Old Light Bulb Life Times

[SemiMan]

Has anyone noticed that Anders REFUSES to answer as to why he has lied across numerous websites in regards to health issues, place of residence and type of residence in order to push an ANTI CFL, pro incan agenda?


On to the reply ....


For one, quoting a supplier website who is trying to market their product is not scientifically sound.

For two, quoting a supplier that quotes a scientific paper that has been proven WRONG is really not good at all.


They quote a paper written in 1996: "In a 1996 paper entitled, "The Reengineering of Lighting Photometry," Dr. Sam Berman sets forth a new theory on the workings of the human eye where the function of the rods and cones are not mutually exclusive as previously believed. To prove his theory that rod receptors were at work all the time, Dr. Berman measured pupil diameters which were exposed to light sources of equal total output but with different spectral power distributions. The sources which emitted more energy closer to 508nm and away from the peak cone sensitivity of 550nm resulted in smaller pupil sizes proving his theory that not only were rod receptors at work at all times, but also that the rods controlled pupil size and not the cones as previously thought."

This paper was proven to be WRONG rendering the assumed conclusions WRONG as well. Neither rods nor cones are responsible for pupil dilation. It has been shown that a 3rd sensor in the eye controls pupil dilation and perceived brightness. It has also been shown the rods saturate at much beyond about 20 lux.


Then there is there not completely founded conclusion about light levels being a primary driver of color perception which is not accurate (not the headlight conclusion). The primary driver of changes in color perception is the spectrum of light that the eye has been adjusted too. You will note in their study they say "However, it was noted that museum light levels are much lower than standard light indoor light levels." GUESS WHAT AT THAT POINT MUSEUM LIGHTING WAS? ... low color temp incandescent (no UV). Essentially what they showed is that under likely 2700K incandescent, that 3500K (or so) is perceived as "WHITE". That is not surprising at all.

What that does not mean is that the eye perceives 3500K black body as white. In fact experiments have shown that at 300lux, within an order or magnitude of almost all interior lighting, that 3500K black body is still perceived below the black body if used as the only lighting source.


Nice table you quoted for what the color temperature of "SUNLIGHT" is. Did you notice that the one they identified as DAYLIGHT was 5000-6500. Designing a light source to match sunrise and sunset, a small portion of the day, is not a great goal.


Let's address some other things ... "Because these variations are caused by refractive diffusion, their spectrums are still equivalent to a black body curve"

For one, sun reaching the earth only approximates a black body ... it is not "equivalent", it is just close.

For two, sunlight is not reddish at sunrise and sunset because of "refractive diffusion", it is because of wavelength specific scattering (rayleigh scattering approximation / rayleigh extinction) .. the same reason the sky is blue. It most definitely DOES NOT behave as an equivalent CCT black body radiator. Not sure where Solux has that "supposed" 3500K daylight curve ... since a) daylight is consider 5000K+, and two, this does not look much like spectrums I have seen of sunrise/sunset.

Should we address Solux "Mixing" a 3000 and 4700K source and then claiming that this showed 3500K to be best? If you mix two light sources on the black body you do not get another source on the blackbody. In this case, you will get a light source under the blackbody ... which is actually where you need to be in order to be perceived as white.


Anders, no doubt you will blindly reply to this post to get the last word, but as opposed to MISLEADING CPF members with the illusion of knowledge, perhaps some research (maybe a course or two) would be in order before blindly quoting sources without understanding the underlying information okay?

Semiman

Color temperature is perceived differently depending on light levels. At lower levels, 3500 is perceived as daylight color.
https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/eyes-response.html

Here you can see the frequency spectrum graph of SoLux superimposed on the spectrum of natural daylight at 3500K.
http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/News/...atural-daylight-halogen-lamp-available-in-UK/

The color temperature of natural daylight is quite variable depending on time of day and conditions:

3000-4000 K	Sunrise/Sunset (clear sky)
5000-6500 K	Daylight with Clear Sky (sun overhead)
6500-8000 K	Moderately Overcast Sky
9000-10000K	Shade or Heavily Overcast Sky

Because these variations are caused by refractive diffusion, their spectrums are still equivalent to a black body curve. In fact, I suspect this may be how the special coatings in SoLux work. If you look at the graph the spectrum is completely smooth. I do not think they would be able to achieve this by conventional colored filters. Rather than transmitted light, SoLux relies on reflected light from the special coating inside. Apparently the leftover undesired portion of the spectrum is transmitted through the coating, where it is absorbed by black paint. The coating may operate on the same principle that makes eye color blue (in some people).

