Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Screw-in LED Floodlights 573

Posted by michael from the light-up-my-life dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "This company claims to have the first LED flood lights that you simply screw in as a replacement for your old bulb. enluxled.com are also claiming it's cool enough to handle, more damage resistant, longer lasting (50,000 hours) and only uses 22w to produce twice the light of a 100w bulb." And hideously expensive, but you never have to change them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Screw-in LED Floodlights More

Screw-in LED Floodlights

Comments Filter:

  • How does this compare to... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:29PM (#10881673)
    Energy saving bulbs we have today?

    They only compare them against normal bulbs, and not energy bulbs, wonder why, not nearly as much good marketing maybe :D
    • What's with the completely inappropriate "flamebait" moderation on the parent? I'd also like to know how these bulbs compare to other "energy saving" floodlights.
    • They only compare them against normal bulbs, and not energy bulbs, wonder why, not nearly as much good marketing maybe :D

      Well 50,000 hours comes to almost 60 years of continuos operation, the usual advertising on an energy saving bulb is "10 years of normal use" so I would say that we could say that these bulbs offer 6 times more life than an energy saving bulb and are comparable on light/energy stats.

    • Comparison. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @04:22PM (#10882345) Journal
      How does this compare to...Energy saving bulbs we have today?

      Power usage for a given amount of light is slightly better (22 vs 26 watts for a 100 watt equivalent).

      Life is a lot better. (50,000 hours vs. 6,000, or about 8 1/3 compact fluorescents to match rated lives with one LED lamp.)

    • Re:How does this compare to... (Score:5, Informative)

      by AnotherBlackHat ( 265897 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @05:54PM (#10882920) Homepage
      It's been a while, but I think most of the numbers are still correct;

      Lumens/Watt Light Source
      100-190 low pressure Sodium (HID)
      (150 90W low pressure sodium lamp, clear)
      50-150 High pressure Sodium (HID)
      (115 1000W dual arc-tube high pressure sodium lamp, clear)
      100 Sylvania 18 watt low pressure sodium
      84 32W, 48" MOL, T8 OCTRON fluorescent lamp,
      60-65 standard F40T12 cool white fluorescent
      64 250W mogul based metal halide lamp, clear
      60 150W single ended compact metal halide lamp
      48-60 compact fluorescents
      45-55 Super bright Red/Orange LED
      35-45 Super bright Green LED
      17.5 Tungsten Halogen Single-End SUPER-Q Frosted Finish D.C. Bay 100Watt
      17.5 100W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite
      14.5 60W Incandescent A19 Bulb, softwhite (standard bulb)
      6 incandescent night light bulb (7w)
      6w incandescent flashlight bulbs

      For normal home lighting T8 fluorescents are probably your best bet today.
      LEDs are good when you're want colored light, when you want a small amount of light, or when the cost/hassle of replacing the bulb is the major factor.

      Cree recently announced a 75 lumens per watt white LED, but AFAIK they aren't available in quantity yet.
      There's a lot of hope for the future of LEDs, but they're still a few years off.

      -- should you believe authority without question?

    • Light quality ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dargaud ( 518470 ) <[ten.duagradg] [ta] [2todhsals]> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @06:17PM (#10883103) Homepage
      I hope those provide better lighting quality than the so-called energy-saving bulbs. I just moved into a new appartment and decided to use those ESB. They are a scam IMO:
      • they absolutely are not '5 times brighter than normal bulbs'. The 100W equivalent lits about as much as the old 40W bulb that was there.
      • their color sucks, depending on the model (I bought several different), they are either greenish or even more yellow than a tungsten bulb
      • They take time to lit to full output.
      • They cost a lot.
      After a month of trying to get used to them, I threw them away. So I hope LEDs can do better, but since I already have several headlamps with while LEDs, I expect some problems. In particular the headlamps I have (Petzl and Black Diamond) are way too blue, they are blinding.

      So, technical issues or marketing issues ?

      • The initial delay until the bulb turns on is really only limited to fluorescent bulbs. Compact fluorescents are pretty much the same as the regular fluorescent tube lights and require a ballast to start the light up. The reason they need a ballast is due to the initial higher current required to energy the mercury vapor inside the bulb. After the tube is energized the resistance drops considerably and hence requires less current. The ballast is used to control the current between the initial activation

  • flourescent bulbs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 )
    why not use flourescent bulbs, they are a little more expensive, but more efficient than incandescent.

    sure LED's are cool, but for $79.95 [enluxled.com], i wouldn't think of it as an alternative to regular bulbs.

    • Re:flourescent bulbs (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mattdm ( 1931 )
      Fluorescent lights have drawbacks of their own. If they're turned on and off frequently, they're _less_ effecient than incandescents (and their lifetime is significantly decreased). And unless you're using an expensive digital ballast, they flicker and an annoying 60Hz. (I assume an even more annoying 50Hz in Europe/Africa/Asia.) And the cold-zombie color of the light they produce is less-than-pleasing. (Not that the LEDs I've seen are much better.)

      • How long has it been... (Score:4, Informative)

        by gaijin99 ( 143693 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:20PM (#10881997) Journal
        Your information seems to be badly out of date. The early model compact florescent bulbs did make a really hidious color light, but not any more. I use compact florescent light exclusively at my house. Since about two years ago they have made nice natural color bulbs. Meantime, my electric bill has gone down by about $5-$8 a month and I haven't changed a bulb in about two years. Overall I'm quite happy with my compact florescent bulbs.

        • Additionally, the 120Hz (not 60Hz) or 100Hz (not 50Hz) flicker is also gone, thanks to solid-state ballasts which re-generate the AC at significantly higher frequencies, typically in the 10-20kHz range.

