Is anyone else interested in incandescent because of the lack of blue spectrum that is even in warm LEDs?

[vicv]

It is kinda funny when folks come to the incan section to poo-poo on incans that we still use because we obviously just like them. Things must be kinda dull over in LED land.

Because leds haven't been interesting in 20 years. I like leds fine, but it is true. They keep getting brighter, sure, but anything beyond 250 lumens in a non spotlight is unnecessary. So unlike the surefire days where there was innovation and design, now it's just off the shelf components slapped together. Who cares if the reflector is a good design. More lumens. I think that's why I don't bother buying/collecting new lights and why I prefer incan. Besides the obviously superior light they produce😁

 

[vicv]

I'm rocking several maglites with some mods and such. The MLT-25 is my go to thrower.

I also just restored a 10 watt xenon ultrastinger and I love it!

That ultrastinger is an impressive light eh? I need a new battery for mine, but it was great. I also have a couple ml25it. One has a 7212 tads custom bulb and 3xcr123s in it. It's such a good light. Wish fivemega would make an aluminum reflector for it. It bubbling a bit

 

[Monocrom]

You've been on CPF long enough to know LiFePO4 batteries solve that problem. EVs are transitioning to them. The e-bike industry needs a little push in that direction too.

I had a gasoline bike motor about 30 years ago. I sent it back for a full refund after about a month. Too noisy, too smelly, not much torque, plus refilling was decidedly way less convenient than just plugging it in at home. Way more expensive per mile, too. They didn't have e-bikes then, so that ended my brief experiment with motorized bikes.

I know e-bikes won't work for everyone. But they could work for many of those who drive mostly in the city.

Gasoline powered bikes do have their issues. One of them not being venting with flame. Hopefully the entire e-Bike industry transitions to LiFe-POs soon.

Have you seen your average fellow NewYorker? Most aren't physically fit enough to handle a traditional bicycle.

 

[Monocrom]

Because leds haven't been interesting in 20 years. I like leds fine, but it is true. They keep getting brighter, sure, but anything beyond 250 lumens in a non spotlight is unnecessary.

Please, speak for yourself. There have been a handful of times where over 2,000 rated lumens turned out to be very useful, during my 3rd Shift job. Even useful one time proves that sometimes brighter is indeed better.

 

[vicv]

Gasoline powered bikes do have their issues. One of them not being venting with flame. Hopefully the entire e-Bike industry transitions to LiFe-POs soon.

Have you seen your average fellow NewYorker? Most aren't physically fit enough to handle a traditional bicycle.

Gasoline doesn't…….flame?!

 

[Monocrom]

Gasoline doesn't…….flame?!

It doesn't vent with flame out of the blue. Unlike E-bikes and E-scooters.

 

[aznsx]

Please, speak for yourself. There have been a handful of times where over 2,000 rated lumens turned out to be very useful, during my 3rd Shift job. Even useful one time proves that sometimes brighter is indeed better.

I too have needed 'all I could get' and could practically carry under the circumstances (along with many other things) very often in professional duty, most notably in an industrial environment for years. That ended a while back, but if I'd had the light(s) I have now back then, it would have been been like a miracle for me. It's true that a lot of the times these days I can get by today with something ~the 250-500 class, but I struggled to get by with what was practically available say 10-12 years ago. it was not adequate for the task, and I would have been far safer and more effective with what I have today.

 

[bykfixer]

Because leds haven't been interesting in 20 years. I like leds fine, but it is true. They keep getting brighter, sure, but anything beyond 250 lumens in a non spotlight is unnecessary. So unlike the surefire days where there was innovation and design, now it's just off the shelf components slapped together. Who cares if the reflector is a good design. More lumens. I think that's why I don't bother buying/collecting new lights and why I prefer incan. Besides the obviously superior light they produce😁

Agreed. I won't say 20 years in my case but definitely been a few now. I never got into the 3200 lumens from a P60 thing either. I have some bright LED lights but those are much larger than a P60 light, which to me topped out around 350-500 or so.

I prefer a cool white beam from an LED source so I guess that means it's loaded with blue light. Yet it doesn't bother me. Or at least that I know of. Maybe some day an eye doctor will tell me it caused this or that?

But I still like the light that shines from a 1980's 2D Maglite. Or when I feel like getting a chuckle the beam from my 1960's 7D Dog Supply House search and rescue light lighting up a neighbors back yard a quarter mile away.

 

[vicv]

Agreed. I won't say 20 years in my case but definitely been a few now. I never got into the 3200 lumens from a P60 thing either. I have some bright LED lights but those are much larger than a P60 light, which to me topped out around 350-500 or so.

