60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13 • Hacker News Board

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#81

Post by giardini » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:52 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #24

ams6110 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying... that the LED bulbs have a much higher energy and environmental "cost" in manufacturing, compared to a standard incandescent? That's quite likely true and has to be considered in the big picture (similar issues with electric vehicles, that their proponents like to ignore). For me the answer is simple: $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb, I don't care how efficient it is…

Please tell me you're using CFLs as the very least. Yes the upfront price is higher, but these bulbs actually pay for themselves in approximately two years and they start saving you money after that and not to mention time from not having to buy and install new bulbs.

Problem is, the CFLs don't last. They usually don't last even a single year. My story:

I got the faith: I replaced every incandescent in our condominium association with CFL. After one year, most all the CFLs had failed, despite having 3- to 5-year warranties. Also noticed another peculiarity: CFLs are stolen more often! Apparently our condominium parking lot has become a CFL bank for individuals who want to lower their light bills.

So last week I bought a 4-pack of 40W incandescents for $4! That is down from the $12 I would have paid for four CFLs that wouldn't last any longer and that, when broken, are a mess/danger to clean up.

No more CFLs for me, thank you! The whole CFL thing is looking like a scam.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#82

Post by lutusp » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:53 PM UTC

deweller wrote: post #67

Anyone else having trouble actually buying these? I ordered two on March 7th and am still waiting for delivery to my local Home Depot.

The good news is that Home Depot's price for this item is lower than anyone else's. (Amazon.com has the same item for $17.44.) The bad news is they can't actually deliver it.

This is a common practice -- attract shoppers with a killer low price on an item that, for one reason or another, isn't actually available. I'm not saying Home Depot intentionally did this -- maybe they innocently underestimated public interest.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#83

Post by drivers99 » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:55 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #47

I like the color temperature of incandescent bulbs. That alone is worth the extra electricity expense. It's a bit funny how many of us obsess about the calibration of our monitors and tablets, even installing utilities that change the color temperature at different times of day to be easier on our eyes. But we don't seem to care as much about the ambient light that we see everywhere. Also, many of my fixtures expose…

Efficient lightbulbs come in various color temperatures. You don't need incandescents to get the same color temperature. I don't like the harsher blue ones so I buy the warmer ones for at home.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#84

Post by lutusp » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

officialjunk wrote: post #27

Rant: when are we going to stop using watts as a unit for lightbulb "brightness?" The actual unit we care about is only implied by saying "60 watt equivalent." :(

It's technically questionable, but the alternatives require units with which the public may be unfamiliar. A "better" unit in some cases might be lumens per watt, but this still doesn't help an unsophisticated consumer choose a replacement for a 60W incandescent bulb.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#85

Post by DanBC » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #81

chaostheory wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me you're using CFLs as the very least. Yes the upfront price is higher, but these bulbs actually pay for themselves in approximately two years and they start saving you money after that and not to mention time from not having to buy and install new bulbs.

Problem is, the CFLs don't last. They usually don't last even a single year. My story: I got the faith: I replaced every incandescent in our condominium association with CFL. After one year, most all the CFLs had failed, despite having 3- to 5-year warranties. Also noticed another peculiarity: CFLs are stolen more often! Apparently our condominium parking lot has become a CFL bank for individuals who want to lower th…

> when broken, are a mess/danger to clean up.

When a company or a government agency gives instructions for clean-up they're going to go 'by the book' as much as possible.

They give these scary sounding instructions because for every 50 people who manage to put a broken CFL into a bin without instructions there's going to be 1 who'll gather a bunch of broken CFLs in a sack and toss it into a lake; or who operates a trash business and who stores kilograms of them in the open leaching stuff into the water table.

See also women being told to avoid '4d scans' (no medical purpose; everything carries some risk even if unknown and unquantifiable; thus avoid this risk because there's no medical benefit) or coffee cups with "This is hot" printed on them.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#86

Post by phunge » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #54

chaostheory wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already came out last year: http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/128669-philips-new-10...

Is it any good?

I don't have a 100W-equivalent but if it's anything like Philips's 75W-equivalent, it's pricey but flawless. I haven't found anything in my usage to dislike about it at all.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#87

Post by drakaal » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

This is Spam. There are a few dozen of these with better economics on Amazon. And if you want to light a house on the cheap, the LED "ropes" are more efficient, and will last longer.

Also a CFT would be 12W and cost $2 ($1.25 if you look around). Over 10 years in most markets that would be cheaper.

PS: My Home is almost 100% LED's. I love them. But that doesn't mean they are always the cheapest, the most efficient, or the best for the planet. I just prefer the dimmable nature and the consistent color across the dimming.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#88

Post by lutusp » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #59

Surprised that site has not done a teardown of the (more expensive) Phillips bulbs that have similar specs. They've been around longer and are the ugly oddly shaped yellow plastic ones. Mine have a bit of a buzzing sound when dimmed, even though the packaging claims this won't happen... am thinking of moving to Crees but it would be nice to see a comparison of the innards.

> They've been around longer and are the ugly oddly shaped yellow plastic ones.

They're certainly ugly, but for the record, they aren't yellow when powered. I also learned today that they have a little fan inside -- supposedly silent in most circumstances.

I suspect that ten or twenty years from now we'll look back on these early designs and laugh our heads off. Just as with computers.

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#89

Post by ajross » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #76

I am unimpressed by 60 watt equivalent bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent is about enough to be a desk lamp, if I need to provide light for even a small room it is a useless amount unless I get a large number of bulbs together. Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numb…

If only someone made a "fixture" for lighting with multiple bulb sockets in a convenient, attractive mounting that could be attached to the ceiling of a room.

The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since before most of us were born. Honestly I don't understand this criticism at all. Certainly LED lighting is available in many form factors other than a 60W bulb...

Re: 60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13

#90

Post by EliRivers » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 5:01 PM UTC

hnriot wrote: post #78

com2kid wrote: post #76

I am unimpressed by 60 watt equivalent bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent is about enough to be a desk lamp, if I need to provide light for even a small room it is a useless amount unless I get a large number of bulbs together. Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numb…

Nonsense! You're eyes adjust to very low light levels, far below what a 60W bulb outputs in lumens.

Good enough to see, not good enough for fine work.

60W was enough for me a decade ago. Now for fine work I need 100W. I can still see with 60W, but what was enough for fine work a decade ago is not enough now. I understand this will get worse as I get older. I don't have any particular visual conditions; I'm just aging.