/16th the intensity)

      You can't call bullshit without knowing a lot of variables that were never discussed.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    103. Re:What about the production? by treat · · Score: 1

      This makes me wonder - what is exactly the absolute best small flashlight in the world?

      I would define "small" as fitting in your pocket comfortably.

    104. Re:What about the production? by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      I'll take the fact that you focused on my pun rather than my point as conceding the latter. I'm glad you agree.

    105. Re:What about the production? by hbar+squared · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with these LEDs, regardless of the substrate, is that the element Gallium is already in short supply. In small production batches, these LEDs might be cost-comparable to CFLs. Once production ramps up, though, the sheer amount of Gallium needed to provide significant lighting will cause the price to skyrocket.

    106. Re:What about the production? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can also get 80 watt T5 bulbs. (5 feet long) An extra 33 watts of waste heat from the ballast would be reasonable.

    107. Re:What about the production? by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he said "high power" LEDs... my co-worker has a bicycle headlight with ONE high power LED that puts out more light than many automobile headlights. It was also rather expensive, and needs a small heat sink to cool it. But that thing is insanely bright.

    108. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I can call bullshit when the initial numbers don't add up or make sense. He stated that two T5HO lights threw off less light than his 100w incandescent AND used double the power.

      I've done lighting for all sorts of situations, from video production to greenhouse to photography. I can guarantee you I don't need to know the variables when a bullshit claim was immediately made.

      Just as an FYI - T5HO is what's used quite often in electronics repair warehouses, and those are hung an easy twenty to thirty feet overhead. If you replaced all those with incandescents of SAME ACTUAL WATTAGE at the same height and distribution points, the light level in the warehouse would drop 90%, even with focusing reflectors.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    109. Re:What about the production? by afidel · · Score: 1

      The ppm in your house is 0ppm unless you happen to break one while it's on, and even then it's still going to be quite low. Compare that to breathing x ppm every day on your way to and from work and every minute you are outdoors, I would say the rational choice is to reduce the ppm in the environment. Oh, and don't forget that a significant amount of that x ppm ends up concentrated in your food supply.

      As to you other rants, all of those have been negated by modern CFL's, you can get them in just about any color temperature you like with a CRI of 90+, instant on bulbs are easy to find, as are dimmable CFL's (though they don't get quite as dim as incandescants so if you need really dim light they might not work for you).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    110. Re:What about the production? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Almost 100% of base load generation growth in the last 20 years has been coal fired plants, that means if you are wasting energy you ARE contributing to the mercury in the environment. Through the three national grids electricity is fungible which means even if your local power source is hydro, you wasting energy requires more coal base load plants to be built (at least until we start stamping out nuclear plants which we should be doing today).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    111. Re:What about the production? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The GE and nVision (?) bulbs I've bought in the past 2-3 years (at Target and Home Depot) have been fine. If you want dimmable, those are pretty new, but they work for me (though each bulb was like $12). The non-dimmable bulbs are in a solid price and quality vendor war now, and the last ones I bought were in the $2-3 range and promised an 8 year lifetime. They are instant-on to "bright enough" - our sense of light is logrithmic, so I wouldn't try to put a number on it, but I'm not stumbling in the dark or anything.

      Yeah, when I droped one it exploded, but then dropping any glass bulb is hardly safe (and the amount of mercury in 1 bulb is hardly threatening - I don't make a habit of breaking them).

      I've never had a problem with noise or fire, but I also avoid the cheapest brands (either go cheap, or be an early adopter, trying to do both will end in tears).

      My only complaint with CFLs is that there's no way to get warmer-than-normal color temperatures. For late nights, I prefer the reddish glow I get when I turn my 400 watt halogen floor lamp down to about 4 watts, so that's one use that CFLs won't let me replace.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    112. Re:What about the production? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      What an incredibly odd mod-down.

      He asked.. and I stated a fact.

      Can't see the type of mod down. wierd.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    113. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got access to a chem lab? Go swap the inside of a burned out CLF and run it through what ever spectroscopy equipment you have and then say its not organic.

    114. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Where does this 5 mg come from? I know its the number the EPA pulled from somewhere but others who
      have measured such things don't agree.
      http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/lighting/publications/fs.html
      http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

    115. Re:What about the production? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      "It really doesn't matter what type of mercury is in those bulbs."

      thanks for the science lesson sprinkled with yet more bullshit. really? it doesn't matter? great, I'm going to personally ensure that all of the cfl bulbs you buy are now filled with dimethylmercury. exposure to more than 1 or 2 milligrams of which will ensure your death. mmk? your claim that "All forms of it that get into the environment do eventually turn into the very type that hurts us most." is equally stupid. most metallic mercury "entering the environment" (where do you think it came from? mars?) is not converted to organometallic form. it's oxidized to HgO which is insoluble and largely inert.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    116. Re:What about the production? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      You've just made a shameless attempt to take me out of context so I'm going to make it harder for you to get away with. When I said

      "It really doesn't matter what type of mercury is in those bulbs."

      it was in the context of suggesting any mercury in bulbs is dangerous. So countering it with the tidbit about dimethylmercury-is-super-lethal is merely an attempt at misdirecting my stance on the issues. I never suggested that any form of mercury in those CFL bulbs would be safe.
      By the way, you're flat out wrong about its lethal dose of dimethylmercury (it's about 0.001 ml). Being inaccurate by several orders of magnitude hopefully isn't indicative of how much you know about toxicity and the previous topic of environmental contamination to which you responded to (thogard's post). A single drop of the stuff can penetrate latex gloves and kill you (as was in the famous case with Professor Karen Wetterhahn).

      your claim that "All forms of it that get into the environment do eventually turn into the very type that hurts us most." is equally stupid.

      "get into the environment" implies we're talking about anthropogenic mercury (you can't "get into" something you're already in). The rising concentrations of mercury wouldn't be getting into fish and us if we we didn't have industrial applications for it which lead to us taking it out of places where it has previously existed undisturbed. It's kinda like this: Sometimes asbestos tiles (the harmful type of asbestoes) can actually be better left in a building rather than trying to rip it out, as the process of removal will create more floating particulates than if you had left it. You're muddying the difference between cycled contaminants and sequestered/bound contaminants. Mercury in cinnabar that's left alone isn't going to raise mercury levels in fish/humans. Digging it up for light bulbs does. That said, it's the lesser of two evils since coal power plants put out so much mercury that CFL's longer lifespans and greater efficiency offset their inherent mercury content.

      most metallic mercury "entering the environment" (where do you think it came from? mars?) is not converted to organometallic form.

      Why do you think that its specifically fish contaminating us? That's the only reason we're have rising human [Hg] concentrations. It's because of the aquatic microorganisms converting it to methylmercury. The process is actually well understood.

      it's oxidized to HgO which is insoluble and largely inert.

      I pulled up the chemical hazard sheets and looked up HgO.
      It has the following chemical warnings:
      R26/27/28: Very toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
      R33: Danger of cumulative effects
      R39/24/25: Toxic: danger of very serious irreversible effects in contact with skin and if swallowed
      S61: Avoid release to the environment.

      Oh yeah, sounds REALLY inert me! I suppose you're okay with that stuff getting into your family's water supply then?

    117. Re:What about the production? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      ugh I can't believe I'm still talking to you. do you know how to use a calculator einstein? wrt dimethyl Hg I stated that "1 or 2 milligrams of which will ensure your death". you obviously pulled the 0.001 ml figure off the wikipedia page. 0.001 ml of water is 1 milligram of water, duh, dimethyl Hg is 3x the density of water, hence the lethal dose is a few milligrams. none of the wording in your original post specified the intent that you are now claiming and if you DID know what you were talking about, which I still doubt, your wording was grossly imprecise, so I'm not even going to address your claim that I was "misdirecting". YOU'RE the one misleading with all the "oh NOESSS HgO is so TOXICCC!". Yeah it's toxic, if you fucking EAT IT. It's RELATIVELY INERT compared to all organoHg compounds. SO IS CINNABAR, the NATURALLY OCURRING HgS mineral! You also seem to be under the laughable impression that "Why do you think that its specifically fish contaminating us? That's the only reason we're have rising human [Hg] concentrations.". Sorry, mercury in marine fish does not come from coal fired power plants, or for that matter almost any other human activity (except in special cases like Minimata). Freshwater contamination by Hg is solely a result of improperly dumped industrial liquid waste. CFL manufacture AND DISPOSAL has NO impact there at all.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    118. Re:What about the production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LEDs are not inherently concentrated. Only the types that are molded into epoxy lenses are. There are high-power LEDs that can emit more than 50x as much light as a single one of those, and it does so into a ~180 degree angle. Point-like source is actually an advantage because that means the light can be more effectively controlled. It can be diffused if you want soft light, or it can be focused if you want a spotlight (not possible with fluorescent... this is one place where Incan still dominates and spotlights are liekly the first place where LEDs will take over for this reason)

    119. Re:What about the production? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      If you're gonna link scientific literature, try to at least link the full article so people can see who funded their research. I'll do it for you: http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/Kraepiel_est_03.pdf

      "Tuna sampling and analysis was organized and paid for by the USTF (United States Tuna Foundation)"... They happen to be the guys who's job it is to whine when the FDA does its job by telling women to avoid types of fish which are known to have higher concentrations of methylmercury (like tunas): http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/hgstak58.pdf
      "Based on a United States Tuna Foundation (USTF) and National Fisheries Institute (NFI) joint evaluation on methylmercury in fish advisories, we believe it is premature to adopt the Environmental Protection Agencyâ(TM)s (EPA) reference dose (RfD) as a basis for consumer advice".

      Yeah, they sound like a great source of unbiased scientific funding eh?

      Is it any surprise that they chose to do their research off of Hawaii, when "Environments that are known to favor the production of methylmercury include certain types of wetlands, dilute low-pH lakes in Northeast and Northcentral United States, parts of the Florida Everglades, newly flooded reservoirs, and coastal wetlands, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and San Francisco Bay." (http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/)
      Notice Hawaii wasn't in there. Using exceptions to prove rules isn't usually a sound idea.

      Sorry, mercury in marine fish does not come from coal fired power plants [cosis.net], or for that matter almost any other human activity (except in special cases like Minimata).

      Ice core data disagrees with you: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Mercury_fremont_ice_core.png

      Freshwater contamination by Hg is solely a result of improperly dumped industrial liquid waste.

      Any reason you're trying to omit marine considerations when you selected the word "freshwater"? I mean, that is where we get our tuna isn't it? Not to mention most of the other contaminated fish.

    120. Re:What about the production? by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      judging from your silence on the subjects of the original arguments you were making it pretty much looks like you've lost them all thoroughly and are now simply trying to change the subject. you lose. bye.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    121. Re:What about the production? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      Nobody likes walking away from a fight they're tired of dealing with, so when they try to, they often try to assert their themselves on their way out, as you did with a self-congratulatory assertion of my argument's invalidity. If you don't start off your presence in the discussion by flaming people you disagree with, such things won't be necessary to do in the future.

      My original argument (on post #26661837) was that mercury in CFL's are a real problem, as thogard originally pointed out. Just because he's wrong about what type they put into the CFL-blub doesn't change that microorganisms turn elemental mercury into methylmercury and it eventually gets into the fish.

      Nobody likes it when their cherry-picked, industry-funded citation gets rebutted, so you reacted by playing it off as a change of subject. Please realize that criticizing a citation used as a supporting evidence is nothing unordinary, and in fact, should be expected if the citation is from a questionable source. Don't pretend like you wouldn't have called me out if I had cited a questionable study written by a bunch of wannabe researchers from greenpeace. You would have, and you'd have been right for it too.

      Now if you're continue to react as predictably as you have thus far, you'll respond with yet another angry last word. Go ahead, I won't respond again. I can lace my arguments with angry disrespectful indignation just as easily as you can, but it doesn't actually further the collective understanding of the risks associated with mercury contamination.

      Here's is a source I'm posting for you to read. I'm offering this document to you because I found it genuinely informative, interesting, and appears to be a pretty comprehensive read on the entire subject of mercury toxicity. I'm not "throwing" this document at you to assert who's right/wrong (and to prove it I'm not going to quote its contents publicly).
      http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.pdf
      It's a huge document (sorry), so I suggest text-searching for keywords to navigate it, like stuff we've been talking about (sources, toxicity, fluorescent, etc) but text-searches won't work on some of the data tables (i.e. pg 393, table 5-4) which are some of the most informative parts. The parts that aren't actually text-searchable are best located via the table of contents.

  14. LEDs are not efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most LEDs are not as efficient as CFL anyway. Not at a good output level.

  15. Big advancement by rift321 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure everyone is completely aware of how big an advance this is. I'm going to buy Philips' stock as soon as I can. I'm sorry people have been screwed by some misleading marketing, but LEDs are the future of lighting... and the big green movement.

    And yes, they're really easy to dim, either by converting to DC and modulating current, or by using a PWM - I'm not sure which is more efficient/cheaper.

    I can't wait for CFLs to go away. Eventually you'll see commercially available, color-selectable LED bulbs.

    Anyone know if the process was patented/sold to a specific company? Pretty obvious why...

    1. Re:Big advancement by Sj0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If anyone rectifies the voltage heading TO an LED light bulb, they should have their engineering degree taken away.

      Protip: LEDs are diodes. Rectifiers are diodes. Just stick a current regulating resistor in series, stick a voltage smoothing capacitor in parallel, and use a regular dimmer to limit the current to whatever you need. Using a complicated solution to the problem would be criminal.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Big advancement by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately the peak inverse voltage of some LEDs isn't much higher than the forward voltage drop. So if you put them in series with a dropping resistor it doesn't take much of a spike on the reverse cycle to blow your expensive light bulb. Also, its' more friendly to the power company to conduct on both halves of the cycle. I'd use a full wave bridge, capacitor and a MOV or zener.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    3. Re:Big advancement by rift321 · · Score: 1

      If anyone rectifies the voltage heading TO an LED light bulb, they should have their engineering degree taken away.