I prefer a cool white beam from an LED source so I guess that means it's loaded with blue light. Yet it doesn't bother me. Or at least that I know of. Maybe some day an eye doctor will tell me it caused this or that?

But I still like the light that shines from a 1980's 2D Maglite. Or when I feel like getting a chuckle the beam from my 1960's 7D Dog Supply House search and rescue light lighting up a neighbors back yard a quarter mile away.

I was walking my dogs last night, and carrying a 3D maglite loaded with 4c cells and a 3 cell krypton bulb. Unfocused to make approx a 2' ringy beam in front of me. Was nice. Usually I'm carrying my a2 or a modded 3c with a 6 cell xenon. But those are a lot more powerful and harder on the eyes. I figure that 3d was putting out around 30 lumens as the c cells were not fresh

 

[PhotonMaster3]

I only use incandescents in my house. LEDs are awesome for my 50,000 plus lumen monsters but I don't want that shining in my hizzle.

 

[Dr. Jones]

It was an issue back when lots of people lit their homes with incandescent. The waste of energy was staggering. Since then LEDs have gotten well over 50% of the home lighting market. Commercial and industrial use is virtually 100% LED. If people want to play with incandescent flashlights, it's a very niche thing which doesn't have any of the overwhelming negatives incandescent home lighting does.

Same thing with ICEs versus EVs. It won't matter if some people still insist on driving ICEs once they become a niche item.
But getting rid of ICEs, at least near major population centers, has multiple benefits.

I still light my home with incandescent bulbs, and intend to do so until I leave this mortal plane, and as long as the power grid is up and running; I made several bulk purchases of bulbs many years ago, when I saw the "writing on the wall" in regards to LEDs being forced on the public.

In due time it will become apparent that LEDs have an overwhelmingly negative effect on the health of those constantly exposed to them., and that the public has once again been sold a bill of goods by the combined forces of do-gooders and ne'er do wells.

 

[jtr1962]

In due time it will become apparent that LEDs have an overwhelmingly negative effect on the health of those constantly exposed to them., and that the public has once again been sold a bill of goods by the combined forces of do-gooders and ne'er do wells.

What's this mysterious negative effect on the health of those exposed to them? If they were detrimental, many millions would have died by now being exposed to them. Fluorescents, which have been used in offices and stores since the 1940s, emit shorter wavelengths than LEDs, well into the ultraviolet. However, even those emit a fraction of the UV over a full work day compared to being in full sunlight for a few minutes.

If you want to use incandescent all power to you. I don't see how anyone can stand being under their crappy yellow light but to each their own. That's not even getting into their short life and ridiculously high power consumption. I used to get really bad headaches being under incandescent light. The lack of a true white point will do that. I appreciate that we have alternatives now which are far closer to sunlight, plus far more efficient besides.

What's your plan in the extremely unlikely event LEDs have some unforeseen negative effect, like making us grow a second set of limbs, or letting aliens mind control us? Go back to incandescents, essentially removing a choice from many people which they now prefer more? That'll also mean building a bunch more generating stations, some of which will make pollution burning fossil fuels. No thanks. I'll keep my LEDs, you can keep your incandescents. Thankfully there aren't enough holdouts any more to significantly impact the grid. Commercial went pretty much 100% LED. Residential is well over 50% (that surprised even me).

LEDs are predicted to make up 87% of the lighting market by 2030:

Global lighting market: LED penetration rate | Statista

Since they use only a fifth of the electricity required by a comparable incandescent bulb, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are currently among the most energy-efficient light sources in the world.

www.statista.com

If they were so unhealthy, this wouldn't be the case.

 

[bykfixer]

Hey, up to 87% of Americans used to smoke cigarettes. That didn't work out so well.

I don't see where incan bulbs are harmful after 100+ years of mankind using them. But so far LED bulbs seem to have some issues like Dr Jones is saying. We'll see.

Like I said previously, the blue light doesn't seem to bother me. Nor does PWM. I still have some bulbs in my house. Some curly fries and flourescents too. Light is light to me. Now as bulbs, curly fries and flourescents quit I replace them with LED's mostly. They're cheap and last a long time.

 

[vicv]

What's this mysterious negative effect on the health of those exposed to them? If they were detrimental, many millions would have died by now being exposed to them. Fluorescents, which have been used in offices and stores since the 1940s, emit shorter wavelengths than LEDs, well into the ultraviolet. However, even those emit a fraction of the UV over a full work day compared to being in full sunlight for a few minutes.

If you want to use incandescent all power to you. I don't see how anyone can stand being under their crappy yellow light but to each their own. That's not even getting into their short life and ridiculously high power consumption. I used to get really bad headaches being under incandescent light. The lack of a true white point will do that. I appreciate that we have alternatives now which are far closer to sunlight, plus far more efficient besides.