 

[Anders Hoveland]

Has anyone noticed that Anders REFUSES to answer

I was attempting to ignore your repeated personal accusations, as I did not really feel it was appropriate to derail this thread off the topic of lighting. But since you do not seem willing to give up I will entertain your probing questions and demands for explanation sabout posts I did not even make in this forum.

First, Anders, can you please address while you have been lying about your health,

There have been no lies about my health, give it up.

Care to pick whether you live in a house orapartment?

Can one not have both?

you claimed you lived in British Columbia ... and Belgium too I think

No, I never claimed to be living in either of those places. Perhaps you were confused when I included myself among those affected (either by climate or laws) by using the word "we". The laws are not targeting just a specific country, they are remarkably similar across the world due to the persistent lobbying efforts of GE, Philips, and Osram.

Okay, yes, when I posted that quick comment in another site about having a brother, it was not completely factual. Think I just did it because it seemed easier to express myself at the time, and I did not think the specifics would be of any consequence. It was just a one-time anonymous post. How would it matter whether it was me or some brother? How could that be misleading people? I can hardly understand how one could interrpret that as some sort of deception. I regret writing something that was in error, though. I try to be factually accurate and not lie, even when it does not matter.

Are you done posting off-site links trying to attack my credibility?

 

[lightwater]

A year or so ago I replaced a still working 25watt GE globe. It's been going for over 22 years, & the globe looked a lot older than this. It's glass was larger than the current (now old) globes & the filament setup really looked pre-historic (a work of art). The globe was a fairly well used light! Would have kept it but needed something brighter.

Give it a few years & LED lights will be engineered down to an amazing 2000 Hours! (The original CFL lasted over 10 years with heavy use, we had quite a few of them)

 

[slebans]

Give it a few years & LED lights will be engineered down to an amazing 2000 Hours! (The original CFL lasted over 10 years with heavy use, we had quite a few of them)

In the last three months - I have read statements from several of the leading manufacturers that they believe 10-20K hours should be the target for residential LED bulbs. These guys are very concerned about the replacement market as it will begin to decline over the next several years.

 

[jtr1962]

In the last three months - I have read statements from several of the leading manufacturers that they believe 10-20K hours should be the target for residential LED bulbs. These guys are very concerned about the replacement market as it will begin to decline over the next several years.

I would be very curious as to exactly how they would intend to get such a short lifespan from a technology which inherently lasts in excess of 100K hours. That goes double as LEDs get more efficient, meaning they'll be running much cooler, and hence last even longer. Do they plan to sabotage the driver by using lousy electronics designed to only last 10K to 20K hours? If so, they can expect a lot of bulbs to last less than that, meaning they'll lose a fortune for warranty replacements. Or will they take a cue from the ink jet cartridge manufacturers and have drivers which just "expire" after a set amount of hours (i.e. use a timer chip which disables the lamp after the time is up)? We all know how the expiring ink jet cartridge fiasco turned out. Besides, there's the negative perceptions from a newer version of your product not lasting as long as the older version. There's also the inherent waste of having to remanufacture the entire bulb 5 times instead of once. Seriously, this is really wrong-headed thinking. It's not like LED replacements will never die. There's a good chance because they use so little energy and last so long people might be running them longer than they do CFLs or incandescents. Also, people might opt to replace bulbs long before they die if a newer bulb has features they want, such as remote wireless control, greater efficiency, a different CCT, or better CRI. There's plenty of money to be made without resorting to planned obsolescence here. Besides all that, if one manufacturer intentionally shortens their life, the others might still continue to make uncrippled bulbs for slightly more. Products which last a long time can still make money. It just means the business model needs to change.

The replacement market may well decline severely anyway in the coming decades as more purpose-built LED fixtures are sold. You may also have regular A19 sockets being outlawed in new construction.

