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

Just wondered, because the concept has piqued my interest. I'm definitely affected by blue light. I often don't sleep and if I turn the TV in the early hours on even on low brightness I find myself very agitated and woken up. However if I wear red tinted wraparound glasses, I can watch TV and then when I feel ready go back to sleep without any problem. I have the same issue with my phone and stick red acetate over the screen when it gets late. It follows that an incandescent torch would be ideal if one wakes up during the night. They might be dim but they have no blue light. I've read a few of the threads and most thee attraction of incandescent torches seem to be on a sentimental level but could not be said they have a very specific advantage over any LED for not disturbing ones, sleep cycle?
You may try lights for the "military" application with red LEDs. They definitely have zero blue emission.
 
If there is an inherent lack of blue light in almost all LEDs, then I am really glad I have switched to LED in my night light.
I like reading a book on the bed before sleeping (you know, the old type made out of paper, with manually turning the pages instead of gesturing on a screen), and I try to do that for at least an hour to relax and clear my head as I spend most of my day in front of a computer screen.

So having a low-blue light as a bed lamp (got a Philips E14, 25 W 929003011901 (EAN) bulb) should be the best there is.
I rearranged my bedroom last year, and am currently using an Emisar DT8K with Nichia E21A 4500K with a magnetic tail cap, hanging from a steel shelf bracket above my head, as a temporary solution until I figure out how to re-fit my wall lamp.
 
Last edited:
No, the OP means that even warm LEDs have a lot of blue spectrum emission, while incans have less of it compared to other wavelengths.
Got it. Yeah, I was a bit confused by the phrasing, as I thought LED inherently did have a lot of blue light in them.
I haven't paid any attention regarding LEDs sold for regular household applications (lamps etc.), so I wouldn't know if anything had changed in recent years.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
This is hmy first time pulling out a quote, so I might not be doing it right.

Yeah man, you took the words right out of my mouth. I agree our ol buddy the govt (yeah, right) is force feeding us those leds and that is another reason why I'm leary of them. The govt ain't our friend--all govts are corrupt and have a global agenda.

It's not so much the govt as it is the eco-terrorists who terrorize pansy-*** politicians--invalidating anyone challenging their global warming obsession in any way. This extends to anything they think uses too much energy (incands), too much water (low flow toilets), too much hydrocarbons (dumbass EV's)....never mind their stupidity in not allowing brush cutting, logging, storing and using generous watering of forest floors to prevent catastrophic fires--instead of flushing it out into the Pacific Ocean, not filling and building many more reservoirs, tearing down damns to allow indians to fish salmon in rivers like they did a hundred years ago, and now solely blaming their gross incompetence only on strong winds. It's sad and utterly pathetic. Those are the people who banned incandescents.
 
It's not so much the govt as it is the eco-terrorists who terrorize pansy-*** politicians--invalidating anyone challenging their global warming obsession in any way. This extends to anything they think uses too much energy (incands), too much water (low flow toilets), too much hydrocarbons (dumbass EV's)...
US energy efficiency standards go back decades, and the legislation that resulted in incandescent lamps being phased out was technology-agnostic (a minimum efficacy requirement was imposed for general-purpose lamps, which some flavors of halogen was able to meet). There's a huge amount of FUD out there about this, but the general trend of a shift towards higher-efficiency lamps due to the cost savings on energy started long before LEDs even became commercially available, and wasn't driven by government intervention. The gradual phasing in of minimum efficiency standards via regulation was a nudge to the market intended to accelerate development. There were plenty of exceptions for special-purpose applications, although the costs of those niche products went up as economies of scale were lost due to the high-volume products getting superseded by newer technology (and those high costs sometimes led to products getting phased out due to lack of demand)
 
US energy efficiency standards go back decades, and the legislation that resulted in incandescent lamps being phased out was technology-agnostic (a minimum efficacy requirement was imposed for general-purpose lamps, which some flavors of halogen was able to meet). There's a huge amount of FUD out there about this, but the general trend of a shift towards higher-efficiency lamps due to the cost savings on energy started long before LEDs even became commercially available, and wasn't driven by government intervention. The gradual phasing in of minimum efficiency standards via regulation was a nudge to the market intended to accelerate development. There were plenty of exceptions for special-purpose applications, although the costs of those niche products went up as economies of scale were lost due to the high-volume products getting superseded by newer technology (and those high costs sometimes led to products getting phased out due to lack of demand)

Sorry, but that is wrong. The ecoterrorists have attacked everything and everyone challenging their ideology, and have spearheaded dumbass regulations to force the changes they want because they want everyone in the USA to pay for ridiculous regulations and stupid products. They ignore any attempts to focus their energies at the massive China/India/Mexico/etc sources of pollution and energy abuses.