      Protip: LEDs are diodes. Rectifiers are diodes. Just stick a current regulating resistor in series, stick a voltage smoothing capacitor in parallel, and use a regular dimmer to limit the current to whatever you need. Using a complicated solution to the problem would be criminal.

      I'm not sure it's QUITE that simple. I've only thought about your comment for about 60 seconds, but the idea is to have the current going through the LED to be somewhat smooth... using the LED as the diode in the rectifying circuit would not accomplish this, assuming that's what you're talking about. Plus LEDs have somewhat different characteristics than those diodes used in rectifier circuits (breakdown voltages, etc.), although I don't know if that would make a difference. So, yeah, you'd want to rectify it before it went through the LED array.

      Please don't take my electrical engineering degree away. You could, however, design tons of sweet, rapidly-blinking bridge rectifiers.

    4. Re:Big advancement by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      LEDs are diodes, but they are shitty diodes. They are optimized to emit light.

      Most LEDs have low reverse breakdown voltage ratings, so they will also be damaged by an applied reverse voltage above this threshold. LEDs driven directly from an AC supply of more than the reverse breakdown voltage may be protected by placing a diode (or another LED) in inverse parallel.

      I stole that from the wikipedia article on LEDs

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    5. Re:Big advancement by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Rather than Philips, I would travel further up the chain to CREE.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    6. Re:Big advancement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just run the led cluster half up half down. The mov zener idea for each half of the circuit is a good idea although the other half of the circuit should take care of most of that for you.

    7. Re:Big advancement by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I stole the information in my post from experience. All you need to get an LED running on 120VAC is a big enough resistor to limit the current to where you want it.

      My dad's been doing it longer than the Internet's even been around, so I'd trust him before I trust it.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  16. Ahh, 5 years... by PowerVegetable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The good ole' 5-year technology promise. Close enough to be exciting and get attention, but far enough away that you'll forget about their claim before they miss their deadline.

    1. Re:Ahh, 5 years... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Traditionally semiconductor advances are quick to come to market. I don't see anything in the article that suggests this is anything more complicated than the tweeks that CPU manufacturers routinely make to their processes.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Ahh, 5 years... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

      The good ole' 5-year technology promise. Close enough to be exciting and get attention, but far enough away that you'll forget about their claim before they miss their deadline.

      I just updated the "desktop" image on my OLED t-shirt to read "PowerVegetable is right on!"

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:Ahh, 5 years... by philspear · · Score: 1

      The good ole' 5-year technology promise.

      Certainly more encouraging than longer promises. Like the whole "We hope to cure some cancers in 20 years."

      Lisa: [reading from a sticker] A gay president for 2084?
      Gay Man: We're realistic.

    4. Re:Ahh, 5 years... by epine · · Score: 1

      I would very interested to come up with a data point where someone made a break through press release which promised commercialization in five years, and then it actually happened four to six years later.

      I tend to read "five years" the same way I read population drug studies. Saving 10% of the study population usually means it saved half the people in the 20% of the study population who stood to benefit from the drug, and 0% of the other 80% who weren't suitable targets due to genetic disposition (which we aren't clueful enough to test, so we lump everyone together into the same study population).

      By that reading, "five years" means three years if some deep pocket gushes orgasmic over the market potential, and ten years (or never) if no white knight swoops over the horizon. For some reason when it comes to venture capital, you take the harmonic mean instead of the linear average, discard the never term, assume a 50% probability distribution (white knight/no white knight), and finally round down, thus sqrt (3 * 10) = 5 years.

  17. you sir are incorrect by Chirs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Light Emitting Diodes are binary - either all the way on or all the way off"

    You're smoking crack. LEDs can be dimmed just fine, by varying the current going through them. How do you think they control the brightness in LED-backlit LCD displays.

    1. Re:you sir are incorrect by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    2. Re:you sir are incorrect by nwf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're smoking crack. LEDs can be dimmed just fine, by varying the current going through them. How do you think they control the brightness in LED-backlit LCD displays.

      While you can dim them that way, they are very picky and inefficient. PWM is much, much more efficient and allows for nearly 1-100% dimming range easily. Getting such accuracy with current is very hard, since it's nonlinear. Most LCD backlighting is done via PWM, there are tons of tiny chips to do this efficiently, for phones too. It's just too easy and cheap not to use PWM these days.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    3. Re:you sir are incorrect by lagfest · · Score: 1

      Yes, except nobody does it like that since the led changes hue when you vary the current. PWM is much better.

    4. Re:you sir are incorrect by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I've taken a 5 LED series on a breadboard, and dialed the voltage from 12V to 5, watching them go from superbright to no-light at all.

      LEDs can be brightness controlled by simply varying voltage. Period.

    5. Re:you sir are incorrect by DwySteve · · Score: 1

      He provided a specific answer and you provided a general one. Neither are particularly wrong except that you attempted to correct him with a more general answer.

      LEDs are current-controlled devices. They have a relatively constant 'on' voltage (since we're doing links to one-up each other, please see page 7 in the following datasheet: One-up) which means that power dissipated in them is a function of current going through them. Light is power, so the only way you're going to get more light out of it is to put more power into it, which requires... more current.

      PWM is one possible dimming method, but you have to use a resistor to limit the current. The LED/resistor combination acts as a low-pass filter, which means that the LED only 'sees' the DC level of the AC waveform you're feeding it. This, therefore, has the same effect as varying the voltage across the resistor/LED pair.

      A better (more power-efficient) dimming method is to vary the current through the LED directly with a variable current source. With this method you don't have any extra power dissipated in the resistor. Although the current source may be a switched-mode device, it does NOT utilize PWM to vary the current.

      As I said, both of your answers were correct, but since you tried to correct him with a less-desirable answer I'm force to give all the points to Griffindor. Thanks for playing!

      --
      http://angryee.blogspot.com
    6. Re:you sir are incorrect by denton420 · · Score: 1

      Maybe what he meant to say is that LEDs can be used as a binary representation.

      An active high output would correspond to a bright light.

      While an active low output would correspond to essentially no light in the LED.

      This is only really applicable in demonstrating the function of logic circuits.

      Varying values for a current limiting resistor would allow you to dim the LED as you see fit.

    7. Re:you sir are incorrect by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Points, shmoints...my hair is a bird, etc.

      What about the other guy claiming varying voltage has the same effect? That doesn't strike me as true, but what do I know? Maybe you should go weigh in on that one, as well. :)

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    8. Re:you sir are incorrect by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PWM is one possible dimming method, but you have to use a resistor to limit the current. The LED/resistor combination acts as a low-pass filter, which means that the LED only 'sees' the DC level of the AC waveform you're feeding it. This, therefore, has the same effect as varying the voltage across the resistor/LED pair.

      Um, no. A filter would require inductance and/or capacitance, which a PWM driver circuit is notably lacking in. PWM dimming works by running the LED at its rated current for the on-cycle, and turning it completely off during the off-cycle, so the LED does flicker. IIRC, the reason you don't typically do the dimming by current limiting is that the LEDs are a lot more efficient at the designed current levels, so dimming by current limiting is inefficient and it's hard to get a linear change in brightness.

    9. Re:you sir are incorrect by acohen1 · · Score: 0

      You will not get a linear brightness control, you will limit the lifespan of the diode, and you will alter the color of the output by doing this. PWM is the only robust way of dimming LEDs. I used PWM driven LEDs for human psychophysics at work.

    10. Re:you sir are incorrect by adolf · · Score: 1

      Fine.

      But let's not forget the context. Folks (like me) have rooms lit with incandescent lighting because it can be dimmed. Inefficiently dimming an LED with a common triac-based dimmer switch is still sure to be more efficient than dimming an incandescent, if such a combination actually works.

      I want more efficient lighting, but I can't have it with current products ("dimmable" CFLs being both sucky and expensive, and LEDs still being more expensive yet).

    11. Re:you sir are incorrect by adolf · · Score: 1

      And I hate replying to myself, but I forgot to say this: I don't care about how linearly it dims. I just want to be able to vary between "enough light to avoid stepping on a cat," "enough light to eat with," and "enough light to paint a room with," without rewiring my house.

    12. Re:you sir are incorrect by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

      Can't change current without changing voltage.
      Can't change voltage without changing current.

      LED only has a narrow range of operating voltage.

      However, LEDs have an extremely fast response time (imperceptible to human sight). This means they can be "flickered" on and off for varying amounts of time to simulate different levels of brightness. If our eyes were 1000x as fast it would look awful.

      Flicker technique is more generally known as "pulse width modulation" (PWM). It is a simple way for digital electronics to generate analog outputs. (You just need to pass it through an analog low-pass filter / "averager".)

    13. Re:you sir are incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pulse the current at varying intervals to dim commercial LEDs (not the toys you'd be used to), over time dropping the voltage will root them. Do your homework.

    14. Re:you sir are incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're smoking crack. LEDs can be dimmed just fine, by varying the current going through them. How do you think they control the brightness in LED-backlit LCD displays.

      While you can dim them that way, they are very picky and inefficient. PWM is much, much more efficient and allows for nearly 1-100% dimming range easily. Getting such accuracy with current is very hard, since it's nonlinear. Most LCD backlighting is done via PWM, there are tons of tiny chips to do this efficiently, for phones too. It's just too easy and cheap not to use PWM these days.

      PWM circuits are easier to implement, but they are NOT the more efficient way to dim LEDs. LEDs are most efficient when driven at low currents.

      Ramping up a high power LED such as a Cree XR-E from 350mA, to 1000mA (about triple the power), light output only increases by 2.2x

      A similar change is observed going from very low currents 100mA to 350mA.

      If you were to PWM such an LED at 33% duty cycle, you will end up with DRAMATICALLY less efficiency than you would by feeding it 1/3rd as much current. There are a wide range of variable-output-current drivers for high power LEDs availble today for a couple bucks each, that can change current output using either a potentiometer, or an analog voltage.

      Accurately controlling the current through any nonlinear device is not particulaly hard to do -- just throw a low-value sense resistor in series and feedback the voltage dropped across it. (eg 0.1 ohms, will feed back 100mV signal when 1A is flowing through the LED)

  18. Solar panels too? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't some solar panels made with GaN as well? Will this help them too?

    1. Re:Solar panels too? by giafly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aren't some solar panels made with GaN as well? Will this help them too?

      Looks likely. Cambridge are researching that too, e.g. both fields are covered by the following grant application.

      The other approach to solar cells we will pursue is high-efficiency inorganic multilayer solar cells. The basic idea is that by stacking layers in the order of their bandgap, with the layer with the largest bandgap at the top, light is converted into electricity in the most efficient way. We propose to build an innovative multi-layer solar cell based on GaN/InGaN/Si. The GaN layer will absorb the UV part of the solar spectrum, the InGaN layer the blue and green parts and the Si layer the yellow, red and near-IR parts. The theoretical efficiency is above 60%. Such a cell would be too expensive for large-area applications, but would be designed to be used at the focus of mirrors that concentrate the solar light, which will make the technology competitive.

      GaN-based white lighting is extremely efficient and if used in our homes and offices it could save 15% of the electricity generated at power stations, 15% of the fuel used, and reduce carbon emissions by 15%. However for GaN-based white lighting to become widely used in homes and offices we have to increase the efficiency still further and reduce the cost. We will research various ways to increase the efficiency. To reduce the cost we will grow GaN-based LED structures on 150mm (six-inch) silicon wafers instead of the current growth on two-inch sapphire wafers. This would reduce the LED cost by a factor of ten. Cambridge will grow such LED structures and UCSB will process them into LED lamps.

      Details of Grant

      --
      Reduce, reuse, cycle
    2. Re:Solar panels too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you see we can shine the LED at the solar panels, and have the solar panels power the LEDs.

      Perfect unlimited light.

  19. Good news but... by Nautical+Insanity · · Score: 0

    the march to phase out incandescent lights in favor of CFLs has already begun. I personally am concerned about the five years until this product will be released. As of yet we have no plan for disposing of CFL bulbs and even if we did that wouldn't stop many foolish people from simply throwing them in the trash anyway.

    The cost of the mercury polluted into the environment from CFLs far outweighs any energy savings they may incur over incandescent lights.

    1. Re:Good news but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As of yet we have no plan for disposing of CFL bulbs

      You can drop them off to be recycled just about anywhere.

  20. Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incandescant dimmers are not simply variable resistors. Look up Ohm's Law for why this won't work.

    Dimmers work using Triacs or SCRs to slice the AC waveform in time. This will work fine for LEDs too.

    1. Re:Fail by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Incandescant dimmers are not simply variable resistors. Look up Ohm's Law for why this won't work.

      Um, okay. "The current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage and inversely proportional to the resistance across the two points. I = V/R"

      So you have a voltage, which is essentially fixed (say, 120V). You double the resistance, which halves the current. That effectively halves the power delivered to the bulb, so it dims. What's the problem here?

      It wasn't that long ago that rheostats (variable resistors) were used in dimmer circuits from domestic to industrial to theatrical applications.

      Incandescent dimmers used to be simply variable resistors. Modern units are far more efficient and safe, but that doesn't mean you can't use simple resistance to dim an incandescent bulb.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incandescant dimmers are not simply variable resistors. Look up Ohm's Law for why this won't work.

      Dimmers work using Triacs or SCRs to slice the AC waveform in time. This will work fine for LEDs too.

      So, when they build the ac>dc converters for LED bulbs they are just straight bridge rectifier without any capacitors inline? They can save a bit on manufacturing and gain the ability to be dimmed efficiently by normal means?

      Neat, i guess.

  21. Quick LED question. by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    I made my own front light for my bike by embedding 60 3mm LEDs into a standard Cateye reflector, it works well & is nicely bright but I always have this want for more brightness, but not at the expense of increasing the physical size of the light by using Cree's or Luxeons whigh require a collinator to direct the light.

    So does anyone have any ideas how I can easily file down a couple of hundred 3mm LEDs so they're identically rectangle or square to pack them tightly together?

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Quick LED question. by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Instead of using standard 3mm LED's use SMT types. They are already the size you need and are available in the same brightness as the 3mm kind. You will need to use a circuit board and special soldering tools though....

