OT: CFL Bulbs

On 01 Jan 2016 08:06:23 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> CFL's were a scam from the first. Never delivered the light wanted or
>> needed. I have some high wattage flood lamps and they are useful
>> after the warm up and turn on. I mix a Real and a CFL and soon an LED
>> CFL.
>>
>> I switch on the corner lights and spot something. The other light
>> finally comes on if I leave the switch longer.
>>
>> Martin
>
>CFLs are great for where the light is turned on and left on. (Btw, there
>are instant on CFLs that are much brighter at start up.) If the light is
>turned on and off like a bathroom, there's only a small benefit to using
>them. If the light is turned on for only a minute or so, like a closet,
>they're no good at all.

Other than our kitchen and basement, that's how all the lights in our
house are used. The Kitchen now has LED cans (recently upgraded from
fluorescent tubes) and the basement has CFLs, that will soon be
replaced with 4' tubes. The rest of the house is incandescent.

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/31/2015 8:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>>
>>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs. For
>> instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
>> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>> High heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the
>>> LED's they work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>>>>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on
>>>> electricity to operate those
>>>> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>>>>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>>>>
>>>> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>>>>
>>
> Since Watts are a measure of power and is related to Joules and
> calories, I would suspect that a 60 watt LED would produce the same heat
> as a 60 watt tungsten. (For give me if it is no quite right but it has
> been 50 years since I did this sort of thing)

You probably are not going to find a 60 watt LED, it would probably be
brighter than the sun. LED's marked 60 watt equivalent are just that,
equivalent. A 12-14 watt LED is equivalent in brightness to a 60-70 watt
incandescent. And FWIW a 15 watt LED bulb hardly feels warm even when
left on 24/7. The same said about a 15 watt incandescent will burn you if
you touch it.





>
> However I believe LEDs are compared to Tungsten by the lumens they
> produce (amount of light) and a when you are talking LED you are
> actually saying they produce the light equivalent to a 60 watt tungsten
> bulb, not the LED is 60 watts.
>
>
>
>

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:35:35 AM UTC-8, krw wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:46:16 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >Alas...no LED is 50% efficient, because the light can come out of the
> >chip, or go the other way (and get absorbed). Fluorescent tubes could conceivably win
> >the efficiency battle some day

> Not true. LEDs don't absorb 50% of their generated light. In fact
> the direction of the beam is quite small.

Irrelevant, of course; the light is not formed as a beam inside the bulk of semiconductor,
but at glued-on lenses. That's only AFTER the light escapes from the solid semiconductor chip.

You'd have to count up all the quantum jumps that produce a photon, and note that
less photons than that are seen to light up the room.

And the good ones are useable on dimmers.

I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass. High
heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the LED's they
work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....

Martin

On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>> future.
>
> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on electricity to operate those
> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>
>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>
> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>

Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/1/2016 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 1/1/2016 7:25 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Just an old Codger checking in. My wife changed us over to CFLs when
>>> the craze started. I haven't noticed any decrease in the frequency I
>>> have to get out the step ladder and change burned out bulbs. No savings
>>> in buying the things. My electric bill has not decreased. Have not
>>> noticed that the summers are any cooler. Can't see any better. With
>>> LED's I think I'll sit it out a while.
>>>
>>
>> Why not invest less than $5 and try one? If you get the daylight
>> version you may see better. Put it in the hardest spot to change and
>> you may see you are not changing it as often.
>>
>> I've been changing over and have yet to replace one.
>
>Been struggling with SWMBO over the changeover. We both hated the CFLs
>(and why not they suck).
>
>Think it was here that somebody clued the group into the LED style "shop
>lights" that Costco had on their shelves.
>
>As I was about to bite the bullet and either replace 8 tubes in the
>garage or switch to new fixtures entirely - to avoid the warm up and
>flicker of the non-magnetic ballasts - I decided to buy four of the
>fixtures.
>
>So far, it's the best thing I could have done out there. Even with the
>temperature at ~ 23 degrees, I flip the switch and the place lights up
>like a football stadium. These are warmer, I think, than the cool white
>fluorescent tubes they replaced but they are great.
>
>Starting to see better prices and better selection of the LED's at the
>Big Boxes and so I'll start sneaking some in where I am the main user.
>SWMBO has a good point in that we had stockpiled a quantity of
>incandescent bulb, indoor/outdoor floods, A19's, etc and it's senseless
>to just toss them. We're getting to the point, however, where probably
>by the end of this year I can start looking for "value packs" of LED's
>and stock up and then swap out banks of floods, etc. so they look
>uniform (downlighting in family room and kitchen)
>

Glad you brought up the LED tube thing as the discussion has mainly
focused on A19 or screw-in LEDs. I've got an old 24" T12 fluorescent
fixture (magnetic ballast) over the sink in the kitchen that stays on
24/7/365. It's hidden, above and behind a cornice that's part of
the cabinets. Last August I started looking at replacing the
fluorescent unit with an LED fixture when I stumbled upon this
plug-n-play alternative from FEIT:

http://www.feit.com/led-lamps/led_linear_tubes/t24-841-led

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_5aKTiKyNY


HD sells the 48" version but not the 24":
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Feit-Electric-4-ft-T8-T12-17-Watt-Cool-White-4100K-Linear-LED-Light-Bulb-T48-841-LED-RP/206036836

Bought mine at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Feit-T24-841-LED-Fluorescent/dp/B00W13FEZ0

I was _amazed_ at the increased brightness over the fluorescent .

It will be interesting to see if it lasts 5.7 years (50,000 hrs) when
left on 24hrs a day.

Granted, at $22 a piece, these are too pricey to do a large scale
retro-fit. There are cheaper alternatives but they invlove either
replacing the entire fixture -OR- removing the ballast and changing all
the tombstones to non-shunted:

https://www.earthled.com/collections/t8-t12-led-fluorescent-replacement-tube-lights-that-bypass-ballast-rewire
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/4100k-led-t8-tubes-direct-wire/

OR, if you have T8 fixtures w/electronic ballasts, these don't require any modification:

https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/4100k-led-t8-tubes-ballast-compatible/
https://www.earthled.com/collections/t8-led-fluorescent-replacement-tube-lights-compatible-with-electronic-ballasts

G. Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> CFL's were a scam from the first. Never delivered the light wanted or
>> needed. I have some high wattage flood lamps and they are useful after
>> the warm up and turn on. I mix a Real and a CFL and soon an LED CFL.
>>
>> I switch on the corner lights and spot something. The other light
>> finally comes on if I leave the switch longer.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 12/31/2015 8:15 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Meanie <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>>>> all adds up.
>>>
>>> You should've done the math first. LED lamps are still expensive enough
>>> that it's not cost-
>>> effective to replace *working* CFLs with LEDs. The payback period is
>>> about 20% longer than
>>> the expected life of the LED.
>>>
>>> It *is* cost-effective to replace *dead* CFLs, or incandescents whether
>>> working or not, with
>>> LEDs.
>>>
>>
> Just an old Codger checking in. My wife changed us over to CFLs when
> the craze started. I haven't noticed any decrease in the frequency I
> have to get out the step ladder and change burned out bulbs. No
> savings in buying the things. My electric bill has not decreased.
> Have not noticed that the summers are any cooler. Can't see any
> better. With LED's I think I'll sit it out a while.
>

I find CFL longevity slightly longer than incandescent. I don't think you
will ever notice much of a difference in your electric bill month to month
switching from incandescent as 15, 100 watt incandescent bulbs use the
same energy as a small space heater which for me, 8 hours a day in my
garage, does not make a blip on my energy usage either. The vast majority
of your electric bill is to pay for Air conditioning, electric furnace,
electric water heaters, and electric ranges.