 

[SemiMan]

I would be very curious as to exactly how they would intend to get such a short lifespan from a technology which inherently lasts in excess of 100K hours. That goes double as LEDs get more efficient, meaning they'll be running much cooler, and hence last even longer. Do they plan to sabotage the driver by using lousy electronics designed to only last 10K to 20K hours? If so, they can expect a lot of bulbs to last less than that, meaning they'll lose a fortune for warranty replacements. Or will they take a cue from the ink jet cartridge manufacturers and have drivers which just "expire" after a set amount of hours (i.e. use a timer chip which disables the lamp after the time is up)? We all know how the expiring ink jet cartridge fiasco turned out. Besides, there's the negative perceptions from a newer version of your product not lasting as long as the older version. There's also the inherent waste of having to remanufacture the entire bulb 5 times instead of once. Seriously, this is really wrong-headed thinking. It's not like LED replacements will never die. There's a good chance because they use so little energy and last so long people might be running them longer than they do CFLs or incandescents. Also, people might opt to replace bulbs long before they die if a newer bulb has features they want, such as remote wireless control, greater efficiency, a different CCT, or better CRI. There's plenty of money to be made without resorting to planned obsolescence here. Besides all that, if one manufacturer intentionally shortens their life, the others might still continue to make uncrippled bulbs for slightly more. Products which last a long time can still make money. It just means the business model needs to change.

The replacement market may well decline severely anyway in the coming decades as more purpose-built LED fixtures are sold. You may also have regular A19 sockets being outlawed in new construction.

The replacement market, at least in North American and somewhat Europe will be pretty much dead in about 7 years. There will still be some, but for the most part, there is not going to be much. Actually that is predicted to be the base for a large part of the market when one looks out 7-10 years. There will be a massive build out of new LED lighting, residential, commercial, industrial ... and then a somewhat quick decline to a slow replacement market. There is really no way to avoid it. Industrial spaces that run lights 24/7 or close will still be replacing every 10 years.

Of course, that only means death of the bulb market. There are tons and tons of lighting suppliers that do not make bulbs, but fixtures. They have never participated in the bulb market, purely new constructions, rebuilds, etc. That market will be as strong maybe even better since they will now incorporate the "bulb".

Semiman

 

[slebans]

I would be very curious as to exactly how they would intend to get such a short lifespan from a technology which inherently lasts in excess of 100K hours. That goes double as LEDs get more efficient, meaning they'll be running much cooler, and hence last even longer. Do they plan to sabotage the driver by using lousy electronics designed to only last 10K to 20K hours? If so, they can expect a lot of bulbs to last less than that, meaning they'll lose a fortune for warranty replacements. Or will they take a cue from the ink jet cartridge manufacturers and have drivers which just "expire" after a set amount of hours (i.e. use a timer chip which disables the lamp after the time is up)? We all know how the expiring ink jet cartridge fiasco turned out. Besides, there's the negative perceptions from a newer version of your product not lasting as long as the older version. There's also the inherent waste of having to remanufacture the entire bulb 5 times instead of once. Seriously, this is really wrong-headed thinking. It's not like LED replacements will never die. There's a good chance because they use so little energy and last so long people might be running them longer than they do CFLs or incandescents. Also, people might opt to replace bulbs long before they die if a newer bulb has features they want, such as remote wireless control, greater efficiency, a different CCT, or better CRI. There's plenty of money to be made without resorting to planned obsolescence here. Besides all that, if one manufacturer intentionally shortens their life, the others might still continue to make uncrippled bulbs for slightly more. Products which last a long time can still make money. It just means the business model needs to change.

The replacement market may well decline severely anyway in the coming decades as more purpose-built LED fixtures are sold. You may also have regular A19 sockets being outlawed in new construction.

First of all, I agree with everything you are saying. From what I understand, the manufacturers are simply scared as their current business model - built to a large degree on a regular replacement cycle - will severly diminish over the next decade. That is a statement of fact built upon simple math.

The most recent industry comments I have read on this topic can be found in the current issue(Dec.) of LEDs Magazine(Free - but must sign up) in an article detailing a presentation by Mark Hand, director of new products and technology at Acuity Brands. He spoke about "Managing LED luminaire costs."(Page 40).
http://ledsmagazine.com/magazine

Basically, Hand is saying that in order to reach and maintain lower first costs for consumers - manufacturers need the capability to design bulbs/luminaires for various cost points. 50-60K hour lifetimes for 24x7 operation and 10-20K hour lifetimes for short duration usage.