What's your plan in the extremely unlikely event LEDs have some unforeseen negative effect, like making us grow a second set of limbs, or letting aliens mind control us? Go back to incandescents, essentially removing a choice from many people which they now prefer more? That'll also mean building a bunch more generating stations, some of which will make pollution burning fossil fuels. No thanks. I'll keep my LEDs, you can keep your incandescents. Thankfully there aren't enough holdouts any more to significantly impact the grid. Commercial went pretty much 100% LED. Residential is well over 50% (that surprised even me).

LEDs are predicted to make up 87% of the lighting market by 2030:

Global lighting market: LED penetration rate | Statista

Since they use only a fifth of the electricity required by a comparable incandescent bulb, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are currently among the most energy-efficient light sources in the world.

www.statista.com

If they were so unhealthy, this wouldn't be the case.

I think this is more about what's available than what's better. I'm an Incan guy when it comes to flashlights. Because I only need for less than an hour at a time. But in my house? I've gone completely over to led. Smart bulbs in fact. I can dim them or change cct with a command. They last practically indefinitely. I can add a light to a room without the need of wiring in a switch because they make bt switches. Incandescent as an interior light source is dead. I think saying either is bad for your health is a little bit conspiratorial thinking personally. But if you're the type who thinks everyone is out to get you, I can see the appeal of that mindset.
All of that said, led is a superior lighting type, regardless of opinion or preference. It's objectively better. Still prefer my incan flashlights though as the advantages of led don't outweigh the benefit of Incan for my use

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

If LEDs are so superior to incan, then why outlaw the manufacture and sale of incan? The market should eliminate incan if LED is so superior. The truth is, the Communist Greenies are forcing LEDs on We The People, when they should be silent on the matter, as We The People determine by choice what is best for each of us.

 

[Monocrom]

Few weeks back, I felt like an idiot trying to track down a rather rare type of incandescent bulb for a light fixture in my bedroom. Used to be not a big deal. Only one Ace Hardware store had them that I knew of. Okay.... Every couple of times a year, drive over there, buy several at a time. Went on like this for years. Quite awhile back, the store was renovated. Unfortunately everything was moved around, and the space made far less efficient. It even feels smaller on the inside than before. No bulbs of the rare type I needed. So, online I went! Nothing!!! Finally, found them! Horribly expensive. But bought several. Didn't realize I was buying LEDs in the old incandescent shape.

Tried them out. They fit, they work. I'm done. Would I prefer the old incandescent version, instead? Yes! Are the LED versions so incredibly much more easier to find? Also, yes. I'm not a masochist, so I use the LED versions in my bedroom. Just that simple.

 

[jtr1962]

If LEDs are so superior to incan, then why outlaw the manufacture and sale of incan? The market should eliminate incan if LED is so superior. The truth is, the Communist Greenies are forcing LEDs on We The People, when they should be silent on the matter, as We The People determine by choice what is best for each of us.

Because the free market rarely chooses the best products. More often, it picks the ones which return the most profit. I've noticed a pattern where anytime somebody makes a good product which does its job well, and never breaks, it seems like eventually you can't get that product any more. Either the company goes out of business, or they redesign the product so some critical part fails regularly.

Then you have other aspects of products which free markets won't cater to at all unless forced by government mandate. For example, many of the safety and emissions enhancements of vehicles wouldn't exist unless they were forced. The manufacturers either make less profit, or must sell at a higher price, in order to provide these enhancements. That's counter to the free market where lowest price wins.

Another factor is sometimes a new type of product comes along which might not initially succeed in a free market, but which offers benefits existing products don't. In the case of LEDs, it wasn't just about being green. Grids are overloaded. Anything which reduces demand for power is desirable. The electric companies themselves are one of the parties pushing LED adoption.

The general idea here is to help a new product reach a critical mass of penetration eventually so it can then compete with existing products. The "help" might come in the form of price subsidies, mandates, or both. Yes, to some extent this is government picking winners and losers but bad products will still fail eventually, even with government pushing them. A good example is hydrogen cars. There may well be some niche uses for hydrogen, but just physics alone says its a bad choice for vehicles. And the economics are against it also. H2 is equivalent to $5/gallon gas economically.

Even with government help, LEDs wouldn't be headed for 87% market penetration in 2030 if they were a bad product. Look at CFLs. They had government help also, but never reached the numbers they wanted. Why? They had serious downsides in terms of form factor and light distribution/quality. Most weren't dimmable, either, and this is something the market demands.

