A Tale of Two Tests: Why Energy Star LED Light Bulbs Are a Rare Breed 314
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."
Certifications (Score:2, Insightful)
All certifications, at some level, are scams.
Every single one.
Re:Certifications (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, fuck those ROHS, UL, and FCC certifications!
Re:Certifications (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, RoHS is most certainly a scam. The net effect on the environment has been horrible. Rather than the electronics manufacturers engineering in planned obsolecense, the EU did with RoHS.The environmental impact is literally an unmitigated disaster in parts of China. The cost of aerospace grade components has increased substantially (yes, we have an RoHS exemption for aerospace applications; tin whiskers are a stupid cause of death) and we've got a different set of more toxic metals accumulating in the benthic muck and getting "recycled" with 3rd world environmental standards. What a fucking win for the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather than the electronics manufacturers engineering in planned obsolecense
There is no reason to "engineer in" obsolecense. Mobile tech is moving so quickly that things become obsolete all by themselves. And I'd wager that the average smartphone meets it's maker in a drop or splash, not from a bad solder connection.
Re:Dropped phone = engineered failure (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's licensing... which is a different thing. Professional licensing is professionals looking at another professional and making sure they are competent, and it's a lot different than some organization slapping down a test.
At some point most of these certs that get a stamp put on a package require money to be exchanged for nothing. Some are more useful than others (certainly UL has some worth), but there is a lot of money changing hands for very little with most of these.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'd pay extra for that. Do you have a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Some current CFL's do it just fine on the amateur radio bands [google.com]. Admittedly it seems that it's gotten better lately, but I remember some early ones that were so noisy RF-wise I could just about hear them in my fillings.
Re:Certifications (Score:4, Insightful)
*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: (Score:3)
There was a proposed lightbulb a few years ago, using some sort of technology that would have generated a signal that would wipe out every Wifi signal for a block.
I think they made a TV show about it. http://www.hulu.com/revolution [hulu.com]
Re: LED Bulb interference (Score:3, Informative)
I read about that awhile back and forgot it, then a month or so later I installed a couple of LED bulbs in a room of my house close to my TV antenna... and I lost a channel in the VHF band.
Later on I remembered about the LED bulb RF emission problem, and I realized that my TV reception was impacted negatively by the LE
Re: (Score:2)
I always wished I could be an ISO9000 certifier. Guy came in for 2 days. Reviewed a bunch of documents. Got a $200 meal on us and some very expensive (and long) business lunches.
Re: (Score:3)
But it might help to get the certification.
tl;dr: 9 month test required + uniform radial flux (Score:5, Informative)
.
I use "half-sphere" to mean ($2 \times \pi $) steradians [wikipedia.org], and you can pretty much visual what I mean by a half-sphere. So I guess an "A-bulb" has to radiate light almost uniformly over 8/9-ths of that solid angle [wikipedia.org].
.
"Radiant Flux" [wikipedia.org] is the term used to describe the radiant power : the measure of the total power of electromagnetic radiation (including infrared, ultraviolet, and visible light). The power may be the total emitted from a source, or the total landing on a particular surface. So neither "radial flux" nor "radiant flux" makes sense in that article. Wrong units either way. Spatial distribution of radiated light would be measured in steradians.
Re: (Score:2)
I think by "radial flux" they meant uncollimated light. At least that's my first take when I read it.
uncollimated light vs. collimated light (Score:3)
Re:uncollimated light vs. collimated light (Score:5, Funny)
Could we contain this radiant flux for later use, in some sort of storage device? I'm thinking of something much like a capacitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Could we contain this radiant flux for later use, in some sort of storage device? I'm thinking of something much like a capacitor.
Well played, Mr. Brown... well played...
Re: (Score:3)
No, not at all :)
However, I am an amateur radio operator, so I think about electromagnetic wave behavior more than the average joe. I might be a bit "beyond" the average ham as well, in that I consider light and radio to be the same thing (because it is) governed by the same behaviors.
Re: 9 month test required + uniform radial flux (Score:5, Informative)
The actual Energy Star requirements [energystar.gov] are for "Luminous Intensity Distribution," and call for:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ES certification makes ZERO sense to those of us with real optoelectronics experience, for both human and horticultural lighting.
