Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 519 posts

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#181

Post by masklinn »

ip26 wrote: post #99
CharlesColeman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The relative cost of lighting on the monthly electricity bill is tiny so those savings are pretty small. Getting a more efficient fridge, washing machine, TV or (in our profession) computer typically has a much bigger effect on electricity expenses. And that is assuming your heating and cooking is done with gas. The switch from using tiny space heaters for light to using LEDs that consume a tenth of the power was a…

To add, your typical laptop these days has a 45W or 65W power supply, which will not be fully loaded most of the time!

They specifically mention desktop computers, not laptops.

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#182

Post by andy_adams »

izzydata wrote: post #127
dchichkov wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, have you noticed any sleep issues, after you've switched to LED?

No, but all my LED bulbs give off a yellow light instead of a white light.

As I understand it, even though LED output is yellow, the primary light range emitted is blue. No idea if this study [1] is good, but the abstract explains it a bit.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734149/

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#183

Post by organsnyder »

dwighttk wrote: post #165

And why does every single LED stoplight I see have large segments of unlit LEDs? Seems like some municipalities got sold a pile of crap. At least they work even with the missing lights, but who knows how often they are having to replace those?

Funny... I've never noticed that. Maybe your municipality picked the wrong vendor?

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#184

Post by pbhjpbhj »

wil421 wrote: post #6

My father in law is a general contractor and religiously keeps all his LED bulb receipts. If anything goes out before the listed hours he returns it to HomeDepot. He hasn’t had any issue so far including some of the older bulbs described in the article.

Worth noting that in the UK the "statute of limitations" for getting a refund on a defective product is 6 years according to the Consumer Rights Act (what used to be the "Sale of Goods Act").

AIUI in EU we get default 2 years of warranty on all goods. And we get a 14 day cooling off period on goods that are the result of solicited sales (cold [phone-]calling, selling at your door), or are bought online.

If an LED bulb should last 10 years then up to the 6 year point you should be able to get 40% back on a failed unit. Up to 2 years, get a replacement, repair, or full refund (at the sellers choice).

With the CRA the right is against the /seller/ and not the manufacturer though.

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#185

Post by ip26 »

gnu8 wrote: post #168
ip26 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the power delivery system we have does a good job for 99% of real power consumed (or whatever the number really is). I hate waste; my mains-connected smoke detectors (1% efficient) and garage door opener (15W standby) gnaw at my soul. But that's scope for improvement, not an efficiency crisis.

> mains-connected smoke detectors (1% efficient) Those aren’t a waste, they are critical life safety equipment. If their 1% efficient power supply lasts the full 10 year lifespan of a smoke detector rather than 6-18 months like a typical LED lightbulb, I’d say that’s the appropriate level of reliability.

Yeah, they're important & valuable. However, battery-powered smoke detectors do it with 1% of the power.

If every home in Australia had two smoke alarms, that means 5,600 kW of continuous and largely wasted energy consumption. I don't mean wasted in purpose: smoke alarms are essential. The wasteful part is the fact that 99% of the power going into smoke alarms goes to converting AC power to DC power.

As far as I'm concerned, that's 99% scope for improvement.

https://reductionrevolution.com.au/blogs/news-reviews/584256...

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#186

Post by organsnyder »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #60

I toured a house looking to buy, 20 years ago. The old lady owner said "The light bulb over the door is going with me! I've had it 20 years and counting." It was a weird antique-looking thing with lots of wires and stuff in the clear glass bulb. Dim as hell. But 20 years! They don't make them like they used to.

Perhaps it's rated at a higher voltage than it receives? The fact that it was dim is one tip-off. That can cause those bulbs to last forever.

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#187

Post by driverdan »

atonse wrote: post #57
nkingsy wrote: post #52

As others have mentioned, it seems all backwards that each bulb is converting AC/DC internally, and does not appear to have much in the way of heat dissipation for the converter or the LED chip(s). I've built a lot of LED lighting setups, and even with the most efficient chips and converters, extremely underdriven, the footprint required to run efficiently and dissipate heat in a way that will let them last 10-20 yea…

I've thought about the idea of wiring my entire house with DC for the lighting parts, for exactly this reason. But the fact that I'd have to sell my house one day stops me.

Low voltage lighting is becoming common. Adhere to industry standards and it may increase your house's value.

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#189

Post by pbhjpbhj »

blattimwind wrote: post #97
FredFS456 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you, but I had long switched to CFL's before LED bulbs came around. CFLs are definitely not as efficient as LEDs, but at least they're still a fraction of the power that incandescent bulbs use.

Modern fluorescent lamps are surprisingly efficient and the electric ballasts seem to be more reliable than any LED bulb I've seen so far. The tubes do fade eventually, but the tube itself only costs 1-2 Euros and the environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed.

>environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed //

Which countries have widespread recycle facilities for CFLs? In UK I'm almost certain they all just go in to landfill (in this country or another).

Re: What Happened to the 100000 Hour LED Bulbs?

#190

Post by masklinn »

lupire wrote: post #129
azinman2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anyone making such policies thinks that those things alone will save the planet. It’s about a mentality into the daily choices we make that makes the difference. That said, leds that are 13-15 watts instead of 60 watts does make a big dent into saving electricity at the country scale.

They don't make much of a difference. Like recycling, it's a way to feel like making a difference with Puritan work ethic, without regard for results.

I mean, without any numbers it's difficult to know what your understanding of "much of a difference" is, but replacing 60W incandescents with 10W LEDs can save MWh/year for a single property.

A single bulb used 5h/day[0] on average means 90kWh/year. Aside from lowering the load somewhat, depending on the electricity prices the LED bulb might pay for itself in a year.

[0] which is not really difficult, 6 to 7 in the morning and 18 to 22 in the evening and you're there.

Post reply on HN