LED lights are going to be outdated - already?

DougA said:

Interesting article here about how graphene lights are going to replace LEDs with lower power consumption and lower cost to buy. Supposed to go on sale next year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32100071

Click to expand...

I tried some early LEDs (Walmart branded Lights Across America I think) and was disappointed in the quality. Most went dead the first year, I sure the newer name brand ones are much better. But looking at the current draw vs CFLs with equal lumes they just don't make since to me. Maybe these may be better dollar wise...

The article says adding graphene will lead to a 10% improvement to existing LED designs, not clear what that means. There is already a huge spread in lumens/W among LED bulbs (from <70 to >110).

I think the 'filament' models will take over above 100 lum/W, frosted or clear, and look just like an old Edison bulb. The helium filled bulb cooling method works great when the amount of heat to be rejected drops below a threshold (as lum/W increases). The packaging has to be cheaper too....very little metal.

The latest 115 lum/W ones I got recently are blowing the doors off my L-prize and Cree bulbs, and clearly running a lot cooler. Now close to 2x as eff as CFL. And the physical limits suggest that we can reasonably get to 150-250 lum/W. That is like a 60W replacement using 3-4W.

In ten years we could have bulbs that look just like Edison bulbs, all glass, clear or frosted, but they will come in 2, 3 and 5W sizes, to replace the old 40, 60 and 100W sizes.

I've recently purchased a couple of LED bulbs, but find the availability of bulbs to match the lumens of 25w and even 35w incandescents is really not there, at least on my local store shelves. Not everyone wants 75w or 150w equivalents!

I'd be very happy if LED or graphics mfg's would offer more low-wattage and decorative bulb replacement. We have more than 200 bulbs in our house, all pretty much below 50w.

have you tried googling 'LED filament bulbs' yet? Right now the US market is filled with lower-wattage Chinese versions in 'decorative' formats, and the high W replacements are hard to find. I'm not endorsing their longevity, but it might be fun to try out a few.

I suspect the big boys (cree, phillips, seimens) will be all over this format in a few years.

woodgeek said:

The article says 10% better than current LEDs. There is already a huge spread in lumens/W among LED bulbs (from <70 to >110).

I think the 'filament' models will take over above 100 lum/W, frosted or clear, and look just like an old Edison bulb. The helium filled bulb cooling method works great when the amount of heat to be rejected drops below a threshold (as lum/W increases). The packaging has to be cheaper too....very little metal.

The latest 115/ lum/W ones I got recently are blowing the doors off my L-prize and Cree bulbs, and clearly running a lot cooler. Now close to 2x as eff as CFL. And the physical limits suggest that we can reasonably get to 150-250 lum/W. That is like a 60W replacement using 3-4W.

In ten years we could have bulbs that look just like Edison bulbs, all glass, clear or frosted, but they will come in 2, 3 and 5W sizes, to replace the old 40, 60 and 100W sizes.

Click to expand...

Current draw of new style LEDs on their packaging is about what my CFLs use on my Kill-A-Watt meter. I am using "daylight" color not old style yellow light. What bulb are you using and what does it cost? Current draw?

Jeepman401 said:

Current draw of new style LEDs on their packaging is about what my CFLs use on my Kill-A-Watt meter. I am using "daylight" color not old style yellow light. What bulb are you using and what does it cost? Current draw?

Click to expand...

this thread: https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/if-you-miss-those-incandescent-filaments.142331/

I got a 7W, non-dimmable, warm-white 60W replacement, clear. Nominally 800 lumens at 7W. Haven't verified either number, but brightness seems right to my eyes, and its not getting very warm at all, compared to my Crees.

Of course, it cost me $20, unlike the $6 crees. Everyone needs a hobby.

I think I'm going to wait to replace incandescent bulbs until a replacement comes along at very low cost that converts the ambient energy fields into light and uses no electric power at all. BTW, I'm typing this on my friend's computer because I'm still waiting for faster, cheaper, smarter, better looking, completely intuitive device comes along -- oops, might already have that in my BFF (not cheaper though).

My CFLs last many years, some were over 8 years old when I switched them with the new daylight color. Had a friend 3 houses down and he said they burned out fast, but they had kids also. All the good quality LEDs I see at Menards etc are $20-$40 each. Just not worth the savings at that price. Now I may switch, if these new ones are around 4 watts, I use CFLs now that pull around 14 watts each vs 65 watt reg bulbs.