One big advantage to LED's is that they do run cooler. This is great for
under counter lighting where hot lighting can toast the wood. We keep our
"ribbon" LED under counter lighting in the kitchen on 24/7 and neither the
lights or cabinets seem to ever be even slightly warm. On all the time is
great for getting up in the middle of the night for a cold drink of water.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-8, Doug Miller wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
> > bulbs, ...what is the rating
> > of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
> > bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>
> You'll have to look hard to find an LED that generates as much heat as even a 25W
> incandescent. The LEDs convert nearly all of the power they consume into light, and emit very
> very little heat.

Alas, that's not literally true; no LED is 50% efficient, because the light can come out of the
chip, or go the other way (and get absorbed). Fluorescent tubes could conceivably win
the efficiency battle some day (because they don't have to include opaque parts).

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:28:37 -0500, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/31/2015 8:01 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>>
>>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs. For
>> instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
>> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>> High heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the
>>> LED's they work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>>>>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on
>>>> electricity to operate those
>>>> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>>>>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>>>>
>>>> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>>>>
>>
>Since Watts are a measure of power and is related to Joules and
>calories, I would suspect that a 60 watt LED would produce the same heat
>as a 60 watt tungsten. (For give me if it is no quite right but it has
>been 50 years since I did this sort of thing)

Yes and no. Since the LED is more efficient, more of the power will
go into light (thus less into heat). The light is eventually turned
into heat, so yes, in the long run, the heat output is the same but
less heat will be dissipated in the fixture.
>
>However I believe LEDs are compared to Tungsten by the lumens they
>produce (amount of light) and a when you are talking LED you are
>actually saying they produce the light equivalent to a 60 watt tungsten
>bulb, not the LED is 60 watts.
>
Yes, the LED would be "60 watt equivalent", or some such. It'll also
state the actual wattage but it will be significantly less. Depending
on the particular LED, this can vary a lot.

The problem is that LEDs are semiconductor devices so can't tolerate
much heat. Every 10C rise in heat will probably reduce its life by
2.5x (or perhaps even more).

John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> According to the box in your picture, the stated lifespan
> is 12000 hours. That's 3 hours per day over 11 years.
> I'm going to guess that, in the kitchen you probably had
> the light on more than 3 hours per day.
>
> LEDs are definately the way to go, tho, now that the
> prices are getting reasonable. I've never liked the
> twisties, and thanks to having stockpiled a several year
> supply of incandescents a while back, I'll be able to
> go right to LEDs, and skip the CFL stage.
>
> John
>

LEDs have a side benefit (or an outside benefit). They attract fewer
bugs. We had two lights, about 20' apart. One light had incandescent
bulbs while the other had LED bulbs. There was a distinct difference in
the number of bugs around the lights, with the LED fixture having
significantly less.

Puckdropper

--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

krw <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:10:00 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs
>> any
>>more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?
>
> Absolutely! They're semiconductor devices, after all.

Many of the LED bulbs have fins on them. They're heat sinks trying to keep
the bulb and its integrated power supply cool. I haven't played too much
with the small high-powered LEDs, but I'm sure they generate a good amount
of heat.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> CFL's were a scam from the first. Never delivered the light wanted or
> needed. I have some high wattage flood lamps and they are useful
> after the warm up and turn on. I mix a Real and a CFL and soon an LED
> CFL.
>
> I switch on the corner lights and spot something. The other light
> finally comes on if I leave the switch longer.
>
> Martin

CFLs are great for where the light is turned on and left on. (Btw, there
are instant on CFLs that are much brighter at start up.) If the light is
turned on and off like a bathroom, there's only a small benefit to using
them. If the light is turned on for only a minute or so, like a closet,
they're no good at all.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On 1/1/2016 12:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 7:25 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>
>>>
>> Just an old Codger checking in. My wife changed us over to CFLs when
>> the craze started. I haven't noticed any decrease in the frequency I
>> have to get out the step ladder and change burned out bulbs. No savings
>> in buying the things. My electric bill has not decreased. Have not
>> noticed that the summers are any cooler. Can't see any better. With
>> LED's I think I'll sit it out a while.
>>
>
> Why not invest less than $5 and try one? If you get the daylight
> version you may see better. Put it in the hardest spot to change and
> you may see you are not changing it as often.
>
> I've been changing over and have yet to replace one.

Been struggling with SWMBO over the changeover. We both hated the CFLs
(and why not they suck).

Think it was here that somebody clued the group into the LED style "shop
lights" that Costco had on their shelves.

As I was about to bite the bullet and either replace 8 tubes in the
garage or switch to new fixtures entirely - to avoid the warm up and
flicker of the non-magnetic ballasts - I decided to buy four of the
fixtures.

So far, it's the best thing I could have done out there. Even with the
temperature at ~ 23 degrees, I flip the switch and the place lights up
like a football stadium. These are warmer, I think, than the cool white
fluorescent tubes they replaced but they are great.

Starting to see better prices and better selection of the LED's at the
Big Boxes and so I'll start sneaking some in where I am the main user.
SWMBO has a good point in that we had stockpiled a quantity of
incandescent bulb, indoor/outdoor floods, A19's, etc and it's senseless
to just toss them. We're getting to the point, however, where probably
by the end of this year I can start looking for "value packs" of LED's
and stock up and then swap out banks of floods, etc. so they look
uniform (downlighting in family room and kitchen)

Casper <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
>>now.
>
> Bought two 40-watt equivalent LED bulbs the other day at HD and both
> were $14 each. Was that a special in your area?