    2. Re:Quick LED question. by giafly · · Score: 1

      LEDs lose efficiency if they hot, so it sounds like you'd need a big heat sink for your close-packed array of 200 lights. Google for: LED "heat sink". Perhaps you could use several smaller arrays, bolted to the metal of your bike. Warm handlebars might be welcome in Winter.

      --
      Reduce, reuse, cycle
    3. Re:Quick LED question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy smaller LEDs.

    4. Re:Quick LED question. by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      I regularly solder SMD components including LEDs but the reason I like the 3mm LEDs is the beamspread they give, most cheap 5mm LEDs produce a spotlight effect where if an object isn't in the ~15-25 degree beam it can't be seen that well, whereas cheap 3mm LEDs have a nice smooth drop-off gradient which is ideal for night cycling as the path/unlit road in the distance is illuminated just as much as it is near you.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    5. Re:Quick LED question. by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      The 60 LED array I put together does get a little warm but it hasn't been much of a problem because they're only turned on at night when it's naturally cooler than the day and only on for long periods when I'm moving along so the air flowing over it will help keep it cool.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    6. Re:Quick LED question. by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      If you can point me towards some 2mm LEDs with built-in collinators that are as bright as 3mm ones then those would be ideal. All 2mm ones I can find are flat-top and most are phyically wider than 2mm at the base or they're 2mm x 5mm in size.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    7. Re:Quick LED question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to file your LEDs down. The brightness they have is directly related to the shape of the LED, as it acts as a projecting Lens. As another poster suggested, SMT LEDs are a good idea, perhaps with the whole assembly on a heatsink somehow (you don't want to short the board traces)..

    8. Re:Quick LED question. by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      I've found that filing down the sides of LEDs don't affect dramatically affect the amount of light thrown forward, in the case of using them for bike lighting a bit more light thrown sideways is a good thing.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    9. Re:Quick LED question. by artg · · Score: 1

      You can get SMT LEDs with lenses - e.g. ebay item 120362375572 they might have the right beam shape, If not, you could :

      solder a row of leds into a pcb (or matrix board)
      square two sides off with a belt sander
      re-solder at 90 degrees
      square off the other two sides
      umm..
      profit!

      You can also get square leaded LEDs, but the ones I have are really old and dim, and in any case would stack on 0.1" centres which doesn't help you.

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Good for displays too by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is great news not just for lighting, but also potentially for ILED TVs (basically LED - the "I" stands for inorganic. It would be simpler than even OLED, and the lifetime would be amazing of course.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Good for displays too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case someone doesn't know about ILED tv's:

      http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/led_hdtvs.aspx

    2. Re:Good for displays too by vsny · · Score: 1

      Do you have to include the 'I'???

      For decades LEDs have been inorganic and made from semiconductors.

      Organic LEDs are the recent exception from the norm.

    3. Re:Good for displays too by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I bet the 'I' will stick more and more in the future, just as a buzzword for marketing, and also that we can say both OLED and ILED are types of LED.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    4. Re:Good for displays too by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      That's not ILED :)
      The LEDs in that just act as a backlight - a very different beast. ILED TVs would emit their own light with each ILED as an individual pixel.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  24. My opinion by tripdizzle · · Score: 1

    I hate those pigtail lights. Makes me feel like I'm still at work or school when at home using that disgusting white lighting.

    --
    "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
  25. Demand for dimmer switches by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

    OK, I'm down with this. A low energy consumption dimmable bulb would be a useful thing indeed.

    ...most people want to be able to use dimmers

    "Most"? Really? I think your argument ran off the rails here. There is nothing preventing people from using dimmer switches now - they just can't use most CFLs in those sockets. I think "most" people don't really care and the evidence for that is that CFL bulbs, which generally aren't dimmable, are selling like hotcakes and increasing rapidly. Many houses might have some dimmers but usually not everywhere. That's not to say dimmable switches aren't a good idea but let's not overestimate the demand for them shall we?

  26. We need lumens ratings by kherr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real issue is that all light bulbs really do need to have the rating of lumens. Wattage is power use, lumens is light output (obviously). Saying "40-watt equivalent" is empty marketing speak, no wonder they were disappointing. And then there's the whole light temperature issue, which is very difficult for a consumer to determine.

    For my LED experience, I went with these LED bulbs for my chandelier (I was looking for a "25-watt equivalent") and have been very pleased. It may help that it's a cluster of bulbs in my fixture. Considering the lifespan of LED bulbs, I'm willing to pay a lot more per bulb providing the light output falls in the appropriate range.

    1. Re:We need lumens ratings by aztektum · · Score: 1
      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:We need lumens ratings by starfishsystems · · Score: 2, Informative

      And then there's the whole light temperature issue, which is very difficult for a consumer to determine.

      Especially as color temperature doesn't really tell the story where LEDs and fluorescents are concerned. While incandescent lights are thermal emitters with smooth color spectra, the others are composed of several sharp peaks at different wavelengths, a conditition which doesn't reduce to a single color temperature. It's also much of the reason why the light seems somewhat harsh and unnatural.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    3. Re:We need lumens ratings by dr2chase · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not so for LEDs; their peaks are substantially less sharp. I verified this both with a physicist, and with a diffraction grating. I took pictures, too. One problem you get, is that the "highest lumen" LEDs have a spectrum similar to an arc-welder, and it's not so nice. I used some good-quality neutral-white CREE LEDs for kitchen counter lighting, and it is quite nice.

    4. Re:We need lumens ratings by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it is not empty market speak. it is the general way brightness has been measured by the laymen for 70+ years.

      No, it's not correct and wattage and brightness are not the same thing, but for so long people have bought brightness based on the wattage was a good way to know one light is brighter then another the industry needs to use it as a point of references as things transition.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:We need lumens ratings by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Some bulbs do show (in smaller print) what the lumen output is. Many, of course, do not.

      I'm sure they'll stop using 'watts' to sell bulbs just as soon as vacuum cleaners stop being sold on 'amps'.

      "Hey this vacuum that 'has' 15 amps must be better than that one that only 'has' 12 amps!" - No moron, it will just use electricity faster.

    6. Re:We need lumens ratings by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      And then there's the whole light temperature issue, which is very difficult for a consumer to determine.

      I second this. A couple of years ago, I was trying to implement a LEED/EnergyStar retrofit at the Corporate Campus of a major financial provider. They had 29 elevators all with these horrible, 50W halogen lamps with a life of +/- 2000 hours. I got with a few lighting vendors who were able to provide me some LED retrofits. I was asking for something in the 'warm white' range (i.e. 3500K). Well, despite the manufacturers' assurances, these things were as blue as they come. The only thing that was missing was a Velvet Elvis poster in the back of each elevator car.

      Needless to say, we didn't go with LEDs.

    7. Re:We need lumens ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not so for LEDs; their peaks are substantially less sharp. I verified this both with a physicist, and with a diffraction grating. I took pictures, too.

      What spectrum did you get when shining the light through a physicist?

    8. Re:We need lumens ratings by demonbug · · Score: 1

      Those lumens ratings seem a bit off; iirc, a normal 60-watt incandescent bulb produces around 800 - 900 lumens; why do they claim 250 lumens on the "Starlight" model is comparable to this?

      The only reason I can come up with is that LED bulbs seem to be a lot more directional than incandescents, so maybe the LED bulb produces the same brightness at the spot you point it at as an incandescent, but less "general" or "fill" light. Anyone know the reasoning behind these equivalence ratings? The disparity is one of the reasons I haven't plunked down $40 to try out an LED bulb...

    9. Re:We need lumens ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the problem with CFLs that they don't HAVE a light temperature? The spectrum isn't close in shape to the blackbody radiation you get from an incadescent bulb at all.

    10. Re:We need lumens ratings by graft · · Score: 1

      This depends on the LED - a normal LED, of course, produces an extremely sharp peak, since it's based on the bandgap of the diode. White LEDs use various tricks to break this peak down - the simplest being just to combine R, G and B LEDs (three peaks), but the best way uses an actual phosphor (YAG - yttrium aluminum garnet - or quantum dots, or whatever) to diffuse the monochromatic light from the LED into a real spectrum. Obviously this can get quite expensive, but "real" "warm" light seems to matter to consumers more than saving the environment...

    11. Re:We need lumens ratings by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to the physicist, no. White LEDs (the ones, I buy, certainly) are based on a blue/violet/UV emitter, combined with frequency-halving phosphors. According to physicist, it's the same game as is used in fluorescent lighting, but because the basic LED emitter is not a single frequency, and is instead centered around a frequency, you get a nicer distribution when you do the halving.

      I will verify this experimentally when I get home; I have diffraction gratings, I have "pure" (amber and orange-red) power LEDs available. If you're lucky, I'll get a picture.

    12. Re:We need lumens ratings by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      The real issue is that all light bulbs really do need to have the rating of lumens.

      Isn't there a problem due to the way that lumens are either (a) correctly measured, or (b) incorrectly converted from candela (I forget which)? Something about how incandescent bulbs (sans reflectors) give off light in 360 degrees, while LEDs are highly directional. So if you measure the amount of light hitting a point in the "right" place, the LED would appear to be just as bright as the bulb - but, of course, the total light output is far less. And cd or lumens (or both) are measured from a single point.

      I remember seeing a rant about this five or six years ago, when Nichia first came out with brighter white LEDs. I sent a copy of that rant to a dealer claiming "equivalent to incandescent" LED fixtures; the dealer's response was something like "Well, but look - the numbers are identical!" which missed the point.

      Has that now been solved with reflector design, and/or prohibitions against misleading conversions?

    13. Re:We need lumens ratings by kvezach · · Score: 1

      A lumen is a candela per steradian, so highly directional lights would have lower lumen ratings. However, lumens say nothing about the color distribution of the light source. It's weighted so that the light that's easiest to see gets counted to a greater degree than light that's not so easy to see, but in the extreme, that means the most efficient type of light would emit 555 nm monochromatic light - hardly a pleasing light source.

    14. Re:We need lumens ratings by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      ... "real" "warm" light seems to matter to consumers more than saving the environment...

      Damn right that it matters. The lighting in my house is a part of my environment, and one of the most important parts. If it feels harsh, cold and unnatural to me, that affects me quite noticably. I imagine it's the same with others as well, maybe more than they themselves realize. If I had a choice between global warming by some fraction of a degree, or psychologically soothing but less efficient lighting for everyone, I would pick the second in a heartbeat. Seriously, this some fluorescent lighting I've seen is so depressing that it saps people's will to live.

      Quite seriously now, good lighting is as important to the domestic environment adequate temperature control. Frankly, if we want to save energy, we should be investing in passive solutions like triple-glazed argon windows and better insulation. Much more resources go to inefficiencies in heating and air conditioning anyway. With the energy we save, let's power up some attractive lights, and let them double as indoor heating units if they must. That energy is not wasted either.

      How many people sit under an ugly fluorescent bulb and use an electric space heater? It's stupid.

    15. Re:We need lumens ratings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not simply "warm light" versus the environment. There's increasing evidence that heavily blue-biased light is bad for the eyes. It's well documented that it produces short-term eye strain (the reason is related to the reasons for using red lights when in situations where you don't want to affect night vision), but even long term reduction in light sensitivity may occur.

      Not to mention, blue light doesn't properly illuminate a red surface, etc...this is why broadband light is ideal.

      The best solution would be a light-source, LED or otherwise, that very closely approximates the 5700 K black body spectrum of the sun or similar (for warmer or cooler colors) with high efficiency, but even an incandescent at low efficiency can't do that properly, because their tungsten filaments melt about 2000 Kelvin below that temperature (hence the yellowish hue of incandescents).

    16. Re:We need lumens ratings by afidel · · Score: 1

      Look up CRI, modern CFL's can reach a CRI of 92+ for expensive bulbs and mid 80's for cheap good bulbs like the GE Energy Saver's.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  27. Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    (1) LEDs can in fact be dimmed by running less current through them, however their power efficiency drops, which negates the whole purpose of LED lighting. The most efficient way to dim an LED is to strobe it on faster than the human eye can detect By varying with fraction of the on/off cycle that the LED is on, the human eye perceives this as "dimmer". The number of photons averaged over a second is reduced, but for the milliseconds the LED is on it is at full brightness.

    (2) Incandescent bulb dimmers are almost never been rheostats, not since maybe the 1920s. The problem is efficiency again. Imagine a certain current flowing through the light bulb and the rheostat; the power dissipated in each device is then proportional to the resistance. When the rheostat is at equal resistance to the light bulb, it is dissipating as much power as the light bulb is! A 100 watt light bulb at 50% of the normal RMS current dissipates 25 watts, which means your rheostat is getting as hot as a small soldering iron. You'd need a massive heatsink to handle this.

    Therefore for many years, dimmers were not very practical. The best dimmers were actually transformers, but they were extremely bulky. They were mainly used in theaters and fancy restaurants to soften the shock of the prices on the menu by relief at being able to find them at all.

    With the creation of the solid state silicon controlled rectifier (scr), it is possible to do a trick with incandescent bulbs that is rather like the LED strobing trick. What you do is you take the sine wave power and you clip out the parts of the waveform on either side of the peak. So rather than having power delivered to light bulb all the time, the light bulb is only powered for a fraction of the cycle. The difference is that an incandescent filament glows because it is hot; it does not flicker on and off.

    Now with respect LED light bulbs, I'm not sure about what circuitry they contain, but they do contain circuitry. If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz. If you put a full wave rectifier into the circuit, they'd flicker at 120Hz, which might be fast enough you wouldn't notice the flickering. You'd certainly be able to use the a solid state dimmer to dim such as circuit, but flickering might be noticeable.

    There are relatively simple tricks you could use to maybe double the frequency, in which case you probably would not be able to perceive the flicker. On the other hand, there might be fancier circuits that know how to do the right thing. One of the problems with LEDs is that they age, their brightness varies. If the LED bulb achieves its white color by using several different colors, you need a compensating circuit to maintain the original color.

    Of course you could use white LEDs, but most of the bright ones are very harsh; I've seen warm white LEDs advertised, but I've never had one.

    So there you go, the straight facts on dimming that every geek should know.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz.

