cheaper LED light bulbs

[BirdDad]

Vivid 18 leds 21.99
Vivid Plus 36 leds 24.99
spotlight 60 leds 35.99
http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/7aa8/
can someone find some better ones?

 

[davee1]

check these out...cool stuff....cheaper and more to choose from. I have some of these bulbs and they are like....the future of lighting.

http://www.superbrightleds.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?product=MR16

 

[Kwint Sommer]

LEDs are cool except they are about as efficient as normal light bulbs (at least at comparable sizes) but while your average light bulb wastes some energy producing UV light and some producing heat an LED only wastes energy on heat so they end up being a lot hotter. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[davee1]

I'm not sure what you mean...the 50 led bulb consumes about 5 watts of power. That's pretty cool if you ask me!!!! I have one in a ceiling flush mounted "can light" in the family room. When you turn it on and all the other lights out, it's like having a full moon in the family room. No problems with heat...

 

[Kwint Sommer]

I'm saying that a 60 Watt LED will produce around twice as much heat as a traditional 60 Watt light bulb.

 

[1Lee]

http://ledsmagazine.com/articles/features/2/5/8/1

 

[davee1]

Yikes!!! That's not so good :-(

But, we are dealing with lights that are much less wattage than 60 watts. And I see your point. But at the low wattages like 5-10 watts...these lights are awesome IMHO. The light output is equal to about 20~25watt traditional incandescent. And they use about 1/4 of the electricity.

 

[dew042]

A 60 watt LED array, I wanna see that. Considering the average high output LED consumes 30mA at most and runs in the 3.2v range - there's not a lot of power going through it to cause a lot of heat loss, even in a fairly large array.

dew.

 

[Kwint Sommer]

There are lots of different LEDs and the 30mA variety are the smallest for general use, the kind you would put on your Christmas tree in mass. I've worked with large LED arrays and heat is a huge problem.

 

[davee1]

Here's one that is 24watt, for 600 bucks. Haven't seen a 60Watt yet...

http://www.ledsupply.com/dockled.php

 

[Kwint Sommer]

That's like saying a 10 GHz CPU will cost you millions of dollars to have custom built. It's true but you can easily get 10 GHz using 3 computers tied together for less than $2000. Big LEDs are insanely expensive but a few together can do what a $1000 LED does for $50.

 

[mindless1]

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
I'm saying that a 60 Watt LED will produce around twice as much heat as a traditional 60 Watt light bulb.

... and you'd be wrong. LEDs produce more usable light than incandescent per unit power, and even if we concede that all light is eventually heat, 60W = 60W ! Infrared has to be considered heat too, because it does end up with no useful purpose in typical uses, ends up heating what it strikes.


LEDs are more efficient than any small incandescents, especially the smallest in devices like flashlights. They're more efficient than small fluorescents too, although diffusing the light into a more uniform pattern may make the small fluorescents as effective, usable light per watt. Large fluorescents are more efficient than LEDs. This can only be a generalization since even two identical looking LEDs may have different lumen ratings, and some of the low cost devices only citing (n)W LEDs may be using what are essentially low grade, low output LEDs that don't produce as much light per mW.

Due to the inherant shape of the light output, LEDs are best suited to small area lighting, or if underdriven enough, long-term maintenance free lighting (IF the rest of the supporting product and fixture is also built to last that many years).

Just because an LED produces heat doesn't mean anything. Everything that consumes power does, entropy turns all power into heat one way or another excepting some rare endothermic reactions.

 

[aceO07]

Why not just go for CFL bulbs? 14W CFL bulb is about as bright a 60W incan. bulb. I've a fan of led/luxeon technology, but I don't think it's time to change my house bulbs to them. They're just not bright enough to replace normal bulbs yet. Maybe they seem brighter when focused in a beam, but try doing a flood light and see if it comes even close to what the average bulb will do.

 

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: davee1
I'm not sure what you mean...the 50 led bulb consumes about 5 watts of power. That's pretty cool if you ask me!!!! I have one in a ceiling flush mounted "can light" in the family room. When you turn it on and all the other lights out, it's like having a full moon in the family room. No problems with heat...