Personally, I believe his 10-20K lifetime number is born from a desire to maintain the status quo in terms of replacement cycles. I hope the industry does not go down this path and in the end - I do not think they will.

 

[SemiMan]

It will really be driven by consumer behavior. Will the consumer pay say 50% more for a bulb that lasts twice or three times as long? It depends on how much they trust they will get that extra life.

That said, there is definitely a need for "lowest cost" LED replacements where cost outweighs lifetimes. There are a multitude of applications where durations/day are measured in minutes, not hours. Closets, motion detectors, etc.

 

[oldwesty4ever]

Do you think GE, Sylvania and Philips will survive the LED transformation? I am asking because LEDs are also made by electronic giants such as Toshiba, Samsung, LG, etc and they don't only make lamps but they also make products that use LEDs such as cell phones, computers, TVs, etc which means they have a much higher LED making capacity than the traditional lamp manufacturers which no longer make consumer electronics by themselves.

 

[idleprocess]

Do you think GE, Sylvania and Philips will survive the LED transformation? I am asking because LEDs are also made by electronic giants such as Toshiba, Samsung, LG, etc and they don't only make lamps but they also make products that use LEDs such as cell phones, computers, TVs, etc which means they have a much higher LED making capacity than the traditional lamp manufacturers which no longer make consumer electronics by themselves.

GE is an immense conglamerate that can easily afford the orderly sutdown of their light bulb business ... much like how they're seemingly in the process of unwinding their appliance business. Jet engines, industrial automation, a vast array of basic electrical products (circuit breakers, relays, etc), capital, and industrial/energy consulting.

Philips owns Lumileds outright, thus makes the LED's for their own-branded lighting products.

Can't really say how Sylvania will fare.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

CFLs are just awful.

Cheap ones are. The good ones that are available (In fish stores, home improvement stores, and big-box stores) to all consumers are quite good. Obviously there will be problems if people buy the cheapest possible instance of anything. For example, bottom-budget computer power supplies will burn your house down. Similarly, the cheapest, nastiest fluorescent tubes picked by people who shouldn't be trusted with the purchasing power of a four-year-old, are not going to make many people happy. You mention McDonald's changing to fluorescent bulbs. Did they do that out of spite? "Yeah, you're here and now you must SUFFER!" No, I don't think so. It was a great advantage to cut their lighting costs (In a sales and working area they need quite a lot of light) and energy costs... Not to mention relamping intervals.

Will cost effective LEDs with this excellent color of light become economically practical for the average consumer?

Yes. I would say that they are already for a rational consumer. Soon they will become cheap enough for the irrational consumer.

It seems to me that your arguments (That I do not feel are factually wrong) boil down to "There is some indefinable je ne sais paux (Spelling? I'm rough on French) that I get from boiling tungsten. Really cheap CFL and LED modules are awful, and some people can tell them apart." I can't fairly mention the many perceptual studies showing little perceived difference between incandescent, CFL, and LED, because I'm out of the country on slow wireless. But I can see that my year-old, warm-white, XP-G LED flashlight has the same tint as my mini-mag Soliataire - the most golden-yellow incandescent light that I have with me.

I have a very high opinion of my ability to perceive color. A few years of photography by mostly-artificial light will do that for anyone. My warm-white XP-G perfectly matches the scads and scads of incandescent lights, halogen lights, and noonday daylight. It looks welcomingly warm compared to a cloudy snow day, and is pleasing to walk by in the fall. But I would not choose this color temperature for fine tasks - like computer work, fine tool work, or doing art. Many tasks require different optimum light, and there is no perfect light. This has been known for centuries: Witness how many art studios have north-facing windows. But some seem to forget this old, old knowledge and INSIST that there is one light source (glowing-hot wire) to rule them all.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

I don't know if manufacturers will "get away" with anything they haven't been doing for years. Cheap capacitors have increased replacement rates in electronics for about two decades already. This is one reason that I would like the common 'lighting certification' things to include not just lumen depreciation, but real power supply tests to failure from duration. A lot of "MTTF" figures are had by assuming that testing ten thousand units through x stress events (Hours run, power cycles) gives a rating of 10000 x MTTF. This is a better number than guessing, but still open to easy manipulation for cost-cutting. I think that having enough bulbs that say "Good for 25 years at 3 hours per day" fail at five years will create some outcry. But a response? A ten-year-life bulb is actually pretty good. Stretching for the low price point puts high pressure on manufacturers to skim pennies off electronics and thermal management. Maybe they will go the other way?