      Big time. We have AC LED lights for our Christmas tree, and the flicker bugs the hell out of me.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Now with respect LED light bulbs, I'm not sure about what circuitry they contain, but they do contain circuitry. If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz. If you put a full wave rectifier into the circuit, they'd flicker at 120Hz, which might be fast enough you wouldn't notice the flickering.

      Speaking as someone who designs LED drivers for illumination, and as such, who has spent tens of hours ripping apart competitors' LED lighting systems, I'm amazed and depressed at how many off-line LED systems use only a single diode and cap as rectification. The *nice* ones use full bridges.
      There are good solutions: regulated rectification, current-limited LED drivers. We make them. They cost forty cents more than the full wave rectification design, and fifty cents more than the diode/cap half-wave design.
      Guess which ones are selling like hotcakes and which ones consumers aren't buying?

      Warm LED's look quite nice. A cool white LED with a similarly-rated red LED beside it, looks even nicer.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip on using the red LED. I've been thinking about doing an LED lighting system for my aquarium, but haven't because the narrow spectrum of the LEDs might make the fish look washed out. Any suggestions?

      With respect to the circuitry, it reminds me of the circuitry that goes on each and every cell in a li-ion battery. Given the variations in household voltage, and the idea that you're trying to keep the LEDs at the peak of their efficiency, it seems like a no-brainer.

      Speaking of LED lighting circuits, since we have somebody here who knows what he's talking about, how do LED bulb work when you dim them with a triac? It seems to me that a regulated power supply would tend to make them undimmable.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      or you have different LEDS that come on at different currents. So a 'bulb' is packaged with 13 LEDS.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I have a neighbor who did this, and ditto... though the tree does look really neat with varying brightness lighting on it (directional LED's).

      Some Cadillacs have annoying flicker in their LED taillights too.

    6. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by bendodge · · Score: 1

      I have a Furman PL8-II rackmount power conditioner. It has LEDs in pull-out tubes dimmed by a rotary control. I can see no flickering at any time, and they go from bright down to barely on. They use two whites coupled with one yellow to achieve a 'soft' effect. Now, I don't know if the dimming is power efficient, and I do know it has a lot of circuitry surrounding the LEDs inside the pull-outs, but the designers were concerned about heat output (there obviously isn't any).
      http://www.furmansound.com/new/images/highres/PL-8_II.jpg

      --
      The government can't save you.
    7. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, the LEDs on your instrument panel probably consume 50mw at full blast. A rheostat dimmer is most efficient at full blast -- it's like it's not there (in fact most fixed brightness LEDS have just a series resistor). At 50% power output, the rheostat and the LED each consume 25mw, which is negligble. Not even counting the non-linear behavior of the diode, the efficiency is going to go down as the absolute power consumption drops, but as we're starting at 1/20 of a watt it doesn't matter.

      I'm not sure of the equivalency, but I'm guessing you'd replace a 100w incandescent with a 12w LED. Dimming it to the equivalent of a 50w bulb would mean you're wasting half your energy in the rheostat. So, that's 6 watts wasted; not bad considering you're saving 38 watts compared to an incadescent, but from a design standpoint more of a concern than wasting 25 milliwatts.

      Of course the whole reason we're on this is that LEDs are non-linear, which means you're actually wasting more than 50% of your power when you dim with a resistor. But in the grand scheme of things a rheostat dimmed LED lightbulb is preferable to a triac dimmed incandescent.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Problem is: any recommendation I make is going to be based on the LED's we have, and most of those are either not for sale yet, or are stupidly expensive. I honestly don't know what commonly available lightbulbs have which LED's, either, because only a few LED's intended for general illumination are easy to recognize. I can tell you that I have great respect for Philips LumiLEDs, Osram Dragons, and most of the stuff Cree makes. I've worked with all those extensively and they're beautiful.
      A white/red combo might look okay. It's good for general illumination but still not particularly great for really good color rendition. The problem is that color rendering is dependent on a *lot* of weird stuff. (For instance, part of the reason a ruby is so red is because it's absorbing shorter-frequency light, and re-emitting it as red light, so even if you have a good red source that's lacking in the short-wavelength area, the ruby will look dead. Fish have lots of fluorescent/iridescent coloration, so a standard color rendering index (CRI) test might not tell you what you want to know: will this light look good with this situation?)

      With the li-ion, they'll burst into flame, so the manufacturers *have* to put in good charge-controller circuitry. LED's are currently like cars in 1910: you can make anything that sort of vaguely works, and someone will buy it. It's no secret that the LED crowd are hoping so many people will buy them just because they're cool, that they'll jump the early adopter chasm before they've realized that they've mostly bought turkeys.

      All the stuff we work with does, essentially, some sort of rectification, then dc-dc conversion, either buck, boost, or SEPIC, and ends up as a constant-current supply for the LED. We (and I'm sure a bunch of other people) have made drivers for really good dimming using standard triacs (ours is just about to hit the market) and they work *amazingly* well. You're limited in part by how well the triac works: a lot of the ones I've worked with have such crappy triggering circuits that the best you could ever get is roughly 60% dimming -- as in, you turn it on, keep coming up, and suddenly the light comes on at 40% brightness. You can then finesse it down to maybe 20%, but it's a pain. Thing is: we can digitize that and do clever stuff in software and come up with something that can essentially accommodate for the crappy triac, learn what it's doing (by sensing how it's chopping the AC) and produce a fabulous dimmer. We have one setup that can dim 10,000:1. If you get 5:1 out of a so-called dimmable compact fluorescent you're lucky. A good dimmer with an incandescent can do something similar: it can start producing heat before there's visible light coming off the filament. But I think only our (and similar) driver can get good performance out of cheap triacs.
      With all that said, a cheap triac dimmer driving a cheap unregulated LED will work, but they're (in my opinion) objectionably flickery. A triac dimmer driving a good switching converter (without any detection stuff to try and decode what the dimmer's trying to send) will still dim because you end up starving the switcher when the power's off, but it's icky-looking. In my experience it's even more non-linear than just the cheap triac: when there's enough power it drives well (but as you say at full current/full brightness), and when there's no power it turns off, and in the between situation it thrashes. Most LED driver chips have dim pins so you can apply an external dim signal derived somehow from the signal if you want to add a bunch of external circuitry. (We're building stuff that integrates all that junk into the chip.)

      >the idea that you're trying to keep the LEDs at the peak of their efficiency, it seems like a no-brainer.

      It is. But very few people will actually *pay* for better circuitry, apparently. So instead we have to add bullet-point functionality to justify more research, and then add in good current regulation and the like as a side-effect of (say) cold-we

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by ghostgum · · Score: 1

      (1) LEDs can in fact be dimmed by running less current through them, however their power efficiency drops, which negates the whole purpose of LED lighting. The most efficient way to dim an LED is to strobe it on faster than the human eye can detect By varying with fraction of the on/off cycle that the LED is on, the human eye perceives this as "dimmer".

      This isn't the whole story. Dimming a LED by using less current makes it more efficient, because LEDs are more efficient at lower temperatures.

      It is the driver circuit that can become less efficient. If the driver circuit uses 5% of the power, then when you dim to half power the driver circuit may be using the same power, which is now 10% of the total power. Your efficiency has gone from 95% to 90%. Incandescent globes and fluorescent tubes lose even more efficiency when they are dimmed. A linear regulator as a dimmer is inefficient. You need to use a switch mode regulator. These can use filtering to avoid the flicker, but this makes them a little more expensive.

      LEDs and Fluorescents are about the same efficiency (give or take 20%). LEDs are better for dimming, rapid turn on, and narrow beams. Fluorescent are better for area lighting.

      LEDs lights should be built with custom fixtures for several reasons. Firstly they need to run cool to be efficient, and this needs the cooling to be built into the fixture. Secondly they are point light sources and very annoying to the eye, requiring the use of diffusers. Finally, a single LED is currently about 3W maximum, so for a room light you need multiple LEDs, which means it needs to be bigger than a conventional incandescent globe. You can fit 10W of LEDs into a ES or BC style globe, but it isn't ideal.

    10. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by adolf · · Score: 1

      I've seen the flickering tail lights on Cadillacs and other makes. It'd have been trivial to up the frequency to a point where the flicker would be imperceptible, but instead it must have been an intentional decision to make them flicker. I, also, find it annoying and distracting, but somewhere in Detroit there's a designer who thinks it's the coolest thing ever. (Yuck.)

    11. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would someone with points please mod smellsofbikes postings up a bit further? He's the only one in this discussion who actually works with this stuff in a professional capacity and has something to offer other than theory.

    12. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Very informative. Thank you.

      It seems to me that many of the problems you present are directly related to the fact that people (in the US, at least) are expecting LED lamps to exist in conventional 120V Edison lamp sockets. Would some or all of these problems be eliminated if there were potential for an LED-specific socket standard?

      The thought that occurs to me is thus: By changing the socket configuration, you force people to rewire or replace the fixture. This, in turn, forces them to at least think, and at best hire an electrician. In doing so, one can essentially force the elimination of any triac-based incandescent dimmers and replace them with small PWM power supplies, while maintaining overall safety by preventing the ability to plug an incandescent dimmer into the circuit.

      What are your thoughts?

    13. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It seems to me that many of the problems you present are directly related to the fact that people (in the US, at least) are expecting LED lamps to exist in conventional 120V Edison lamp sockets. Would some or all of these problems be eliminated if there were potential for an LED-specific socket standard?

      BOY is this a problem.
      Because: an Edison socket has two connectors. You have live and neutral, and that's it.
      You try getting UL certification for an electrical appliance that doesn't have a ground connection in addition to the neutral. Go ahead: try it. It sucks. Lightbulbs (incandescent) are mostly grandfathered in, and partly composed of non-conductive material. So any light you build has to be completely non-conductive on its whole surface. (That's sort of okay: LED's that have decent lumens are producing scads of heat at the LED itself because of the forward voltage drop, basically, that has to be conducted away through a heatsink, so you glue yer LED's onto a heatsink made of some freaky stuff like silicon nitride, that's insulative but still has decent thermal characteristics. UL doesn't like you to hook it to an insulation-coated aluminum heatsink, though, because it might chip through to the uninsulated metal and you have a lethal shock hazard.)

      So, yes, anyone involved in modern lighting would just love it if we could convince people to replace their wiring in their houses, but that's generally seen as an utterly unrealistic expectation. Like, "well, take the engine out of your car and replace it with this one" unrealistic, with the added problem that houses in the US last an average of 50 years.
      Anyone who is doing interesting LED driver design is trying to figure out how to do fancy stuff with the wires we already have. I don't think I'm giving away any secrets by saying that people are investigating wireless (zigbee, ISM) and the more ... optimistic, I guess is the right word, among us are talking about selling matched dimmer units and lights, so that we can co-opt the line going up to the light and send whatever we want over it: do all the processing in the switch unit and send up DC or low-voltage AC or square waves or whatever the heck we want over the existing powerlines. If you can push enough electrons up the lines at 40 volts, suddenly you are considered low-voltage/non-lethal and your safety requirements are waaaaay reduced. (I'm not a regulatory kind of dude but I seem to recall that if it's low voltage Underwriters Laboratories won't even bother with it, so nobody cares if it's not UL-certified. Although plenty of people are buying plenty of appliances that aren't UL-certified as it is: it's unclear that that's an enormous bar to market acceptability.)

    14. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I dunno why that posted as anonymous. Oh well. For some reason slashdot seems to be dithering my comments half-anonymous, half-attributed of late, and of course I never bother to actually, y'know, read that bit before I hit 'submit'.

      Anyway. I was going to say that the other thing that sucks about CRI as a quantifier of illumination quality is that it's designed to measure how people see several defined colors under illumination. So it doesn't deal with (as I covered earlier) fluorescent or phosphorescent components, which are surprisingly common. "whiter than white" used to be a sales slogan for clothing detergent full of UV dyes, that converted UV light to blue, to counteract the tendency of clothing to yellow over time. They wiped out the yellow by down-converting light to balance it. This may not work at all with LED lights, and isn't measured in CRI. Likewise, just because we can fool puny human eyes by mixing red, blue, green, and phosphor-converted UV, photographs of stuff under LED lights could well look just appalling, and that's an issue because LED manufacturers are aggressively trying to move into replacing flash lamps with LED's. They're way faster, they don't require much or any charge time, and they're way more controllable, and you don't have to include a high-voltage power supply in your camera. But what if the light looks rotten? and what if the CCD can't deal with the LED's color spectrum, because it's been optimized for sunlight, which is basically an incandescent-like source?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    15. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Right. I see your points.

      The thing is, though: I do want LED lights in a few spots. I'm sensitive to flicker, and (to a lesser extent) color rendition, but they'd work just great in my pantry (where I don't care about color and it's hard to use a ladder to change light bulbs) and in my attic (where I need things to work in 10 or 20 years -- even if the last time I was up there was 5 years ago and they've been accidentally switched on ever since -- and do so in very cold or hot temperatures).

      My house is something like 150 years old. I am in the middle of an ongoing effort to rewire it. The house is getting a wide array of romex, cat5, and coax, and I'd be happy to wire it for low-voltage LED lighting in places where it'd be useful.

      I just, simply, can't. I'm a big fan of good standards, but it doesn't seem that there's even any bad standards specifically for LED lighting at this point.

      So, I guess I'll continue wiring as if for incandescents and hope for the best.

      *sigh*

    16. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think most people would notice anything at 120Hz. As for dimming, how about changing the duty cycle at those 120Hz?

    17. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by torkus · · Score: 1

      All respect, but you're mistaken on several points.

      LEDs are more efficient at LOWER drive currents. Go look up data sheets on common CREE, Luxeon, Lamina, and so on if you don't believe me. Some more than others, CREE is nice that it's close to linear. PWM is a good way to control brightness though because it's more precise. LEDs have a fairly narrow voltage range and current climbs exponentially as voltage changes - so a linear resistance change makes it very difficult to control. PWM solves this problem nicely.

