Perhaps the greater issue will be failure of the lead-free solder due to internal temperatures in new designs of LED lighting which will be intended to replace a common lamps of significant wattage.
Powerful LEDs also create heat, and when a lot of 'em are fit into a small package, the heat will very likely be a reason for very short life from the new technology.
Combining the lead-free solder with the cheapest manufacturer that exists will probably reduce the projected (dreamed) lifetimes from 10 years to maybe 2 years.
At about $30 each (and it's likely more of them will be needed to reach comfortable lighting levels), the greatest benefit these lamps will have, will be separating consumers from their money.
Anyone that's been servicing consumer electronic gear in the past several decades has seen the impact that heat has on solder connections, and more recently, the widespread failures of lead-free solders.
**I don't. And YOU don't know of a lamp that can heat a house (or cool one) either. Using lights to warm a home is insane. Pretty much like everything else you've posted.
**No one disputes that. Production of almost any manufactured item causes some kind of pollution. That is why regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately. Fortunately, LEDs last a VERY long time and consume small amounts of material, so total pollution remains low.
**Did the manufacturing process of computer you are presently using cause zero pollution? Are you insane?
**I am well aware of that. I am also a supporter of organisations that attempt to minimise pollution caused by large manufacturers of many products. Are you?
**Like I said: I contribute financially to several organisations that are active in trying to ensure that people less fortunate than I am are not subject to pollution from large companies. Do you?
**The manufacture of glass, steel and tungsten is a very energy intensive process. Combined with the extremely short life-span of incandescent lamps and their monsterous inefficiency (Less than 5%) contributes to huge amounts of CO2. CFLs and LEDs cause far less CO2 to be emitted, both in manufacture and in operation over the life of the product. CO2 affects every human on the planet.
**Like I said before.....
**Geez! You think I keep the packaging? Get real.
**Like I said before: Both the LEDs and the CFLs were packed in cardboard, whilst the incandescent was packed in cardboard and plastic.
**WFT are you smoking?
**Incorrect.
**No. It is a REAL number, verified by many users. Myself included. NONE of my CFLs have failed. Not one. OTOH, I've replaced many incandescents over the same period, despite the fact that they accrue VASTLY fewer hours of use.
**You're either:
Lying.
Buying cheap, crappy CFLs
Using them in enclosed fittings.
**Strawman.
**I'm referring to first generation white LEDs.
So how many of those buggers does it take
**Irrelevant. They have lasted extremely well.
I mean bright enough so everything can be seen.
**And, on the other side of the coin, modern LEDs can be manufactured into completely new and different shapes.
**I delight in arguing with idiots like you.
** OTOH - the amounts used to make one light bulb are tiny and so use tiny amounts of energy.
** They can last 100 years in low or no use.
They often outlast CFLs in actual service.
** Bollocks.
** Per lamp, it is far MORE than an incandecsent.
** Absolute LIE.
Each CFLs use 50 times time more energy to make, plus a large amount of poisonous chemical waste and then consume more energy too - if they last their rated life.
Then they pollute the planet with Mercury and other heavy metal poisons.
**CFLs are not so different to regular fluoros. Each manufacturer has his/her own formulation for the phosphor coating. As a conseqence, the colour balance will be slightly different for each. I find that different lamps have different purposes. For my workbench, I need accurate colour rendition (for checking colour codes on components) and I use 36 Watt, quad phosphor lamps for that purpose. For other areas, I use different lamps.
**Well, yes.
If the first
**They are available in a wide range of colour temperatures. The range is increasing rapidly.
I don't have actual figures, Trevor, but it makes sense that making a thin glass spherical envelope for an incandescent, is unlikely to use more energy than making a thick-walled tube wound into a convoluted double spiral. Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use very energy intensive processes, and have to be carried out in many different factories, which then brings the costs of moving workers around, keeping them warm and fed, moving raw materials around, moving finished components around, and so on. Just because all of these things are 'hidden', it doesn't make them any less relevant. Looked at rationally, given the amount of components and manufacturing processes involved, I would have thought that the simple incandescent bulb, with its very few parts, consumed nothing like as much energy overall to get from nothing to working in my house. Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are available, and always were. Its just that they cost more, and are not in the financial interests of the bulb manufacturers, to promote.