Cars are expensive objects that are often sold on loan plans. This smooths out the income of the whole car industry - from Ford to the airbag companies to the dealership salesman's daughter's dance lessons.

My pet ha-ha-wouldn't-that-be-funny-if theory is that the LED manufacturers will come up with a way for people to rent light bulbs. Since every **** electronic thing in the world that cost more than $2 has an IP address, they'll just sell lights-as-a-service. It periodically checks the date it should expire (Go to a dimmer level or do some other undesirable behavior) and you can go buy more hours of light. Of course there are warnings, auto-draft billing, and reminder emails (From your living room light, no less).

You may laugh, but there were jokes that the computing industry would go to a certain charge per processor cycle. That isn't the case, but nobody does much computing these days without networking. And that sure costs per byte -- Witness myself in Europe taking about ten minutes to get results on the number of cars in America.

The main obstacle between manufacturers and light-as-a-service is that light bulbs don't cost enough now, and may never cost enough... unless some of the really exotic light panels come into vogue. These are the ones that are essentially sections of high-power video wall. They would require some modification to produce good-quality white light, and then be able to provide hour-of-day light, mood lighting, and display video. I love owning my own things, but I would pay $20/mo for each such device to be installed in my home.

My own design is on the drawing board, and heavily-customized things (Central and perimeter lighting of a room in a single device) are always hard to market as-is, especially given the cost. Maybe I should start a kickstarter? Maybe later. I'm still not sure the business model pans out. Let's just say that in the meantime I'll be driving the family nuts with bits and bobs of metal and acrylic.

 

[slebans]

Do you think GE, Sylvania and Philips will survive the LED transformation? I am asking because LEDs are also made by electronic giants such as Toshiba, Samsung, LG, etc and they don't only make lamps but they also make products that use LEDs such as cell phones, computers, TVs, etc which means they have a much higher LED making capacity than the traditional lamp manufacturers which no longer make consumer electronics by themselves.

Osram Sylvania and Philips are vertically integrated - in terms of LED bulb production. GE would have to buy an existing LED manufacturer.
Samsung, Toshiba and several other multinational/multi bazillion dollar tech companies have the scale - and the depreciated fabrication facilities - to allow them to become major players in the LED bulb market if they so choose.

 

[jtr1962]

First of all, I agree with everything you are saying. From what I understand, the manufacturers are simply scared as their current business model - built to a large degree on a regular replacement cycle - will severly diminish over the next decade. That is a statement of fact built upon simple math.

The most recent industry comments I have read on this topic can be found in the current issue(Dec.) of LEDs Magazine(Free - but must sign up) in an article detailing a presentation by Mark Hand, director of new products and technology at Acuity Brands. He spoke about "Managing LED luminaire costs."(Page 40).
http://ledsmagazine.com/magazine

Basically, Hand is saying that in order to reach and maintain lower first costs for consumers - manufacturers need the capability to design bulbs/luminaires for various cost points. 50-60K hour lifetimes for 24x7 operation and 10-20K hour lifetimes for short duration usage.

Personally, I believe his 10-20K lifetime number is born from a desire to maintain the status quo in terms of replacement cycles. I hope the industry does not go down this path and in the end - I do not think they will.

I realize the reasons for the industry wanting to go down this path. It's sort of similar to the reason automakers are reluctant to embrace electric cars. They will need to make more on the initial purchase and less on spare parts. It's a different business model, perhaps one that may require contraction in the size of a company in order to remain profitable. Unfortunately, Wall Street never likes downsizing, even though it's unrealistic for any company to continue to grow in size indefinitely. I doubt the industry will go down this path myself for the simple reason if they intentionally try to sell crippled bulbs, someone else will sell uncrippled ones for a little bit more. In fact, I'm actually seeing a trend where quality components are being used more often in other electronics. For example, use of solid capacitors is now common in motherboards and power supplies. I think what happened was manufacturers of these items tried to cut costs by using cheaper capacitors, using the rationale that most people replaced PCs on three or four year cycles. So long as the caps lasted that long, nobody would notice. Of course, they didn't. That's what happens when you intentionally design something to last x hours. You'll get a huge number of failures after fewer hours even if the average lifetime ends up being x hours. Often warranty replacements cost more than better parts would have. In the end intentionally designing lamps to last 10K or 20K hours will end up souring consumers on LEDs, and probably driving most to pay somewhat more for lamps which are guaranteed to last 50K or 100K hours.