Energy Star can't even use photon flux density, the REAL SI unit.
The interpretation makes almost no sense given the totally differing methods various semiconductor manufacturers have.
And if you worked in this industry like I do, you'd see that.
It's a purely pay-for-play scam based upon the worst 'scientific' measurements ever conceived.
Speaking as a horticultural and interior
Re: 9 month test required + uniform radial flux (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking as a horticultural and interior lighting research director.
Now that's a pretty impressive euphemism for a marijuana grower.
Re: (Score:3)
FTA:
There is no fee for applying for Energy Star certification, nor for using the label.
I have no such optoelectronics experience, but I am as skeptical and cynical as the next guy and curious about where the "pay-for-play" aspect comes in.
Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been using the same ones for 11 years, one takes longer to start these days, but none have died. Perhaps they're die when a house has a bad power source?
Re: (Score:2)
We have a pair of circular CFLs that were in the living room of one house for atleast 10 years, and have been working in the kitchen of our other house (we moved) for the last 16.
One of them does take quite a bit sometime to blink on, but I'm told that you can replace the starter in them easily, and that the remainder of the bulb is essentially fine.
Re: (Score:2)
One of them does take quite a bit sometime to blink on, but I'm told that you can replace the starter in them easily, and that the remainder of the bulb is essentially fine.
Yes. It's a small capsule which you turn to release it, and replace with a similar type.
The all-in-one market CFLs sadly don't have this option...
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CFLs were sold to the public as straight replacements for incandescents... which work just fine in those (huge numbers of already installed) "upside-down" fixtures.
So do CFLs. GP was saying they don't meet the CFL rated lifetime under those conditions, CFLs will still last a hell of a lot longer than incandescent even when placed in a fixture that traps the heat around the base of the bulb.
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
Anecdotal evidence is just that. I've used them all through my house and bought different qualities. I find that in general they either stop working in the first two months or keep working through several years. My power supply is very good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As someone else pointed out, from the article:
How is that a scam?
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:5, Funny)
Just like hard drives!
Re: (Score:3)
I find that in general they either stop working in the first two months or keep working through several years.
That's the bathtub curve... it sounds like there is some Quality Assurance problems by the manufacturer(s).
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between the "instant on" CFLs and the normal kind. The instant-on kind had a really bad track record for a while (and maybe still do). I had 2 actually explode, raining down in a shower of glass fragments, and never had the expected life out of one (tried several brands), while the normal kind have been fine IME.
Looking forward to the switch to LED bulbs where at least they'll fail more gracefully, and might eventually even give a good color.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky bastard. There are some in my house that are that old, but some only last 6 months. Outdoors, lifetimes are embarrassing. There is a GE bulb that I am having success with outdoors, probably because the bulb has a plastic cover over the coiled CFL bulb. The problem is that when I buy them at Target, they aren't built in the same place and don't say that they are outdoor rated. Buy the "same" bulb at Walgreens and it is outdoor rated and manufactured in a different place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've been using the same ones for 11 years, one takes longer to start these days, but none have died. Perhaps they're die when a house has a bad power source?
Yes, you need a pretty clean power supply to get maximum life out of them. And going along with that, the fixture it's placed in needs to not be a complete piece of shit. Also, they have a fairly narrow optimal temperature range compared to an incandescent bulb- running them in very cold environments (such as the one above my porch where the temp drops into the -20(F) range for weeks during the winter) will drastically reduce the lifespan.
I'm all in favor of low-energy consumption, but when you look at the
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
It has an enormous lot to do with the quality of the power supply components and how hot the bulb gets (this is also true of LEDs). Comment on TFA mentions this -- electrolytic capacitors have a lifetime that is very sensitive to heat, and can be quite short.
The main flaw with these energy star standards is that they too heavily weight towards backwards compatibility -- if, say, someone came up with a new way of packaging LEDs into new construction, where the lights and the power supplies were decoupled (one power supply, many little lights), the energy star standard would be simply unable to evaluate it -- it's not a "100W replacement", it doesn't fit into a standard fixture, etc. And there's good technical reasons to do it that way -- spreading out the lights simplifies the cooling, getting the power supply away from the lights helps with keeping those components cool, etc.
