LED light bulbs getting better

elstimpo

Froggitt wrote: »

elstimpo - any views on these?

I've had to take your links out as i cannot post with them in at the moment.

1) First thing i always look for is the lumens. They do not give it to you, so alarm bells are already ringing. However, 5w is the required wattage and for a good quality spot and the voltage looks fine too. But i cannot comment unless they advertise the lumens.

2) This one actually looks good. It is a Cree bulb, which is US technology and considered the finest diodes you can currently get. Its a coating that is applied to the diode. In my opinion you can't often go wrong with a Cree bulb, but they are expensive. Lumens look good too. Lux 620/1m isn't actually lumens but its close enough and you can get a good idea of the lumens from it.

3) Compare 2 to 3 and it's no contest. This highlights quite nicely the problem with the market. No.2 at £25 per spot is the top end of LED's and a quality product. This spot at £25 is not Cree and the Lumens are appalling.

elstimpo

Cardew wrote: »

An extra 4w or 6w per bulb is hardly earth saving. If each bulb is on for 4 hours a day you save 6kWh or 9kWh per year - say 60 pence or 90 pence per year.

Take a long while to recover the extra cost of the bulb!

P.S. See if those earth saving Chinese will shut down a couple of coal fired power stations while you are there;)

An extra 4w and 6w per bulb is actually a lot individually. If you then suggest a 4w and 6w difference in every light fitting in the UK and Europe. Then i'm sure that you don't need me to highlight the benefits.

In terms of energy saving and environmental issues go, wattage is not the only thing to consider. LED's create very little heat, which makes them for more efficient which isn't represented by a number in front of a w. They last for years and years. Quality LED bulbs produce a far better light etc etc.

On average a good LED will have paid for itself under 2 years from purchase and have at least 6 years more of its life left. Test's i have done have shown life can be double that.

ps - The Chinese are not earth savers.

Froggitt

The Deltech has "180 lumens per LED" (from another site)
The Cree has Lux 620/
The third one has LUX Rating - 660 Lumen Rating - 175

Not sure of the Lux v Lumens comparisons.

Is 3 better than 2 and 1?

elstimpo

Froggitt wrote: »

The Deltech has "180 lumens per LED" (from another site)
The Cree has Lux 620/
The third one has LUX Rating - 660 Lumen Rating - 175

Not sure of the Lux v Lumens comparisons.

Is 3 better than 2 and 1?

Sorry, i was on my way back to correct that. When your staring at abbreviations and complicated maths equations most of the day, they start to have an effect on you.

LUX is an abbreviation for Lumens per square meter. So you can work out the light emmited. No the 2 bulb is far far better than the 3rd due to the Cree technology.

I will come back and write more about LUX / Lumens and Cree / Edison whe i can.

Mankysteve

while its great to see these products starting to come onto the shelfs there not yet able to replace CFC and indcastants unless you've got a lot money in your pocket I would stick to CFC if you wanna save money they now do a wide range of halogen style fiting CFC, Ie downlighters Ect.

BargainGalore

There is also a issue with some led bulbs due to the low power usage that you need a transformer to power them up

stevehead

BargainGalore wrote: »

There is also a issue with some led bulbs due to the low power usage that you need a transformer to power them up

All LED bulbs require transformers to work on 220v AC. Some have them built into the base of the bulb like the GU10 style, others such as the MR16 require an external transformer.
Both the GU10 (220VAC) and MR16 (12VDC or 12VAC) fit into the same hole.

If you use MR16's, at least you can choose your own transformer and therefore efficiency.

elstimpo

Mankysteve wrote: »

I would stick to CFC if you wanna save money .

In what way in this accurate? Have you considered the mercury aspect of CFC's and all the other negative aspects of them?

Buy one of the most expensive LED's, at £70 ish and over it's lifetime i will save you significant money on your bills, energy, the environment and a lot of time over any CFC.

I cannot see one reason why you would want to stick with CFC's to save money? You'll only lose money with CFC's?

Very confused.

Happychappy

Froggitt wrote: »

Let us know how your trip goes.

:rolleyes: you sure there were no lady boys harmed in this production ? five times a year to Asia.

savemoney

Because the price of led's is far to expensive for most people to swallow, people dont think of 20+ years usage just like governments dont plan for the future they only plan for next 5 years

It was the same many years ago when low energy bulbs came out I remember paying around £20 for one and that was in the 80's and they were quite heavy, slow to get full power and quite ugle

elstimpo wrote: »

In what way in this accurate? Have you considered the mercury aspect of CFC's and all the other negative aspects of them?

Buy one of the most expensive LED's, at £70 ish and over it's lifetime i will save you significant money on your bills, energy, the environment and a lot of time over any CFC.

I cannot see one reason why you would want to stick with CFC's to save money? You'll only lose money with CFC's?

Very confused.