It will really be driven by consumer behavior. Will the consumer pay say 50% more for a bulb that lasts twice or three times as long? It depends on how much they trust they will get that extra life.

That said, there is definitely a need for "lowest cost" LED replacements where cost outweighs lifetimes. There are a multitude of applications where durations/day are measured in minutes, not hours. Closets, motion detectors, etc.

I agree on the need for very low cost replacements, perhaps using a very basic driver such as a capacitor-fed full-wave bridge (horrible power factor, non-dimmable, but very efficient and very low parts count), and second tier LEDs. That's fine, but such a lamp shouldn't get energy star certification, and should be required to have bright red warnings on the package so consumers know the lamp is strictly for intermittant-use, non-critical applications. Maybe you could have horrible light quality to boot so people will only use them in closets or attics. For "normal" general lighting lamps there should be a minimum life in order to get energy star certification. For now 25K hours would make sense given the state of technology. As LEDs become more efficient you could probably go to 50K or even 100K hours. I suspect very efficient LED bulbs will be run a lot more than their incandescent counterparts. A 100K lamp run 12 hours per day will still need replacing every 23 years or so (the exact same life touted for today's 25K hour lamps run 3 hours per day).

And yes, the A19 replacement lamp market will probably start to die off within a decade. I'm guessing you'll start to see things like LED chandeliers and other purpose-built LED fixtures for residential use. When incandescents are no longer available, it might cost well over $100 to relamp an old chandelier with LED bulbs. This could easily be enough to push people to just buy a new LED chandelier, with a warranty, and also perhaps with neat features like control via smart phone or PC.

 

[idleprocess]

It seems to me that your arguments (That I do not feel are factually wrong) boil down to "There is some indefinable je ne sais paux (Spelling? I'm rough on French) that I get from boiling tungsten. Really cheap CFL and LED modules are awful, and some people can tell them apart." I can't fairly mention the many perceptual studies showing little perceived difference between incandescent, CFL, and LED, because I'm out of the country on slow wireless. But I can see that my year-old, warm-white, XP-G LED flashlight has the same tint as my mini-mag Soliataire - the most golden-yellow incandescent light that I have with me.

That's been my sense for the longest time. Frankly, I don't care if someone prefers incandescents over floro / LED / whatnot, but the attempts to rationalize it just make me want to roll my eyes.

It's like arguing with an audiophile - even though they can't reliably tell the difference between, say, a CD on a decent modern stereo and a LP on a tube amp in a blind test, they'll angrily insist that the LP / tube amp combo sounds immensely better. When they break out the oscilloscopes and sweeping untested hypotheses about our perception of sound and angrily insist that you should not be listening to digital audio, sometimes you just want to beat them down in response.

 

[jtr1962]

I think that having enough bulbs that say "Good for 25 years at 3 hours per day" fail at five years will create some outcry. But a response? A ten-year-life bulb is actually pretty good. Stretching for the low price point puts high pressure on manufacturers to skim pennies off electronics and thermal management. Maybe they will go the other way?

Yep, and it already happened in the PC industry after the failed motherboard capacitor fiasco. Hopefully LED manufacturers seeking to sell reduced lifetime bulbs will avoid that path.

Cars are expensive objects that are often sold on loan plans. This smooths out the income of the whole car industry - from Ford to the airbag companies to the dealership salesman's daughter's dance lessons.

My pet ha-ha-wouldn't-that-be-funny-if theory is that the LED manufacturers will come up with a way for people to rent light bulbs. Since every **** electronic thing in the world that cost more than $2 has an IP address, they'll just sell lights-as-a-service. It periodically checks the date it should expire (Go to a dimmer level or do some other undesirable behavior) and you can go buy more hours of light. Of course there are warnings, auto-draft billing, and reminder emails (From your living room light, no less).