Lets assume that each led puts out about 3-4Lumens (estimating.) and there's 50 of them, so about 150-200Lumens.

For 13W CFL bulb, it will put out 800-900Lumens...

A single LED bulb costs $20-$40..
A single CFL bulb costs $1-$5.. (Depends if in a pack)..

 

[BigLar]

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
I'm saying that a 60 Watt LED will produce around twice as much heat as a traditional 60 Watt light bulb.

... and you'd be wrong. LEDs produce more usable light than incandescent per unit power, and even if we concede that all light is eventually heat, 60W = 60W ! Infrared has to be considered heat too, because it does end up with no useful purpose in typical uses, ends up heating what it strikes.


LEDs are more efficient than any small incandescents, especially the smallest in devices like flashlights. They're more efficient than small fluorescents too, although diffusing the light into a more uniform pattern may make the small fluorescents as effective, usable light per watt. Large fluorescents are more efficient than LEDs. This can only be a generalization since even two identical looking LEDs may have different lumen ratings, and some of the low cost devices only citing (n)W LEDs may be using what are essentially low grade, low output LEDs that don't produce as much light per mW.

Due to the inherant shape of the light output, LEDs are best suited to small area lighting, or if underdriven enough, long-term maintenance free lighting (IF the rest of the supporting product and fixture is also built to last that many years).

Just because an LED produces heat doesn't mean anything. Everything that consumes power does, entrophy turns all power into heat one way or another excepting some rare endothermic reactions.

Very nice indeed!!!:thumbsup:

 

[KF]

Originally posted by: mindless1

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
I'm saying that a 60 Watt LED will produce around twice as much heat as a traditional 60 Watt light bulb.

... and you'd be wrong. LEDs produce more usable light than incandescent per unit power, and even if we concede that all light is eventually heat, 60W = 60W !

.....
.....

Just because an LED produces heat doesn't mean anything. Everything that consumes power does, entropy turns all power into heat one way or another excepting some rare endothermic reactions.

This hot deal topic is interesting. I always assumed LED lights were used because some special characteristic was an advantage in some niches. I did not know LEDs were efficient in comparison to incandescent bulbs, let alone fluorecent lamps.

I assume the warning from Kwint Sommer has something to do with using high power LEDs where one might assume they generated very little heat.

Now about heat:

Heat has at least two aspects. There is "quantity" of heat, which is a given amount of energy. A 60 W device, regardless of what it is, alway delivers energy at the same rate because Watts are in fact a rate of energy production. (Watt-hours is a unit of energy.) OTOH when people wonder how hot something is, they are talking about temperature. As far as I know, a 60W device might be any temperature. It could cause a fire if high enough.

Light bulbs generate light by heating up a fine wire to the glowing point. LEDs generate light directly (as do fluorescent lamps), not by means of heating up something white hot. For that reason, they have the potential to be more efficient than light bulbs. However, Kwint Sommer was pointing out that not all the electric power even in LEDs gets turned into light. Some of it gets turned into heat right in the LED. The amount of energy not turned into light determines its inefficiency. The LED gets hot. Its temperature goes up.

If you enclose something that is converting a given amount of energy into heat energy, say inside a light fixture or a closet, the temperature will go up. It will rise until equilibrium is reached; 60 Watts goes in and 60 Watt goes out. Radiation and conduction go up as the temperature goes up, so at some point the temperature will level out. But the temperature is determined by the characteristics of the confinement and the efficiency of the device, the waste energy. A 60 W device could be operating at any temperature. If LEDs were about as efficient as light bulbs, they would get just as hot.

What turned me into a high-efficiency fluorescent buyer was calculating how much it cost for the electricity compared to the light bulb. A 100 W bulb over its life span of about 1000 hours consumes 100 x 1000 watt-hours of power, or 100 kilowatt hours. At roughly $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, thats $10. Buying light bulbs because they cost only $0.25 makes no sense because about 100% of the cost is the electricity. If you can save 70% on the electricity, you can afford to pay $7 for the bulb and still break even after just one light bulbs life time. But 5000 hours of life is nothing abnormal for cheap compact fluorescents. (Expensive ones may be a better deal because they last so long.) I now use compact fluorescents everywhere I can fit one, except in places where the light is on only a few minutes at time, or outside. Compact fluorecents are kind of dim until they are on a couple of minutes.