Last thing to note here is even once a new product gets good market penetration thanks to mandates or subsidies, often the government still has to stay semi-involved. Case in point is I've noted the rated lifetimes of LED bulbs have gone way down from the 25K to 50K hours they were in the beginning. This is the doings of the free market, which kind of proves my point that free markets don't always produce the best products. A properly designed LED bulb should last in excess of 100K hours. We might need to include a higher rated lifetime in future Energy Star requirements in order to counter what the free market is doing to LEDs. Commercial LEDs generally don't suffer from this problem because commercial users just won't buy stuff unless it's rated for at least 100K hours.

Shorter lifetimes may have made a little sense when LED efficiency was improving rapidly. You would rather a person swaps in a more efficient LED once they're available, instead of using a less efficient one for decades. Now that LED efficiency has more or less plateaued, that concern no longer exists. LEDs should be made to last as long as possible.

 

[jtr1962]

Tried them out. They fit, they work. I'm done. Would I prefer the old incandescent version, instead? Yes! Are the LED versions so incredibly much more easier to find? Also, yes. I'm not a masochist, so I use the LED versions in my bedroom. Just that simple.

Unlike CFLs, LEDs these days generally don't have any glaring negatives days in terms of either form factor or light quality. I'd like to see Energy Star requirements changed to mandate 90+ CRI, but the free market seems to be moving in that direction anyway.

The market lately actually seems to be gravitating towards purpose-build LED fixtures. LED bulbs were really always a stop-gap solution until we had widespread adoption of LED fixtures. The form factor of a bulb is sub-optimal for LEDs. As people's old bulb-based fixtures wear out, or they just get tired of them, they're being replaced with fixtures having built-in LEDs. We're starting to see the same for things like table lamps also. You can do novel things with light sources once you move away from bulbs, including variable CCT so the end user can choose what they like. Moreover, with more optimal paths to dissipate heat, you'll get 50K to 100K lifetimes from these fixtures.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

Few weeks back, I felt like an idiot trying to track down a rather rare type of incandescent bulb for a light fixture in my bedroom. Used to be not a big deal. Only one Ace Hardware store had them that I knew of. Okay.... Every couple of times a year, drive over there, buy several at a time. Went on like this for years. Quite awhile back, the store was renovated. Unfortunately everything was moved around, and the space made far less efficient. It even feels smaller on the inside than before. No bulbs of the rare type I needed. So, online I went! Nothing!!! Finally, found them! Horribly expensive. But bought several. Didn't realize I was buying LEDs in the old incandescent shape.

Tried them out. They fit, they work. I'm done. Would I prefer the old incandescent version, instead? Yes! Are the LED versions so incredibly much more easier to find? Also, yes. I'm not a masochist, so I use the LED versions in my bedroom. Just that simple.

To find your original incan bulbs, try some of the little mom and pop shops, some may still have NOS for sale. All it takes is higher than Walmart prices to keep stuff on the shelves.

As far as using the LEDs that you bought by mistake, that is a sunk cost, you might as well burn them up. In the meantime, you can see about tracking down some authentic incan bulbs. Good luck, good hunting OM.

 

[vicv]

Unlike CFLs, LEDs these days generally don't have any glaring negatives days in terms of either form factor or light quality. I'd like to see Energy Star requirements changed to mandate 90+ CRI, but the free market seems to be moving in that direction anyway.

The market lately actually seems to be gravitating towards purpose-build LED fixtures. LED bulbs were really always a stop-gap solution until we had widespread adoption of LED fixtures. The form factor of a bulb is sub-optimal for LEDs. As people's old bulb-based fixtures wear out, or they just get tired of them, they're being replaced with fixtures having built-in LEDs. We're starting to see the same for things like table lamps also. You can do novel things with light sources once you move away from bulbs, including variable CCT so the end user can choose what they like. Moreover, with more optimal paths to dissipate heat, you'll get 50K to 100K lifetimes from these fixtures.

Unfortunately for some reason, people bring up politics when we're discussing lighting. Which is so American. Lighting shouldn't have political sides.
And ya, total free market capitalism would have most of the people on this forum working in a silica mine with no mask. Living in a hut and eating grubs. Government mandate keep a check on runaway capitalism. Everyone complains about how expensive everything is. Especially food. That's unfettered capitalism
Regardless of politics, leds are just better. I prefer incans, but leds are better. I haven't changed a bulb in my house in over 6 years. If you can get the same luminosity from 6 w as you could 60 w before, that's not liberal propaganda. That's better tech. Just like my iPhone is better than a rotary phone. My e-bike is better than the 2 stroke kits. My pellet grill is better than a trench dug in the ground filled with palm fronds.