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:4, Informative)
"and the heat output from individual LEDs is so low"
Maybe from your cheap-ass tail-thru LEDs.
You try powering a 1w SMD-LED without any thermal consideration.
You'll be lucky to get 500 hours of operating time out of it. It will slag itself.
Just saying since I'm working with 15w LEDs in a 7mm x 7mm package, and those can slag themselves within a few SECONDS without proper thermal consideration.
The myth of LEDs don't emit heat is bullshit. HPS is about 20% efficient in energy in/light out. LED at the max is 40% in single wavelengths currently.
So the reality is you get a 400w LED, you might emit 25% less heat vs an equivalent power HPS, but you're still dumping more than 200w of heat out into the air/localized fixture.
Speaking as an LED light manufacturer and current leading tester of the MK-R and XP-G2 LEDs from Cree. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using the same ones for 11 years, one takes longer to start these days, but none have died. Perhaps they're die when a house has a bad power source?
The quality of CFLs seems (or at least, seemed a few years ago) very variable.
A good number of years ago I made an off-hand remark to a tree-hugger friend of mine (who was perpetually going on about how great they are) that when I'd tried CFLs a few years previously, I found them extremely slow to start and had therefore switched back to incandescents. He informed me that this was no longer the case so long as I bought good quality bulbs.
So I went out and bought a pair of new bulbs - rather than the normal
Re: (Score:2)
On/Off cycles are killers of CFLs (and incandescents).
The first LED bulbs in my house went into the bathroom.
Re: (Score:2)
among other problems
When one of the CFL's broke in my kids room, I followed the EPA rules [epa.gov] to clean it up. What a pain.
So I bought a bunch of no-name LED bulbs on Amazon and although the lighting is a little harsh (as many others have noted), it's a good light to read by (1000+ luments/75 W equivalent) and a lampshade helps (a lot).
Now I am just waiting for someone to sell a reasonably powerful G16.5 base led (like 300+ lumens/25-40 W equivalent) so that I can replace the remaining incandescents left i
Re:Avoid CFL mistakes (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, this problem was alluded to in the article in explaining why this certification was so stringent.
My experience with them is very mixed. Even within brand tier it's been kind of mixed. My best experience for lifespan was from Sylvania, but second-worst was GE. Second-best was Commercial Electric (which I think is now known as nVision) and worst was Lights of America. The quality of CFLs has been very uneven and difficult to predict.
The worst experience was from when we moved into our current home ten years ago and promptly deployed CFLs en masse throughout the house. Of the Lights of America CFLs we bought at the time (about a dozen of them), two of them lived past the first month. Those two are still in service. Of the other ten, we took them back on warranty, and replaced the first few with like, but when they went out on us as well, we started getting refunds and buying another brand.
The best experience, was for two Sylvania CFLs purchased in 1994 when they cost around $20. One died last year when the fixture it was in fell over and broke the envelope. The other one had met a similar fate some years before. I felt that they didn't owe me anything.
Re: (Score:3)
worst was Lights of America
Seconding this opinion, Lights of America definitely had some lifespan problems with their CFL bulbs. I've heard claims that (at least in some models) their bulbs were using preheat-type electrodes in Instant Start mode.
On the other hands, I have had great results from Sylvania (one PAR38 fixture in the main hallway lasted ~11 years in heavy use, several hours every day); Philips has also been pretty reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad to see energy star mean something. Most of the time it means fuck-all. On an appliance or your computer or even your monitor it only means that the device has automatic power saving features.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers don't know anything of any type.
FTFY.
Being should pay for ignorance, this helps do that.
like for like replacement wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate changing light bulbs, and frankly don't care if the LEDs cost a lot. I'd pay more just to not have to change light bulbs. I bought a bunch of the Philips 75W equivalents. While they provide the same intensity of light, the spectrum is considerably different, and very noticeable. The LED casts a cold spectrum that to my eyes is just a yellowish version of what florescent light emits. In the middle of the room, in ceiling cans, it looks fine. But one the side when it casts against walls or shelving, it really makes everything look cold.