      Most LED's do not contain circuitry unless you're referring to the junction itself. Exceptions for the "LED Bulbs" for flashlight upgrades and similar. It's the job of the controller to maintain current, PWM % and so on to get the right lighting you desire. A simple resistor is a bad idea when you're pushing beyond the 1mA cheapy green LEDs.

      A 120Hz light source from a LED would probably cause fun headaches, you need to move the frequency much higher. Not an issue for a solid state device though.

      And finally, they most certainly do have warm light LEDs. They're a bit less bright in some cases, but not to the point of unusability.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    18. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Anything that's going to be on the market and commercially viable in the next 10 years is going to be designed for standard wiring. There just isn't enough market to justify anything else. Nobody's even talking about how to wire for LED's because of the chicken-and-egg problem.
      My guess is that either it'll be what I was on about earlier, with intelligent dimmers sending interesting info up the power lines, muxed with the power itself, or short-range radio integrated into the power switch and the led driver chip.
      Thing is: the LED's will draw less power than your current lights, so wire for incandescents and these things will have plenty of safety overhead.

      By the way, having rewired several houses in my time, I'm a big proponent of putting the lighting on a separate circuit from the room outlets, so you don't end up in a dark room if you pop a breaker. I rewired my last house completely, including replacing the breaker box, and it was *perfect*. (I even ran a separate set of romex, one outlet in each room, that all terminated at a single point so I could put in a whole-house UPS.) And I wired Cat5 to each room. It was beautiful. Then I moved into a house that has a lot of nonaccessible wiring, sighed, and instituted wireless. Bah.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    19. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Protip, if you are rewiring today put in conduit and nylon cable pulls, when the next new technology hits you will thank me =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Nice, but:

      Conduit isn't required here. Using it adds huge amounts of expense and time to the project. I used PEX piping when I redid the plumbing, so that I could pull it around as if it were wire. I'm not about to run wire as if it were plumbing.

      It's no fun.

      Besides, I can't think of any home lighting application which cannot be satisfied with some 12-2 WG Romex. Now, or ever.

    21. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by adolf · · Score: 1

      One UPS outlet per room is an interesting prospect, which I hadn't yet considered. I'm surprised I hadn't thought of it before -- I've already got a UPS which is big enough to properly feed a house full of computers . . .

      In non-bedroom spaces, the lighting will all be separate. In fact, downstairs, I'll be using the existing cloth-asphalt insulated 12 AWG Romex-ish stuff, which is in excellent condition, for the lighting circuits, which avoids tearing apart plaster ceilings. I'll feed them with 15A GFCI breakers. Upstairs gets all new, both because it is easy, and because the existing wiring up there is pretty bad (it was done at a different time).

      In bedroom spaces, it might not work that way, though. There's new (well, new to me) rules requiring AFCI breakers on all circuits in a bedroom, including those dedicated to lighting. And they're bloody expensive -- adding two or three of them for bedroom lighting is getting pricey for me. But I figure a dark bedroom after Little Johnny plugs a pair of needlenose pliers into an outlet is a pretty minor inconvenience, compared to the same thing happening in, say, the kitchen.

      And, of course, there's plenty of Cat5 and coax. My standard drop (and I'm aiming for at least two for most rooms) consists of two Cat5 and one RG-6, all run neatly to a patch panel in the basement. It's a work of art. :)

    22. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) LEDs can in fact be dimmed by running less current through them, however their power efficiency drops, which negates the whole purpose of LED lighting. The most efficient way to dim an LED is to strobe it on faster than the human eye can detect By varying with fraction of the on/off cycle that the LED is on, the human eye perceives this as "dimmer". The number of photons averaged over a second is reduced, but for the milliseconds the LED is on it is at full brightness.

      LEDs are dramatically MORE efficient when dimmed by reducing current output to them.

      Take for example the Cree XR-E high power LED, which I have worked with extensively.

      1000mA: only 2.2A as much output, about 65 lm/W
      350mA: Efficiency of about 100lm/W
      20mA: Almost 140lm/W

      Of course you could use white LEDs, but most of the bright ones are very harsh; I've seen warm white LEDs advertised, but I've never had one.

      So there you go, the straight facts on dimming that every geek should know.

      Check out the Neutral white LEDs such as SSC P4 (Seoul Semiconductor, available at Mouser) or the XR-E from Cree.

      Neutral white is roughly in between the typical bluish cool white LEDs, and the warm white of incandecent (they have color temp of 3500-4500K) They are dramatically improved color rendition compared to most LEDs, the tradeoff is about 15-20% less lumens than the "nasty blue" cool white LEDs. More than worth it IMO as I find the cool white LEDs almost unusable for general lighting. I find the neutral whites preferable to fluorescent for light quality in some cases.

  28. These LEDs can't reach the market too soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CFLs suck. Their horrendous blue-tinted light is known to trigger migraines in some. Plus, they contain mercury, so any claim to be green is nullified when the consumer throws them out with the regular trash. And if you accidentally break a CFL, you have to open all the windows and leave the room for like 15 minutes to let the mercury vapor dissipate. LEDs are where it's at. You can tune the wavelength of the light they emit to be a more natural color. I'd rather my living room didn't look like it had the same lighting as a Dollar Store.

  29. Purdue FTW by amram9999 · · Score: 1

    This research seems very similar to what came out of Purdue six months ago. I guess having two methods is better than one, but this article isn't quite so dramatic given the Purdue research.

  30. Always 5 Years by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Five years. It's always five years.

    Tomorrow would be nice for once.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Always 5 Years by Hanyin · · Score: 1

      Five years. It's always five years. Tomorrow would be nice for once.

      OK, I'll do it! Just this morning I discovered an almost entirely free way to build a solar cell with an efficiency over 80%! But as I'm exhausted from all my hard work (it took me a few hours to get the construction right) I'll post the instructions on Wikileaks sometime tomorrow and everyone will be able to have access to much cheaper energy. Have a nice day!

      *gets assassinated*

    2. Re:Always 5 Years by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Well, do you want news for nerds, or do you want a leaflet from your local supermarket? If you want to take an interest in the newest technological developments, then you'll have to accept that the market presence will follow the technical breakthrough.

  31. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    Why do we still measure light bulbs by power draw? Why can't we measure them by brightness in candelas, or peak power output in joules?

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... Oops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You inverted your units for the 60 watt incandescent.

  34. Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

    Plus, they tend to start off dim and take like 5 minutes to get to the brightness that they advertise.

    You're buying the wrong bulbs then. Mine are at full brightness instantaneously.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Wrong bulbs by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've heard this dozens of times, but never seen how to differentiate crappy CFLs from good ones at the store. It's not like they have labels like "Hey, this CFL sucks! You should probably buy something better!" and spending more money is no guarantee of quality.

      Do you have some reliable way to tell good CFLs from bad ones? I'd like to know how to do it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Wrong bulbs by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Go into Walmart. Buy three different CFLs made by different companies. Take them home and test them. Return the ones you don't like. Profit.

    3. Re:Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look for the words "Instant on" on the packaging. I'll post the exact make/model info when I get home later today.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Wrong bulbs by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Method I can't give ya, but anecdote sure. I have crappy globe shaped ones in my bathroom that start out, how shall I say... dungeoneque, and take a couple minutes before you'd say the room is lit.

      In the rest of my house where the bulbs aren't directly visible, I have very excellent bulbs that behave just like incandescents. It may not be true that they are instantly at their maximum brightness, but they are instantly on at very close to it, incandescent levels. I happened to save one package labeling of each size I bought, they are GE Energy Smart general purpose bulbs, model numbers 16460 (60 watt (13 actual), 825 lumens) and 15517 (100 watt (26 actual), 1750 lumens).

    5. Re:Wrong bulbs by Peepsalot · · Score: 1

      I have noticed this problem with all the floodlight style bulbs that I have tried, but rarely with the bare spiral bulbs. I think it might have something to do with the fact that the enclosed flood lights dissipate heat less effectively than regular ones.

      http://1000bulbs.com/ has a huge selection of CFLs in varying power ratings and color temperatures. A couple years ago I replaced all my incandescents with some 13W 5000K bulbs I bought on that site. They come on instantly(ok maybe .5 sec delay) at full brightness. I got 5000K color temp. since it is supposed to be closest to sunlight, though some people may prefer a warmer look. The ones I got are called Longstar IIRC, I'm not sure if the exact same ones are still available.

    6. Re:Wrong bulbs by raduf · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they're more expensive. I buy Philips, no complaint whatsoever: nice light, only one "death" in 5 years (I let it on when the main voltage was waay below 220, and after this it was caput). They take about 3-5 min to warm-up.

    7. Re:Wrong bulbs by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I have Phillips brand, and they are instant-on, work great. When they are being used the very first time they may start out dim and only half of the bulb may light, but they will work themselves in after a couple minutes and work properly for subsequent power-ons after that. Don't get the ones marked "Daylight" though, the light sucks. It would remind me of daylight only if there were something seriously wrong with the sun.

    8. Re:Wrong bulbs by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      They lie. The GE CFL's a bought a couple months back claimed to be "instant on." There's about a 1 second delay between flipping the switch and getting light, and they flicker a bit and take a few minutes to get to full stable brightness. I just bought some from Home Depot and will try those tonight.

      Ikea's self-branded CFLs are pretty good. Those are truly instant on.

    9. Re:Wrong bulbs by treeves · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't live near a Wal-Mart (you insensitive clod, blah, blah, blah) and I generally buy CFLs at either Home Depot or Costco. At both stores, they have only one vendor of CFLs so your scheme won't work.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    10. Re:Wrong bulbs by adminstring · · Score: 1

      They have started making CF bulbs that are designed to work with dimmer switches. I have one that I got at Home Depot (sorry, don't remember the brand) and it works great with the dimmer switch in my house.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    11. Re:Wrong bulbs by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That's what I did for my family. It turns out the cheapest brand worked the best and lasted the longest. Weird, huh? On the plus side the CFLs were $3.50 for a 3 pack and I was going through incandescent bulbs in my bathroom(and with a 12 foot ceiling it is a bear to change) and I have not had to change one since switching nearly a year ago, knock on wood. Oh, and try Fred's if they have that store where you are at. I have had really good luck with the CFLs from that store, they are bright,decent light coloring, and dirt cheap to boot. And in this economy saving the $$ is always a good thing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Wrong bulbs by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Your instant on problem sounds like a ballast issue, do they buzz too? They are pry filled with cheap components or components that are overstressed thermally because of poor airflow. Either way, check your ballasts.

    13. Re:Wrong bulbs by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      I have harmony lightwiz lights, and I like them a lot. but I have to admit they go out so rarely that the last time I bought them was probably 3 years ago. I buy them on the internets, so the store is as near to you as it is to me.

      I tried to replace them with whatever from the local store and I am definately not switching because of the "warm up" issue that I have with these new lights.

    14. Re:Wrong bulbs by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Right, so add the gas for the extra round trip to the CFL cost. Oh wait, you can only cherry-pick data when *promoting* green technology...

      Dont matter I have 20ish CFL's in the house, all different makers, not a one is better than 50% at startup. If someone has a make/model that performs better (instead of just claiming it is) I'd love to hear about it.

    15. Re:Wrong bulbs by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Mine are at full brightness instantaneously.

      I have outdoor CFL floods to light the skating rink. Right now they take about 45 minutes to come up to decent output (its ~10 degrees here). So I have to leave them on all the time, which pretty much kisses goodbye any energy savings. The light also sucks; its dim and not directional, adding to dim. All in all a bad excuse for light. So for more money, less light, and more energy used, they will still be mandatory in our state next year.

    16. Re:Wrong bulbs by summetj · · Score: 1

      Some GE bulbs are instant on, and some are not.

      Specifically, look for model number: FLE 26HT3/2/SW 26watt, equivalent to 100watt incandescent light bulbs

      I found them in a 6pack box at Wallmart.

      http://www.summet.com/blog/2009/01/29/not-all-cf-bulbs-are-created-equal/

    17. Re:Wrong bulbs by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I said "dim" I meant about 2/3 the max light when not warmed up, so it's not that bad, but still annoying when I want my garage lit up really well and I have to wait 5 minutes before it doesn't look dim in there

      Something tells me that it's 100% on, and the 5 minutes you're waiting is just your eyes adjusting.

    18. Re:Wrong bulbs by mprindle · · Score: 1

      Most likely they are Sylvania bulbs. They are the only ones that I know of that turn on at full brightness.

    19. Re:Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Philips Marathon Energy Saver Mini Decorative Twister. It is a 900 lumen bulb which is (according to the box) equivalent to a 60 watt soft white incandescent (860 lumens). Part number appears to be 813540. The funny thing is, I don't see anywhere on the box where it says anything about being instant on, but I distinctly remember passing up other bulbs for these because of the instant on feature. Perhaps that was on the display.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Wrong bulbs by euri.ca · · Score: 1

      I had a similar problem, the first "daylight" bulb in 2007 (from amazon.com) is far and away the most glorious bulb in the house (and it comes on instantly). The 3 "daylight" bulbs I got in 2008 from different companies were uniformly cruddy.

      I wonder if the me-too vendors of crappy lightbulbs caught on that "daylight" was a word without a clear definition that would confuse people.

    21. Re:Wrong bulbs by Firehed · · Score: 1

      I've had two of the "dimmable" CFLs (also from HD) die within 48 hours of being installed in a dimmer socket - not even dimmed, mind you. Suffice to say, I'm not continuing to spend 3x as much for a defective product. If yours work properly, it sounds like you're in the lucky minority.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    22. Re:Wrong bulbs by Firehed · · Score: 1

      And since when has a bare incandescent (which also operates at lower efficiency in the cold, though certainly not as poorly as a CFL) been a directional light source either? Stick a piece of tinfoil behind it to act as a crude reflector.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    23. Re:Wrong bulbs by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you read the part where I said I had 'floods'? CFL floods replacing halogen floods. The halogens have a 45 degree pattern, and halogen spots are less than 30. The CFL floods have no discernible pattern although sticking a twist CFL in a cone-shaped reflector coaxes most of the light out one end more or less. I dont know what your point is, but Im saying CFL's dont replace incandescents well in *all* applications (cold and high-power directional), and that lawmakers in their lemming-like rush to greenhood dont take real life into account.

