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.

 

[dave1949]

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.

That's interesting. Thanks.

I assume the article dates back to 2008. I know the majority of DRL's are not LED's yet, but I guess they will be in the near future if only to help meet CAFE standards. That being the case, the total wattage (two bulbs, power module, etc) looks like it will be in the 45W to 50W range. All else being equal, that would reduce the gallons of fuel needed by roughly 50%.

There seems to be a lot of online discussion about rated and actual wattage in use. Phillips sells these 12V 6Watt units. They aren't specific about what that means however. But there are various 8W-18W bulbs available.
12824WLEDX1 Philips DayLight 8 LED solutions 12824WLEDX1 DRL 12 V 6 W - Philips Support

Daytime Running Lights | LED Car Bulbs | Super Bright LEDs

A 1% reduction in fuel economy based on a 20.3 mpg average would be 0.203 miles per gallon reduction.

In this article, GM pegged the cost at $3 per driver per year. Do daytime running lights lead to more fuel consumption? - Curiosity

The effectiveness measurement in terms of improved safety varies by the source also. The NHTSA found no significant difference in a 2008 study. Based on other results, including foreign studies, that appears to be an out-layer.

This NIH study in MN says they are effective. Daytime running lights in the USA: what is the impact on vehicle crashes in Minnesota?

 

[aczlan]

The effectiveness measurement in terms of improved safety varies by the source also. The NHTSA found no significant difference in a 2008 study. Based on other results, including foreign studies, that appears to be an out-layer.

This NIH study in MN says they are effective. Daytime running lights in the USA: what is the impact on vehicle crashes in Minnesota?

They are effective for me... I see a car with lights of some kind on MUCH further away than one without lights, no matter what time of day it is.

Aaron Z

 

[techman]

I think quite a few comments posted in this thread are from people who have not tried CFLs lately. We buy them for about $ 1ea for a 60 watt equiv. The early failure rate of earlier CFLs is mostly gone. Mine are going on years of service without problem. It is true in a socket up configuration, they do have shorter life, likely due to heating of the electronics (as mentioned earlier). Color temp has also greatly improved and various temps are available. I use them throughout the house and have no issues, even in the outside fixtures. I actually like them in the bathroom. When I get up in the middle of the night, it starts as a very soft light and lets my eyes adjust slowly.

As for LEDs, the light output per watt is about the same as CFLs, but the purchase price is much higher. They do advertise long life, like 25,000 hours, but in engineering trade journals the industry admits that most will never reach that life. Problem is components in the power supply which due to heat and aging will likely fail in less than 10 years (capacitors are the big issue, as we all know from decades of computer power supply problems). The journals do predict that within about 10 years the price level of LED bulbs.

paul

 

[dstig1]

I have a lot of experience with CFLs in this house, and it has not been great. I use them in 3 places in the house, as those are the high use lights: Kitchen recessed, Family room table lights, computer desk table light. The table lights have not been an issue at all (the fam room are base down, the computer room is base up - I have replaced one of each in the past ~10 yrs). The kitchen recessed are another story. They are of course base up. They fail constantly. They are high up, which is why I wanted a long lasting light, but they have not lived up to it. They are on a lot, and not switched a million times a days, so they should not fail from excessive switching. I have replaced bulbs as recently as a month ago, so the argument that "newer bulbs are better" are not valid. These are Phillips bulbs, so the "cheap brand" argument does not hold water either. Same with start up time. I have left the light over the kitchen table as incandescent as the time to warm up the CFLs is astronomical. Without the table light, you cannot see well for the first 2-3 minutes. Again, these are current bulbs, and name brand, so it is hard to float many of the contrary arguments I have read.

CFLs are really not that good. I have higher hopes for LEDs, but they need to come down more in cost first before I will bother risking it. I am tired of sending bulbs back for warranty replacement and getting "coupons" for more of the same. The last bulb that failed lasted 6 mos on a 7 or 9 yr warranty (I forget what it is). I doubt it has been a cost savings, especially with the early failures. I now write the date on each one, and save all receipts in a special file. Even with warranty replacement, the cost of shipping for the claim kills most, if not all, savings. I am all for saving energy, which is a main reason I started using them... But if they don't last, you save nothing, or worse.

 

[Scooby074]

Philips curly CFL's are generally garbage IMHO. Ive had no luck with them. For as good as their LED's are, this is a bit of a surprise.