They're still running in the $5-10 neighborhood here, so maybe the power
company was investing some of your hard earned money in making the bulbs
appear cheaper to you. Ours did that with the CFLs, we stocked up at
something like 4 for 99 cents. Almost wish we didn't, as LEDs are so much
better, but they're still not cheap yet.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

"G. Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c7ydndgxlMz9bBrLnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]:

> I bought one from Lowe's that only came on when it was dark. It died
> after a month. I bought a LED bulb at radio shack and replaced the
> one in the light. It has been working several years now. Never gets
> warm. We use the rope type on the shelf that surrounds the breakfast
> room to light the do-dads my wife keeps there. They go out a section
> at a time after a couple of years. They are on a timer about 12/24
> daily. My brother's LED flashlight LED changed to just a glow after a
> year of occasional use. So the hype about them lasting a million
> years is just that.
>

LEDs can be overdriven, and they will be brighter for a short time. If
kept within their current ratings, they'll last a very long time.

If you're using a bad power supply, it certainly isn't helping things.
We've got some LEDs down at the club that were killed because of a bad
power supply. The voltage sagged, the regulator in the supply couldn't
regulate, and LEDs started burning out. Once we took the load off the
supply and the regulator started working properly, LEDs stopped burning
out.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
>now.

Bought two 40-watt equivalent LED bulbs the other day at HD and both
were $14 each. Was that a special in your area?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:01:46 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>
>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs.
>For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
>of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>
Don't count on it. LEDs (and CFLs, for that matter) need to be kept
much cooler than incandescent bulbs. Overheating the bulb will
*greatly* shorten its life. The issue becomes the bulb, not the
enclosure.

>

On 1/2/2016 3:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 11:59:06 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2016 10:26 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
>>> you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
>>> bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
>>>
>>> LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
>>> attached to the back near the screw end.
>>>
>>> Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
>>> in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
>>> occur around the house or shop either.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have a hard time understanding your third sentence. This is AC
>> alternating current. It is the same regardless to a bulb. it alternates
>> back and forth.
>>
>> MORE CURRENT? It's the same regardless. it alternates back and forth.
>> It has nothing to do with more current, not for a bulb. The incandescent
>> bulb does not know hot from cold.
> He;s saying using 120 volt bulbs in 130 volt circuits causes bulbs
> to burn out faster - and he is right.- because higher voltage causes
> higher current and more heat (watts)
>

Geez I missed that. Thanks for the clarifcation Clare.

--
Jeff

On 1/2/2016 1:34 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/2/2016 12:03 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>> I had bought a bunch of incandescent b4 the big purge. They are crap
>> compared to the older ones. The 3 ways went in a week to 2 months. We
>> had tried the CFL 3 way and did not like them. hardly a diff in light.
>> So I bought a bunch of incans. What a big disappointment.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm confused. Just a few minutes ago I thought you were admonishing us
> for leaving lights on when not needed. Now you tell us you stocked up
> on inefficient bulbs because you did not like the newer ones.
> You aren't one of those hippo crits I hear about are you?

You must be spying on my growing waist line... :-)


Yea it was hard to read by the 3 way CFL's , so he wife wanted regular
bulbs. low for TV at night but high for reading.
The new incans didn't last long, they were junk. All Sylvania POCs.

There was no choice. The 3 way cfls were not usable for reading.
The LED's were about $75 a piece back then. My niece and her husband
bought a bunch for their kitchen.. not me, not at that price.


--
Jeff

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 11:59:06 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 1/1/2016 10:26 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
>> you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
>> bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
>>
>> LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
>> attached to the back near the screw end.
>>
>> Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
>> in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
>> occur around the house or shop either.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>
>I have a hard time understanding your third sentence. This is AC
>alternating current. It is the same regardless to a bulb. it alternates
>back and forth.
>
>MORE CURRENT? It's the same regardless. it alternates back and forth.
>It has nothing to do with more current, not for a bulb. The incandescent
>bulb does not know hot from cold.
He;s saying using 120 volt bulbs in 130 volt circuits causes bulbs
to burn out faster - and he is right.- because higher voltage causes
higher current and more heat (watts)

On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 06:40:51 -0500, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
>>> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>>> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>
>> You'll have to look hard to find an LED that generates as much heat as even a 25W
>> incandescent. The LEDs convert nearly all of the power they consume into light, and emit very
>> very little heat.
>>
>> The "100W" LEDs are actually 100W-equivalent -- that is, they emit about the same amount of
>> light as a 100W incandescent bulb, but since they emit almost no heat the power consumption
>> will be more like 15 watts.
>>
>I have LED flashlights that get uncomfortably warm.

Put a 15W incandescent bulb in your hand and it will get
"uncomfortably warm", too. ;-)

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 8:47:34 AM UTC-8, Brewster wrote:
> On 12/31/15 6:10 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs any
> > more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?

> Yes! (I build custom LED lights/fixtures).
>
> LEDs are very sensitive to heat and much is done to draw the heat away
> from the LED....
> In my mind, the big "thing" LEDs offer is better fixtures. You can fit
> an LED into a very low profile fixture (good by can fixtures). Under
> cabinet lighting will be (is) a big winner.

Yep, that's how it works; if you want to screw-in a light bulb replacement,
with power/heatsink/LED, it'll only be a dim bulb. For any power higher
than '60W equivalent' (actually about 5-10W), a good LED replacement
for an incandescent will require an entire redesigned fixture.

Strip lighting (lotsa LEDs spread out, low watts/square inch) it self-cools
fine.

I have a well-made 16W LED fixture; the LED plus heatsink weighs 800 grams
(a little under 2 lbs). The LED weighs about 2 grams. The
LED/heatsink won't fit any lamp made for screw-in incandescent bulbs.

One would think a flood would be more instant. But not.

I also use a flood in the Pantry. If it is left on,
Then it doesn't spoil food and is nice and bright.

On 1/1/2016 2:06 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Martin Eastburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> CFL's were a scam from the first. Never delivered the light wanted or
>> needed. I have some high wattage flood lamps and they are useful
>> after the warm up and turn on. I mix a Real and a CFL and soon an LED
>> CFL.
>>
>> I switch on the corner lights and spot something. The other light
>> finally comes on if I leave the switch longer.
>>
>> Martin
>
> CFLs are great for where the light is turned on and left on. (Btw, there
> are instant on CFLs that are much brighter at start up.) If the light is
> turned on and off like a bathroom, there's only a small benefit to using
> them. If the light is turned on for only a minute or so, like a closet,
> they're no good at all.
>
> Puckdropper
>

On 12/31/2015 10:28 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> However I believe LEDs are compared to Tungsten by the lumens they
> produce (amount of light) and a when you are talking LED you are
> actually saying they produce the light equivalent to a 60 watt tungsten
> bulb, not the LED is 60 watts.
>
>
>

Yes, we got used to using watts, but lumen is what we really need to
know so you can compare any type of bulb. It will take most of a
generation to get used to that.