      (*tinfoil* as a crude reflector? Gimme an effing break! Have you ever actually installed any outdoor lighting??)

    24. Re:Wrong bulbs by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're a very odd case then, I was listening to NPR this morning and the stat they quoted was 96% of Americans live within 15 miles of a Walmart (something like 84% live within 5 miles). Walmart also carries the pretty good GE Energy Smart line of CFL's which match incandescents fairly well for color spectrum.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    25. Re:Wrong bulbs by treeves · · Score: 1

      Where I live there are shall we say "political forces" that keep Walmart at bay. The nearest one is 20 miles away, and I don't make forty mile trips to buy things I can get nearby. I have had the problem with the CFLs taking some time to warm up and being quite dim before they do. I'll have to remember to pick up some of the GE bulbs when I do happen to be at a Walmart.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  35. But how can you judge... by argent · · Score: 1

    I'd rather my living room didn't look like it had the same lighting as a Dollar Store.

    But how can you judge how your beloved trinkets are going to look in your house if the lighting doesn't match the store you bought them from?

  36. no bulbs in your next house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    plan on taking all your light bulbs with you as you move. Since the cost is high and the lifespan nearly infinite, bulbs will be too valuable for people to leave behind. One more frigging thing to pack and fool with.

    1. Re:no bulbs in your next house by NattyFido · · Score: 1

      Leave the bulbs and add the cost to the sale price of your house. If everyone did that, no problem! Otherwise you might me moving to somewhere that needs more or less bulbs. I don't think the cost and lumen output of current LED bulbs is that much of a problem, just have more light fixtures/bulbs and you have more control over where and when you have light, as well as the colour!

  37. Please research before spreading FUD! by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The cost of the mercury polluted into the environment from CFLs far outweighs any energy savings they may incur over incandescent lights.

    BZZZT, *WRONG*!!!
    According to Energystar.gov:

    if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans

    How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light
    bulbs?

    Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.

  38. Oven lights by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Incandescent lights are on their way out in Australia. The only trouble with a complete ban, is that a lot of people hate CFLs, they can't be dimmed, they contain mercury, and they can't be used in extreme environments, like inside kitchen ovens.

    Can LED lights be made to work inside (very hot) kitchen ovens? I know that some semiconductors can be engineered to work while white-hot, and wonder if it's so hard to design an LED light light that'll work inside an oven or kiln.

    1. Re:Oven lights by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Who says they have to put the LEDs in direct contact with the oven? Just stick them elsewhere and use some sort of light guides/fibre optics that can handle the heat.

  39. interesting new applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the lamps and chandeliers are based on designs used for candles and have slowly changed with newer tech. It will be interesting to see how lighting designs will change when LEDs mature towards a standard.

  40. Think of the children! by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    What will they use to power their easy-bake ovens once we switch over to bulbs that don't waste 90% of the input energy as heat?

    No, but seriously, sweet.

    1. Re:Think of the children! by conureman · · Score: 1

      I, for one, will miss our old incandescent friends. I plan to set up a perpetual bulb running on DC. Under-volt it and see how many consecutive years I can get. I wonder if that one still works in Livermore?

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  41. You have to buy the high wattage LED's by aiakos101 · · Score: 1
    I have tried a few of the LED's light bulbs from Fry's and Sams Club but they only sell 1.5 and 3 watt versions. The manufacturers state that these are 20 and 40 watt replacements but I have found them to be too dim for my needs. I found a website

    ecodirect.com

    that sells 7 and 13 watt LED's and these perform MUCH better. I use them for 60 and 100 watt incandescent replacements in hallways and my home office. They also use a lower multiplier for calculating the replacement bulb wattage. For instance their 3 watt bulb is stated to replace a 20 watt incandescent (the Sams Club bulb said a 3 watt was a 40 watt replacement). I think quality LED light bulbs are a great investment. The payback period is less than for solar panel installation and they are better for the environment than CFL's.

  42. GaN on Si commercially available by vsny · · Score: 2, Informative

    Commercial GaN on Silicon has been available for a years now. The commercial vendors have overcome this cracking problem due to thermal expansion using an AlGaN buffer since about 2005. One problem growing on Silicon is dislocations which limit lifetime, not cracking.

    Actually sapphire substrates surprisingly are not that expensive.

    I'm not sure why this press release is considered news.

  43. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Because that would reveal CFLs to be shit!

  44. The FUD goes round... by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

    You're flat out wrong, unless the incandescent bulbs you buy were created in a factory that didn't use electricity, and you never plugged them in.

    But, given your generalized name-calling, I suspect you don't bother to really understand how anything works.

    --

    [Ego]out

    1. Re:The FUD goes round... by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      You're flat out wrong, unless the incandescent bulbs you buy were created in a factory that didn't use electricity, and you never plugged them in.

      You obviously replied before you read my point about coal power being the only source of mercury associated with incandescents. By that standard, the monitor you are reading this on produces mercury.

      But, given your generalized name-calling, I suspect you don't bother to really understand how anything works.

      Given the fact that you replied before even reading my entire post, I suspect you have no interest in competing points of view.
      And as for the playful name-calling, can you take a joke?

    2. Re:The FUD goes round... by EgoWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't think that you should claim fallacy in my statement given your really bad writing. You cannot both claim that incandescents "produce 100% less mercury than CFLs" and that you were including the power requirement's production in that statement. Because it is, flat out, not true. If that isn't what you meant to say, you should have thought a bit more before spouting off.

      I also have to reject the idea that you're using 'playful namecalling' as a 'joke'. In fact, you're either consciously or unconsciously using a rhetorical device - in fact, a propaganda device. You're associating a modern movement of people interested in x with the secret police of a fallen fascism. By doing so you cast aspersion on that point of view, without actually providing any basis.

      As a 'competing viewpoint' that is weak. You're relying on denigrating the side you're against in order to advance your view - which doesn't speak much for the strength of your point of view.

      I'm very interested in competing viewpoints on that topic. What I'm not interested in is an echoing of long-heard conservative punditry that lacks any regard for human intelligence or civilized discourse. It may have been that, once upon a time, the most 'environmentalist' folks out there were anti-nuclear power. But you don't see those demonstrations anymore. You really don't hear about it too much. It's because nuclear power has come a very long way. It's simply not as dangerous. Not as dangerous, certainly, as coal. That dependency on coal is the heart of the desire to move to CFLs and LEDs and other energy-light appliances; in short nothing those alternatives provide even nearly rival the equivalent damage being done in our current system.

      That said, there is a valid argument against CFLs based on mercury - but it's not production. It's where it's concentrated. It's not inconceivable someone would choose against them because they bring the mercury into direct contact with you. Personally, I think that is a narrow, self-serving point of view that only helps in the near term, but it has far more substantiation than "If only the Greenstapo weren't so unreasonable, we could have our incandescent bulbs in a paradise of nuclear power!" Because, guess what? That's patently false.

      --

      [Ego]out

  45. Depends on the lighting fixture. by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    Good ventilation is enough, but there's a reason most halogen bulbs are open-bulb outdoor or free-standing installations. You don't want that kind of heat output in an enclosed space-- that'd be the reason most lighting fixtures have a maximum wattage rating, and it typically isn't the wiring they're running to the bulbs.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  46. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    ...but inefficient plasma bulbs are shittier.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  47. Gallium is NOT in short supply by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Never has been, and probably never will be.

    Indium and Gallium Sustainability â" September 2007 Update

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. Lumens per watt is? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Granted this is an as yet unrealized technology, but I really wonder what the lumens per watt will be.

    For reference a standard 48" T8 fluorescent is about 80 lumens per watt,
    Compact fluorescent is around 65 lumens per watt,
    and a 60w A19 bulb (the "normal" light bulb) is about 15 lumens per watt.

    Cree has some Gallium nitride LEDs that (they claim) produce a record breaking 130 lumens per watt,
    but they also have some 100 lumens per watt LEDs and they're also gallium nitride.

    Cost of production isn't totally meaningless, but over it's 20 year life, 5 watts means more than $100.

    1. Re:Lumens per watt is? by vsny · · Score: 1

      The reason Cree is so successful is the thermal conductivity of the substrate. Most vendors use sapphire and some do use Si. Look up the difference in thermal conductivity between sapphire, silicon and SiC.
      SiC = 370W/mK, Si = 130W/mK, Sapphire=42W/mK

      If you can run the LED cooler for the same input power the diode will be more efficient. This is why SiC based LEDs run better and more reliably.

      Si substrate GaN LEDs have been around for years they just aren't very good. And it has nothing to do with cracking.

  49. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by Teun · · Score: 1
    Guess what, because every minute they're on it's the draw you pay for.

    And although those that care know sinds they were at school that 4x 25W gives off less light (lumens) than 1x 100W this results in only a marginal difference in cost.

    Ovr here in Europe shops have to display the cost of goods per standard unit, why not enforce the display of lumens per watt on light sources?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  50. Tested it... mine works... by doug141 · · Score: 1

    Sounded like bullshit, so I tried it. Used a cheap Walmart CFL and a two outlet clapper (one controlled by two claps, and one by three claps). Worked fine. Worked fine on my TV, too.

    1. Re:Tested it... mine works... by Pentomino · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I bought CFL's too long ago and they last too long.

      The switching mechanism on my Clapper has always worked, but when the switch is in the "off" position, the light flashes on dimly every few seconds. Not good for the bedroom, and probably not good for the life of the bulb.

      This same "bug" prevented my father from pulling a prank on my mom's friend who was staying in from out of town. He was going to hook up a timer to a strobe light so that it would go off in her room at midnight. But it would flash once every few minutes.

    2. Re:Tested it... mine works... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      All that means is that yours was made differently that some of the others on the market.

    3. Re:Tested it... mine works... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Or that the poster claiming that the Clapper wouldn't work was, simply, wrong. A Clapper, being a device which has access to hot, neutral, and whatever load is plugged into it, doesn't suffer the same way that an in-series dimmer switch does. This is the reason why a series-wired wall-mounted X10 dimmer won't work with CFLs (the dimmer doesn't have a neutral available to it), and this reason simply does not apply to a Clapper (or, for that matter, a plug-in X10 lamp module).

      In fact, I can only imagine that the Clapper's output is switched by a simple relay. There's no real way for a device which is plugged into it to affect the unit's operation.

      Even the Clapper's original 1980s TV ad shows the device turning color televisions off.

      Just because someone said something and used a few big words doesn't make it true. Stop being so gullible, and start thinking.

  51. Solve overall light problem by GlobalMind · · Score: 1

    What I've seen on LED bulbs is that they tend to be rather directional in nature. They don't produce as much of an omnidirectional light as other bulbs do. I also don't much care for the "white" lights having more of a blue spectrum quality to them, vs the incandescent yellow spectrum glow. The reason I haven't bothered to use them in any of my holiday lights.

  52. CAn you straighten this one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the big hall there are two switches for the overhead lights. One turns them on at half brightness, the other full brightness. If both switches are on, you get full brightness.

    There are four fixtures rigged in a parallel circuit, with four edison sockets per fixture also rigged parallel and arranged in quadrilateral symmetry, like a "plus sign". So 16 sockets are all fed from a common wire.

    With four incandescents in each fixture, all the lamps are equally "dim" or "bright" depending on which switches are on.

    With two incandescents and two flourescents in each fixture, on the "dim" setting the two incandescents are almost entirely off, just barely glowing, and the two fluorescents are at full brightness.

    With four fluorescents in each fixture, on the "dim" setting two of them directly opposite each other in the fixture will light full brightness, the other two will not light at all.

    What the hell is going on? This is not a theoretical question, this is observed data.

    The non-tech people say "two out of four lights are on, that's half brightness, we're good, no need to worry".

    The tech people say "how do we know the building isn't going to burn down from ballast abuse?"

    1. Re:CAn you straighten this one? by hey! · · Score: 1

      OK, your description of your troubleshooting efforts is very incomplete, but I can think of all kinds of ways to explain the behavior in the incadescent only scenario, none of which is particularly dangerous. What has me concerned is the behavior when you mix incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. That's a massive red flag.

      There's nothing too mysterious about the incandescents barely glowing while CFLs in parallel with them are quite bright. For one thing, CFLs are not only more efficient, they have electronic ballasts which compensate for voltage fluctuations. Within limits, they'll draw more current to compensate for low voltage. In fact, like all devices they'll work beyond their design limits, but to unpredictable degrees, which is bad for you for reasons you'll see shortly.

      Now here's the part that raises a red flag: that the incandescent bulbs somehow "know" the CFLs are there in parallel. They can't know. The only way to get a light bulb to burn less brightly is to apply less voltage to it. That means something in series is reacting to the load. That's very, very bad, for two reasons.

      First, if the voltage is reduced across all the devices, then the "missing" voltage must be going somewhere else. Again, you haven't given me much to on, but one way this could happen is if the dim switch had a big power resistor in series with it. That's not only extremely inefficient, it's also dangerous. If there is a short circuit in the wiring, it might not blow a fuse, but it could cause whatever the hypothetical resistor is in to catch fire.

      Secondly, this scenario assumes the electronic ballasts are drawing enough current to keep the bulbs at normal brightness. Since the incandescents tell us that the voltage is low, that means the working bulbs are drawing proportionally more current than normal. You could be exceeding the safe current for the wiring. Normally, I'd say the fuse would prevent this, but given the obviously improvised nature of your wiring, that's not a certain thing. The CFLS could be drawing not enough current to exceed what the wiring can handle (because of the circuit breakers they can't) but they can certainly draw enough current to cause our hypothetical dimmer resistor to catch fire.

      The all flourescents scenario as you describe is not as inconsistent with this scenario as you might think. Unpredictable things happen when you connect non-linear devices in parallel with a non-constant power/current source. It could work like this: the most "eager" CFL drops its impedance until it is happy and lights up; the second most "eager" drops its impedance until it is likewise happy; thereafter the voltage has dropped so much across all the bulbs that the remaining two can't make it over the "hump".

