Anyone else hate the new light bulbs?

[DarkBlack]

So, have they been able to do away with the annoying 60Hz flicker that LED and fluorescent lights seem to possess? That makes my eyes tired.

Joe

You should see LED's shown on something rotating near the right speed. It can be awful. It looks like a strobe light.

 

[V1Rotate]

You should see LED's shown on something rotating near the right speed. It can be awful. It looks like a strobe light.

Any type of non-incandescent light will do this.
When I run a propeller driven aircraft at night, the high intensity lights on the airport ramp will cause a strobe effect that makes the prop appear to stop when the rpms are at number that is divisible by 60, eg. 1200, 1800 etc.

 

[DarkBlack]

Yeh but it's much, much worse. I have a case where we replaced existing T5 tube fluorescent on factory machines with LED's. no problem before, but with the LED's it's awful now looking at rotating parts.

 

[Gary Fowler]

So, have they been able to do away with the annoying 60Hz flicker that LED and fluorescent lights seem to possess? That makes my eyes tired. We use LED Christmas tree lights. They have the flicker. My wife doesn't notice it, but it's hard on my eyes. Wears me out. I try to avert my gaze whenever they come on. Perhaps they can speed up the rate to make it indistinguishable, like computer screens. I bump the refresh rate to 90Hz or more on my laptop and the problem seems to disappear.

Joe

I have 19 LED lights in my house and not one of them flicker

 

[dave1949]

Leaving house lights on all the time contributes to safety.
Putting up street lights everywhere, and leaving them on all night contributes to safety.
Driving big heavy vehicles contributes to the driver's safety.
If someone want to really defend unpopular mandates, then you have to use logic that passes the test across the board on all fronts. You can't have it both ways.

Daytime running lights causes the burning of millions of gallon of gas a year in this country. Cherry picking when to dismiss fuel wasting polluting as acceptable, in the name of some 'justifiable reason' doesn't fly with me.

I don't really understand the point regarding street lights and home lights on all the time. Lights that are always on still benefit from technology that uses less power. Since using less power is the justification for CFL and LED bulbs, that seems supportive of their use.

I've not looked to find info on how much gasoline is consumed for daytime running lights. Do you know of some, or have a link?

 

[V1Rotate]

Yeh but it's much, much worse. I have a case where we replaced existing T5 tube fluorescent on factory machines with LED's. no problem before, but with the LED's it's awful now looking at rotating parts.

That could be a real safety hazard. If a machine is rotating and it looks like it is stopped, someone could get hurt.

 

[ultrarunner]

I don't really understand the point regarding street lights and home lights on all the time. Lights that are always on still benefit from technology that uses less power. Since using less power is the justification for CFL and LED bulbs, that seems supportive of their use.

I've not looked to find info on how much gasoline is consumed for daytime running lights. Do you know of some, or have a link?

From How Stuff works...

*****At current U.S. prices ($3.81 per gallon as of August 2008), that would be a total of more than $7.62 million every day [source: EIA]. Of course, when you divide that by the number of cars on the road, it's not even a penny per car. So if you want to contest the purpose of a DRL law, you're going to need more up your sleeve than fuel consumption.*****

To figure out how much extra gasoline the United States would use if all 244 million cars on its roads were equipped with mandatory DRLs, we'll have to make a few assumptions [source: DOT]. First, we'll assume that DRLs would average out at about 90 watts total -- roughly between the low and the high wattage capabilities, and that the fuel penalty therefore would probably be mid-range as well: about 1 percent. With the help of a graph provided by the Federal Highway Administration, we can see that of the 7 billion miles (11.3 billion kilometers) Americans drive every day, approximately 70 percent of those are driven during daylight hours, which equals about 4.9 billion miles (7.9 billion kilometers) driven during the time when DRLs would be in use. [source: EIA, DOT].

Since the average consumer car in the United States gets about 20.3 miles (32.6 kilometers) per gallon, that means Americans currently use about 241.4 million gallons of gas for driving during daylight hours. To get that number, we divided the number of miles driven throughout the day by the average car's fuel efficiency (4.9 billion miles divided by 20.3 mpg) [source: DOT]. Now, when we factor in the 1 percent reduction in fuel efficiency, that usage increases to 243.9 million gallons -- a difference of more than 2 million gallons.

 

[94BULLITT]

GE had a plant in Winchester, VA making incandescent bulbs. They closed it up a couple of years ago and moved to Mexico to make CFLs.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using TractorByNet

 

[WilliamBos]

CFL Or LED, I have no use for incandescent bulbs.

 

[California]

... that would be a total of more than $7.62 million every day ... divide that by the number of cars on the road, it's not even a penny per car. So if you want to contest the purpose of a DRL law, you're going to need more up your sleeve than fuel consumption.

It isn't discussed much but an underlying assumption about enacting new traffic safety laws is overall cost vs the number of fewer traffic deaths - which are priced at $1 million or more per death in calculating a cost/benefit ratio. $7 million looks cost effective if it reduces a few traffic deaths annually nationwide. It's the same reasoning as seatbelt laws and energy-absorbing vehicle structure.

I don't have the numbers here but I think US traffic deaths per mile are half what they were a few decades back, as a direct and intended result of policy decisions like this.