On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, whit3rd wrote:

>> Will each individual bulb save $20 in 5.7 years of use?
>
> Don't just ask, ANSWER that question: 5.7 years, of 10W LED lamp (Feit T24/841 model)
> giving 700 lumens output, about 40% 'more efficient' than fluorescent equivalent.
> So, 4W, times 5.7 years, converted to kW-h
>
> 'saved' = 4 * 5.7 * 365*24 /1000 = 200 kW-h
>
> At 0.10 per kW-h, that's $20. So, it's priced about right.
>

I pay 0.19 so they really are a good deal.

CFL's were a scam from the first. Never delivered the light wanted or
needed. I have some high wattage flood lamps and they are useful after
the warm up and turn on. I mix a Real and a CFL and soon an LED CFL.

I switch on the corner lights and spot something. The other light
finally comes on if I leave the switch longer.

Martin

On 12/31/2015 8:15 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Meanie <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>
>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>> all adds up.
>
> You should've done the math first. LED lamps are still expensive enough that it's not cost-
> effective to replace *working* CFLs with LEDs. The payback period is about 20% longer than
> the expected life of the LED.
>
> It *is* cost-effective to replace *dead* CFLs, or incandescents whether working or not, with
> LEDs.
>

On 12/30/2015 1:21 PM, Casper wrote:
> I'm guessing some of you are still using CFLs until you need to
> replace them, yes? If so, you might want to keep an eye on them.
>
> I caught this CFL burnt out last night from down the hallway. When we
> walked into the kitchen to check on it, we found it dark, except for
> the spot glowing cherry red in the light in the ceiling...
>
> http://s265.photobucket.com/user/AMDHamm/media/CFL%20Bulb.jpg.html
>
> Note the burnt section in the right-hand photo. We replaced the bulb
> with a different brand CFL only because we already had one. As soon as
> the remaining CFLs are used up, we will be replacing them with LEDs.
> This one lasted about half it's stated lifespan, approx. 5.5 years.
>
> Guess the power company (Duke) did not thoroughly review thier free
> product quality. Now they give away a different brand. I find little
> comfort in contemplating the power company desiring to burn my house
> down in the middle of a cold winter night.
>
> `Casper
> "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." -Dr. Ian Malcom
>

So there is little difference between cfl and led. Both have a short
life. The led's transformer goes b4 the bulb.

The problem is that the heat goes right to the transformers, put the
bulb into a socket where the socket is below the bulb, and the heat
disipates.

These bulbs are not really that good for the price. They may save
energy short term, but I'll bet the cost in energy to produce them
probably out weighs any benefit.

My garage door opener won't take a cfl, it's too short a base on the cfl.

Notice that all the bulbs are really about 60watt equivs for led. I
always used 75 or 100.

It doesn't matter the company, I've had 3 different units burn out like
that.

--
Jeff

On 12/30/2015 3:40 PM, Meanie wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 3:24 PM, Casper wrote:
>>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>>> all adds up.
>>
>> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
>> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning,
>> and claim to truth.
>>
>
> I have an advantage...I get the bulbs for free.

How do you get them for free?

--
Jeff

Doug Miller wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
>> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>
> You'll have to look hard to find an LED that generates as much heat as even a 25W
> incandescent. The LEDs convert nearly all of the power they consume into light, and emit very
> very little heat.
>
> The "100W" LEDs are actually 100W-equivalent -- that is, they emit about the same amount of
> light as a 100W incandescent bulb, but since they emit almost no heat the power consumption
> will be more like 15 watts.
>
I have LED flashlights that get uncomfortably warm.

--
GW Ross

There's no substitute for
incomprehensible good luck.

On 1/1/2016 7:25 AM, G. Ross wrote:

>>
> Just an old Codger checking in. My wife changed us over to CFLs when
> the craze started. I haven't noticed any decrease in the frequency I
> have to get out the step ladder and change burned out bulbs. No savings
> in buying the things. My electric bill has not decreased. Have not
> noticed that the summers are any cooler. Can't see any better. With
> LED's I think I'll sit it out a while.
>

Why not invest less than $5 and try one? If you get the daylight
version you may see better. Put it in the hardest spot to change and
you may see you are not changing it as often.

I've been changing over and have yet to replace one.

"krw" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 04:18:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> >"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>> >60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
>> >now.
>>
>> Bought two 40-watt equivalent LED bulbs the other day at HD and both
>> were $14 each. Was that a special in your area?
>
>Might have been a special--they're 3 bucks now. Phillips A19
>"SlimStyle" SoftWhite. The round ones are 4. When I got them a box of
>3 was the same price as a single bulb.

I've used 1000bulbs.com several times in the past. They want $3 up
(way up). I suspect anything less than that is a loss leader (not
that loss leaders are a bad thing).

https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/

Myself. Delivered but yet to install PLT-10014 2,200 Lumens - LED -
F32T8 Replacement - 4 ft. Tube - 19 Watt - 5000K - Use With Instant Start
Ballast - LifeBulb LBT8F2250 @ 13.99/ea. plus tax and shipping. And, have on
order a dozen PAR30 - 15 Watt - Long Neck - 75W Equal - 2228 Candlepower -
40 Deg. Flood - 5000 K - Stark White - Euri Lighting EP30-1050ew @ $11.99
each for several ceiling can replacements. I'm tired of the yellowish hue
and I would like not to climb up that 12 foot step ladder to reach that 16
foot ceiling for as long as I'm still living in this house.
No steal to be sure but it's almost impossible to find anything but the
soft/warm white at the big box stores.

dave in SoTex

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> >Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
> >I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
> >well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
> >all adds up.
>
> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth.

60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
now.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 12/30/2015 3:40 PM, Meanie wrote:
> > On 12/30/2015 3:24 PM, Casper wrote:
> >>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
> >>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
> >>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
> >>> all adds up.
> >>
> >> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
> >> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning,
> >> and claim to truth.
> >>
> >
> > I have an advantage...I get the bulbs for free.
> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
> future.
>
> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
> the instance you turn on the switch by then

LEDs do that now.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 12/30/2015 7:08 PM, Leon wrote:
>
> >> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
> >> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>
> > I assure you LED lights are more than adequate in brightness, instantly.
>
> Amen to that. CFL's sucked right from the beginning. LED's are great,
> other than price which is comming down fast.
>
> I replaced two of 3 75w incandescents over my pool table with 60 or 65w
> LED's and you cannot tell them apart from the 75w incandescent. The
> CFL's NEVER gave the same light as = wattage incandescents. If they
> last 1/2 as long as rated, they will be awesome. I don't like the white
> daylight ones though, they are really harsh.
>
> Also, in my kitchen I replaced all the canister spotlights with led's
> and now instead of 600 watts I use only a few watts at full brightness,
> which is brighter than the originals and only use a few watts.
>
> This can only get better and cheaper as time goes on, and you don't need
> no stinkin' government hacks mandating their use.

Pity we can't line up all the stinking government hacks in question and
shove CF bulbs up their butts until we've exhaust the whole supply (of
bulbs that is).