Our house was all CFL's for a long time. I never had the experience that I read so often of others that many CFL's would last only a short time. And I always bought the cheapest CFL's. Maybe 1 in 20 would crap out, and then rather quickly, the rest would last "forever." We still have 13W pin-tube CFL's in our recessed kitchen fixtures, and all but one are original and these were installed in 1996 and still burning brightly.

Just pulled one pin-tube and it says it uses 220ma, that's 26W and not 13W on a 120V house circuit. Others I have tested on the Kill-o-watt always showed more watts than the 13W the CFL was supposed to use. What gives?

Now the kitchen CFL's are the only CFL's we still use, all other bulbs have been switched to 40 or 60W equivalent LED, most indoor to 3200-3400K color, some indoor 4000 or 5000K color, and all outdoor or garage 5000K color. Most dim just fine. None have failed yet and the longest being used now for about 1-1/2 years. And now when I see the very "red" incandescent or CFL that others use, I wonder why the strong red hue is liked so much when sunlight is even brighter than 5000K. Probably just because that was "normal" lighting since the late 1800's and people are used to an unnatural color.

The most expensive LED's were $9 each, the least expensive before any rebates were $5 each. Again, I buy the cheapest. And I suppose when something better comes along, cuts power usage by about another 50% or so, I will switch lighting once again.

jebatty said:

And now when I see the very "red" incandescent or CFL that others use, I wonder why the strong red hue is liked so much when sunlight is even brighter than 5000K. Probably just because that was "normal" lighting since the late 1800's and people are used to an unnatural color.

Click to expand...

Try a few thousand years... fire, candles, and oil lamps, all similarly red color temps.

Old houses look odd when lit by CFL or LED. New houses are generally very ugly, so by association... [emoji12]. (... a duck!)

.... ducked in the nick of time! Thanks for the warning. Does a 1956 house with natural 3/4" thick, 8-10" wide pine plank walls and 18" wide solid pine flooring qualify as old, new or indifferent?

I have been buying the Sylvania recessed light LED retrofits and I really like them. They replace the bulb and trim piece.

I guess it is good to use even less energy and if you can find a way to do it for the same price, go for it. I really don't see the big deal going from a 800 lumen bulb from 7 watts to 4 watts. I imagine it takes 3-4 watts just ot get the electricity to the bulb... More efficient homes is where we should be focused on. We could save 10% of our heating/ cooling needs just by putting enough insulation in our attic..... Heck even new houses only require r 50 up here,, why not r60 while you are up there and its just old newpaper besides.

ihookem said:

I guess it is good to use even less energy and if you can find a way to do it for the same price, go for it. I really don't see the big deal going from a 800 lumen bulb from 7 watts to 4 watts. I imagine it takes 3-4 watts just ot get the electricity to the bulb... More efficient homes is where we should be focused on. We could save 10% of our heating/ cooling needs just by putting enough insulation in our attic..... Heck even new houses only require r 50 up here,, why not r60 while you are up there and its just old newpaper besides.

Click to expand...

Gotta agree. Going from 60W to 13W (CFL) is a lot more important than going to 9W (Cree LED 2014) or 7W (AXP LED 2015) or 4W in 2020. But in the long run, the CFLs will burn out, and we'll all have nice bulbs that are more eff than any we have now.

How quick would you jump on an upgrade that saves $10 a month, but doesn't break even for 5, 10, 15+ years? For me, 5 years I'll listen to the idea and consider it. I might even jump if I see volatility coming in the energy source. 10 years I'll listen, but wait to see if something better is in the pipeline. I'm not interested in 15 year paybacks for $10 a month, especially if the standard of living of my family isn't increased by it.

Click to expand...

This is quite rational on an individual decision making basis. But what if everyone in the world followed this practice: no mercury reductions, no reduction in sulfuric and nitric acid emissions, no reduction in particulate emissions, no decrease in CO2, etc. Coal would forever reign as king and health, quality of life, and the environment would degrade until we all and other living things, cockroaches excepted, live in squalor, disease, and worse.

The need is for people to act in community for the betterment of all, and that means paying the costs for benefits not built into the economic payback formula. Economic payback alone is and always will be short-sighted until all non-economic, social, and environmental costs also are fully accounted for.

jebatty said:

This is quite rational on an individual decision making basis. But what if everyone in the world followed this practice: no mercury reductions, no reduction in sulfuric and nitric acid emissions, no reduction in particulate emissions, no decrease in CO2, etc. Coal would forever reign as king and health, quality of life, and the environment would degrade until we all and other living things, cockroaches excepted, live in squalor, disease, and worse.

Click to expand...

Good thing we have you to save us from ourselves.

China's carbon footprint is increasing 10x faster than we can ever hope to reduce ours. Exercise in futility?