One other odd fact, LEDs do still throw off a lot of heat, and they take much longer to cool down than incandescent lights.
Philips L-Prize (Score:2)
They're harder to find than the normal "AmbientLED" ones, but the Philips L-Prize bulb has a CRI of 92 instead of the ~80 of most LED bulbs. Much more accurate colour spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
They give off the same spectrum as incandesce
I don't think that is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the IR? It's just the visible light that really matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... I mean, the ideal is just the visible section of a black-body radiation curve. I just don't know how that can happen. If Philips has pulled this off, then WOW!
Re:like for like replacement wrong (Score:5, Informative)
They haven't. Best Philips I could find, I think, had a CRI around 90; most are in the 80s (where 100 is blackbody for the rated color temp).
I have some Sylvania Par20s with a 95CRI and at full power they are not only as bright as 50W halogen PARs but very, very close to the same color (I think they're 2900K, vs 2800ish for incandescent halogens). Best price I could find was $34/ea, but they're great - and dimmable. At dim, though, they're goofy looking because the light temp doesn't change, but I can live with that. I had one of 13 fail within 2 weeks of installation, and I'm still waiting (3 weeks later) for a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I'm renovating a room and so I'm considering LEDs back there.
At dim, though, they're goofy looking because the light temp doesn't change
Yes, it would be great if they dimmed the reds less than the other colors to simulate a warm, dimmed room. I'm considering installing 3-color indirect lighting and trying to rig up a controller myself to make a pleasing dim color.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably an approximation of that curve. I don't see why that wouldn't be possible, although I admit I don't know all that much about LED engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Their spectrum is still very spiky, though not anywhere near as bad as CFLs. And who knows? Maybe people like spikes in certain places? GE sells those blue-tinted bulbs that some people seem to prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Their spectrum is still very spiky, though not anywhere near as bad as CFLs. And who knows? Maybe people like spikes in certain places? GE sells those blue-tinted bulbs that some people seem to prefer.
Shouldn't the spectrum of LED bulbs be similar to CFLs? Afterall, they both work by shining UV on phosphors and having the phosphors reradiate it into the visible spectrum...
Re: (Score:2)
An LED bulb can be tuned to give off any spectrum you want by using multiple chips, although some spectra can be quite expensive to produce, even by LED standards.
Re: (Score:2)
I use these all around my house. They are great, but don't work with dimmers.
They also work well outdoors in pretty extreme weather (-40 to +40)
Re: (Score:2)
Radial distribution should not be a requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Right. Not mention there are already different types of bulbs for other applications, such as flood and spot. Presumably those have different requirements than 'lamps'.
Re: (Score:2)
Intentionally replacing an incandescent bulb is still a design decision. Part of the waste of incandescent is the wide radiation pattern. That's why they do make spot light variations. And they should make LEDs like that, too. But with LEDs, it's easier to make spot lights.
Re:Radial distribution should not be a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Bulb "types" are still made around what incandescent happens to be. LEDs do not fit well into these models as the technology is different. The very same shape can do a variety of radiation angles in LED that incandescent could never do.
We need to be encouraging people to use, and manufacturers to make, bulbs that are more efficiently used. Dictating a radiation angle as part of efficiency is not the right way. Saying a given LED is equivalent to a Type A incandescent bulb just gets people to do things i
Re: (Score:2)
LED replacements for non-omnidirectional bulbs, like the common PAR floodlight bulbs, have their own requirements.
The requirement only applies to "lamps intended to replace existing standard electric lamps," and it's there to make sure an LED re
Re: (Score:2)
Why light bulb form factor? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are investing in a light source that will not need replacement for a decade then why, exactly, do you care so much about it being shaped like a light bulb?
LEDs don't like heat. Packing the equivalent of a 100W incandescent in a shape that pretty much minimized surface are to volume ratio is a very bad idea for heat dissipation.
LED light panels [google.com] make much more sense.
Re:Why light bulb form factor? (Score:4, Insightful)
All my fixtures are designed for light bulbs and they will certainly outlive any bulb. That's a pretty good reason for me.
