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

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

designingwithleds.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

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

#141

Post by ars »

SystemOut wrote: post #122
umsm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a bulb slowly becomes brighter, it's easier on the eyes.

If his are like mine it can be more like minutes. You get some immediate light and then over the next minute or two it gets to full brightness. This is probably due to cheap bulbs or what not but it can be annoying. I even have a problem with CFLs in a different room where on occasion I turn the switch on and the light won't come on at all right away unless the other switch that controls a different set of lights is…

If your CFLs take too long then get some new ones. Walmart ones are great.

All of mine turn on instantly - if they are not technically at full brightness I certainly can't tell.

Except for those from Feit Electric - those are terrible, don't buy from that company.

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

#142

Post by dClauzel »

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…

Absolutely.

The real challenge is to propose an affordable LED bulb that can provide at least 1300 lumens.

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

#143

Post by justin66 »

ars wrote: post #140
justin66 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really the typical CFL number? I ask because I've got one of the new Cree bulbs and I find the quality of light really a lot better than that of the (admittedly cheap) CFLs I've bought at Costco. So I guess I'm struggling with the significance of CRI.

It depends on which CFL you buy of course. But 90 CRI CFLs are easy to find. In general "warmer" CFLs have a better CRI. You can trade off energy efficiency for CRI. This is true for LEDs as well. So if you don't need great color then go for a lower CRI since you'll save energy on the light output. But because of that, when comparing energy efficiency of LEDs vs CFLs you MUST use a comparable CRI, otherwise it's not…

Thanks. That's a good way to sum things up.

As someone who is enthusiastic about LEDs from a distance (I'm not about to run out and replace all my lights at once) I'm comfortable with the idea that LEDs are still a couple of generations away from replacing existing technology in a satisfactory way. But damn, those generations sure are happening fast.

I became aware of Cree because of flashlight LEDs and what they accomplished in that space over the course of a year or so was pretty amazing. At present I can still take out my little AAA light with the newest Cree LED and say "check this out" and surprise people with its brightness. The early LED flashlights were largely junk, but in contrast, this is a great use of the technology.

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

#144

Post by com2kid »

ajross wrote: post #133
com2kid wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. My condo's living room doesn't have a ceiling mounted light fixture, or a place to install one at. I'm sure the job could be done, but it'd be a major pain. > The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since before most of us were born.…

Without getting into the minutiae of lumens and efficiency metrics for different lighting technologies... It never occurred to you just to buy a second lamp?

> It never occurred to you just to buy a second lamp?

I'd love to. 750sqft Condo, I have one outlet that is hooked to a switch, other outlets are either in some horrid location or already used up with a power strip attached.

Not everyone has large open areas that they can just throw stuff in.

What I need to do is get a better quality standing lamp that can take a slew of light bulbs! But even then, I am not going to be going for 60W, why should I when I can go farther with fewer bulbs of a slightly higher wattage? (Or wattage equivalent in the case of LED and CFLs)

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

#145

Post by dwiel »

darkarmani wrote: post #110
ssmoot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH, my entire house is fluorescent and LED. My monthly electricity bill is $65. For a house! I never have to replace burnt out bulbs. At $13 I'd guess the LED is actually about at break-even over the life of the bulb vs incandescent unless you're buying incandescent in the big packs of 30 bulbs for $10. The only gas in my house is my central heating, and my old water heater. I plan to replace that with point-of-use…

One of the most interesting parts of lighting energy efficiency to me is that once lighting uses so little power, you can use battery backup for power outages. I'm surprised there isn't a push for low voltage LED lighting. Running low voltage cabling and electrical boxes is a lot easier and the LEDs run off of low voltage anyway. Outside of appliances, who needs 120VAC in most of their rooms?

I was going to do this in the house that I am building, but the building department has very strict codes for how often you need 120VAC outlets (quite often to prevent daisy chained power strips and similar unsafe behavior). The relevant code is from the International Building Code:

"Receptacles shall be installed so that no point measured horizontally along the floor line of any wall space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm), from a receptacle outlet." [1]

[1]: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_201...

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

#146

Post by justin66 »

ZeroCoin wrote: post #135

I just bought a 5k and 2.7k versions from Home Depot here in Canada for $15.97 CAD each. My only gripe is the ~22% markup over the US pricing when the Canadian Dollar is worth ~2% more than the American (and has been for some time now). I found it funny the way they had their lights laid out in my local store. There has always only ever been one aisle dedicated to twist-in bulbs. When I entered the store today, and w…

> My gut feeling is that Phillips is scared they're going to lose market share over this, and are using their massive Home Depot contracts to negotiate poor placement for the Crees (and possibly poor pricing?). FYI 90%+ of the bulbs sold in Home Depots are Phillips.