That said, I have their Par CFL's in my kitchen pot lights. Over a year now, and no burn outs. Sort of slow to light however.

For those having longevity issues with CFL's in Pots, are they standard curly cfl's or proper PAR CFLs.?

 

[dave1949]

Some info about the mercury in CFL bulbs from: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check - Popular Mechanics


How much mercury is contained in a CFL?
Each bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, “which is just enough to cover a ballpoint pen tip,” says Leslie, associate director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer. “Though it’s nothing to laugh at, unless you wipe up mercury [without gloves] and then lick your hand, you’re probably going to be okay.”

How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
"About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime."


I am mystified by the variety of experiences with CFL's. Some people are happy and getting good results, others not so good. I can only think of several variables that might make a difference.
1) The bulb brand, model and quality control within the brand. There could be good and bad production batches coming from the same plant.
2) The electrical environment. Voltage stability, or high-low supply? Impact of other equipment? Aaron's hotel bulbs come to mind. Back EMF from an elevator or the like?
3) Use conditions, temperature, up or down orientation. Mechanical vibration? On-off frequency.

Most of my CFL bulbs are the n:vision brand, made in China They are the BR-30 type mounted upside down in IC ceiling cans which are buried in attic insulation. They are rated at 14W, equivalent to 60W IIRC. I don't have the packaging anymore, so I don't know what life they claimed when most were purchased in 2006. Most of my bulbs by far are the originals.

I have some outside too that are not outdoor rated and are lasting. They are in a normal outdoor spot/flood fixture and under a deep eave so they don't get much weather exposure.

I use a normal 75W incandescent in my well tank room for 2-3 months in winter. It gets turned on and stays on in a very dry and temperature stable condition. There is no globe enclosing the bulb, so heat will quickly dissipate. It takes two of those bulbs to get through the winter. That's about the life I expect from an incandescent.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Are you sure the yellow ones have been replaced?

I was in HD 3 days ago and they had both the Philips white, round globe models as well as the yellow, flat top models. The Flat top ones are the only ones I recommend from personal experience, I havent tried the cheaper, round models. The yellow "AmbientLED"s are of a much more solid construction compared to he white, round style and the flat style. Much beefier heatsink compared to the white ones.

The 17W AmbientLED (Yellow) is now only $26.98 at HD Canada. Philips | 17W LED "A19" Household | Home Depot Canada

They also had the cheaper "Cree", white, round ones. While Cree makes excellent LED modules, I dont believe the make the actual bulb (maybe they do?), as such, Im not sure on the product, although it does have a 10 year guarantee. They seem to be a lighter construction to the trusty Philips Yellow's

Amazon said the 11W ones were no longer yellow, not the other ones.

I was looking for LED 3 ways today, only found them in very low "equivalent" wattage.

 

[aczlan]

I am mystified by the variety of experiences with CFL's. Some people are happy and getting good results, others not so good. I can only think of several variables that might make a difference.
1) The bulb brand, model and quality control within the brand. There could be good and bad production batches coming from the same plant.
2) The electrical environment. Voltage stability, or high-low supply? Impact of other equipment? Aaron's hotel bulbs come to mind. Back EMF from an elevator or the like?
3) Use conditions, temperature, up or down orientation. Mechanical vibration? On-off frequency.

~30 feet from the elevator, but ~75 feet so doubt that EMF was a factor.
Stable voltage every time I checked it.
All were from Lowes, BR30 bulbs, might have been GE bulbs. I started writing install dates on them to make sure I wasn't forgetting things.
No vibration, high 60s to 70s for room temps. All base up in a ceiling mounted can.

Aaron Z

 

[stuckmotor]

I don't hate the new bulbs. I'm highly disgusted with our icemaker, though.

 

[Scooby074]

Amazon said the 11W ones were no longer yellow, not the other ones.

I was looking for LED 3 ways today, only found them in very low "equivalent" wattage.

Philips still lists a Yellow (12.5W) 60w equivalent they also have an 60W equivalent in white. The white one is the 11W model, however its construction looks significantly lighter than the yellow one. I wonder whats up with the comment on amazon? Perhaps a phase out of the yellows???? Hope not.

Philips AmbientLED 046677409906 - Energy saving household light

Philips LED 046677424381 - A Shape