120VAC LED bulbs - double check wattage
- Thread starter 3930dave
- Start date
Agreed LD..... #'s can be bent...... 
The first problem I have is the efficiency claim on the LED bulb packaging - "83% more efficient than an incandescent bulb". I have an apples/apples issue with this..... standard incandescent bulbs were rated based on the power supplied to the base, any direct replacement marketed against that should do the same.
IF the LED lamp assembly I'm banging on about is actually consuming 15 watts, then I'm gonna call BS on the lumens/watt calculation...... at least in terms of demonizing incandescents for having low lumens/watt figures. It would be nice to hook one of those LED bulbs up to an accurate wattmeter, and answer the 10 vs. 15 watt question directly..... don't have access to a meter at the moment though.
There is a legacy DC conflict at play here too. The industry marketed LEDs internally (at first) in terms of how much power the LED die was rated for - you kinda need to know that, designing stuff. That spec (along with lumens) is what techno-consumers latch into in the flashlight world. While I'm fine with that practice in the flashlight world...... I don't get Time of Use billing on my next set of flashlight batteries..... well, not yet anyway..... , in the AC screw-in-bulb world it is at best, sloppy engineering.
IF electricity hadn't skyrocketed in the last 10 years, AND govts weren't selectively interfering with consumer product markets, then I probably wouldn't pay as much attention.
AFAIK, most household consumer products are normally rated on input power. We are bombarded with regs and all sorts of marketing on consumer items...... TVs aren't rated based just on what the screen consumes, appliances have "certified" Enerblather labels that tell you how much they (allegedly at least) consume as a complete assembly. If a car manufacturer marketed a car just based on engine efficiency, the govt would have them in court by month's end.
I understand the point you raise re. 3/4hp motors, but I don't put them in the same class as the above consumer items, for a few reasons. Manufacturers are heavily legislated based on completed assemblies (TV, washing machine, car.....), whereas a motor is just a sub-component.
Even most farms don't buy buy 3/4 hp motors by the 6 pack.... not many things are more ubiquitous than light bulbs, so it does make sense they have been targeted for better replacements...... I just get irritated when I see labeling that is at best, confusing.
Rgds, D.
The first problem I have is the efficiency claim on the LED bulb packaging - "83% more efficient than an incandescent bulb". I have an apples/apples issue with this..... standard incandescent bulbs were rated based on the power supplied to the base, any direct replacement marketed against that should do the same.
IF the LED lamp assembly I'm banging on about is actually consuming 15 watts, then I'm gonna call BS on the lumens/watt calculation...... at least in terms of demonizing incandescents for having low lumens/watt figures. It would be nice to hook one of those LED bulbs up to an accurate wattmeter, and answer the 10 vs. 15 watt question directly..... don't have access to a meter at the moment though.
There is a legacy DC conflict at play here too. The industry marketed LEDs internally (at first) in terms of how much power the LED die was rated for - you kinda need to know that, designing stuff. That spec (along with lumens) is what techno-consumers latch into in the flashlight world. While I'm fine with that practice in the flashlight world...... I don't get Time of Use billing on my next set of flashlight batteries..... well, not yet anyway.....
, in the AC screw-in-bulb world it is at best, sloppy engineering.IF electricity hadn't skyrocketed in the last 10 years, AND govts weren't selectively interfering with consumer product markets, then I probably wouldn't pay as much attention.
AFAIK, most household consumer products are normally rated on input power. We are bombarded with regs and all sorts of marketing on consumer items...... TVs aren't rated based just on what the screen consumes, appliances have "certified" Enerblather labels that tell you how much they (allegedly at least) consume as a complete assembly. If a car manufacturer marketed a car just based on engine efficiency, the govt would have them in court by month's end.
I understand the point you raise re. 3/4hp motors, but I don't put them in the same class as the above consumer items, for a few reasons. Manufacturers are heavily legislated based on completed assemblies (TV, washing machine, car.....), whereas a motor is just a sub-component.
Even most farms don't buy buy 3/4 hp motors by the 6 pack
.... not many things are more ubiquitous than light bulbs, so it does make sense they have been targeted for better replacements...... I just get irritated when I see labeling that is at best, confusing.Rgds, D.
I checked a Cree 9 W LED bulb with my Kill A Watt. It is rated at 70 ma. Unfortunately it was down to one digit resolution. It showed 7 watts of power use, 9 VA with a 0.8 power factor. Current draw was 0.07 amps. Numbers are close to rated. Clearly the VA is higher than the watts consumed. I also have a Simpson 390 analog "true" wattmeter, but on the lowest scale (300 watts) the reading is also suffering from poor resolution. I would guess from my readings that the watt reading is likely correct as true watts not VA.
paul
paul
Soundguy
Old Timer
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2002
- Messages
- 52,238
- Location
- Central florida
- Tractor
- RK 55HC,ym1700, NH7610S, Ford 8N, 2N, NAA, 660, 850 x2, 541, 950, 941D, 951, 2000, 3000, 4000, 4600, 5000, 740, IH 'C' 'H', CUB, John Deere 'B', allis 'G', case VAC
Lets face it, you use less power to make as much light if you compare equal lumen tungsten and led loads.