Anyone have a LED dusk to dawn pole light?

[Zerk]

That says it all and I'm in the same boat. There doesn't seem to be an accurate way to compare light output to power input. When I want a 100W or 150W light in a rom, people talk about an LED that puts out the equivalent of 60W. Aren't they paying attention. I want 100W or 150W and not 60W.

A am missing some part of this and it doesn't all add up.

Lumens are what matters. They advertise that is similar to another watt, cause the average person is not smart enough to understand.

 

[sixdogs]

Lumens are what matters. They advertise that is similar to another watt, cause the average person is not smart enough to understand.

OK, when I compare lumens to lumens, LED "comperables" offer less light. I didn't work my way up the food chain to try to read in my living room with a 60W bulb. So, if I get the comparable lumens, I need two or three bulbs. My mom says I'm smart enough , so I guess I just need to buckle down and do the research on this. If I can save $$, count me in.

 

[Zerk]

OK, when I compare lumens to lumens, LED "comperables" offer less light. I didn't work my way up the food chain to try to read in my living room with a 60W bulb. So, if I get the comparable lumens, I need two or three bulbs. My mom says I'm smart enough , so I guess I just need to buckle down and do the research on this. If I can save $$, count me in.

The LED zealots don't want you to know about the lumen difference.

I am not against lumens, but I also don't buy into marketing. I am driving a diesel tractor, I don't have a conflict in faith.

 

[Zerk]

7700 lumens for 175 watts vs. 4000 lumens for 38 watts consumed. Lets do some math

The first bulb uses 175 watts so lets say it is on 10 hours per night. Some winter nights might be quite a bit more and also very cloudy days, but lets just say 10 hours per day x 365 days per year. so 3650 hours per year. Power consumption of 175 watts x 3650 hours is 638,750 watt hours or 638.75 kilowatt hours at lets say $0.13 per kilowatt hour is $83.04 per year to run on average If we use all the above parameters.

Now the LED which does only produce a little more than half the light :
So 10 hours again, so 3650 hours at 38 watts consumed per hour is 138,700 watt hours or 138.7 kilowatt hours x $0.13 per kilowatt hour is $18.03 per year to run it. A savings of 83.04-18.03= $65.01 per year savings. and lets say they would both last 10 years, which I think is reasonable, then your savings would be $650.10. You would be ahead to throw away your present bulb and get 2 LED's and still be ahead hundreds of dollars...

Oh, and for you still running 300 watt incandescent flood lamps as yard lamps and you know who your are... well.. there is not much hope for your bank account!

How does your math work out, if you decrease incandescent flood lamps to the same lumen level? Have to throw out all your homework and start over.

You have made my day.

 

[k0ua]

WTF are you rattling on about?

How bright do you want the light is the question. I want a bright light, since it is the only one I have outside. I am not looking to make some kind of statement, and show that I am a modern man or eco warrior.

What one does when faced with a decision on which way to go is make an informed decision based on analysis.

By the way, how bright is bright? That is like saying how high is up? Your "bright light" might be either a lit match or a aircraft search light depending on the opinion of the viewer. "bright" doesn't tell me anything. As for modern man, I have been called on these forums a neanderthal, and I for darn sure am not an eco warrior. And if you didn't follow saving $650 dollars in electricity cost's over a 10 year period, well what can I say. :confused3:

 

[k0ua]

Lumens are what matters. They advertise that is similar to another watt, cause the average person is not smart enough to understand.

I agree with this. Lumens is the measurement that matters, and actually all that ever mattered even before the LED lamp was invented. BUT we have always measured lamps by the amount of power they consumed, but there was very little difference in the efficiency of tungsten filament lamps. There is some, but for the most part a lamp that consumes 60 watts puts out about the same amount of light as the next tungsten lamp that consumes 60 watts and so on. So the consumer over time rated bulbs by how much power they consumed.
By the way tungsten lamps are less than 5 percent efficient. That means a 100 watt bulb consumes 100 watts of power and converts 95 (or more) percent of that power into heat.