Re: (Score:3)
But why does that have to remain the standard? You can get leds in much more varied and interesting shapes. Why should we stick to bulbs?
Re: (Score:2)
Because standards tell you that something will work and the current standard distributes light in a way that is useful in most cases. If you want to deviate from the standard and get some LED bulbs in interesting shapes, go ahead. I'm sure it will look great but hopefully the bulbs you use are somewhat common in case you need to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because standards tell you that something will work and the current standard distributes light in a way that is useful in most cases.
Not really. That's why there are so many fixtures that try to send the light in one particular direction (often wasting half of the light), try to shade it or modify it in some other way. Almost nobody likes a bare light bulb.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you are doing a new build or renovation. Some of us are stuck with old houses and old fixtures.
I'm slowly renovating an older house, and I'm looking into stringing low-voltage wiring to support LED lights without needing a power converter in every fixture or unit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you are doing a new build or renovation. Some of us are stuck with old houses and old fixtures.
I'm slowly renovating an older house, and I'm looking into stringing low-voltage wiring to support LED lights without needing a power converter in every fixture or unit.
Yeah, next month I'm moving into a new place and each bedroom will have a fully wired junction box in the middle of the ceiling. I have to provide the fixture.
I'm looking at LED fixtures and finding any useful information online is proving to be difficult. I see a lot of no-name Chinese stuff and I have no idea if it is good or if it is junk.
I see various stuff from names I recognize, such as Philips, but then you are looking at ~$500. I can buy a standard fixture and some LED bulbs for less than $100.
Re:Why light bulb form factor? (Score:5, Informative)
Because
(1) you don't have to pay an electrician to remove and reinstall a lamp, but you do a fixture
(2) you don't disrupt the flow of business and it takes a shorter time to re-lamp than replace a fixture
(3) if you find that the LED sucks, you can go back to what you know works
(4) In 10 years, when one (or more) of the 30 year life fixtures dies and they don't make that model any more, I can replace a lamp and the fixture will still look the same. If I have to replace a fixture, then I have an oddball looking spot in my ceiling. Not everything is a warehouse where aesthetics mean nothing.
Oh, and there are a good number of older consumer fixtures which either (a) anticipate a certain light pattern or (b) actually use the lamp as the structure to hold the shade. I you think it's hard to convince people to buy a $20 lamp instead of a $1 one, it's even harder to get them to buy a new $60 fixture to put it in.
there are other options (Score:3)
You can buy rebranded Cree CR6 fixtures at Home Depot. These replace standard 6" ceiling pot fixtures, but rather than use a bulb shape they actually replace the bulb and ceiling trim too. This lets them put the LEDs on a flat circuit board and also lets them extend some of the heat sink down onto the ceiling to radiate away the heat rather than trapping it in the fixture.
I just bought 4 and the only complaint I have is that they keep their colour temperature when dimmed. I'd prefer that they shift to or
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not ripping out every light fixture in my apartment for some stupid panels.
What about plants (Score:3)
Does anybody have any experience growing plants under LEDs? Does it work?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting my tomatoes under 10 Cree LED's mounted to a heatsink, with water-cooling on the heatsink running through a copper pipe in the water beneath the starts, so they get both light and heat. They're doing fine so far, is the best I can say: growing faster than last year's starts, which were getting full sun but no heat, whereas these are getting very indirect sun but 14 hours of LED per day. Because I'm a geek I have an arduino measuring/recording the temp of the LED heatsink, the water beneath th
Re:What about plants (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Yes.
http://www.ecaa.ntu.edu.tw/weifang/led/Effects%20of%20Frequency%20and%20Duty%20Ratio%20on%20the%20Growth%20of%20Potato%20Plantlets%20In%20Vitro%20Using%20Light-emitting%20Diodes%20--%20Jao%20and%20Fang%2039%20(2)%20375%20--%20HortScience.htm [ntu.edu.tw]
LED bulbs suck... (Score:2)
I bought a number of different LED bulbs back when they were even more expensive (around $50 each). None of them lasted for more than a year or two. I think it was the power supplies, not the actual LEDs. And, they were in the open, not in an enclosed fixture, but they still got extremely hot. So if they only test it for the life of the LEDs, fuck 'em. They need to test the electronics too.