I highly doubt we'll be renting any electronic items any time soon. There was talk of having people rent software instead of buying it outright, but that mostly went nowhere. Look also at what happened when ink jet printer manufacturers started putting expiration dates on cartridges. Consumers in general won't stand for transparent attempts by companies to turn what should be a one-time purchase into a spending stream. It's one thing when products become obsolete or simply fail. People understand you need to replace them. Artificially making things cost more is something people get wise to pretty quickly.

The auto industry can get away with renting because cars cost a lot, and also renting gives people flexibility to upgrade to a newer model whenever they want. In fact, the future of the auto industry is headed in the direction where fewer people will own cars outright, or even rent them long term. Things like Zipcar are the future. More and more people are living in urban areas where they don't need a car for daily use, but may need one once in a while. Zipcar is perfect for that. Sure, this will represent a contraction for the auto industry. The hard fact is that today's young people just don't have the purchasing power or desire to buy cars in the numbers their parents did.

 

[AnAppleSnail]

Consumers in general won't stand for transparent attempts by companies to turn what should be a one-time purchase into a spending stream.

The hard fact is that today's young people just don't have the purchasing power or desire to buy cars in the numbers their parents did.

These are both true in general. Especially turning a used-to-buy-it product into a rental. But Microsoft certainly has widespread adoption of their pay-to-play online service, as do several other software companies (Bethesda Entertainment, Microsoft). As I said - it may happen.

LED lights are becoming more common. I have visited several 'home improvement' stores in Germany (Toom, Bauhaus, etc) and seen an impressive assortment of LED lights. They're all quite expensive, but some are built quite well. For example, a capacitor-fed rectified bridge feeding - significantly - 110 white LEDs in series. The 'voltage out' of its power brick says "250v DC 20 mA." The LEDs are small SMD LEDs mounted in a row in an aluminum fixture with a brushed finish and a diffused front cover (Which I removed to count LEDs). Many of these are getting quite good, and would even get the "Anders Hoveland not-so-kitten-stompingly-bad" stamp of non-halogen approval. Of course, these fixtures cost near 100 Euro each, being durable works of functional art. They also show some sensible design and good execution, which is a nice change in home electronics. As opposed to having all the outlets in your house at ankle level, delivering dangerous voltage that most of your things convert to 12v or 5v DC to then use.

Edit; Cost of a video-wall room light:
Earlier CPF thread about 1000 Euro per meter square. I don't know what quality video wall costs.

 

[Anders Hoveland]

A year or so ago I replaced a still working 25watt GE globe. It's been going for over 22 years, The globe was a fairly well used light! Would have kept it but needed something brighter. Give it a few years & LED lights will be engineered down to an amazing 2000 Hours!

I actually bought an LED globe for my bathroom also, but it did not have to do with saving energy or lifetimes. When I am looking in a mirror, I need light bulbs that are not too bright and glaring to be able to see myself. I really do not like trying to look at myself in the mirror with all that glare. I tried a 40 watt globe bulb and it was just too much. Unfortunately, all the 25 watt bulbs for sale here seem to be "double life" for some reason. That means filaments that are not as hot, and more yellowish light. In addition to this, identical bulbs that are a lower wattage tend to have a slightly lower color temperature. This is just an inherent phenomena with incandescent filaments. The light in my bathroom was just too annoyingly yellowish and dull. And, like most people probably, when I am looking at myself in the mirror, I prefer bright white light (by "bright" I am referring to color here). I looked in several stores and could not seem to find any 25 watt halogen globes either. So there was a simple solution: Just buy an LED globe bulb. It does not put out much light, but that is exactly what I wanted, and it is (CCT) rated 3000K. That gives me the whiter light I was looking for. But I still kept one of the old bulbs also, so I would still have good color rendering. With just the LED light alone, things seem just a little greyish and morose. I think I have done a good job optimising my bathroom lighting given the options available. Many people are using xenon lighting in their bathrooms now. I think that may have been ideal, but then one has to get a special lamp fixture. Too bad they do not make any xenon globe lights.

I have considered using LED bulbs in my bathrooms before, but had come to the conclusion that the initial cost of the replacement bulbs would never be justified by the energy savings, since the bathroom lights do not get left on very long. Not to mention it is so cold in the mornings, it's not a lot of heat but those globe lights are almost like radiant heaters. Well, okay, I cannot really feel any difference, but that is just because the bulbs I am using are only 25 watts.