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> >"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
> >60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
> >now.
>
> Bought two 40-watt equivalent LED bulbs the other day at HD and both
> were $14 each. Was that a special in your area?

Might have been a special--they're 3 bucks now. Phillips A19
"SlimStyle" SoftWhite. The round ones are 4. When I got them a box of
3 was the same price as a single bulb.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 1/1/2016 10:26 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> > The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
> > you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
> > bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
> >
> > LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
> > attached to the back near the screw end.
> >
> > Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
> > in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
> > occur around the house or shop either.
> >
> > Martin
> >
>
>
> I have a hard time understanding your third sentence. This is AC
> alternating current. It is the same regardless to a bulb. it alternates
> back and forth.
>
> MORE CURRENT? It's the same regardless. it alternates back and forth.
> It has nothing to do with more current, not for a bulb. The incandescent
> bulb does not know hot from cold.

??? Incandescent bulbs are almost purely resistive loads. I=E/R.
Increase E you increase I in direct proportion. More current means more
heat.

On 12/30/2015 4:22 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> Casper <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I caught this CFL burnt out last night from down the hallway. When we
>> walked into the kitchen to check on it, we found it dark, except for
>> the spot glowing cherry red in the light in the ceiling...
>>
>> http://s265.photobucket.com/user/AMDHamm/media/CFL%20Bulb.jpg.html
>
> Looks like a capacitor in the ballast electronics failed.
>
>> This one lasted about half it's stated lifespan, approx. 5.5 years.
>
> According to the box in your picture, the stated lifespan
> is 12000 hours. That's 3 hours per day over 11 years.
> I'm going to guess that, in the kitchen you probably had
> the light on more than 3 hours per day.
>
> LEDs are definately the way to go, tho, now that the
> prices are getting reasonable. I've never liked the
> twisties, and thanks to having stockpiled a several year
> supply of incandescents a while back, I'll be able to
> go right to LEDs, and skip the CFL stage.
>
> John
>
With 11' ceilings I tossed my supply of Par40 incandescent bulbs which I
got for free, 20 or so. Our kitchen had 5 of these canned lights and
one was burning out every 4~6 weeks for the last year.
I switched to the LED's equal to 70 watt for about $60 for 6 lamps and 8
weeks later no climbing on a ladder.

I think pay off will be with in 3 years considering that I went from 325
watts to 70 watts.

On 1/2/2016 12:03 PM, woodchucker wrote:

> I had bought a bunch of incandescent b4 the big purge. They are crap
> compared to the older ones. The 3 ways went in a week to 2 months. We
> had tried the CFL 3 way and did not like them. hardly a diff in light.
> So I bought a bunch of incans. What a big disappointment.
>
>
>

I'm confused. Just a few minutes ago I thought you were admonishing us
for leaving lights on when not needed. Now you tell us you stocked up
on inefficient bulbs because you did not like the newer ones.
You aren't one of those hippo crits I hear about are you?

Actually the cold Tungsten, a brittle fibrous metal, conducts about 10
times the current when cold than hot. The inrush current is high. That
is why bulbs blow when you switch them on rather than during the
day/night. The bending and flexing of the filament brings on the short
life. Long life bulbs we use in barns and basketball courts.... are
140v bulbs and have a mid wire bridge wire that keeps the wire from
flexing to far. They sometimes have a tiny amount of mercury or silver
that reacts to the oxygen left in the bulb as well as any that comes out
of the filament as it is heated.

Martin

On 1/2/2016 5:02 PM, krw wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 15:56:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 1/1/2016 10:26 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>>> The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
>>>> you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
>>>> bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
>>>>
>>>> LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
>>>> attached to the back near the screw end.
>>>>
>>>> Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
>>>> in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
>>>> occur around the house or shop either.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a hard time understanding your third sentence. This is AC
>>> alternating current. It is the same regardless to a bulb. it alternates
>>> back and forth.
>>>
>>> MORE CURRENT? It's the same regardless. it alternates back and forth.
>>> It has nothing to do with more current, not for a bulb. The incandescent
>>> bulb does not know hot from cold.
>>
>> ??? Incandescent bulbs are almost purely resistive loads. I=E/R.
>> Increase E you increase I in direct proportion. More current means more
>> heat.
>
> They're resistive in the sense that they aren't reactive (capacitive
> or inductive) but incandescent bulb filaments have a very high
> temperature coefficient. The higher the voltage, the higher the
> resistance. In fact, over a fairly wide range of voltage,
> incandescent lamps make pretty decent constant current sources) and
> are often used as such). Yes, the bulb certainly does "know" hot from
> cold. That's why the resistance changes over temperature (power).
>
>

Casper <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I caught this CFL burnt out last night from down the hallway. When we
> walked into the kitchen to check on it, we found it dark, except for
> the spot glowing cherry red in the light in the ceiling...
>
> http://s265.photobucket.com/user/AMDHamm/media/CFL%20Bulb.jpg.html

Looks like a capacitor in the ballast electronics failed.

> This one lasted about half it's stated lifespan, approx. 5.5 years.

According to the box in your picture, the stated lifespan
is 12000 hours. That's 3 hours per day over 11 years.
I'm going to guess that, in the kitchen you probably had
the light on more than 3 hours per day.

LEDs are definately the way to go, tho, now that the
prices are getting reasonable. I've never liked the
twisties, and thanks to having stockpiled a several year
supply of incandescents a while back, I'll be able to
go right to LEDs, and skip the CFL stage.

John

Meanie <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:


> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
> all adds up.

You should've done the math first. LED lamps are still expensive enough that it's not cost-
effective to replace *working* CFLs with LEDs. The payback period is about 20% longer than
the expected life of the LED.

It *is* cost-effective to replace *dead* CFLs, or incandescents whether working or not, with
LEDs.

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
> future.

By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on electricity to operate those
lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>
> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
> the instance you turn on the switch by then

Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.

Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?

You'll have to look hard to find an LED that generates as much heat as even a 25W
incandescent. The LEDs convert nearly all of the power they consume into light, and emit very
very little heat.

The "100W" LEDs are actually 100W-equivalent -- that is, they emit about the same amount of
light as a 100W incandescent bulb, but since they emit almost no heat the power consumption
will be more like 15 watts.

Spalted Walt <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> You haven't bought 2ft fluorescent tubes lately, have you <snicker>
[...]
>
> The 2ft are getting MORE expensive and the quality has fallen DRASTICALLY:

... coincident with the shift of manufacturing from the U.S. to China.

> I only get about 9 months of continuous use with either GE or
> Philips. Back in the '90s I was getting 2 yrs.

My experience matches yours.

Right - in the bathroom the fan unit wants a 40. And make it darker
than without the light almost. I put in a 60w LED (effective) and it is
a 16 heat watt unit. Runs cool and won't melt the plastic. Shows more
light and my beloved loves it. No brainier on that one.

