Stupid question

Post #266,319 by Simon_Jester 8/29/06 5:53:10 PM Reply	Stupid question I've got the fluorescents now (some at least). But weren't the LED bulbs to make more of a dent. I was watching them on Thinkgeek (iirc) but haven't had a chance to buy any. Anyone used them yet?
Post #266,321 by hnick 8/29/06 6:04:57 PM Reply	I think you would need a wall wart for each Unless you like 60 Hz flicker, you would want to run a diode on DC power, somewhat less than 120 volts. I suppose you could put a converter in the base, but that might get expensive, and I don't know what the MTBF of the converters is. It may be an investment issue. I have a few diode lamps that are kind of nice. I have a lot of flourescent lights, but my wife has issues with them on occasion. It's her makeup, really...
Post #266,325 by folkert 8/29/06 7:33:15 PM Reply	Nope... the way things are going... AC will be the new DC as far as LED lighting goes. I have seen new products in queue, one being 2 super dright LEDs designed with a capacitor in them now glow for each part of the cycle and also smooth out the lighting in one nearly flat lighting package. And they take about 9W and produce a similar amount of light a 60W Bulb does. The lamp it goes in, is usually more expensive, as it needs to refract to get good coverage. But still over time, if these lighting packages were replaced at 5.5 Million perday... the next year Would save: 102,382,500,000 Watts hours (that is 102,382 Megawatt hours). The `I²R` losses wouldn't be ... saving even more. Blah, Blah Blah... I know. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.
Post #266,361 by hnick 8/30/06 8:16:32 AM Reply	Way cool, sounds nifty. Thanks for the info. I'm going to have to look into them.
Post #266,322 by Another Scott 8/29/06 6:22:43 PM Reply	CF are still more efficient. I generally don't like the light given off by CF bulbs I've seen, and LED lamps are still very pricey, so I generally prefer bulbs like [link\|http://www.bulbs.com/products/product_detail.asp?page=products&inventory=11243\|Halogena] bulbs. 900 lumens/60 W = 15 lumens/watt, 3000 hours, $2.99 (0.33 cents/lumen). This [link\|http://www.bulbs.com/products/product_detail.asp?page=products&inventory=11764\|equavalent spiral CF] is 900 lumens/13 W = 69 lumens/watt, 10000 hours, 2700 K color temperature. $7.49 (0.83 cents/lumen) The most powerful LED bulb-replacment I see [link\|http://www.superbrightleds.com/edison.html\|here] puts out 60 lumens/3 watt = 20 lumens/watt. It costs $30 ($1.50 per lumen). There are [link\|http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1150834953712\|131 lumnes per watt] LED parts in the lab, but they're not commercially available yet, I don't think. But they're starting to catch up... Cheers, Scott. (Who will look into CFs again the next time he gets bulbs.)
Post #266,359 by static 8/30/06 3:08:56 AM Reply	CF colour. I had more than a few CF globes in the apartment I rented. They were good in the 'oyster' fittings because they didn't get as hot. However, when we bought, most of the lights had dimmers on them. :-( So no CFs. And a lot of fittings were Edison Screw instead of the Australian Bayonet Cap. :-/ I've got half-a-dozen CF globes downstairs with no homes as a result. There is also the problem of colour. Most of them are 3500K or higher. That's quite a cold colour and not at all like incandescant light. For a warmer colour you want a lower colour temperature. Like 2500K or 2700K. Except those phosphors are more expensive, and therefore so are the light bulbs. So I'm very picky about my CF light bulbs! Wade. "Insert crowbar. Apply force."

Welcome to IWETHEY!