Back to the difference in wattage affecting color temperature. Philips makes energy saving halogen replacement bulbs in a few different wattages. The 43 watt bulbs are rated 2930K on the package, while the 72 watt bulbs are rated 2990K. Philips seems to be very precise about the color temperature measurements. Given two identical bulbs, the one with a higher wattage will tend to have a slightly hoter filament. This will not necessarily take away from lifetime, as it has to do with tungsten evaporation redeposit rates, but I will not get into that. But it is related to the fact that krypton gas offers the most benefit to lower wattage bulbs.

Krypton or xenon gas fillings can be used to greatly increase lifespan without sacrificing color temperature.
All other factors remaining constant, the addition of krypton slightly increases light output, increases color temperature, and makes the filament last longer. It is not always a trade-off between filament lifespan and temperature.


What gas is inside?

I would be curious to know what gas is being used to fill the inside fused silica capsules inside those "energy saver" halogen repacement bulbs all the stores are selling now. Is it just the normal argon-nitrogen mix? Or krypton? Bulbrite is using xenon in their BT15 shaped halogen bulbs, but I am not sure about their standard A19 halogen replacement bulbs. It is difficult to compare the ratings though, since their xenon halogen bulb actually is rated fewer lumens per watt, but also has a lifespan rating twice as long. Xenon bulbs are, of course, more efficient, but in this case it is the filament specifications responsible for most of the difference.

I suppose I could crack open the outer glass bulb and hold the inner capsule against a plasma lamp to find out. Depending on the color of the glow inside the inner fused silica halogen capsule, I could determine the gas composition, whether it is argon, krypton, or xenon. But the gas might not glow if it is not under low pressure, or if the pressure is too low, the glow might be too faint to determine the color since the volume of gas in the little capsule is very small. Perhaps someone else may be interested in trying this.

Here's what the different gases look like glowing under the influence of high frequency high voltage electric fields:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...noble_gases.jpg/700px-Glowing_noble_gases.jpg

Argon, kryton, and especially xenon ionize much easier than air, that is why a small portion of nitrogen gas is usually added, to prevent the filament from arcing over when it finally breaks.

 

[Anders Hoveland]

Many of these are getting quite good, and would even get the "Anders Hoveland not-so-kitten-stompingly-bad" stamp of non-halogen approval. Of course, these fixtures cost near 100 Euro each, being durable works of functional art. They also show some sensible design and good execution, which is a nice change in home electronics. As opposed to having all the outlets in your house at ankle level, delivering dangerous voltage that most of your things convert to 12v or 5v DC to then use.

100 Euro is not so bad, as long as it gives off enough light. That is a big issue with most of the LED strips being sold in stores right now. I am willing to pay the price, but I am not paying 50 euro for 4 watts of power! I just hope the light from these strips you are describing is better than those LED Christmas lights, with their sickly yellow glow, rather than the warm glow of the old Christmas lights.

 

[Anders Hoveland]

I just made an order for a 100 Watt halogen bulb. It is the same exact shape as a regular light bulb. The specifications for this bulb say:

100 Watts
120 volts
1800 lumens
3000 hours

It sounds too good to be true, but 3 different companies (Osram Sylvania, Satco, and Bulbrite) made this bulb and each company provided the same specifications. The 3 companies no longer make the bulb, and many online stores are already out of stock. The bulb is a little expensive, at around 5 USD dollars each. One store was selling for 3.25 USD each, but they are out of stock now. If these specifications are correct, that is 18 lumens per Watt, at a lifetime of 3000 hours! If this is possible, why is it not being used in all the other halogen replacement bulbs? How are they getting this high efficiency and long life time?

Unfortunately I could not find any 220 v ones, but I will bring it with me on my next trip to the States. I just have to try it to see if it really lives up to its claim.

I ordered the frosted version, but here is a picture of this bulb in the clear version so you can see inside:

Looks like it might be bromine in there (there is a brown vapor color in the capsule). Is that the secret to higher halogen efficiencies? Using bromine instead of iodine?


These energy saving replacement bulbs use IR halogen technology and are rated 1600 lumens, 1500 hour average life, at only 50 Watts:
http://www.2xlightdirect.com/

Of course, IR energy saving technology does not really have anything to do with the temperature of the filament or lifetime of the bulb.