Martin

On 12/31/2015 7:01 PM, Bill wrote:
> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>
>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs. For
> instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the rating
> of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
> bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>
> Bill
>
>
>> High heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the
>> LED's they work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>>>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on
>>> electricity to operate those
>>> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>>>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>>>
>>> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>>>
>

On 1/2/2016 12:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 21:26:46 -0600, Martin Eastburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
>> you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
>> bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
>>
>> LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
>> attached to the back near the screw end.
>>
>> Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
>> in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
>> occur around the house or shop either.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 12/31/2015 7:10 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>>>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>>>>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>>>>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>>>> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs.
>>>> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>>>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>>>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>>>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the
>>>> rating of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as
>>>> a 60W bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>> Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs any
>>> more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> High heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the
>>>>> LED's they work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>>>>>>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on
>>>>>> electricity to operate those
>>>>>> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>>>>>>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> We've had bad luck with incandescents at the church/ Standard 100 watt
> incandescents in cans. I've replaced 40 in 2 years. No idea what brand
> they were but I've been replacing with Philips. (all new install 2
> years ago - on dimmers, used about 6 hours a week max.
> Seems I have to replace almost 1 a week lately.
>
> We will be switching to dimmable LED bulbs and see what happens.
>

I had bought a bunch of incandescent b4 the big purge. They are crap
compared to the older ones. The 3 ways went in a week to 2 months. We
had tried the CFL 3 way and did not like them. hardly a diff in light.
So I bought a bunch of incans. What a big disappointment.



--
Jeff

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:38:40 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>The only LED I will not use any more are the ones for the night light.
>>C9 bulb they get a bit to hot for the cheap plastic fixture. YMMV
>
>Really? Odd. I have used night light LEDs for several years and they
>never get hot. I can turn one off and pull the light out of the outlet
>being barely warm to the touch. What brand are you using?

I think you're talking about different things. I think he's talking
about C9 replacement LEDs in a C9 fixture. I too have LED nightlights
but ones with non-replaceable lamps. They're great (and come in many
colors), and like yours are cool to the touch. It doesn't take
anything like a watt to make a nice nightlight (I have clock faces
that are even too bright). A C9 (equivalent) seems like overkill to
me.

Casper wrote:
>>The only LED I will not use any more are the ones for the night light.
>>C9 bulb they get a bit to hot for the cheap plastic fixture. YMMV
>
> Really? Odd. I have used night light LEDs for several years and they
> never get hot. I can turn one off and pull the light out of the outlet
> being barely warm to the touch. What brand are you using?
>
I bought one from Lowe's that only came on when it was dark. It died
after a month. I bought a LED bulb at radio shack and replaced the
one in the light. It has been working several years now. Never gets
warm. We use the rope type on the shelf that surrounds the breakfast
room to light the do-dads my wife keeps there. They go out a section
at a time after a couple of years. They are on a timer about 12/24
daily. My brother's LED flashlight LED changed to just a glow after a
year of occasional use. So the hype about them lasting a million
years is just that.

--
GW Ross

Crime doesn't pay... does that mean my
job is a crime?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:46:16 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 7:30:44 PM UTC-8, Doug Miller wrote:
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>> > bulbs, ...what is the rating
>> > of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as a 60W
>> > bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>
>> You'll have to look hard to find an LED that generates as much heat as even a 25W
>> incandescent. The LEDs convert nearly all of the power they consume into light, and emit very
>> very little heat.
>
>Alas, that's not literally true; no LED is 50% efficient, because the light can come out of the
>chip, or go the other way (and get absorbed). Fluorescent tubes could conceivably win
>the efficiency battle some day (because they don't have to include opaque parts).

Not true. LEDs don't absorb 50% of their generated light. In fact
the direction of the beam is quite small. Diffusers are used (which
do absorb some light) to make the light more omnidirectional. It's no
problem to get LEDs that are twice as efficient (measured as getting
twice the lumens per watt) as a fluorescent.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:18:08 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 12/30/2015 4:22 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Casper <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I caught this CFL burnt out last night from down the hallway. When we
>>> walked into the kitchen to check on it, we found it dark, except for
>>> the spot glowing cherry red in the light in the ceiling...
>>>
>>> http://s265.photobucket.com/user/AMDHamm/media/CFL%20Bulb.jpg.html
>>
>> Looks like a capacitor in the ballast electronics failed.
>>
>>> This one lasted about half it's stated lifespan, approx. 5.5 years.
>>
>> According to the box in your picture, the stated lifespan
>> is 12000 hours. That's 3 hours per day over 11 years.
>> I'm going to guess that, in the kitchen you probably had
>> the light on more than 3 hours per day.
>>
>> LEDs are definately the way to go, tho, now that the
>> prices are getting reasonable. I've never liked the
>> twisties, and thanks to having stockpiled a several year
>> supply of incandescents a while back, I'll be able to
>> go right to LEDs, and skip the CFL stage.
>>
>> John
>>
>With 11' ceilings I tossed my supply of Par40 incandescent bulbs which I
>got for free, 20 or so. Our kitchen had 5 of these canned lights and
>one was burning out every 4~6 weeks for the last year.
>I switched to the LED's equal to 70 watt for about $60 for 6 lamps and 8
>weeks later no climbing on a ladder.
>
>I think pay off will be with in 3 years considering that I went from 325
>watts to 70 watts.

And add your labor costs for changing out the bulbs, (time is money)
and I'd bet you that your lamps have already paid for themselves.

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/1/2016 5:41 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>
>> HD sells the 48" version but not the 24":
>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Feit-Electric-4-ft-T8-T12-17-Watt-Cool-White-4100K-Linear-LED-Light-Bulb-T48-841-LED-RP/206036836
>>
>> Bought mine at Amazon:
>> http://www.amazon.com/Feit-T24-841-LED-Fluorescent/dp/B00W13FEZ0
>>
>> I was _amazed_ at the increased brightness over the fluorescent .
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if it lasts 5.7 years (50,000 hrs) when
>> left on 24hrs a day.
>>
>> Granted, at $22 a piece, these are too pricey to do a large scale
>> retro-fit. There are cheaper alternatives but they invlove either
>> replacing the entire fixture -OR- removing the ballast and changing all
>> the tombstones to non-shunted:
>>
>> https://www.earthled.com/collections/t8-t12-led-fluorescent-replacement-tube-lights-that-bypass-ballast-rewire
>> https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/4100k-led-t8-tubes-direct-wire/
>>
>> OR, if you have T8 fixtures w/electronic ballasts, these don't require any modification:
>>
>> https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/4100k-led-t8-tubes-ballast-compatible/
>> https://www.earthled.com/collections/t8-led-fluorescent-replacement-tube-lights-compatible-with-electronic-ballasts
>>
>>
>Each of these retro fit bulbs cost about 10 times the cost of the
>Fluorescent they are replacing.