They got a collective group of circular firing squad morons concentrated in places like California where they have gone wild. It's everything from eliminating regular size toilets, banning incandescent bulbs--initially in favor of faulty/expensive/mercury spill ballast disasters, regulating car emissions, coal plants, mandating windmills, solar panels, massive battery storage farms, banning/regulating anything related to hydrocarbons, water usage, power plants, EV's, cow methane, gas stoves, hot water heaters, etc etc.

There was no need to ban incandescent bulbs when all they had coming was expensive and dangerous CFL's. They did not let LED's evolve as a natural market driven technology. No, it was driven by ecoterrorists who decided that all energy production had to be curtailed to reduce power plant output. None of this was done as a "nudge" which you use as a minor and dismissive mild suggestion. No....these changes were mandatory and punitive for those preferring incandescent bulbs.

The ecoterrorists are directly responsible for the horrendous fires in California, and I am not interested in any of my tax dollars bailing them out time after time unless there is a complete overhaul of how horribly they manage their water supply, forests, brush, adequate firefighing supplies and personnel, instead of it being cut back and reservoirs being empty and no new ones being built. It should start with a recall to get rid of Newsom and LA Bass and all their DEI bullshit.
 
Sorry, but that is wrong. The ecoterrorists have attacked everything and everyone challenging their ideology, and have spearheaded dumbass regulations to force the changes they want because they want everyone in the USA to pay for ridiculous regulations and stupid products. They ignore any attempts to focus their energies at the massive China/India/Mexico/etc sources of pollution and energy abuses.

They got a collective group of circular firing squad morons concentrated in places like California where they have gone wild. It's everything from eliminating regular size toilets, banning incandescent bulbs--initially in favor of faulty/expensive/mercury spill ballast disasters, regulating car emissions, coal plants, mandating windmills, solar panels, massive battery storage farms, banning/regulating anything related to hydrocarbons, water usage, power plants, EV's, cow methane, gas stoves, hot water heaters, etc etc.

There was no need to ban incandescent bulbs when all they had coming was expensive and dangerous CFL's. They did not let LED's evolve as a natural market driven technology. No, it was driven by ecoterrorists who decided that all energy production had to be curtailed to reduce power plant output. None of this was done as a "nudge" which you use as a minor and dismissive mild suggestion. No....these changes were mandatory and punitive for those preferring incandescent bulbs.

The ecoterrorists are directly responsible for the horrendous fires in California, and I am not interested in any of my tax dollars bailing them out time after time unless there is a complete overhaul of how horribly they manage their water supply, forests, brush, adequate firefighing supplies and personnel, instead of it being cut back and reservoirs being empty and no new ones being built. It should start with a recall to get rid of Newsom and LA Bass and all their DEI bullshit.
Wow. You really ran with that one. Dude must have hit a nerve. You ok?

No more energy for this kind of thing, but a little bit alarmed at how many times you used the word "ecoterrorist."
 
Wow. You really ran with that one. Dude must have hit a nerve. You ok?

No more energy for this kind of thing, but a little bit alarmed at how many times you used the word "ecoterrorist."
That's what they are. They terrorize others in the name of their fanaticism and have no idea how useless and ineffective they actually are. It's like a cult religion. Most people are sheep and just go along. I'm not a sheep.
 
That's what they are. They terrorize others in the name of their fanaticism and have no idea how useless and ineffective they actually are. It's like a cult religion. Most people are sheep and just go along. I'm not a sheep.
It's LED chat. Sounds like you're ready to start executing people for treason.

Turn it down, yeah?
 
