The macosxhints Forums

The macosxhints Forums (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/index.php)
-   The Coat Room (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Do you use low-energy bulbs that look like this? (http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=86176)

wdympcf 02-21-2008 06:36 PM

Quote:

I bought two dozen of them a few years ago at somewhat over 5 bucks apiece (sale price !!!)
A few years ago the good ones were going for $15 a piece, so I would call $5 cheap! That being said, even the best ones that I know of are below $10 now.

Something to consider regarding computer and electronic waste recycling (mentioned in a couple posts above) - where and how is this recycling done? Take a look at some of these pictures and read this article from National Geographic. Makes you pause and scratch your head a little - especially the picture that shows an Indian man melting lead in the same dish that he uses to cook supper because he can't afford the equipment necessary to do the job properly!

iampete 02-21-2008 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdympcf (Post 453142)
. . . I'm not sure what you are getting at here. "White light" is a range of wavelengths. That is the nature of light. You may be complaining about the white point of the light (where it is centered in the colour spectrum), but you can't talk about efficiency and white point at the same time - it doesn't make sense. Also, you can get fluorescent lights that have different white points (warmer = yellower, cooler = bluer).

What I mean is that the light output of LED lamps that I have tried is extremely uncomfortable for me to read by. Although the illumination is bright, I don't consider it "useful" for certain activities.

I'm not certain it's a white point issue per se; it is related to the variation of light intensity over the entire visible range. To the best of my understanding, the problem with LEDs is that there is a high peak and a much steeper fall off which results in a much larger intensity gradient over the visible range than what exists for incandescents. (may not be quite right, memory gets fuzzy:()

You're correct about the efficiency in terms of total output, but I consider "useful efficiency" (a subjective, non-scientific measure) to be more applicable when considering value. For example, if I find it difficult to read with LED light, the efficiency in terms of lm/W is of zero value to me; if I'd use the LED for outside area illumination, then the lm/W is important.

mark hunte 02-22-2008 03:04 AM

In my old flat (UK), the incandescent bulbs I used to use, would blow all too soon.
I now use florescent.

They last forever.. well close to.
They are not as bright as the incandescent bulbs, but do the job.
I had heard about the Mercury in them, I vaguely remember the advice was councils where supposed to take them if put in your recycle box.
So I put a couple of dead ones in my recycle box.

If the council could not recycle them, they would have left them and taken everything else. The where taken, all that was left was a box made of plastic, which was the wrong type of plastic it turns out...

Also over here I think that incandescent bulbs will be phased out in a few years by law.

aehurst 02-22-2008 08:04 AM

We've got them all over the house. I hate the stinkin' things. They do not put out as much light as advertised... hard to read by. They tend to last a little longer, but no where near the time printed on the box. They seem to have a high defect rate... crackling sound if you screw one in all the way, one that continuously goes on and off every 10 minutes (too lazy to replace). Noticed no change in the elec bill once I put them in everywhere. The things are expensive!

Can't put them in the trash, and city has no place to recycle. My garage is filling up with crap I can't get rid of easily.... paint, old batteries, flourescent lights and on and on.

So, of course, we must make these things mandatory. It is the socially responsible thing to do!

NovaScotian 02-22-2008 09:29 AM

Rereading this thread, I'd say that the consensus is this:
  • Using more efficient lighting is the "right" thing to do for the environment.
  • Most of us have yet to find an alternative to incandescent lamps that provides enough light in wavelengths we prefer to read by.
  • The manufacturers of CFD's lie through their teeth about life, reliability, recyclability, and color (warm isn't).
  • All forms of "efficient" lighting are waay more expensive than incandescent bulbs and at this point, don't meet their lifetime guarantees.
I have a bunch of them in the basement (my office and my workshop) because those lights tend to get left on. We use a mixture in the den, but have to replace the CFDs long before their life is over to restore brightness. We don't use them anywhere else, and probably won't.

cwtnospam 02-22-2008 11:28 AM

I think it would be good to remember that incandescent bulbs weren't very bright or reliable for decades after they were first developed. Even today, they're not nearly as reliable as we'd like.

I see buying CFs and LEDs as an investment that we all need to make so that they can be developed as quickly as possible.

NovaScotian 02-22-2008 12:47 PM

I agree, and in 12 places where they work for me, I have installed CFs and quite a few tube-type fluorescent lights. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of of other lights and lamps in my home where available CF's just don't work -- in a size that gives off enough light they won't fit where an incandescent will (and does), or they show above the top of a glass shade because they're too tall, or the light isn't nearly warm enough for comfortable reading or shaving, or you can't sort socks because the color is all wrong --- etc.

The problem for someone like me is that I grew up under incandescent lights in homes with big windows -- I have expectations of what things should look like (including my face). I own antique table and standing lamps, ceiling fixtures, chandeliers, and wall sconces that won't receive a CFD because its base is too fat (and they're way too ugly). I'm certainly not going to redecorate my home to accommodate a lamp style that probably won't last anyway.

I have a couple of warm white ring-shaped fluorescent lights for which replacement bulbs are no longer available so when they burn out (and they're getting dark spots at the electrodes), I'll have to replace them with incandescent lights -- the double-helix type CF won't fit because when I installed them in the first place, I had to modify the lamps a bit -- I've had to modify a few others to receive CFs by moving their sockets up, but that's not always possible.

Until CFs or LEDs meet two standards, they aren't going to be as widely used as incandescent bulbs: they have to fit where the bulb they replace was, and they have to come in true broad spectrum warm white frosted envelopes.

schneb 02-22-2008 01:11 PM

By "coming out" with LED lamps, I meant to say "perfect", that is, make it cost efficient through mass production, lumen output per bulb, and color rendition.

I was able to purchase a package of LED night lamps which I have been pretty happy with. I found the intense blue tint a bit too much, so I wrapped a sunlight filter gel around it and now it is a bit nicer on the eyes.

CAlvarez 02-22-2008 04:22 PM

Quote:

I bought two dozen of them a few years ago at somewhat over 5 bucks apiece
Those were the cheap ones. Good ones were three times that, and are just now getting to be under $10.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site design © IDG Consumer & SMB; individuals retain copyright of their postings
but consent to the possible use of their material in other areas of IDG Consumer & SMB.