Re: (Score:2)
Overall the electronics is much more important than the lifetime of the
We haven't been playing catch-up (Score:3)
And Gizmodo has those interviews all wrong, because the interviewees aren't telling the full truth.
The REAL problem is the barrier to entry caused by Energy Star certification programs and other certifications. We're not playing catch-up; we're playing save-up so we can pay the exorbitant and outrageous extortion fees these entities are charging us.
Phillips little 22w LED ain't shit.
I can take two Cree MK-R, drive them at 6w, and absolutely utterly destroy any 100w CFL (and if Philips needs 22w to do what I can do in 12, well, you see the barrier to entry? I'm a small business, Philips has tons of money.)
And in reality, a single 6w-driven Cree MK-R destroys 100w incan/26w CFL/22w Philips LED, at 7000K CCT and a CRI of 93.
Tis okay, though. Phillips wins the interior lighting race. They still sorely lose on the horticultural side, and I'm way outperforming them across the globe (in actual tests, not sales.)
you're missing some factors (Score:4, Informative)
The Philips 22W bulb needs to *replace a standard bulb*. That is, the complete unit including the power supply needs to fit in the space of a regular bulb, and it needs to radiate in a certain pattern. If you're not limited by the standard bulb form factor then a bunch of different options open up.
Also, your comparison with the MK-R are misleading. According to their web page, a single Cree MK-R uses 15W to put out 1800 lumens (which is what the Phillips bulb puts out). Only the 2700K/3000K versions are available in a 90CRI version, and the higher the CRI the lower the lumens/Watt.
It's all in the engineering (Score:4, Informative)
There's a consensus of sort that power supplies are often the most underengineered things out there in any electronic device. Well, guess what, in a CFL or a LED the entire electronics are the power supply, there's nothing else. When a CFL fails, it's not because the bulb has failed, it's because the power supply is dead. It's certainly possible to engineer a power supply that will last, but such know-how is rare and expensive, and engineering management often doesn't understand that it takes real effort to make a long-lasting power supply. You have to qualify every single part, pretty much -- there's no such thing as letting the purchasing loose to get the best deal. If you want to make a CFL or a LED lamp that will last as long as the life of the light-emitting element, you need to do proper design, then qualify sample parts, then do extensive testing on prototypes, then purchase a batch of parts for a production run, then re-qualify all of those parts again, then have the boards assembled, then qualify the board assemblies, and only then you ship. That's what it takes to get a quality product out. That's what it takes to get a lamp out that will be so old by the time it gets replaced that the house might have changed owners a bunch of times in the meantime. Guess how it's done in real life on consumer CFL/LED bulbs, LOL.
22W is efficient? (Score:2)
In that case the 12W Nano Light [kickstarter.com] will blow the Philips light out of the water.
This is the best bulb I've found. (Score:3)
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Lumen-Replacement-G7-Power/dp/B0064AE2K4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365796844&sr=8-1&keywords=g7+led+bulb [amazon.com]
The G7.
There are two reasons.
1: This bulb is set at 3000 kelvin.
It looks NORMAL like a regular LED bulb. I'm sorry but LED bulbs set at 2900k look either Pink or Orange to me and most the people i know. I'm sure that real incandescent bulbs are 2900 kelvin and the rest of the LED companies are trying to mimic them but it doesn't look right in LED.
2: This bulb is 900 lumens.
I know 850 lumens is supposed to replace a 60 watt bulb. But it doesn't for me. It seems dim. At 900 lumens, it seems a little brighter than a 60 watt bulb and I actually like that. I suspect 870 or 880 lumens would be the correct value for a perfect swap.
Downsides: I've never had it happen to me, but I've read that some G7's buzz.
I have approximately 12 brands of LED bulbs going in my house, including phillips. I use the phillips 75 watt in a fixture with a lamp shade. I have a 9 year old "40 watt" bulb which is really more like 20 watt on the porch-- it's always on.
I also find pretty good light (and they fit in cieling fans better) from the lights with the squashed disks. They do give light over a large area. The top is about 1/2" think and about 2" around. They also give a little more lumens than similarly rated bulbs. I have three of those.