You haven't bought 2ft fluorescent tubes lately, have you <snicker>

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-24-in-T12-20-Watt-Soft-White-3000K-Linear-Fluorescent-Light-Bulb-391201/100115828
http://www.lowes.com/pd_149111-371-64237___?productId=3379966

The 2ft are getting MORE expensive and the quality has fallen DRASTICALLY:
I only get about 9 months of continuous use with either GE or
Philips. Back in the '90s I was getting 2 yrs.

>Will they last 10 time as long as the
>regular tube?

Only time will tell...

>Will each individual bulb save $20 in 5.7 years of use?

If the LED tube lasts 2 years I break even. If it lasts 5.7 yrs I'm
ahead more than $20 and that's without considering the electricity
savings.

>The only LED I will not use any more are the ones for the night light.
>C9 bulb they get a bit to hot for the cheap plastic fixture. YMMV

Really? Odd. I have used night light LEDs for several years and they
never get hot. I can turn one off and pull the light out of the outlet
being barely warm to the touch. What brand are you using?

The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...

LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
attached to the back near the screw end.

Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
occur around the house or shop either.

Martin


On 12/31/2015 7:10 PM, Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>>
>>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs.
>> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the
>> rating of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as
>> a 60W bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
> Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs any
> more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?
>
>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>> High heat. Have one close and you get UV sunburn. Now with the
>>> LED's they work nicely. Same pole/tripod... each head swivels....
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 12/31/2015 1:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>>>>> tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> By which time you will have spent five to ten times as much on
>>>> electricity to operate those
>>>> lamps as you would spend to replace them all with LEDs now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>>>>> the instance you turn on the switch by then
>>>>
>>>> Such lights already exists. They're called LEDs.
>>>>
>>
>

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-8, [email protected] wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 5:41 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
[about replacing fluorescent with an LED plug-compatible]

> > Granted, at $22 a piece, these are too pricey to do a large scale
> > retro-fit.

> Each of these retro fit bulbs cost about 10 times the cost of the
> Fluorescent they are replacing. Will they last 10 time as long as the
> regular tube?
>
> Will each individual bulb save $20 in 5.7 years of use?

Don't just ask, ANSWER that question: 5.7 years, of 10W LED lamp (Feit T24/841 model)
giving 700 lumens output, about 40% 'more efficient' than fluorescent equivalent.
So, 4W, times 5.7 years, converted to kW-h

'saved' = 4 * 5.7 * 365*24 /1000 = 200 kW-h

At 0.10 per kW-h, that's $20. So, it's priced about right.

The 24" lamps I see (F20T12 on Amazon, like the LED version) are $3 to $8, plus shipping.
They claim to take 20W, and deliver 1200 lumens, but there's some aging and the spec
only covers the lamp, not the ballast's efficiency.

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 15:56:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>>
>> On 1/1/2016 10:26 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
>> > The old incandescent bulbs were hard to kill. That is if
>> > you ran 130V bulbs on 120V systems. In reverse (common) the
>> > bulbs burn out faster due to more current and hotter wire...
>> >
>> > LED's are outdoor rated and normally have a large heat sink
>> > attached to the back near the screw end.
>> >
>> > Any semiconductor will fail if super hot as will an incandescent
>> > in high hot. But you and I can't stand those and they don't
>> > occur around the house or shop either.
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>>
>>
>> I have a hard time understanding your third sentence. This is AC
>> alternating current. It is the same regardless to a bulb. it alternates
>> back and forth.
>>
>> MORE CURRENT? It's the same regardless. it alternates back and forth.
>> It has nothing to do with more current, not for a bulb. The incandescent
>> bulb does not know hot from cold.
>
>??? Incandescent bulbs are almost purely resistive loads. I=E/R.
>Increase E you increase I in direct proportion. More current means more
>heat.

They're resistive in the sense that they aren't reactive (capacitive
or inductive) but incandescent bulb filaments have a very high
temperature coefficient. The higher the voltage, the higher the
resistance. In fact, over a fairly wide range of voltage,
incandescent lamps make pretty decent constant current sources) and
are often used as such). Yes, the bulb certainly does "know" hot from
cold. That's why the resistance changes over temperature (power).

woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Notice that all the bulbs are really about 60watt equivs for led. I
>always used 75 or 100.
>
>It doesn't matter the company, I've had 3 different units burn out like
>that.

The HD near me had plenty 100W Philips LED in both 2700K & 5000K around Thanksgiving

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-100W-Equivalent-Soft-White-2700K-A19-LED-Light-Bulb-455675/205861840
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Philips-100W-Equivalent-Daylight-5000K-A19-LED-Light-Bulb-455717/205862056

>Casper, we owe you a big thank you. Went and checked some bulbs we'd
>gotten from our utility (a long way from Duke) and they were the same
>ones! They now reside in the dead bulb bag :-).
>
>I hope others are checking as well.
>Trenbidia

This was the second bulb I caught. First bulb didn't glow orange but
it did have a tiny melted brown spot about 2mm around the base of one
stem. I was glad we stopped what we were doing to look in the kitchen
and check the light as otherwise who knows what could have happened.
I'm glad if any info I provde helps anyone. :)

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 01:56:37 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:10:00 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Martin Eastburn wrote:
>>>>> And the good ones are useable on dimmers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got a work lamp - double flood - dual arrays of LED's. Each head
>>>>> plugs into a wall socket like plug. The lamps are very bright and NO
>>>>> HEAT! - I hated the high intensity bulb that all but melts glass.
>>>> Hmm.. good point. I guess that means we can use higher-rated bulbs.
>>>> For instance, I have a glass fixture that burns out 100W, incandescent
>>>> bulbs, so went to 60W. But it's not as bright as I would like. So I
>>>> guess maybe I should try 100W, LED. I mainly mention this in case in
>>>> case it helps someone else. But while I am posting , what is the
>>>> rating of the brightest LED bulb that would generate the same heat as
>>>> a 60W bulb? Is the answer as simple as the bulb which actually uses 60W?
>>> Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs any
>>> more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?
>> Absolutely! They're semiconductor devices, after all.
>
>I didn't know that! I knew about lumens and watts (and it bugs me when
>I see different lumens on bulbs of the same wattage--the traditional
>gold standard in brightness measurement! ; ) )

Different bulbs of the same wattage will have different output.
Efficiency isn't a constant, even for one bulb technology. In a
general sense, a lower efficiency bulb (lower lumens per watt) will
last longer. It has a longer, heavier filament.

Don't forget color temperature, either. ;-) A "colder" (higher color
temperature) fluorescent will look brighter than a "warmer" color.

On 12/31/2015 8:15 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Meanie <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>
>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>> all adds up.
>
> You should've done the math first. LED lamps are still expensive enough that it's not cost-
> effective to replace *working* CFLs with LEDs. The payback period is about 20% longer than
> the expected life of the LED.
>

In his case he probably did do the math right, for him, his second post
to Casper indicated that he gets his bulbs for "free". ;~) IIRC from a
sales rep from work.




