CFLs or LEDs?

[destrekor]

CFLs are too hot for the summertime if that bothers you. In the winter it's ok with me, the heat from CFLs helps battle the cold a bit. So I use CFLs in the cold months and swap in the LEDs in the warmer months. Actually I should just use the LEDs all year round to save on the bill.

I realize some LEDs put out some heat too. But there's one brand that makes a 11 watt LED bulb that's not hot at all, it's considered cool, meaning only lightly warm to the touch. And it has the brightness of a 60 watt incandescent bulb. It's made by Light Efficient Design model #1694. The drawback is it's big and may not fit in some lamps. I realize new LEDs are out that are much smaller with high light intensity but AFAIK they are all kind of hot.

What CFLs have you used that create THAT much heat as to impact ambient temperatures, any time of year? Sure, the bases themselves might get toasty, but they still radiate an insignificant amount of heat compared to incandescent bulbs.

 

[PlanetJosh]

What CFLs have you used that create THAT much heat as to impact ambient temperatures, any time of year? Sure, the bases themselves might get toasty, but they still radiate an insignificant amount of heat compared to incandescent bulbs.

I could be thinking they affect room temperature when they really don't much so you're probably right. The heat from my stock fan cooled pc probably makes a difference.

 

[Jeff7]

I could be thinking they affect room temperature when they really don't much so you're probably right. The heat from my stock fan cooled pc probably makes a difference.

In the end, all of the power going into the light is going to turn into heat. Some of it is generated right at the light, while the light itself heats surfaces after it hits them.

What you're after is lumens per watt.
Let's say you've got a source that gives a pitiful 1 lumen per watt, versus one that gives 100 lumens per watt.
If you want 100 lumens, you'd need to pump 100 watts into your room. Or, you can use the more efficient source and accomplish the same goal with only one watt.

If you've got a CFL or an LED that both produce 50 lumens per watt, both will be pushing the same amount of energy into the room.

 

[mugs]

Awww mugs got butthurt for mother Gaia.

I'm not an environmentalist, but I think spiteful anti-environmental attitudes are childish. I'm more concerned with the money - the lifetime cost of the bulbs and the increasing cost of fossil fuel-based energy as we start running out of fossil fuels. LED vs incandescent is a no-brainer. There's really no downside to the LED other than the up-front cost. LED vs CFL and CFL vs incandescent are debatable; CFLs are inferior to LEDs and incandescents in pretty much every way, but they have a similar lifetime cost to LEDs.

 

[Number1]

You have an IQ less than 80, don't you?

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

You keep on preaching the "virtues" of candle and oil lamp lighting bud. For the rest of us, it's pretty simple.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[pmv]

I was quite keen on CFLs at first, simply for the bill-cutting potential (the environment bit is just a bonus, plus I can't help but think any money people save by spending less on electricity they'll just spend on buying more unncessary crap from China, thus using up just as many resources and creating just as much pollution as if they'd just used normal bulbs and spent that much more on the electric bill instead).

But they really didn't live up to the promises

(a) most of them not nearly as bright as originally claimed
(b) don't last anywhere near as long as claimed (not even close) and if you accidentally break them that's a much financial bigger loss than with filament bulbs, not to mention the mercury released! (and I've managed to break several)
(c) they take too long to warm up and the supposedly improved 'instant on' ones I had went bang and died!
(d) there's something technical about the current and voltage being 90deg out of phase that means they put more demand on the electric supply than you would expect. I ought to understand that better, what with having studied physics and all, but I've totally forgotten the relevant technicalities.
(e) the supply chain and the disposal are more complex and costly than with filament bulbs so the environmental benefits are less than advertised


LEDs are looking promising. They certainly have improved bike lights no end - to the point where they are now too bright. All the out-dated advice sources tell you to get the brightest headlight you can, but if you do that now with LED bike lights you'll blind everyone coming towards you.

As Jeff7 says, they are dimmed essentially by turning them of-and-on very quickly.

Candle light looks great, but I think the risk of burning the house down kind of outweighs aesthetics!

 

[destrekor]

You keep on preaching the "virtues" of candle and oil lamp lighting bud. For the rest of us, it's pretty simple.

What in the fuck is wrong with you?

All I said, in summary, is your initial argument was flawed.

My main point I've made throughout this thread is the visible appearance of light in a given environment has a large impact on individual preference for said light source. Certain sources of light, be it natural incandescence (flame, tungsten filament, etc), natural sunlight, or specific types of light bulbs, create different effects on the overall appearance of any given environment. That specific rating is the Color Rendering Index. Another factor that relates to accurate natural color is the color temperature rating. Natural incandescence tends to be warm, very warm color (1800-3000K..ish). Cloudy daylight is roughly 5500k - white levels for production colors are usually authored according to 6500K white (D65) (which is why 6500K is the best bulb temperature for home theater bias lighting.
Of course, I've digressed.

Your initial argument claimed that flame and oil torches were the worst source of light. Frankly, they are at terrific source of light for the warm home look. They have a 100 CRI (essentially perfect for light other than perfect daylight), so that argument, technically, is dead in the water.