I have some multiple fixture floor lamps that all the other random bulbs go into.
At this point, other than the "globe" fixtures in the bathroom, new bulbs going foward will all be G7's until I hear of something better.
I do also have some of the new 3500 kelvin CFL bulbs from Home Depot. I really like the light. It's "superwhite" but not "blue". But like all CFL's they seem to take 60 seconds to achieve full brightness.
I have an old random 75w CFL in my utility room.
I only have three incandescent bulbs left in the house at this point. Two globes in the bathroom and one standard 60w in the attic.
Re:Still waiting (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Still waiting (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Agree. Besides, using incandescents at 99c per 2-pack is not that expensive. I've replaced only 2-3 incandescents in the last 10 years, but about 10 CFLs.
Re: (Score:3)
They are actually quite expensive.
Swapping 10 fixtures to LED can save you $20 per month in direct costs. Which means you pay for more than one bulb per month with the savings. On top of that you are not pumping all that heat into your house and then paying to cool it back down.
My electric bill dropped significantly from going to LED. In terms of alternative energy- they are a hell of a better deal than solar panels or even extra insulation.
I've lost some CFL's but so far I haven't lost any LED's and I
Look at the CRI of the bulb (Score:2)
You'll want to pay attention to color temperature and CRI. Warm white is about 2700K. A CRI closer to 100 gives you a better light quality.
Re:quality? (Score:5, Informative)
But to answer your question...it depends on the LED bulb. Since LED's come in several colors but white isn't one of them LED bulbs make white using a couple of different methods. [wikipedia.org] So there are some LED's that have the same harsh temperature and others that are very close to the warm glow of an incandescent. Philips just announced a new process that will bring near incandescent quality with better efficiency (200 Lumens Per Watt (LPW)) [extremetech.com] than existing LED technology but it is still a few years from production.
Re:quality? (Score:4, Informative)
The "ugly and harsh light" is described in the industry as Color Temperature. [wikipedia.org] I'm not sure if it is a requirement to include but most bulbs come with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) [wikipedia.org] rating. It's a scale from 0-100 (100 being a reference incandescent bulb) to rate the Color Temperature of a bulb.
CRI doesn't measure color temperature; it's an indirect measure of the fullness of the spectrum given off by the bulb.
Color temperature tells you how reddish or bluish the light is -- does it look more like incandescent light (reddish) or daylight (bluish)?
CRI tells you how well the light given off by the bulb will allow you to see a range of colors. A CRI of 100 means perfect color fidelity. A CRI of under 90 or so and you will notice that some colors don't look right, because the bulb has dark bands in its spectrum. The CRI measuring process takes color temperature into account -- both warm white and cool white bulbs can have similarly high CRI scores.
For an example of extremely poor CRI, see low pressure sodium bulbs that used to be used a security and parking lot lights. Everything illuminated by them -- cars, clothing, faces -- looks either yellow, black, or dark purple.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, some pictures worth quite a few words: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/led-color-rendering/ [wordpress.com]
(From a similar discussion, here on Slashdot, about a year ago).
It's my opinion that the camera magnifies the differences, which means that the mixed LED case (cool+neutral+warm) looks really good to your eyes in practice. I think it would be good to fit some diffusers over the point sources, because sometimes you do get an "interesting" multi-shadow effect.
Here's what those same LEDs looked like in co
Re: (Score:2)
Some do, some don't.
IKEA has some "inexpensive" ($10 each) LED bulbs (you can get various bases on them, too) that emit a near-incandescent type light. They only seem to be about 40W equivalent (they are not labeled as any equivalent) but 3 in a ceiling fan light fixture lights up a room nicely.
I'm about to buy some more to test in the bathroom fixtures to see how they hold up in the moist environment. CFLs suck at that.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something to be said for T5 tubes in high-bay fixtures. You turn them on for the first time and it feels like going outside into full sunlight. Sure they get a tad dimmer after a while, but it's still a big win over legacy fluorescent.
Re: (Score:2)
Energy Star [energystar.gov] is a US government (EPA) program, not a company . You don't pay to get the 'branding'.