> It *is* cost-effective to replace *dead* CFLs, or incandescents whether working or not, with
> LEDs.
>

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 13:12:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/1/2016 7:25 AM, G. Ross wrote:
>
>>>
>> Just an old Codger checking in. My wife changed us over to CFLs when
>> the craze started. I haven't noticed any decrease in the frequency I
>> have to get out the step ladder and change burned out bulbs. No savings
>> in buying the things. My electric bill has not decreased. Have not
>> noticed that the summers are any cooler. Can't see any better. With
>> LED's I think I'll sit it out a while.
>>
>
>Why not invest less than $5 and try one? If you get the daylight
>version you may see better. Put it in the hardest spot to change and
>you may see you are not changing it as often.
>
>I've been changing over and have yet to replace one.
Depends on the lamps. I replaced a lot of 60 and 100 watt
incandescents with LEDs - (E26/E27 base) and have not had a single
failure yet (over a year).

I also replaced a string of 7 (120 volt) halogen mini-spots with LEDs.
They are out in the open - not in cans - and I've put at leadt 4 or 5
complete sets through in the last 3 yezrs or so.
I put about 150? 12 volt mini-spots in at the insurance office 3
years ago. I bought 400 of them, and I'm out of spares. Some of the
originals are still doing fine, and some have been replaced 5 or 6
times. The voltage is right, at about 12.2 volts. and the cans are
not insulated.

The incandescents in my house - very many of them, anyway, were still
the ones that were in the house when we bought it 33 years ago when we
replaced them with CFLs. 6 or so years ago, and I replaced CFLs time
and again untill I got the LEDs over the last 2 years. My luck with
the (earlier) CFLs was as bad as with the GU10 and MR16 LEDs.

The standard ED bulbs and led PARs have been fantastic.

I'm looking at the 40 inch Flourescent replacement leds to replace the
4 remaining 40 inch tubes in the house - the "direct replacement" ones
that do not require modification of the fixtures.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:23:52 -0500, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/30/2015 3:40 PM, Meanie wrote:
>> On 12/30/2015 3:24 PM, Casper wrote:
>>>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>>>> all adds up.
>>>
>>> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
>>> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning,
>>> and claim to truth.
>>>
>>
>> I have an advantage...I get the bulbs for free.
>I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
>tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
>future.
>
>Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
>the instance you turn on the switch by then

My "40Watt" shop lamps have all been replaced with LED's with way more
lumens for a brighter shop/garage. I by 60 watt replacement LED's at
fry's on sale 2.50 or so each. The hot ticket for chandelier's with
hidden bulbs, way, way cooler on the junction box connections. I have
kitchen fixtures that are LED's. Just don't turn the lights on full if
you're half sleepy. :)

I got rid of all fluorescent's due to socket ballast problems and
fire. Ballasts on all, and I mean ALL fixtures are subject to
overheating and fire. Good electrician shoot the ballasts with a
temperature gun to determine early failures, and potential fires down
the road.

Otherwise save the failed fixtures, like in the picture above and use
them in your old bulldog backyard shops, which are insured for fire.
Use fire detector alarms so you can be sure to get out.

On 12/31/2015 4:35 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 8:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may
>>>> be. It
>>>> all adds up.
>>>
>>> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
>>> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning,
>>> and claim to truth.
>>
>> 60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
>> now.
>>
>
> Not here. They are still about $7 ..
>


6 pack $11.97

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Feit-Electric-60W-Equivalent-Warm-White-A19-LED-Light-Bulb-6-Pack-A800-830-10KLED-6-48/206397936

On 12/30/2015 8:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>>> all adds up.
>>
>> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
>> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth.
>
> 60w-equivalent LED bulbs go for about 2 bucks a shot at Home Depot right
> now.
>

Not here. They are still about $7 ..

--
Jeff

On 01 Jan 2016 07:53:18 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:

>krw <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:10:00 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. Maybe the answer isn't simple as that. Are LED bulbs
>>> any
>>>more "vulnerable" to heat the incandescent bulbs?
>>
>> Absolutely! They're semiconductor devices, after all.
>
>Many of the LED bulbs have fins on them. They're heat sinks trying to keep
>the bulb and its integrated power supply cool. I haven't played too much
>with the small high-powered LEDs, but I'm sure they generate a good amount
>of heat.

Right. I know people who use cut up beer cans to increase the size of
the heat sinks, as well. however, if these are put in an enclosed
fixture, the fins can't do their job and the bulb will overheat. The
bulbs are, in general, designed to replace incandescent bulbs of the
same "equivalent wattage". Using a higher "equivalent wattage" bulb
though still lower actual wattage bulb than the fixture is designed
for, may reduce the life of the bulb significantly. If you're doing
this for economics, you may have just shot your wallet in the
proverbial foot.

On 12/30/2015 1:21 PM, Casper wrote:
> I'm guessing some of you are still using CFLs until you need to
> replace them, yes? If so, you might want to keep an eye on them.
>
> I caught this CFL burnt out last night from down the hallway. When we
> walked into the kitchen to check on it, we found it dark, except for
> the spot glowing cherry red in the light in the ceiling...
>
> http://s265.photobucket.com/user/AMDHamm/media/CFL%20Bulb.jpg.html
>
> Note the burnt section in the right-hand photo. We replaced the bulb
> with a different brand CFL only because we already had one. As soon as
> the remaining CFLs are used up, we will be replacing them with LEDs.
> This one lasted about half it's stated lifespan, approx. 5.5 years.
>
> Guess the power company (Duke) did not thoroughly review thier free
> product quality. Now they give away a different brand. I find little
> comfort in contemplating the power company desiring to burn my house
> down in the middle of a cold winter night.
>
> `Casper
> "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming." -Dr. Ian Malcom
>

I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
all adds up.

On 12/30/2015 3:24 PM, Casper wrote:
>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>> all adds up.
>
> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning, and claim to truth.
>

I have an advantage...I get the bulbs for free.

On 12/30/2015 3:40 PM, Meanie wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 3:24 PM, Casper wrote:
>>> Meanie <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>> I went ahead and removed all my CFLs and replaced with LEDs. I may as
>>> well start saving now than later, regardless of how little it may be. It
>>> all adds up.
>>
>> Indeed it does but the expense of LEDs is not in the budget right now.
>> Train your mind to test every thought, ideology, train of reasoning,
>> and claim to truth.
>>
>
> I have an advantage...I get the bulbs for free.
I don't have to worry about LED and CFL lights until my stock of
tungsten light is exhasted. That should be about 5 to 10 years in the
future.

Maybe by then they will have lights that actually give adequate light
the instance you turn on the switch by then