Sorry, but that is wrong.
<snip>
There was no need to ban incandescent bulbs when all they had coming was expensive and dangerous CFL's. They did not let LED's evolve as a natural market driven technology. No, it was driven by ecoterrorists who decided that all energy production had to be curtailed to reduce power plant output. None of this was done as a "nudge" which you use as a minor and dismissive mild suggestion. No....these changes were mandatory and punitive for those preferring incandescent bulbs.
 
It's LED chat. Sounds like you're ready to start executing people for treason.

Turn it down, yeah?
That's your perverted hyperbole, typical of liberals and ecoterrorists—not able to distinguish between idiots terrorizing people to force their lame policies in the name of what they misguidedly believe is the existential threat to humanity....and actual treason for which the most severe of penalties should be absolutely applied. Of course, liberals then jump to the most inflammatory of hyberbolic rhetoric by assuming execution, systemic racism, misogeny, toxic masculinity, or some perturbation involving Hitler or Nazis.

Why do you think they had to change their pet cause from global warming to climate change? Oh yeah because there was a period where warming ended.
 
Last edited:
<snip>


From your source:

"…Clean Energy Act of 2007, is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Planduring the 110th Congress,[2] …"

It's an act of ecoterrorists pressuring their democrat party operatives to pass such ridiculous legislation. None of this was driven by natural economic and social changes. It was forced upon everyone whether they liked it or not in the name of their ignoble holy grail.

It didn't matter if you live in an area where there has never been any water shortage or restriction…no you could not have normal water reservoir toilets.

They demanded and wasted many billions of dollars with legislation they passed to force EV's and supposedly build charging stations which like the worthless high speed train in California are but a few boondoggle projects.

Then there are the multiple taxpayer funded lithium battery factories that went bankrupt and subsequently bought by China for pennies on the dollar.

BTW the so called "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" is an oxymoron, as it did neither.
 
Last edited:
Eco-terrorist to me are the ones who forced everyone to get Low-flow toilets back in the day. As a child, I remember when every toilet in every home had enough power to flush away a dead body. Just spent the last half hour unclogging my toilet that I used because the flow wasn't strong enough. Yeah, these types of toilets weren't made for men who work hard, need to consume a ton of calories, and then need to get rid of waste material. I'm not a dainty woman, and I don't eat salads!
 
Eco-terrorist to me are the ones who forced everyone to get Low-flow toilets back in the day. As a child, I remember when every toilet in every home had enough power to flush away a dead body. Just spent the last half hour unclogging my toilet that I used because the flow wasn't strong enough. Yeah, these types of toilets weren't made for men who work hard, need to consume a ton of calories, and then need to get rid of waste material. I'm not a dainty woman, and I don't eat salads!

And to my knowledge, NYC has never had a water shortage. All the lawns are watered.

It was the same with ecoterrorist mandating the dumbass flow restrictors in faucet and shower heads. First thing I did was pull out the plastic restrictor in one case, and drilled out the metal one in another faucet. That's fine for desert/water shortage areas, but the ecoterrorists force their sinister poppycock on EVERYONE.
 
Last edited:
That's your perverted hyperbole, typical of liberals and ecoterrorists—not able to distinguish between idiots terrorizing people to force their lame policies in the name of what they misguidedly believe is the existential threat to humanity.

Why do you think they had to change their pet cause from global warming to climate change? Oh yeah because there was a period where warming ended.

I was enjoying reading opinions about LED vs Incan color spectrum. You sound like someone in the throws of a psychotic break. Hope that's not actually the case.
 
I was enjoying reading opinions about LED vs Incan color spectrum. You sound like someone in the throws of a psychotic break. Hope that's not actually the case.

Not at all. You are the one introducing your hyperbolic vitriol and unable to see ecoterrorists imposing their irrational beliefs on everyone.

You should probably step away from this topic and let the rational adults continue.
 
You are the one introducing your hyperbolic vitriol and unable to see ecoterrorists imposing their irrational beliefs on everyone.

You should probably step away from this topic and let the rational adults continue.
Dude, I've said nothing. This was a thread about LED tint until you dragged it into whatever headspace you're living in.
 
Dude, I've said nothing. This was a thread about LED tint until you dragged it into whatever headspace you're living in.
You said nothing but imply Lux was psychotic and so on.
I haven't closely followed the thread but it doesn't appear to have deviated in an unreasonable way. You could be much more civil in your approach if you felt the need to comment as such.
 

Latest posts

Top