      Assuming your description of the wiring is correct, your description of the scenario is inconclusive, but consistent with a series resister dimmer. That would be a really bad thing. In any case, magical, non-standard wiring is a about the stupidest thing you can do in a building. Plugging fluorescent lights on a bastardized dimming circuit is a close second.

      If anybody in charge of the physical plant had any sense, they'd get a licensed electrician down there immediately. If nobody has enough sense to do that, then you should call the risk management (insurance) people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  53. PWM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In many applications they use Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to dim an LED *and* to conserve power at approximately same brightness output. You can set the PWM for something like a 70% duty cycle (extending battery life significantly) without noticeable dimming. It should be easy to build a circuit into the LED driver which converts the dirty chopped output from SCR driven dimmer switches to drive/control the appropriate PWM signal for the LED's...

  54. not everybody's power comes from coal by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are a lot of places where the majority of power comes from nuclear and hydro.

    Yes, and both of those power sources use a lot of energy to build. Then for nuclear there's pollution from mining as well as the waste.

    Also, the real risk of CFLs is caused by the fact that any pollution from it is local and concentrated as a point source

    Over a period of years I replaced almost all of my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. As one burnt out I got a CFL to replace it. A point source of mercury is easier to handle than air born mercury. As for possibly breaking one, I try to use measures to reduce any possibility of breakage.

    Also, consider that the plumes from garbage dumps invading your water supply

    CFLs are supposed to be recycled and not thrown in the trash. Of course some people do throw them away, either because they don't care or because they don't know better. Even so, that's still less mercury in the environment than the amount of mercury that would be emitted to produce the power to light today's incandescent lights.

    Which is why I hope these LEDs, or others, that are good for area lighting come onto the market within a couple of years.

    trace mercury emitted into the atmosphere a hundred miles away from the city....

    Not all power plants are 100 miles away from the city. There's more than one power plant in South Bronx. NYC has 25 plants serving it. The first ones built by Con Edison, used the used steam to heat neighborhood buildings.

    Falcon

    1. Re:not everybody's power comes from coal by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I replaced my incandescants with CFLs one at a time too, and have been using them for ~ 10 years now. I've thrown three away in that time.

      Nobody I know of will take them for recycling, and I refuse to store garbage. There are a lot more toxic things in your house than a CFL with its minimal amount of mercury. Most all cleaning agents are incredibly toxic or they won't work. And these get poured down your drains every time you use them.

      Storing them doesn't solve the problem, it just puts it off.

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. CFLs by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.

    I too use CFLs. Like you I have 3 that burned out, however one lasted about 20 years. I don't know how long the others lasted. Also like you, I haven't disposed of them either. I put them in a room nobody uses in the packaging some of the CFLs I bought came in. When I find out where I'll take them in for recycling. I heard Home Depot was starting to accept them for recycling but I haven't seen my local store with a place to put them.

    Falcon

  57. clean alternative like nuclear by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nuclear power isn't clean.

    Falcon

    1. Re:clean alternative like nuclear by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Nuclear power ain't so new, and it ain't so clear." - Pogo

  58. Any home depot accepts any and all CFLs. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The Home Depot near me, less than 5 miles, does not a place to recycle CFLs. Unless it's hidden.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Any home depot accepts any and all CFLs. by scotch · · Score: 1

      Do they have any verbs?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
  59. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by Surt · · Score: 1

    Most light packaging lists lumens and watts these days. It's probably required by regulation, but even if not, who would buy unlabeled? You'd have to know you're probably getting crap if your bulb doesn't advertise its input and output.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  60. Retina Sear by camperdave · · Score: 1

    I have crappy globe shaped ones in my bathroom that start out, how shall I say... dungeoneque, and take a couple minutes before you'd say the room is lit.

    In the middle of the night it would be a blessing to start off dim and wax to full brightness. It saves the searing of the retinas that a full on bright would cause. The (normal) fluorescents in my bathroom have a tendency to go Flash-Flash-off-Flash-ON, which is not pleasant when nature decides to call at 3AM. Imagine those multi-flash anti-redeye camera flashes and you'll get the idea.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Retina Sear by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Informative

      A pointless tip for anyone:

      Don't you hate it, in the middle of the night you have to have a piss. So you get up and can quite easily make you way to the toilet just by ambient light. You flick the light switch in the WC and do your thing. You finish and then switch the light off. Instantly you are thrown into total darkness. You stumble your way back to bed, hitting your shins and stepping on as many things as possible on your way. What can you do?

      A simple solution is to close one eye before turning on the light. Keep this eye closed tight as long as the light is on. After you switch the light off, open your eye. You can still see quite well in the ambient light again with the eye you had closed as it did not adjust to the brightness of the light.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    2. Re:Retina Sear by camperdave · · Score: 1

      A simple solution is to close one eye before turning on the light. Keep this eye closed tight as long as the light is on. After you switch the light off, open your eye. You can still see quite well in the ambient light again with the eye you had closed as it did not adjust to the brightness of the light.

      ...Or you could use that eye-patch that you and your s.o. were using when playing pirates earlier that... um...

      uh...

      Um...

      Yeah. You could use an eye-patch like pirates used to wear. I saw it on Mythbusters... yeah, Mythbusters. They did this pirate theme show and pirates did not wear eye patches because they had lost their eye. They used to wear them so that they could keep one eye used to the dark. When they went below decks (where it's dark) they could remove the patch and see.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Retina Sear by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I bought 5W slow-starting bulbs for the kids room for precisely this reason. If a kid is awake in the night and you need a little bit of light for dealing with whatever the problem is (needs new diapers or something), then turning on the floodlights is a bad idea. It makes everyone fully awake, and is pretty close to physically painful for eyes accustomed to darkness.

      The 5W slow-starters give about the same light as a 20W incadescent when they're fully on, but they start out a lot less than that, and then gradually build up to that level over about 3 minutes.

      Perfect !

    4. Re:Retina Sear by jhfry · · Score: 1

      Or wear a patch... that's why the pirates wore them, all the moving from darkness below decks to the bright sun above.

      ARRRR....

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    5. Re:Retina Sear by fataugie · · Score: 1

      That's fine unless your SO sees you with your popeye impersonation....she'll think you're passing a kidney stone.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    6. Re:Retina Sear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of depth perception my make for an interesting tinkle.

  61. nuclear power by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Electricity is only generated from coal because we're not allowed to go nuclear. It's the ONLY viable option, it's perfectly safe, and it's clean as a whistle.

    Nuclear power is NOT clean.

    Falcon

    1. Re:nuclear power by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is.
      Please explain how it is not.

  62. Flickering LEDs by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz.

    That must be what's going on with those strings of LED Christmas lights. The flicker is very noticable, to me anyway. (I have always been sensitive to flicker. Did you ever ask someone whose CRT monitor was set to 60 Hz, "Doesn't that flicker bother you?" To which they reply, "What flicker?") Between the flicker and the bluish hue, the LED Christmas lights of 2008 are Not Acceptable to this consumer.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Flickering LEDs by adolf · · Score: 1

      I used to ask them that.

      Now, I just wait until they're not looking, and set the refresh rate up to 85Hz. Generally the timings are close enough to what the monitor expects that there aren't any big geometry problems. But if there are minor problems with screen size, I'll quickly adjust the monitor to compensate. Major problems (say, big-time keystone errors, or a bulbous shape) typically result in me changing down to some lower refresh rate (75Hz, 72Hz, etc) until the shape is by chance no longer horrible.

      It's the only way I can stand to work at a modern CRT, and I'm sick of explaining it to people who will never understand anyway.

      At least it is a decreasing problem with LCD screens having now become the rule instead of the exception. 60Hz on an LCD has no more or less flicker than any other frequency.

    2. Re:Flickering LEDs by paul248 · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sensitive to flicker, and I have seen LED christmas lights that do flicker, but there are some available that don't.

      In 2008, I picked up some "Holiday Time" brand icicle lights from Walmart; $10-ish per set of 70 lights. My kill-a-watt says they consume about 4W per set.

      I was not able to notice any flicker on these lights. There's a little white box in the middle of the strand which gets warm when running, so I assume there's some kind of full-wave rectifier.

      However, nowhere on the packaging does it say anything about being flickerless. Stupid marketers.

  63. "shrinkage" by jpl · · Score: 1

    hehe

  64. Dams are not environmentally clean by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.

    Dam's aren't renewable, or emissions free. They depend on water and water flow changes, even in the biggest rivers. And unless the lake created behind the dam is dredged periodically silt will pile up and eventually clog the intake manifolds or pipes. And because that lake increases the surface area of water more water will evaporate. Water vapor itself is a potent Greenhouse Gas, it's more potent than CO2. Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.

    However some of this can be reduced. A few years ago /. had an article about a type of hydro power that didn't require dams. Instead of blocking the flow of water a platform with blades like egg beaters is lowered into the water and the flowing water causes them to spin generating electricity. I haven't heard anything about it though, I wonder what happened.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Dams are not environmentally clean by msevior · · Score: 1

      Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.

      All true but doing full lifecycle calculations the CO2 emissions from Hydro are about as low any competing technology, though nuclear gives it a run from for its money in the right circumstances. (Rich Uranium ores and centrifugal enrichment).

      See (Donnes et al International Journal LifeCycle Analayis 10 (1) 10 - 23 (2005)) which calculates 5 gram CO2 per KWhr for centrifuge enrichment powering a PWR.

      I've seen Hydro emission rates as low as 3 gm CO2 per Kwhr but I don't have a reference handy.

    2. Re:Dams are not environmentally clean by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.

      Dam's aren't renewable, or emissions free. They depend on water and water flow changes, even in the biggest rivers.

      Sun heats water, water drops to ground, flows through generator.

      Are you a paid astroturfer? Why else would you pick such an obviously false position?
      Hydro not renewable... damn!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Dams are not environmentally clean by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.

      All true but doing full lifecycle calculations the CO2 emissions from Hydro are about as low any competing technology, though nuclear gives it a run from for its money in the right circumstances. (Rich Uranium ores and centrifugal enrichment).

      See (Donnes et al International Journal LifeCycle Analayis 10 (1) 10 - 23 (2005)) which calculates 5 gram CO2 per KWhr for centrifuge enrichment powering a PWR.

      Do those lifecycle analysis also factor in water vapor? Water vapor is more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. With the greater surface area of lakes behind dams, more water is allowed to evaporate. Then there's the methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent than CO2, generated. How is it generated? As the water of the lake behind the dam raises it submerges organic matter such as trees. As the submerged vegetation decomposes it generates methane. See "Do Hydroelectric Dams Cause Global Warming?". It says, a little snippet, "dams increase the amount of plant matter that decompose in anaerobic condtions and produce methane which is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide."

      From the The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in New Zealand:

      " 6.2.2 Aeration of dams and troughs"
      Aeration may also be used to enhance water quality in dams or troughs. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is essential to aquatic organisms in a dam. In waters with low oxygen levels, the production of 'swamp gases' such as hydrogen sulphide and methane is likely to occur, and phosphorus is more rapidly released from decomposing sediments. Increased phosphorus concentrations in water favour the growth of algae, including toxic blue-green species. In most dams, the decomposition of dead plants and animals uses up oxygen more rapidly than it can be absorbed from the atmosphere. Similarly, if the circulation of water in the dam is not complete, a layer of poorly-oxygenated (water) will develop at the bottom and noxious gases may be produced at depth."

      So without aeration not only could more greenhouse gases be produced but water quality could go down. Wildlife downstream from dam could suffer. See also the "Three Gorges Dam an 'environmental catastrophe'" in China.

    4. Re:Dams are not environmentally clean by msevior · · Score: 1

      Do those lifecycle analysis also factor in water vapor? Water vapor is more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. With the greater surface area of lakes behind dams, more water is allowed to evaporate. Then there's the methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent than CO2, generated.

      Most lifecycle analyses in the literature do not include methane production. My guess is that methane production from a dam is far too hard to estimate in a general case. I suppose each dam would need it's own specific investigation. Water vapour production is likewise not included.

    5. Re:Dams are not environmentally clean by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Most lifecycle analyses in the literature do not include methane production. My guess is that methane production from a dam is far too hard to estimate in a general case.

      That's how it should be, to get an accurate idea of how much methane would be produced you'd have to know how much vegetation was in the area that's going to be flooded. It's the dead plant material that's turned into methane. In a desert or other arid location there won't be many plants so there shouldn't be much if any methane produced. If a forest is flooded however there could be a lot of methane produced.

      Water vapour production is likewise not included.

      Like methane how much water vapour was produced would also depend the location of the dam. If it's in a mountainous area there will be less vapour than if a lot of flat land is flooded. Then the temperature will have a lot do to with it as well.

      I'll use two examples with different characteristics to illustrate these. Lake Powell, located near the Arizona, Utah border, was one of the lakes formed when the Colorado River was dammed. It was created when Glen Canyon Dam was constructed. The area is a flat desert. Because it's flat the lake has, er had but more on that later, a big surface area. So a lot of water is allowed to evaporate. However because it's a desert there wasn't much vegetation to produce methane.

      Three Gorges Dam in China on the other hand was built in some gorges, it is called Three Gorges Dam for a reason, in the mountains. Those gorges were flooded and the lakes formed don't have much surface area. However the gorges were woodlands, forests. So while there won't as much vapour, that vegetation can produce a lot of methane.

      Now for more on Lake Powell the Colorado River really. It used to flow to the Sea of Cortés AKA Gulf of California. By rights negotiated between the US and Mexico Mexico has the right to some of the water from the Colorado. However the river does not reach the gulf any more except when enough water is released from the dams because of the Colorado River Compact agreed to by 7 states. Each state was promised a certain amount of water from the river and most of these states are deserts. Take Nevada. Las Vegas, Nevada is in the middle of the desert and is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. However there's not enough water for people to drink never mind water their grass yards. Another of the states is California. The southern part of the state is also desert yet a lot of farms are located there in the Imperial Valley. Those farms would not exist without water from the river. Overall the water level in the river is dropping and soon there will not be any water. The Upper Basin of the river is in the state of Colorado in the Rockies. Though they get rain they can't "keep" a lot. If you've ever gardened you may know about rain catchment and retaining water. It's easy enough in good locations. For instance using cisterns to hold water. Ancient civilizations were using them in the deserts of the Middle East. Well to use cisterns in Colorado, even if it's only to hold rainwater from your roof, you have to have a permit. And they are hard to get.

