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

161–170 of 189 posts

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

#161

Post by umsm »

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…

You may have electrical problems (or any number of other problems) that may effect your judgement of CFLs.

I was just saying: An "instant" on and off light will affect your vision differently than one that (for example) dims slowly for a few seconds after turning it off. If this isn't "by design" and it takes minutes, than that's a serious problem.

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

#162

Post by superdude »

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…

I've found the exact opposite. I've found that there are many more "cooler" (~5600K color) CFLs with a high CRI than warmer (~2700K color) CFLs with a high CRI. The cooler 5600K lights are daylight balanced and used a lot with digital filmmaking and as indoor grow lights, whereas the warmer lights are used in home light fixtures to approximate the color temps of incandescents.

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

#163

Post by ams6110 »

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.

No. Incandecents. I tried CFLs, they didn't last, the lighting was inferior, and disposal involves HAZMAT concerns.

If I were to replace all the bulbs in my house at $13/per I would be looking at about $1,000. And the energy savings would be noise in my budget. I mean it would literally be dwarfed by one extra dinner in a restaurant per month. It's not worth any mental energy at all. I like incandescents, and that's what I use.

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

#164

Post by ams6110 »

nwenzel wrote: post #74
jessriedel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb, I don't care how efficient it is. You probably should care. It only takes 6 hours per day of usage for your 60W incandecent to suck up $13 of electricity in a year. And you'll have had to change it at least once. The LEDs will last for over a decade. Yes, if you're only renting a house/apartment for a year then you may not recoup your costs (although it will be close). S…

On kWh costs, don't forget that when you reduce use, you reduce the last kWh first. Meaning, in a tiered pricing model, you reduce your most expensive electricity first. So, the price you would use to calculate savings is not your average price / kWh. You should use your max price / kWh. That's also why if/when you install solar panels on your roof, you recover your investment faster if you don't quite cover your ent…

Who pays variable rates in a residential setting? I pay a flat $0.095/kWH regardless of time of day, demand, etc.

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

#165

Post by msutherl »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #148
justin66 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another thing to consider is that radiation outside of the visible light spectrum may have positive effects. For instance, halogens radiate a lot of infrared radiation, which is used in various therapies and is a big part of why being out in the sun feels so good.

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

#166

Post by ajross »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #154
ajross wrote: post #89

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. 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...

1 x 100w is a lot more efficient than 3 x 60.

That's probably true for fluorescent bulbs. It's not true of incandescents where efficiency is a pure function of the filament temperature. For LEDs, it depends. LED efficiency scales down with current, so if your 100w bulb (as seems likely, because space efficiency is a concern with this kind of bulb) is made up of less than 1.66x as many elements as the 60W version being driven at a higher current it will be less efficient.

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

#167

Post by rdl »

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…

What I'd really prefer is using LEDs to do novel kinds of lighting fixtures, not just replace edison-screw-base incandescents. I want a glowing uniform ceiling square, wall square, undercounter wide strip, etc.

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

#168

Post by dhstylez »

lutusp wrote: post #82
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.

Actually I saw a bunch of these in-store today. The Cree "60W replacement" was ~$10.

FWIW, I picked up 'Philips 9.5-Watt BR30 Indoor Flood Soft White (2700K) LED Light Bulb (4-Pack)' for $60 online from Home Depot, thought it was a pretty decent deal at the time.

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

#169

Post by lutusp »

dhstylez wrote: post #168
lutusp wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually I saw a bunch of these in-store today. The Cree "60W replacement" was ~$10. FWIW, I picked up 'Philips 9.5-Watt BR30 Indoor Flood Soft White (2700K) LED Light Bulb (4-Pack)' for $60 online from Home Depot, thought it was a pretty decent deal at the time.

> Actually I saw a bunch of these in-store today. The Cree "60W replacement" was ~$10.

Why not say where? I don't think anyone will object that you're flogging a particular source. Your quoted price is lower than anywhere else by a substantial margin.

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

#170

Post by EEGuy »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #129
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.

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.

Chandeliers with prismatic glass are another problem area for LED lighting. My home has two such fixtures, previously populated with nine 40-Watt incandescent lamps each.

That's a lot of power dissipation (360 Watts), particularly since one of the fixtures was on up to 12 hours per day (4KW-h almost daily for that).

So I replaced all nine bulbs with TCP LDCT3WH30KCC 3-Watt (15 W incandescent luminance equivalent) 3000-K 80-CRI bulbs. 27 Watts, down from 360.

Excellent energy savings, excellent dimmability (better than the incandescents), but all those beautiful violet, green, blue, gold and other various facets of color from the prismatic glass were just gone -- collapsed down to a cold white; as if the glass weren't prismatic anymore.

I do not understand why I don't see at least some narrow-band stripes of some few individual colors.

So I put back just two 40-watt incandescent bulbs. That was enough to bring back a nice refractive color spread from the prismatic glass. The dissipation is up to 91 Watts from 27 Watts, but it's beautiful again.

Energy problem resolved satisfaction (75% reduction), while keeping the aesthetics alive too.

Post reply on HN