A Tale of Two Tests: Why Energy Star LED Light Bulbs Are a Rare Breed

cylonlover writes "Just over a week ago Gizmag reported that Philips' 22 W LED light bulb, designed as a like-for-like replacement of a 100-W incandescent light bulb, was the first LED bulb of its type to receive the stamp of approval from Energy Star. But looking at the Energy Star requirements reported by Philips in its press release, it seemed a little strange that Philips' product is the only one to have been certified – given that products long on the market appear, at face value, to meet those requirements. Since then, Gizmag has spoken to LED light bulb makers Switch Lighting and other industry players to find out why they're apparently playing catch-up."

Comments

Certifications

[Anonymous Coward]

All certifications, at some level, are scams.

Every single one.

Re:Certifications

[firex726]

Yea, fuck those ROHS, UL, and FCC certifications!

Re:Certifications

[Khyber]

*ANY* lamp will emit IR. That's a natural side-effect of thermodynamics.

Whether or not the frequency pulses will trigger your TV or not is a different story.

Re:Certifications

[Anonymous Coward]

So am I to assume you don't wear a DOT or Schnell approved helmet when you ride a motorcycle? Nor submit your vehicle(s) to the regular inspections required by law in most places? Thus, no independent verification of working brakes, signals, safety features like seat belts, safety glass windshields and zero holes in the bodywork that would allow carbon monoxide into the cabin space?

Likewise, do you prefer to go to Discount "Dr" Dan the barber-surgeon for your health care needs rather than a member in good standing of your local college of physicians and surgeons? After all, a medical degree and regular peer review of your patient outcomes to ensure a high standard of care are just another form of certification and therefore, in your opinion, scams.

In my view, the certifications that are scams are the ones that allow someone to claim to be certified even when they have failed to meet the standards associated with that test, provided they pay the necessary fees. The other problem with some certifications is that they are wrongly touted or believed by others as meaning more than they actually do. Example: The CompTIA A+ computer certification (full disclosure, I have it) does not mean you are a qualified computer technician, though many people assume it does. It only means that the holder, at time of certificate issue, had a certain minimal set of computer knowledge which CompTIA member companies agree is the foundation of a computer technicians training. Similarly, a degree in engineering does not mean one os ready to be an engineer. (a fact which engineering associations themselves stress with their requirement of lengthy on-the-job training and internship before your allowed to wear the Iron Ring) A degree in engineering only means you have the necessary knowledge "tools" to become an engineer.

TL;DR version: certification of a persons skills are the equivalent of a mechanics tools. Certification of products or services does not mean the thing in question is the best available, nor that it is suited for your application. It only means that it has met certain minimal standards, a fact which many forget.

Radial distribution should not be a requirement

[Skapare]

"Also companies fall out because they don't have the full light distribution required. For example, with an 'A lamp,' you have to have, to get the full Energy Star standard, 170 degrees of radial flux or light distribution all around the product at generally the same intensity all the way around," he added.

This is just stupid. The light distribution needed should be a matter of application. Efficient lighting also means not wasting light in directions that do not need to be illuminated. Instead of the 170 degree standard, the bulb should be quantified to what degree of lighting coverage it does achieve, and must be marketed accurately.

Re:Radial distribution should not be a requirement

[dywolf]

its supposed to replace an incandescent bulb, which does this by default without any special design. such bulds when they need directed typically put in a light ficture with a reflector of some sort. the idea is to make a simple drop in replacement that doesnt require a compelte design shift of the entire light fixture industry.

Re:Radial distribution should not be a requirement

[Will.Woodhull]

This is just stupid....

Agreed. Something here is stupid.

...The light distribution needed should be a matter of application. Efficient lighting also means not wasting light in directions that do not need to be illuminated. Instead of the 170 degree standard, the bulb should be quantified to what degree of lighting coverage it does achieve, and must be marketed accurately.

This is done already. When an application does not need the 170 degree (or greater) field of a Type A (general use) bulb, then one should consider using a Type R, Type PAR, or one of the other recognized bulb types. Choosing the wrong bulb for the application is definitely stupid.

TFA limits its discussion to Type A, which is appropriate for its purpose. It clearly says it is talking about Type A, although I can see that a speed reader might just jump right over that significant detail without noticing it. It is saying that in the Energy Star system, the omni-directional nature of Type A bulbs is now quantified (before LED bulbs there was no pressing need to do that).

Learn to read critically, people. There is more to good reading than just getting through an article in record time. Identifying significant details is also important, and in technical (versus pleasure) material, it is often critical. A good technical writer covers the subject in as few words as possible, which means every word is significant. If he says he is talking about Type A, then there is the clear implication that there are other categories that any reader with a working brain could google for if they needed to know more.

Re:Avoid CFL mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

The leading cause of death for CFLs is heat. CFLs last their rated lifetime (and often much longer) when they're used in well-ventilated fixtures. They die quickly when they're mounted upside down in fixtures that trap the heat around the base of the bulb.

Re:Avoid CFL mistakes

[muhula]

Exactly -- I'm looking for a consistent quality ACROSS brands. Certification should mean that el cheapo brand performs well, and that I don't need to do my own test to see which brands work better or to pay more for a more expensive brand because it might work better

Re:Why light bulb form factor?

[T-Bone-T]

All my fixtures are designed for light bulbs and they will certainly outlive any bulb. That's a pretty good reason for me.

Re:Still waiting

[Grizzley9]

To get the Energy Star certification, the bulbs need to have a projected lifetime of 25000 on-hours (where lifetime means the bulb can emit no less than 70% of its rated light output during that time). If there's going to be planned obsolescence, it's going to be from better bulbs replacing them even though they're still working.

As it is with CFL's it will likely be true with LED's. Sure the bulb will last that long or meet those requirements. The cheap electronics controlling it though is another story and is the reason many of my CFL's from various brands have failed. YMMV.

Re:Dropped phone = engineered failure

[MightyYar]

Well, yes and no. It's not "engineered to break" - it's engineered to be small and compact. That it happens to be susceptible to drops is an engineering tradeoff, not a design goal. There are rugged phones on the market, but they make up a small niche because they are bulky and awkward, or at the least, expensive compared to more dainty devices.