It'd be interesting to know what kind of maneuvering the companies are doing. Here in the US Cree is paying for a single "end cap" (end of the aisle placement in the front of the store) and the bulbs are selling out fast. Home depot is also their main distributor. But the store is littered with other brands, not just Philips.

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

#147

Post by com2kid »

benjamincburns wrote: post #109
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…

This is kind of an obsolete way of thinking. Most people think of "X-watt equivalent" as the area illumination caused by an X-watt omnidirectional A19 incandescent. Industry expresses equivalency in terms of lumens, or total light output, but not total illumination of a specified area. This is only apples-to-apples for fully omnidirectional bulbs. LED lighting is costly and complex enough that directional LED bulbs a…

> LED lighting is costly and complex enough that directional LED bulbs are more or less at cost parity with omnidirectional LED bulbs. In fact, true omnis are often more expensive just because LEDs are inherently directional. This is the first time in the history of lighting where omni wasn't significantly less expensive than directional.

There was that awesome Kickstarter awhile back for a nice omnidirectional LED bulb, I'm looking forward to its delivery!

> Truth is, there are very few scenarios where a high-output omnidirectional lamp actually makes sense. We're used to omnis because they were much cheaper to purchase than their more efficient, directional brethren and because it's convenient to just slap a bright bulb in a socket and say "eh - good enough."

With this I disagree. Open spaces such as a living room are perfect for omnidirectional lighting.

Indeed when I have lived in places with track lighting the annoying part was always trying to spread the light out enough to make it seem omnidirectional without having a bunch of bright hot spots around the room.

When I am cooking or something, sure, light up my working surfaces, but for general ambiance when I am at home I want the entire bloody room I am in lit up!

Now just do that while saving power. :)

Indeed, if you look at how recessed lighting is installed (and I'll be the first to point out that recessed lighting is generally stupid), there are a ton of cans installed in a grid throughout the ceiling to provide what is essentially uniform brightness in a room.

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

#148

Post by thrownaway2424 »

justin66 wrote: post #132
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the top-of-the-line CREE bulbs are only suitable for people who are color blind or habitually not paying attention. I once did an ill-considered change from halogen to LED bulbs in my kitchen, and having done so could no longer see the colors on my dishware. That was ridiculous. I went back to the halogens. My house is in a year-round heating climate anyway so I don't really worry about the waste heat from them.

I wonder if you've actually used one of the newest Cree bulbs? I'm not color blind and I found the color of one of their 2700k bulbs to be better than the CFLs I use in a few places. Come to think of it, they're a fair bit better than the g7power LEDs as well. This is why I'm wondering if the CRI is really a magical "light goodness" benchmark number or what. Some people certainly seem to be treating it that way.

They were the best ones I could get my hands on. I believe their advertised CRI is 90. If you look at the spectrum though, they are still quite peaky/notchy. Halogens are very close to sunlight. Halogens with clear bulbs have CRI 100 by definition.

Yes, the latest LEDs are far superior to CFL. And oatmeal tastes better than dog shit.

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

#149

Post by thrownaway2424 »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #111
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…

You can match the color temperature. The problem is the color rendering. With CFLs, 10 different shades of red that you can distinguish under incandescent bulbs all look the same. The CRI of incandescents is 100, LEDs are around 90, and CFLs are around 70. Under real world tests, the human eye can't distinguish additional colors in LED vs incandescent bulbs.

"Under real world tests, the human eye can't distinguish additional colors in LED vs incandescent bulbs."

No.

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

#150

Post by ZeroCoin »

justin66 wrote: post #146
ZeroCoin wrote: post #135

I just bought a 5k and 2.7k versions from Home Depot here in Canada for $15.97 CAD each. My only gripe is the ~22% markup over the US pricing when the Canadian Dollar is worth ~2% more than the American (and has been for some time now). I found it funny the way they had their lights laid out in my local store. There has always only ever been one aisle dedicated to twist-in bulbs. When I entered the store today, and w…

> My gut feeling is that Phillips is scared they're going to lose market share over this, and are using their massive Home Depot contracts to negotiate poor placement for the Crees (and possibly poor pricing?). FYI 90%+ of the bulbs sold in Home Depots are Phillips. It'd be interesting to know what kind of maneuvering the companies are doing. Here in the US Cree is paying for a single "end cap" (end of the aisle plac…

I should take a picture of my Local home depot's light bulb "selection", it truly is humorous.

I picked up my two cree bulbs in an "end cap"-esque box today, however it was not at the end of any aisle, rather hidden away in the lamp section.

Post reply on HN