 

[mikeford]

Hot deal = saving money.

http://mdofpc.com/onlinestore/13-watt-110v-led-light-bulb-clear-p-887022.html This one is about $6, first that froogle turned up. I think there is a real place for small efficient spots, dandy really for many many uses.

Having lived through the last 20 years of compact flourescent lights, they are only now BARELY useable. The last batch I got for almost nothing at Costco due to edison deal, are the 17 watt acts like a 60 types, and other than about 1 second of delay on turn on, I like them just fine.

I am also a big fan of the Electro Luminescent panels.

My wife is a 150 watt three way junky, which so far I have found no good substitute for incandescent.

 

[dman]

Are there any dimmable alternatives to incandescent lighting?

I'd like to replace some flood-type lights in the kitchen and bathrooms but the CFL's I've seen in the stores aren't dimmable, which I understand. Figured there might be some LED's that are... by reducing the number that light up, or something?

Also, are there any alternatives that are similar in color output to incandescents, it doesn't bother me but Mrs D is a bit more sensitive to it.

 

[mikeford]

It may depend somewhat on the type of dimmer circuit, but some flourescent can be dimmed. Kitchen and bath are areas where two types of lighting may be the best approach.

 

[KF]

Originally posted by: mikeford
I think there is a real place for small efficient spots, dandy really for many many uses.

I was thinking about that. But I couldn't come up with a use. I don't put lights up to make walls and plants look dramatic at night, so maybe that's it.

Having lived through the last 20 years of compact fluorescent lights, they are only now BARELY useable.

You mean because they were a little too big to fit where you would like? Yeah, I ran into that. They were mainly for large table lamps, like in the living room, I guess. They also used to warn you about enclosing them, like in the usual glass globe of ceiling lights. There is an electronic circuit in them that can't take that high a temp, or at least they couldn't before. (Electronics is why they don't need a starter or a large ballast.)

However there were some usable size compact fluorescents in the 40 watt equivalent that fit in my tiny bedroom table lamp, just barely. Since it was within two feet of where I usually read (in bed), 40 watts (500 lumens) was plenty. Otherwise, using the computer at night located in that room, I don't want a light brighter than to find the keyboard. It just puts glare on the monitor. So that 8 watt bulb was on at least 5 hours a night for 12 years before it gave out. I couldn't find one like it to replace it. The new one is 12 watts, but smaller, cheaper and a bit brighter. I preferred the old, dimmer one.

I am also a big fan of the Electro Luminescent panels.

You mean the little turquoise blue things that stick directly into the outlet? I used to have one as kid. It looked so cool. But it didn't put out enough light to see anything beyond a couple of inches. All you could do is locate where you were in the room by judging your location relative to it.

My wife is a 150 watt three way junky, which so far I have found no good substitute for incandescent.

The three-way Lights of Amerca circlelines are not suitable for some reason? They are a little pricey, and somewhat rare. But if you are using 150+ watt bulbs, you can save a lot more money faster too.

But let's get realistic: ladies that'll spend an extra $2000 on a countertop they really like, are not going to get enthusiastic about saving $7 over the course of 1000 hours, if they prefer, even a little, the kind of light some other bulb puts out, or if they like the like the looks of another bulb better, or the fixture. There are several "improved light" incandescent bulbs that are even less efficient than the old soft white or pink.

 

[mikeford]

Originally posted by: KF

Originally posted by: mikeford
I think there is a real place for small efficient spots, dandy really for many many uses.

I was thinking about that. But I couldn't come up with a use.

Having lived through the last 20 years of compact fluorescent lights, they are only now BARELY useable.

You mean because they were a little too big to fit where you would like? Yeah, I ran into that. They were mainly for large table lamps, like in the living room, I guess.

I am also a big fan of the Electro Luminescent panels.

You mean the little turquoise blue things that stick directly into the outlet?

My wife is a 150 watt three way junky, which so far I have found no good substitute for incandescent.