LED's lamps are the latest greatest thing to come along so far, and their efficiency if far greater, some produce about 150 lumens per watt, while a tungsten lamp produces about 16 lumens per watt consumed. That is not to say that some other technology might come along to produce even greater efficiency.

Where LED bulbs "fall down" is when people want 100 and 150 watt lamps they are more difficulty to make and to dissipate the heat they produce (cause they are no where near 100% efficient either) and the cost of the higher wattage bulbs go up exponentially. It is far better to put in multiple lower wattage bulbs or tubes than trying to buy one large LED. At least at the current cost and technology. That is changing though.

 

[k0ua]

The LED zealots don't want you to know about the lumen difference.

I am not against lumens, but I also don't buy into marketing. I am driving a diesel tractor, I don't have a conflict in faith.

Diesel tractor? conflict in faith... what the He77 are YOU rattling on about? You have mistaken me for a tree hugger.. I ain't one. I also am not STUPID. Money is money.. I try to save mine.

 

[sixdogs]

...

Where LED bulbs "fall down" is when people want 100 and 150 watt lamps they are more difficulty to make and to dissipate the heat they produce (cause they are no where near 100% efficient either) and the cost of the higher wattage bulbs go up exponentially. It is far better to put in multiple lower wattage bulbs or tubes than trying to buy one large LED. At least at the current cost and technology. That is changing though.

This seems to be the problem and why there is so much fuzzy conversation around LED's in excess of 60W equivalent bulbs. The LED thing is a great idea and I want to go in that direction, and will, but for my barn lights that are 300W incandescents or living room 150W and 250W, they do seem to be the best choice at the moment for intermittent use. Fluorescent would be next? And banks of LED's next?

There still is no easy way for the typical consumer to compare higher lumen output situations without computations and multiple LED bulbs, right? That just what I think as a low information power user.

 

[k0ua]

This seems to be the problem and why there is so much fuzzy conversation around LED's in excess of 60W equivalent bulbs. The LED thing is a great idea and I want to go in that direction, and will, but for my barn lights that are 300W incandescents or living room 150W and 250W, they do seem to be the best choice at the moment for intermittent use. Fluorescent would be next? And banks of LED's next?

There still is no easy way for the typical consumer to compare higher lumen output situations without computations and multiple LED bulbs, right? That just what I think as a low information power user.

As an example in my basement shop, I had some 100 watt incandescent bulbs, and I replaced them with two "60 watt equivalent" LED bulbs by the method of a simple two way screw in adaptor for $3 or so from Home Depot. So I replaced a device that consumes 100 watts for two devices that consume 8.5 watts each so 17 watts a savings of 83 watts per hour. Multiply this by several locations and it starts to add up. I will forgo the actual money saving math this time as it seems to anger some. I never knew showing how you can save money over a period of time would make anyone angry, but I guess it can. Oh by the way that 83 watt per location heat load in the summer is money you don't have to spend cooling the space too.

Leviton 66-Watt Keyless Twin-Socket Lamp Holder Adapter-R52-128-W - The Home Depot

 

[check]

As an example in my basement shop, I had some 100 watt incandescent bulbs, and I replaced them with two "60 watt equivalent" LED bulbs by the method of a simple two way screw in adaptor for $3 or so from Home Depot. So I replaced a device that consumes 100 watts for two devices that consume 8.5 watts each so 17 watts a savings of 83 watts per hour. Multiply this by several locations and it starts to add up. I will forgo the actual money saving math this time as it seems to anger some. I never knew showing how you can save money over a period of time would make anyone angry, but I guess it can. Oh by the way that 83 watt per location heat load in the summer is money you don't have to spend cooling the space too. Leviton 66-Watt Keyless Twin-Socket Lamp Holder Adapter-R52-128-W - The Home Depot

Can't you just buy a 100-watt equivalent LED from your Home Depot? I can.