There are some in the US that have been on 24/7 for decades, and still work. Some are over 100 years old. Cheap bulbs don't last, and neither do those that are used improperly.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
"Arfa Daily" wrote in news:HTaeq.812$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe02.ams:
incandescent lamps color temps do NOT match that of the sun; "daylight" CT is around 6500K,while incandescents are around 3000K. Daylight is much "whiter" than incandescent light.
what makes fluorescent lamps yucky is their excess and spiky blue-green and low red output,but newer CFLs have adjusted their phosphor mix to give a better spectrum,and you can buy them in diffect CTs like 2700K,3200K,and even higher.
Many years ago when CFLs were expensive enough to be worth attempting repair, I had a batch with electro' failure being the most common cause.
The part in question being 4u7 400V which I didn't have any in stock (not small enough to fit anyway) so as an experiment I superglued 5x 1uF X2 capacitors round the outside and wired them in - can't get much lower ESR than that.
There was no noticeable improvement in the lamp's behaviour, other than it lasted almost the claimed life expectancy before the tube gave out.
When computers were being introduced for home use, other forms of communication and/or creativity weren't banned.
I recall the "proposed" huge benefits of widespread computer use were going to include:
-dramatically reduce paper usage and eliminate the necessity of an infinite number of forms. Then eveyone started buying printers for every reason imaginable, and using computers to create and generate more forms. Products with no real value.. phone books, magazines, catalogs.. still paper, although many are digitized.
-reduce the size of government since there wouldn't be a need for as many people to move around all those forms that would no longer be paper. Didn't see that happen either.
-records will be more secure. Hogwash.. after many disasters, there are reports of lost records which aren't archived elsewhere.
Computers have increased corporate profits, but have done little to make everyday life more comfortable or convenient for the people inhabiting the planet. Well, then there are the smart people that create a letterhead and a worthless organization based upon their own misguided adgendas, to leech money from others for a good cause.
-Make much more effective the use of our time (don't care for the "save time" hoax, kinda like products that pay for themselves). Yet everywhere people need to get in a line for a purchase or service, there are still always lines and peope waiting. Daily encounters with computers aren't really faster and more efficient, they're actually more complicated.
You keep yapping about silicon, yet there are no reasons people die from silicon.
Mercury, gallium arsenide and other toxic elements are actually contained within new lighting technologies, but not in incandescent lamps. Maybe you should start yapping about argon.
You might actually believe that "regulators ensure that the pollution created is dealt with appropriately". This is partially true, and generally always after the pollution has taken place (often for a long time without detection), after the fact, and the cleanup costs are generally always put on the citizens. The fines are generally only symbolic.
You seem to think that someone should be impressed with the dozen-or-so lighting devices you've commented on. Your experience (real or not) is completely insignificant in the lighting industry which includes hundreds of millions/billions of lighting devices sold every year.
The incidence of failure of products from China is higher than it's ever been for many of the people alive today. Many of these products don't even function when new. The race to the bottom as far as product quality goes, is based upon greed. Very few products are manufactured today that are intended to last for 10 years, and that means very few consumer electronic devices.. of which many don't last 2 years.
What this means is that your 10 year old LED example isn't even relative in today's manufacturing practices. The throw-away-society arrived while you weren't paying attention. All that trash needs to go somewhere. How many times can a $40 VCR be fixed?
So you go right ahead and get in line for those new, high quality, 10 year life, $50 LED lighting devices.. then spend your time repairing them. You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian causes. There oughta be an award for that, Oh.. there is, it's called an inflated ego.
I don't dispute that an LED can last 10 years, only that in the present manufacturing environment, a 40-100W LED lamp is going to be manufactured to fail. I have a lot of LED flashlights and portable lights and they work great for seeing in the dark, or signaling such as panel indicators, but piss poor at illuminating a room.