The three-way Lights of Amerca circlelines are not suitable for some reason?

One big flourescent and a dozen small spots can look great in an kitchen, plus spots are perfect for lighting inside a hutch or other cabinets. Targeted lighting is very stylish in high end homes, and LED spots should work well in many areas.

No I mean because the early CFL buzzed and flickered turning on, buzzed or humming while running, made UGLY light, not enough light, and didn't last long. I used them mainly in big table lamps, until they broke or wife tossed them in trash and put back in incandescent.

Yes those blue squares, we keep a couple in our permanent travel stuff to use as night lights in hotels etc. Once your eyes get used to the dark they are just the right amount to navigate a room, but not disturb anybody. I plan to replace all of our light switch plates with ones that include these panels.

The lights of America are what I have tried many times in the past, nothing from them puts out enough light, and the light is too unnatural looking.

The new natural light flourescents have a lot of potential, but aren't available larger than about 100 watts of light output.

 

[Rhapsody]

I have a number of the 110v led bulbs (from several online vendors) and right now, IMO, the best buy is from Donsgreenstore.com... please bear in mind that I have absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with them.

LEDs have a really cool spectrum which to my eyes is soothing compared to compact fluorescents. As pointed out by others, for your standard 60W-100W equivalent, they are about twice as energy efficient as the old incandescents, but only about half as efficient as the CFLs (at this point in time). However, if you want a low wattage bulb (<25W ish of the old incandescent style), then the LED bulbs are just as efficient as CFLs, and as I mentioned before, the color to my eyes is much better. Certainly there is a variety of spectra from different bulbs and they can be surprisingly irregular, but in general they are bluer and cooler and not in any way harsh.

I find that I save electricity because I am tempted by the better color (than CFL per my take) to simply enjoy the lesser brightness provided by the available bulbs - and I find I am quite happy with the results.

These bulbs are expensive; I paid more than $50 for one, and have paid $30 for a few others (but I eat peanut butter to compensate), but the coolness factor for me makes it worth it. I believe that the store mentioned does really give currently the best value; I have searched the net at length.

One other thing. Many of these bulbs in my experience are terribly unreliable. 50,000 hours my sass. More like 50 hours for at least 20% of those I have bought (though the good ones seem to be just fine; some of it is infant mortality and some of it is heat sensitivity). The bigger bulbs (more leds) seem to have better reliability in general. I believe that the problem is with the voltage regulation and the inherent sensitivity of leds to voltage irregularities. (But that's speculation from a mechanical engineer, so take it as such.)

With the expected increases in efficiency of these leds, it probably won't be all that long before this note is quite obsolete and you all have them in your homes - for cheap. I certainly hope so, for environmental reasons, and simply 'cause their cool.

 

[chexi]

I bought some LED light bulbs a year or so ago and was quite disappointed (not these). However, just to clarify things, LED bulbs are not the future of lighting. OLED's and FOLED's are. With OLED and FOLED, you will have a very thin transparent film that will emit significantly more light. The creative possibilities are limitless.

You will also have OLED televisions and monitors in the next few years that are brighter, have significantly better colors and viewing angles, are much thinner and lighter, and far more energy efficient (no backlighting required) than LCD. Presently, certain digital cameras and telephones already use OLED technology for their displays. Cost of production is still higher than LCD, and LCD keeps getting cheaper, but OLED is a far better technology. Hopefully it will not be the Betamax of lighting and displays.

Disclosure - I am a (very minor) shareholder of one of the companies developing this technology. But I believe in the technology and truly hope that it is not priced out of the market before it can make an impact by the cut-throat pricing of the inferior LCD's.

Let the flamewar begin.

 

[davee1]

Oh wow!!!! No flamewar needed!!!! I want a OLED lightbulb now!!! That has got to be cool!!!

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Kwint Sommer
LEDs are cool except they are about as efficient as normal light bulbs (at least at comparable sizes) but while your average light bulb wastes some energy producing UV light and some producing heat an LED only wastes energy on heat so they end up being a lot hotter. Just something to keep in mind.

You're wrong. LED's are a lot more efficient than incandescent light bulbs. You are correct about the heat production though.