I also said, I'm summarizing here, "your observations are correct."

Modern, non-incandescent lighting -- even the most recent incandescent could be included here -- is more consistent. (variably, some, like fluorescent, have low frequency performance problems that can be detectable as flickering) It is also far more easily implemented, has far less maintenance (i.e. none - replace dead bulb with new bulb), and is, in summary, more convenient.

That has nothing to do with overall light quality, as perceived by those who like that light. They like it because it's essentially perfectly fine for their use, and they don't mind the effort (which is, however much more involved than modern lighting, still awfully minimal in scope).

Again, I don't care for it myself. I like hitting a switch and never thinking about lighting until I want to change something.

I had to keep replying, your faux outrage was ridiculous and, potentially, efficient bait. :\

 

[Dee67]

destrekor - I'm curious, what do you use the 40w LED's for?

I've been seeing their prices - but typically find anything less than the 60w/800ish lumen area not enough for me.

 

[Jeff7]

...
(d) there's something technical about the current and voltage being 90deg out of phase that means they put more demand on the electric supply than you would expect. I ought to understand that better, what with having studied physics and all, but I've totally forgotten the relevant technicalities.

Power factor.
A resistive load, like a lightbulb, uses the power immediately when it's available.
A load with a power supply in it is going to be capacitive, inductive, or both. Capacitive acts like a short circuit until the capacitor accumulates some charge. Inductive acts like an open circuit until it's pushed out a magnetic field.
So what you end up with is that the load "looks" like it needs X units of power, but when the power company goes to all the trouble of making that electricity available to it, the load goes "Nah, I'm good. I'll only take some of it."
What it ends up looking like is that you had a 100W load, and sufficient power was available for that, but only 70W was actually needed. You still incur the usual line losses for that unused portion.
Residential customers won't get billed for this "extra" though. They only get billed for what they do truly use.
Directly.
It's paid for indirectly because the power company needs to have the infrastructure in place to accommodate the larger apparent load.

Power factor correction circuitry makes the load act, from the power line's perspective, like a resistive load. It's also usually an extra cost, so a manufacturer won't add it unless:
a) They care about just helping out in general, in that little way and it won't add much cost.
b) They're trying to meet a spec.
c) Their marketing department thinks that their target audience will not mind the extra expense if it means that they get to see "PF: >0.97" on the package.

LEDs are looking promising. They certainly have improved bike lights no end - to the point where they are now too bright. All the out-dated advice sources tell you to get the brightest headlight you can, but if you do that now with LED bike lights you'll blind everyone coming towards you.
...

Outdated sources.
In the industry I'm in, some customers come to us for product, but they're trying to meet specs that were written back when white LEDs were newly available. They specify a certain brand, color temperature, brightness, and viewing angle. They're all very narrow angle parts, with very blue, low-quality light. It is that way simply because that's all that was available at the time.
"Which white LED do we want to use in this?"
"How about we buy the only one in existence?"
"Oh, yeah, right. Good idea."

Now you've got color temperatures available from 2700K up to 16000K and beyond. Cheaper ones will also stray a good distance away from the blackbody curve. You get a light that looks like it's trying to stand next to the friend of somebody who owns a white light, but you can see that it's definitely not white.

So there's some work there to be done to meet what the spec wanted. In some cases, meeting it exactly isn't really possible, because the original manufacturers either don't make the part anymore, or they themselves are no longer around.

 

[Imp]

In the recent past, LEDs weren't more energy efficient (in lumens per watt) than CFLs except for lower wattage units, and their CRIs and color temperatures still needed work.

Now that LEDs are beginning to rival and surpass CFLs in color, output, and efficiency, they're becoming attractive for general use. Now that prices are falling into the $10-20 range for nice ones, people are starting to buy more and more of them--people including me.

From the LEDs I've seen, they're essentially identical in terms of lumens/watt (i.e. same CFL wattage emits same lumens as LED with same wattage). The L-prize bulb is probably the exception, so there's probably some future potential for LEDs being more efficient than CFLs.

destrekor - I'm curious, what do you use the 40w LED's for?

I've been seeing their prices - but typically find anything less than the 60w/800ish lumen area not enough for me.

I have two 40W LED bulbs: one is in a desk lamp and the other is in a table lamp. The two 60W LEDs are ceiling bulbs. One 25W LED I got from Ikea is a floor/desk lamp.

 

[Red Squirrel]

CFLs are best bang for the buck. LEDs are nice though, but it would cost a lot to actually buy those exclusively.

 

[mrrman]

LEDs all the way...Ive changed my whole house out ( interior/exterior) to LEDs 5 years ago and have no regrets. No LEDs have burnt out yet.

 

[alkemyst]

You can't dim LED or fluorescent bulbs. They need a constant voltage.

Incandescent is what you want. Or 'halogen.' Which probably doesn't have halogen in it.

edit: also, a quick search indicates that these dudes have a shitton of lightbulbs...
http://www.lightinthebox.com/index....n=0&sid=fftk96eh8ssqbpvigkgl9p0hm0&keyword=g9

LEDs can be dimmed, these have been in cars like forever now.

