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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by dhstylez »

lutusp wrote: post #169
dhstylez wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oops, thought Home Depot was implied by replies/context, guess not

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

#172

Post by No1 »

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…

Avoid the amalgam CFLs - they get more on/off cycles before they go kaput, but are allowed up to 3 minutes to reach full output and still get an energy star rating. The rest of the energy star rated CFLs are supposed to reach full output within a minute.

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

#173

Post by No1 »

ars wrote: post #107
ck2 wrote: post #20

We talked about this a month or two ago here. The amazing part of this bulb is not it's watts or it's cost. It's that a manufacturer finally put it's warranty where it's mouth is. With a 10 year warranty I will actually buy it compared to the Phillips. BTW I've yet to have a cheap chinese led 110v bulb last more than 3 years.

We talked about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5329732 And the biggest problem with this bulb is the CRI of 80. That's much worse than CFL's which are typically around 90.

"That's much worse than CFL's which are typically around 90."

How did you come up with that typical number? Typically, CFLs meet the minimum energy star requirement which is 82.

If you don't believe me, browse through GE's catalog for a while...

http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST...

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

#174

Post by EEGuy »

Something not qualified numerically about LED or CFL lamps, but a moderate consideration for me is analog FM radio interference ("RFI").

In one of the smallest rooms of my house, there are two of the Philips LED bulbs of the "yellow when off" variety. In an adjoining area there is another bulb of the same type.

There is audible RFI with the room's lights on when the battery-powered FM radio (with a rod antenna, about 3 feet from one of the bulbs) is accurately tuned in to a favorite but moderately distant (perhaps 30 miles), moderately powered (6 KW, not a lot) FM station. Moving the rod antenna away can stop the RFI, but then the antenna happens to block a doorway.

Turning off the lighting stops the RFI. The lamp in the adjoining room is apparently distant enough not to interfere with the FM radio.

I wonder if the CREE bulbs are any better in this regard, but not seeing anything in the teardown pictures that looks like shielding or ferrite chokes makes means I'll probably keep the existing bulbs; the RFI isn't bad enough.

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

#175

Post by justin66 »

EEGuy wrote: post #170
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.

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) 300…

That's pretty interesting. I bet it has something to do with the polarization of light. If so a bulb like the Cree (with its glass casing) might help, although it might look goofy in that particular fixture.

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

#176

Post by ars »

justin66 wrote: post #175
EEGuy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) 300…

That's pretty interesting. I bet it has something to do with the polarization of light. If so a bulb like the Cree (with its glass casing) might help, although it might look goofy in that particular fixture.

I doubt it's the polarization. More likely it's that the incandescents are point, or line sources (non-frosted bulbs), but the LED's are much wider - so you are still getting colors, but since you have multiple color in multiple spots they overlap, mix, and are back to being white again.

Try to get LEDs that have no diffuser lens in front, since the LED itself is a point source.

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

#177

Post by chaostheory »

giardini wrote: post #121
com2kid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Problem is, the CFLs don't last. They usually don't last even a single year. My story: CFLs are very picky about the quality of the electricity supplied to them, and the cheaper CFLs save money by using a cheap ballast which ends up frying the bulb pretty early in its lifespan. If you buy a name brand (such as Phillips) you will get a product that lasts 3+ years easily. Now in theory LEDs can a bit over a decade if…

We have used every brand available including Phillips. The CFLs don't last; the incandescents work reliably. As for the quality of electrical power - that's in the hands of the power company. We returned bulbs on warranty but, seriously, if you're spending money/time driving to/from Home Depot to get replacement CFL bulbs on a warranty instead of buying cheap incandescent bulbs that work, you are suboptimizing.

> The CFLs don't last

Then go with LEDs then. They still save you money in the long run.

> if you're spending money/time driving to/from Home Depot to get replacement CFL bulbs on a warranty instead of buying cheap incandescent bulbs that work, you are suboptimizing.

How is it sub-optimal? Aren't you driving even more to and from Home Depot buying new incandescent bulbs?

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

#178

Post by nwenzel »

ams6110 wrote: post #164
nwenzel wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do. Sample size = maybe 3 (I've moved around a bit). I'm in the US, have lived in Southern California (Edison Electric), Phoenix (SRP?), San Francisco (PG&E), and Boston (NStar pronounced N-Staaahhh by my Mass. friends).

I thought all utilities were on a tiered pricing model. It's actually a technique employed by Arcata, CA to fight pot growing houses [1][2] that use > 600% of the baseline usage.

Also, I have lived places where middle of the day pricing is higher. My utility company just sent me an offer for tiered pricing by time of day. Smart meters help with implementing time of day pricing.

[1] http://www.arcataeye.com/2012/08/measure-i-the-grow-house-el...

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/03/pot-tow...

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

#179

Post by ssmoot »

cheald wrote: post #112
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…

Where do you live, and what's the square footage of the house? My monthly bill is hundreds per month, but the significant majority of that is AC - I live in Arizona, and cooling in the summer here takes a crazy amount of juice. Lighting is all CFL, though - the bulbs are about $1.40 apiece and consume 13w of juice, which works out to around $11/year to run 24/7. A 60w incandescent would cost around $52/year to run 24…

Dallas. ~2400sqft maybe? I forget. It's pretty easy to lock in ~9c rates here. I think I actually pay 9.6c per kwh because I chose the "100% Windpower" option.

I expect the car will probably kick that up <$10.

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

#180

Post by cheald »

ssmoot wrote: post #179
cheald wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live, and what's the square footage of the house? My monthly bill is hundreds per month, but the significant majority of that is AC - I live in Arizona, and cooling in the summer here takes a crazy amount of juice. Lighting is all CFL, though - the bulbs are about $1.40 apiece and consume 13w of juice, which works out to around $11/year to run 24/7. A 60w incandescent would cost around $52/year to run 24…

Dallas. ~2400sqft maybe? I forget. It's pretty easy to lock in ~9c rates here. I think I actually pay 9.6c per kwh because I chose the "100% Windpower" option. I expect the car will probably kick that up <$10.

Wow, that's impressive. How old are your AC units? Newer ones are apparently crazy more efficient - I'm wondering if it might be worth the upgrade cost now.
Post reply on HN