With LED flashlights, they seem to produce a lot of light when surrounded by darkness, but they don't "throw" light very well at all.. and the reflector becomes more important than the miniscule light source. Reflectors take space, which defeats making a device compact.
Unless you live like people did in the early 1900s with one dim lamp per room, LED home lighting is going to be very costly, both in terms of early failures and replacing fixtures which won't accomodate the new designs. Might also be a good time to change all interior items to white.. white floors, walls, furniture, etc.
LED lighting might be great for a camper/caravan with 12V lighting circuits, but I suspect there will be lots of problems with adapting 240 or 120VAC to
3V. Power supplies introduce losses, spike/surge suppressors add to final cost.
Has anyone discovered a metal as good as/better than gold for those tiny leads attached to LED (and IC) chips? When gold loses it's value, LEDs will become cheaper to produce.
You keep parroting that incandescent lamps have short or extremely short lifespans, which could be true of the cheap examples you bought, but they don't cost anywhere near $50 each and aren't hazardous waste to end up in the ground near water supplies. BTW, many thread bases of light bulbs today are aluminum, as are the threaded sockets in many fixtures.
Incandescent light bulb costs have traditionally (for generations now) been insignificant in the annual budget of home maintenance.. but that is going to change, significantly.
Maybe everyone will need to keep a drawer/cupboard full of LED lamps to insure their homes aren't dangerous to move around in.. cha-ching!
I'm not exaggerating my experiences with CFLs, but I can tell ya that a 10 year life for CFLs is not average or even close to common.
Almost all of my CFLs are/have been mounted base-down in open/ventilated metal reflectors.. I've had 3 go into catastrophic failure, turning red hot before I could react quickly to shut them off. The only warning was a few blinks just prior to the failures.
You were the one that initiated the question of proof so I just played along, because I knew your response was predictable. I've presented proof.. these are my opinions.. no, seriously. They weren't composed by some marketing firm.
**Irrelevant.. was your answer for how many of those LEDs it takes to illuminate a room. OK.. right.
My comments aren't arguments that my opinions are correct, so you go ahead and argue all you want to.
**Indeed. The ways to get incandescents to last a long time are well known. They are simply under-run massively. IOW: Use a 280VAC rated lamp at 240VAC and the thing will last MUCH longer. Of course, colour temperature edges much closer towards the red and efficiency is absolute crap.
Cheap bulbs don't last,
**Not so different to CFLs and LEDs. Funny about that.
**Tell you what, d*****ad: Try using some facts and logic to support your arguments and you'll sound like you have a brain. So far, you just sound like an idiot. You use insults in preference to common-sense, logic and hard evidence. I will now give you a chance to redeem yourself.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic.
**Huh? WTF are you talking about? I merely corrected your idiotic comments about CFLs and LEDs.
**So? There are a large range of toxic elements in the computer you are using, in the cell 'phone you may happen to use and just about every other modern device. What's your point? Are you going to cease using your computer? Please do so immediately. Give us a rest your incessant twaddle and idiotic top-posting.
There are harmful chemicals in a great many products. Those chemicals need to be dealt with correctly and appropriately.
**Then why don't YOU start by not using your computer? Stop buying lead acid batteries, NiCd batteries, any products that use leaded solder, any products with tantalum capacitors contained within, anything using gold sourced from Papua, petroleum products, anything using plastic, etc, etc. YOU should follow your own advice.
**No. I am citing fact. Nothing more. I have not experienced a CFL failure, ever (other than misuse). Of course, I only purchase quality CFLs and I use them correctly.
**OK. Then YOU need to provide the data which shows how unreliable quality, correctly operated CFLs are. My anecdotes are EXACTLY as irrelevant as yours.
**More twaddle. Some products are good. Some not so good. Just for yuks, I thought I'd test your theory.
In the last 20-odd years, I've used a number of 'walk-about' telephones. A couple were Panasonics, whilst others were from other manufacturers. Except for the one I use right now, all were manufactured in Japan. They all failed. Some last 4 or 5 years and some lasted less than a year. The one I have beside me is 6 years old. It is made in China.