 

[angminas]

I tried CFLs for about a decade and finally quit. I only buy incandescents at the moment, and I'm probably going to start moving to LEDs pending doing some research and taking care of some more important expenses first.

When an incandescent bulb goes, it goes. When a CFL goes, it can overheat. I don't know exactly what's going on in there, but I've had a number of them flicker when they died, and at least two got very hot before I unscrewed them. Could they get hot enough to start a fire? I don't want to find out.

The energy savings are at least significantly offset by the cost of the bulbs. I've replaced many CFLs, and the long-life claims of the cheapo bulbs are bullshit, even those with brand names. Maybe higher-end ones last better, but guess what? They cost a lot more. I can buy incandescents by the MST for what CFLs cost me.

The wattage-related environmental benefits are at least significantly offset by the fact that CFLs contain MERCURY. How many of those do you think are being properly disposed of? I'll take extra carbon and sulfur in the air over extra mercury in the groundwater. If you don't think this is something to take seriously, go look up what you're supposed to do when a CFL breaks.

Etc. Forget Lightbulbs Vista, I'm sticking with XP until 7 gets realistic.

 

[alkemyst]

light bulbs from the start could have been forever if properly made.

The really sad part is an LED should never die.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I've slowly replaced all CFLs in the house with LEDs over the last couple of years. The local Costco sells these for $15.99 so I felt they were cheap enough to warrant using them over CFLs. They are dimmable, relatively bright, and I haven't had a single problem with them so far. They claim to last 20 years. If they last 10 I will save money on bulb costs alone over CFLs in the long run.

 

[mugs]

I've slowly replaced all CFLs in the house with LEDs over the last couple of years. The local Costco sells these for $15.99 so I felt they were cheap enough to warrant using them over CFLs. They are dimmable, relatively bright, and I haven't had a single problem with them so far. They claim to last 20 years. If they last 10 I will save money on bulb costs alone over CFLs in the long run.

They finally started selling 40w-equivalent (300 lumen?) candelabra bulbs, which is what I needed to convert the last of my often-used lights from incandescents. I think the only indoor light I have that's still incandescent is a 9-bulb chandelier in my dining room that we rarely use (maybe a few hours a month).

 

[rockyct]

LEDs can be dimmed, these have been in cars like forever now.

Most of them (especially when they first came out) seem to use a shitty PWM circuit though.

 

[Jeff7]

Most of them (especially when they first came out) seem to use a shitty PWM circuit though.

I still see plenty of flickery LEDs in cars and trucks now, PWMing somewhere in the hundreds of Hertz. It isn't until beyond 4kHz where I finally can't see the flicker of a PWMed LED. I think most of the rest of the world has their dimmed or scanned LEDs going at 1Khz or less. Bleh.

Also bad are the ones that don't dim much when the headlights are on, so they blast anything behind them with intense red-orange light.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Not a fan of CFL. Most burned out or otherwise degraded long before the promised lifespan. I have a few GE reveal cfls that have been better than most.

Have tried a couple led's with mixed results. The blue light is too harsh and the warm light is too dim. The bathroom vanity is the hardest to properly light and I always end up back to incandescent.

 

[lxskllr]

the warm light is too dim.

How dim is too dim? I like lamps to be equivalent to a 25w-40w incandescent. Does it match that?

 

[Mixolydian]

footcandles.

 

[jlee]

I've slowly replaced all CFLs in the house with LEDs over the last couple of years. The local Costco sells these for $15.99 so I felt they were cheap enough to warrant using them over CFLs. They are dimmable, relatively bright, and I haven't had a single problem with them so far. They claim to last 20 years. If they last 10 I will save money on bulb costs alone over CFLs in the long run.

That's not a bad price. I've been using CFLs because I got 4-5 packs for 96 cents... I'm set for a while.

 

[Gillbot]

That's not a bad price. I've been using CFLs because I got 4-5 packs for 96 cents... I'm set for a while.

I bought a box of 20 CFL's back when, most died within a year or less. I ended up getting a gift card from the manufacturer good enough to cover 2 boxes. Most of those crapped out quickly also so they sent yet another gift card and I got more. My whole house is CFL and they were basically free at this point so i'll use them until I run out or LEDs get cheap enough.

 

[_Rick_]

It depends on what you need.
CFLs are much, much better at making a diffuse light, as the plasma which emits photons stretches over a relatively large volume. This makes the light nice for ambient lighting.

Spot lighting is just as well served by a small bank of LEDs, if you can deal with the multiple shadows. They're a bit disorientating at times.

I use incandescent light only for those fixtures that get around 2-10 minutes of light a day. Halogen-style lamps are also a nice light if you need a high contrast work space.

Personally, I love the tube style FLs. Diffuse light, dimmable, and there models that have a warmish spectrum, at the cost of only a little efficiency. Replace a tube with an LED bar, after the cheap tube fixture gave up the ghost, and as ambient light it plain sucks. The directionality is bad, even if you bounce it off a wall.

So, get whichever light you need for your application.