      Falcon

  65. Until they get around the narrow bandwidth problem by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    I'm sticking with incandescents. Even if you pack several color LEDs together, you still get a light spectrum that sucks.

  66. Nuclear power is NOT clean. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is.
    Please explain how it is not.

    Let's see. Uranium mining which is usually done in indigenous communities, and who usually opposes [.doc] the mining, is dirty. The Navajo found about that. The nuclear power plants themselve require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Portland cement, which is used to make concrete, requires limestone to be heated to 1450C in a kiln. That takes a lot of energy. And like concrete steel requires a lot of energy as well. Then there's the waste. The amount of waste can be reduced if it's reprocessed however that makes the remaining waste even hotter. Reprocessing also leaves a lot of toxic chemicals. Lastly once a power plant has reached it's lifespan, the land isn't useful for much if anything. It might be possible to dispose of the waste by drilling into a subduction zone but no demonstration has been done showing it can safely be done.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Nuclear power is NOT clean. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc. Consider the power output of nuclear vs anything else.

      Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.

      Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
      This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.

      High yield material is used for large plants. Then it gets reused hand-me-down style to their little brothers. When it's no longer radioactive enough to be of any use, guess what - it's not too much of a problem. The Curie's died, sure, but they'd be ashamed at the fear that grips society, and disappointed that people are still so ignorant about radiation.

      What is the life span of a nuclear power plant? Why is that land not useful for anything? Are you saying it's contaminated and useless? That is false.

      Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.

      If you want to talk about a waste of materials, toxic chemicals, etc., look at all the efforts to go green. Solar power and electric/hybrid cars are the worst offenders. Those batteries, those PV cells, those CFLs, etc. all contain toxic shit, and all are harmful to the environment to create.
      One nuclear power plant would take the place of countless solar cells, would take the initial resources of far less, and would last far, far longer.

      There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.

      Safe.
      Cheap.
      Clean.
      Abundant.
      Not controlled by countries that hate us.

    2. Re:Nuclear power is NOT clean. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc.

      In one post I said dams also require a lot of concrete and steel. I said in another dams weren't clean either. Wind genies on the other had don't require nearly as much of either. Neither the genie nor the tower use much steel and no concrete. The pad does use both but not much of either. Check "Home Power magazine, many people erect their owe wind genies. Here's their Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide. I didn't check to see if it said anything about them but there are a number of turbines up to 5 megawatts in capacity. The CNet article "GE reshapes the future of wind power" has a quote saying 2 to 3 megawatt genies are the "most efficient and the best cost per kilowatt" by Stephane Renou "who manages research and development for General Electric's wind technology platform." Wind genies don't need to be cited in the middle of nowhere either. Here in Minnesota , as can be done elsewhere, produce farms such as corn farms have wind genies cited on them. This actually helps farmers, the pads for the genies don't take up much space yet the farmers get paid for how much electricity is produced. So far MN has 615 megawatts of wind power installed, California has 2,096 megawatts. And whereas it takes years to build a nuclear power plant wind genies can be mounted on erected towers in months if not weeks. Erect 10 5 megawatt genies a month and you add 600 megawatts a year. Say it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in that tyme enough wind genies can be erected to generate 3 gigawatts. The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station was the last nuclear power plant to go online in the US. Construction started in 1973 and wasn't finished until 1996. It took more than 30 years yet it's capacity is only 1,167 megawatts. Enough wind genies can be erected within 2 years to generate the same amount of electricity. Check out T Boone Pickens' Picken's Plan. While I don't know much about it myself, I've been following alternative energy some 30 years. The Rocky Mountains alone, which the plan considers, has enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. However as the Wind Atlas shows there are plenty of other states with abundant wind power.

      Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.

      Oh really? What happens to the tailings? Do they disappear? The Navajo have nothing to worry about? Neither do any of the other indigenous people on who's land uranium is mined?

      Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
      This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.

      And where are these plants? Can you show me one?

      Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.

      Claimed fine by whom? Certainly not by Belarus. Oh but I guess the Zone of alienation means nothing.

      There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.

      Okay then, let Wall Street pay for them. They won't, unless they get more massive subsidies. Give alternative sources of energy as much in subsidies as coal and nuclear power gets and I be

    3. Re:Nuclear power is NOT clean. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Look, if you don't know about the small nuclear reactors being developed by companies like Fuji and Toshiba, you obviously aren't giving nuclear power any real thought.

      You ask where they are, yet you espouse the very bullshit that has kept ALL nuclear projects out of the US for decades. Might as well ask "why are you hitting yourself?".

      Why do you think that last reactor took 30 fucking years? (Hint: It's the fear mongering from people like you.)

      Wind power is inefficient in terms of resources in per energy out when compared to nuclear. They require constant maintenance, and constant lubrication (oil!). They can be deployed quickly, sure, that's because they're already made. The small nuclear power plants being developed and tested (which you simply refuse to acknowledge) have the same advantage. They have the added advantage of being able to be placed just about anywhere, and being able to decentralize (electrical infrastructure) the neighborhood they're in.

      Pro tip: The small, decentralized nuclear reactors are being developed by companies from and the government of the only country to ever suffer nuclear warfare. If any nation could be understandably afraid the nuclear boogeyman, it's Japan.

      For your other "points":

      From your own shitipedia:

      "As mining techniques and the price of minerals improve, it is not unusual for tailings to be reprocessed using new methods, or more thoroughly with old methods, to recover additional minerals. Yesterday's tails can be tomorrow's resource".

      "The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[5] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity."

      Why would you make Wall Street pay for anything? It's something the government should be paying for. Use some of the $700,000,000,000 for nuclear power, not bailing out the crooks.

    4. Re:Nuclear power is NOT clean. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You ask where they are, yet you espouse the very bullshit that has kept ALL nuclear projects out of the US for decades

      And by focusing on nuclear power you ignore other sources of power, cleaner power.

      Why do you think that last reactor took 30 fucking years?

      Solar collectors and wind generators can be built faster than nuclear power plants. Even if a gigawatt nuclear power plant can be built in 5 years, in that tyme more wind genies can be erected. Erect 20 5 megawatt wind genies a month and in 5 years you'll add 6 gigawatts of capacity. In 2007 wind power generated almost 10% of Spain's electricity. If I had the space, I live in a city so I don't, I could erect a wind genie that would supply my electrical needs within a month. I could however mount PVs that would provide some power, if I owned and didn't rent. Hopefully that will change in a few years, the apartment building I live in my sister owns but when I can qualify for the mortgage she plans to sell it to me.

      The small nuclear power plants being developed and tested (which you simply refuse to acknowledge) have the same advantage.

      I don't refuse to acknowledge them, I asked where they are. I'll also ask if they are small enough to fit in my basement?

      Why would you make Wall Street pay for anything? It's something the government should be paying for. Use some of the $700,000,000,000 for nuclear power, not bailing out the crooks.

      Why? Because it's not government's job. I don't believe in communism or socialism. That $700,000,000,000 never should have been given away to begin with. Though people can be irrational individuals are better at deciding what they will spend their money on than government is.

      Falcon

  67. Cyclops whizzing by quist · · Score: 1

    One caveat... you best have good muscle memory to line up ole one eye Willy--lack of stereo vision hampers rangefinding.

  68. LEDs are fine by Grocks · · Score: 1

    LEDs are very nice for reading. They were invented by Einstein, IIRC, and are finally just about ready to make the big time. CFLs are like old steam locomotives. The future is LED.

  69. Re:Cyclops whizzing by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    Ever fired a rifle? I don't suppose you used both eyes to line that up, and you don't have gravity pointing the general direction either.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  70. CFLs still more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEDs have not yet matched the output efficiency of CFLs. To produce the same lumens, it takes more power.

    Eventually LEDs will become more efficient than CFLs, but making them cheaply is not solving the issue.

  71. Re:What about MERCURY? The horror, the HORROR! by aqk · · Score: 0

    Following is an email I sent in to a radio show about a year ago, after they had a discussion on the "dangers" of CFL mercury.
    This TRULY IS A HORROR STORY!
    - -

    Thanx Mike, for that pertinent, and timely warning on Monday's Daybreak about those extremely dangerous CFL bulbs .
    Here is my own brief story about a CFL bulb that broke in my house, and the hell that ensued. - About two weeks ago, one of my cats, "Tigger", knocked over a small table lamp containing a CFL bulb, which subsequently smashed.

    I quickly evacuated the house, except for poor Tigger who had broken the toxic bulb.

    We made sure that the house was sealed- all doors and windows closed - and I then dialed 9-1-1.
    Within an hour or so ( I was amazed at the quick response!), a group of professionally trained "Hazardous Materials" (HazMat) specialists had been dispatched from Health Canada, and arrived on my property in a large white step-van. Yes, it even had a yellow flashing light! Maybe two- I don't remember. Seems exciting, huh? The house was quickly cordoned off with those yellow ribbons that you see on TV all the time. Men in exotic Hazmat suits with specail breathing devices began to file into the house and professionally seal all the windows and doors. We were warned that the house would be "off-limits" while it was disinfected of the extremely poisonous Mercury. We gratefully spent two nights at a friend's house half a mile down the road. The Hazmat team set upon clearing the house of any residual Mercury. A day or two later, they finally said that the house was safe to re-enter. Alas, the poor cat had been "put down" by the Health Canada team. I told them that I would bury Tigger in the flower garden, but they refused to permit this. I was told that the cat was now considered toxic waste, and would have to be removed to a special waste site somewhere in Ungava. I was heartbroken, but did not question this.

    By now, you are probably suspecting that there seems to be something terribly amiss in this story.
    Well!
    I'm sorry but some of the above facts must be set straight.
    Yes, Tigger did indeed knock over the lamp and break the CFL bulb.
    But after this incident, things actually happened somewhat differently than reported above:

    I quickly.. no, slowly- procured from the cellar stairs (while swearing at the cat under my breathe,) a device commonly referred to as a "dustpan". The hazardous broken glass was then swept into it with a special Hazmat tool known as a "brush". Once all the glass was thusly secured, it was dumped surreptitiously into the very small household garbage can. (hey- we recycle and compost extensively) And any residual glass shards were then eradicated with the standard household Vacuum cleaner.
    No droplets of the dreaded toxic Mercury were ever detected (read further below)

    The cat, (Tigger) I might add, watched silently from across the room, perhaps realizing he had committed a faux-pas (or is that a Fax-paws?.) And!

    So far, I am ahppy to report that we are all still alive and seemingly healthy. Including the miscreant Tigger.
    I am fairly certain Tigger is still alive, due to his jumping mightily onto my chest (OOF! be still, my sleeping heart!) at 7AM this morning, and then staring boldly into my face and crying to let him outside.

    Of course, when he jumped on me, I woke up, turned on the radio, and...
    Guess what?
    Heard you discussing the above CFL disposal conundrum with some airhead from Heath Canada: "Hey, Mike, I hear what you're saying", "Ok, Mike, Like I know where you're coming from!", "I'm glad you asked me that question, Mike!" etc etc Nice to have a sinecure,huh?

    Anyhow this is my testimony that, somehow, both the cat and I survived this terrible accident. Gosh, there is hope for modern Canadian 21st humanity yet, in spite of these worrisome CFL incidents.
    An addendum:

    HALF a century ago (no, perhaps even more), as high schoo

  72. Currently too expensive for home LED lighting by Cinnaman · · Score: 1

    I had wondered why LEDs were so expensive, for example Acriche LEDs that can be run directly off 240/110V AC were about $US 40 the last time I checked.
    I guess they're cheap enough for torches (which translates as 'flashlights' for you American geeks who don't know about the outside world) but lighting a home is still something for the extreme enthusiast, especially as all the projects I've read about use an AC-DC converter for every individual array (eg. kitchen, bathroom, front porch etc.). Would take many years to pay off I imagine.

  73. Power company rates by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    I would like to save power as much as the next guy. But we all know that the power company would make up for the lost revenue by simply raising rates. It seems that the more we conserve, the more they arbitrarily raise rates to keep the stockholders happy, NOT the paying customer.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  74. Just as long as old incandescents remain by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    A nice bulb which doesn't spit out a mess of EM garbage and which doesn't add mercury to the local landfill like the much over-hyped CFL's which are guilty on both counts.

    Though, I must say, CFL's have come a long way wrt color quality. Though. . , they still feel sort of creepy. --I like what LED technology has done for flashlights, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy living under something which feels like moonlight. I think you need some ambient heat in order to feel comfortable. Sun and Fire have a long love affair with the Human body and its sense organs. When the heat goes out of that relationship, what are you left with?

    Call me a sentimentalist.

    Sadly, it seems to be just a matter of time before governments outlaw incandescent bulbs. I just love the government; always working hard to serve the people the best way it knows how. You can pretty much bet that whenever governments and industry team up to hard-sell any legislation, you're being screwed in some way not immediately obvious.

    -FL

  75. Re:While we're talking about watt ambiguity... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Because your electric bill is for watt hours (actually kilowatt hours). Your toaster, refrigerator, etc are all measured in watts.

    Light bulbs should also have brightness measurements, I agree. But if you only went by lumens or candelas, incandescant bulbs would be best. As it is, most of us didn't get millions of dollars in performance bonuses for running a company into the ground and thus have to watch our spending.

  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. mercury by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Nobody I know of will take them for recycling, and I refuse to store garbage.

    Well as I said, the room is largely unused, though I hope to set up a darkroom in it.

    Most all cleaning agents are incredibly toxic or they won't work.

    I don't use most cleaning agents. Generally I use baking soda, borax, citrus fruits, hydrogen peroxide bleach, and vinegar. And they work fine. For dishes and laundry I use organic cleaners. The one thing I use that is dangerous is Diatomaceous earth.

    Falcon

  78. That's great, but what about now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But... Is there currently a dimmable LED bulb that effectively replaces a 100 watt A19?