Reply With Quote
What are they? 25 watt equivalents?
No wonder they sold out, that is 74% off of the price that we will all be paying for bulbs from now on.
What are they? 25 watt equivalents?
That's still a joke.
Who uses 40 watt bulbs, except for decorative lighting?
All those people who bought them from Newegg, genius.
Well they can have them.
When will 100 watt equivalents be affordable?
Define affordable.
His definition of affordable is based only on this exact moment with no thoughts about tomorrow. In other words, up front costs = his only consideration.
MMA continues to trash Fox Repug Lying network
Fox Admits Defeat In Phony War On "Light Bulb Ban" (But Doesn't Know It)
Regular Fox News viewers know that the network has spent months hyping a nonexistent "light bulb ban" going into effect on Jan. 1, 2012, that they claim would outlaw incandescent light bulbs. The law in question -- signed by former President George W. Bush -- does not outlaw incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones.
Yet Fox has never acknowledged that its war on the "light bulb ban" was phony -- until today. With no self-awareness, Fox & Friends hyped a bulb that reportedly meets the new efficiency standards -- and it happens to be an incandescent.
Not surprisingly, the co-hosts bungled the story: There is no "loophole" that "allows ... incandescent bulbs [to survive]," because the law itself doesn't outlaw incandescent bulbs. Here's part of the applicable section of the Energy Independence and Security Act:
Sub le B: Lighting Energy Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.
[...]
(Sec. 322) Sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.
The law sets forth efficiency standards for, among other types of bulbs, "general service incandescent lamps." It does not outlaw them.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011120...County+Fair%29
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...logy.html?_r=1Over the past few years, energy-saving LED lights have popped up nearly every place where low power is required. They provide the backlighting for cellphones, smartphones and laptops as well as for headlamps for hikers, for instance.
But in the United States in particular, LED lights have not yet caught on for home lighting, still a bastion of the incandescent light bulb — which to this day is not much more efficient than when it was invented by Thomas Edison in 1879.
The problem is what’s called efficiency droop. LEDs function most efficiently at low currents. Turn the current up to levels needed for room lighting, and the efficiency falls off markedly. The lights don’t dim, but as you turn up the amount of electricity, you don’t get more light, so the efficiency goes down, a problem that has made it impossible for LED bulbs to be as cost-effective as incandescent or fluorescent home lighting.
“The efficiency droop is one of the most severe and most interesting problems and controversies in science and engineering,” said E. Fred Schubert, a professor of electrical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Ins ute in Troy, N.Y.
“Considering that LEDs are the winning future in lighting,” he added, it’s important “for industry and society that the efficiency droop be understood and solved.”
I don't buy that explanation. There are other problems not spoken about with LED's. I don't see them replacing lighting in any cost efficient way until some breakthroughs are made, but it's the control circuits that are a problem. LEDs have a specific voltage drop across the semiconductor junction. The current changes to change the lumen output. Brighter LEDs simply need more junctions in series/parallel, but then you get into a more difficult regulation circuit to remain efficient. The cheaper route is using more series resisters for voltage balance, and hence, more loss to resistive heat.
LED's are good for some things -- for others, not so much.
I have an application that uses a 400w metal halide bulb with 36,000 lumen output and color temp of 6000 Kelvin. Life is 25,000 hours.
If I wanted that kind of output from LED, I could use something like this
http://www.magnalight.com/pc-47061-2...VDC--IP68.aspx
But that uses 600w -- and the color temp is at the blue end of the spectrum. No thanks.
Like I said...
Look at what it says... 200 3 watt LED's. They are probably individually resister current controlled. make a more expensive current control, and that would probably drop under 40% of your halide lamp.
Lol Darrin grows weed.
Lol Darrin builds his own 1080p projector
lol your OP is still a complete failure.
LOL Darrin likes watching 1080p with crappy brightness.
Plenty bright and 102" diagonal
The well known verse of those on the right..
The well known verse of those on the right..
Think outside the bulb.
All one has to do is simply put a series of smaller, dimmer lights.
1000 lumens is 1000 lumens, whether it comes from 1 bulb or a strip of ten 100 lumen diodes.
Them fancy aeroplanes are good for some things -- for others, not so much.
I have an application where I need to get artillery observers up in the air for hours, with telegraph wires to tell our cannons where to shoot.
If'n I wanted that kind of airtime from an aeroplane, it would be too heavy to fly.
They won't never invent a plane that would be practical, so let's stick to tried and true technology, hot air derigibles.
You should stick to accounting.
Gotta admit, this is pretty cool
http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp_xml.asp
I spent some time looking at the various do entation. Look pretty promising.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