**The nation with the worst reputation for quality (or domestic products) is the USA, not China. Except Cree.
**I'll let you know in another ten years. We'll see how long the ones I've recently installed last.
**As many times as you like. However, a $100.00 VCR is likely to last MUCH longer than a $1,500.00 VCR manufactured in 1980.
**Cite your proof that the LEDs will fail prematurely.
You're savig the planet and contributing to humanitarian
**Prove it.
**You have got to be the most pig-ignorant poster we've seen in quite a long time. Light is light. It can be measured and quantified.
**Just when I thought you were speaking complete bollocks, you surpass yourself for abject stupidity. I direct you to a link, which shows what two, identical power consumption torches can do. One is a 3 Watt halogen torch. The other is a 3 Watt LED torch:
formatting link
In case you have not worked it out, the right hand one is the halogen and the left is the LED. The halogen was fitted with fresh batteries. I charged the Lithium battery in the LED torch a month ago.
Now, please explain WTF you mean by LED torches not being able to "throw" light very well. I can tell you that the torch whose beam you can see in the photo is easily capable of lighting up stuff a couple of hundred Metres away. The halogen doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
**So you keep claiming. Let's see you hard proof of your claims.
Might also be a good time to change all interior items
**Of course. Just like CFLs, there is an extra cost associated with LEDs. However, the MASSIVE increase in efficiency and incredibly long life make up for those issues.
**Blah, blah, blah. We're talking about incandescents, LEDs and CFLs. Stay on topic.
**A VERY large number of incandescent lamps were/are produced using lead solder. Lead is toxic. And again: Proper disposal should be part of any product's design. That includes CFLs, LEDs and incandescents.
**Fortunately, the long life of CFLs and LEDs make that cost irrelevant. However, let's examine that claim:
I use 23 Watt CFLs in a number of locations. They cost around AUS$5.00 each. SO FAR, I have obtained around 3,500 hours of use, at minimal light degradation. I fully expect a life of at least 7,000 ~ 10,000 hours from these lamps. However, let's use the low end figure for calculation: 3,500 hours. $5.00 for 3,500 hours. Total powe4r consumption for that period =
80.5 kW/hours. At (say) $0.20/kW/hr = $16.10. Total running cost = $21.10. In reality, the figure will be somewhat lower.
To replace that 23 Watt CFL, I need to use a (minimum) 100 Watt incandescent (it's really more like 125 Watt, but I'm going easy on you). Let's say the cost of a decent one was AUS$1.00. The BEST one can expect from a 100 lamp is around 500 hours. Let's say 1,000 hours, because I'm feeling generous. You'll need 3.5 lamps to equal one CFL. Total initial cost $3.50. Power consumption for the period is 350kW/hours. At $0.20/kW/hr = $70.00. Total running cost = $73.50.
CFL comfortably nails the incandescent.
My own experience with incandescents suggests that a 100 Watt incandescent will likely last considerably less than 200 hours.
**No need. LED last a very long time.
**Then cite your proof.
**Stop buying shitty CFLs.
**You have not provided proof. See my photo as something that represents proof and shreds at least one of your dodgy and seriously deluded arguments.
**I made no claim that the first generation LEDs that I was using could light a room.
**Supply your proof and learn how to post properly.
**Intuitively, that would be a reasonable assumption.
Many of the other items contained in a CFL, also use
**I agree.
**I don't know how much energy is involved with each device, but I'll betcha the energy consumed by the incandescent, over it's entire life vastly exceeds the energy required to manufacture it. The CFL, by comparison, is a massively more efficient device, with a much longer life span. Total energy is likely to be far lower with the CFL. And no, I don't have the data, but I imagine someone has done the maths.
Bear in mind also, that very long-lived incandescents are
**And, they are vastly less efficient. The technology to build long lasting incandescents has been known for a long time - operate them at lower Voltages, or use a carbon filament. Either way, colour temperature sucks and efficiency is way down.
BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution. Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.