    • Re:flourescent bulbs (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:41PM (#10881760) Homepage Journal
      Reasons for using LED over Flourescent:
      1) When a flourescent bulb fails, it stops giving off light completely. Usually and LED light will only have 1 led fail at a time. Given theis, you don't have large areas of darkness and don't have to replace the bulb immediatley when a part fails. LEDs fail gracefully.

      2) LEDs are more resistant to damage.

      3) The LEDs appear to not need to be replaced as often as Flourescent. The largest "Pain" in lighting is having to replace the bulbs. If these new LEDs last sufficiently longer than Flourescnets, they pay for themselves in labor.

      4) I'm not sure about this, but I don't think I've seend flourescent spot lights before. However, the LEDs might be able to put out more light than flourescents.

      • Re:flourescent bulbs (Score:4, Funny)

        by clambake ( 37702 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @07:34PM (#10883618) Homepage
        1) When a flourescent bulb fails, it stops giving off light completely. Usually and LED light will only have 1 led fail at a time. Given theis, you don't have large areas of darkness and don't have to replace the bulb immediatley when a part fails. LEDs fail gracefully.

        I finally understand the doom 3 lighting scheme...
    • Well up here in Canada eh!!
      Well it can get pretty damm cold outside so I doubt very much flourescent tubes work outside at anything below -10 deg C. I should imagine that the LED's are largely unaffected by the climate.

      One more negative point about some of the compact flourescents is they generate an awfull lot of RFI so they are not really welcomed around Amatuer radio enthusiasts.
    • Because standard fluorescents aren't dimmable. I work in an auditorium and we have regularly dicussed how great it would be to have LED flood lights in the house lights. They do make dimmable fluorescents, but they are very expensive and don't have a "natrual" look that standard halogen lamps do.

      And since we have to walk on a 40' high plaster ceiling that is 40 years old, the lesser trips we make to change house lights, the better it is, no matter what the cost may be.

  • ...but the important point is; are they better than flourescent? I use all flourescent light bulbs now, and they are all that LEDs seem to be according to the poster - but not too expensive.

  • it's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buzban ( 227721 ) <buz.buzban@net> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#10881692) Homepage
    boy, this took a while to surface, given that LEDs have been so popular in automobiles, traffic lights, and railroad signals for the past few years...will have to give one a shot.

    • Re:it's about time... (Score:5, Informative)

      by fossa ( 212602 ) <pat7@gmx. n e t> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @04:46PM (#10882476) Journal

      Traffic lights, for example, are owned by a city. The city keeps accurate budget information about how its money is spent. Incandescent traffice lights are typically changed on a yearly basis and require a substantial workforce with trucks and ladders to reach the bulbs. One can usually make a convincing case to a city that using LED traffice lights will save $x per year, and so the city opts to use LED lights.

      I personally do not keep track of my light bulb spending, and I imagine most households also do not. Thus the "it saves money in the long run" is a much more difficult argument to make.

      Furthermore, making white LEDs is typically done either with a blue LED surrounded by something that will emit yellow (and transmit some of the blue) when the blue LED is lit, or by using a red, green, and blue LED together.

      The first style has makes a white light that isn't "nice", because it's creating "white" by only combining two colors in the spectrum (blue and yellow). I can't explain it more than that, perhaps someone more knowledgeable can? This style is great for outdoor lighting (street lamps) where "niceness" doesn't matter so much; people aren't trying to read a newspaper but are merely identifying oncoming traffic.

      The second style is great (well, as good as RGB monitors), except for one problem: the different colored LEDs wear out at different rates. Thus the color of the light will drift slowly over time and obtain a green hue (how much time? I don't know... 2 years? 5 years?). So, the LEDs may last forever, but the "whiteness" may not last much longer than a conventional bulb.

      An aside: what is really cool about the tri-color LEDs is that you could potentially have dials to adjust the relative intensity of the colors and thus produce any color of the rainbow (or RGB spectrum at least), leading to many decorative and even utilitarian applications (e.g. a light inside a water faucet that lights the water according to its temperature).

      • Re:it's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:27PM (#10884258) Homepage
        An aside: what is really cool about the tri-color LEDs is that you could potentially have dials to adjust the relative intensity of the colors and thus produce any color of the rainbow


        The suggests a potential solution to the color-shift problem: add some circuitry to the light that compensates for the color shift by dimming the other colors as necessary to maintain a balance.

  • LED's are definately the future ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) * on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#10881696) Homepage
    LED's are definately the way to go, but the price still needs to come down quite a bit. People ask me if I used LED's for my Christmas Lights [komar.org] since when you have 22,000 of 'em (as I did in 2002), that's a lotta electricity. So while there are some GREAT looking LED Christmas Lights (with all the obvious advantages - and don't forget the color stays fairly permanent unlike painted on mini's), they are still really pricey ... especially when I can buy lights after the Holidays at 75% off.

  • How many geeks.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by WesG ( 589258 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:33PM (#10881701)
    ....does it take to screw in an LED bulb?

    yay :-)

  • Amish Lights (Score:5, Informative)

    by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:34PM (#10881707)
    I live in the middle of an Amish community. I know that LED has been growing amongst them as a lighting source. An LED table lamp powered by batteries is becoming quite common replacing the hot, noisy and potentially dangerous gas lights that have been used in the past.

    • Re:Amish Lights (Score:3, Funny)

      by Coopa ( 773302 )
      I thought Amish people didn't use technology, since when are LEDs not technology?

      • Re:Amish Lights (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:42PM (#10881769)
        Actually they have a complicated set of rules that varies from area to area. Some areas they are allowed to have rubber tires, some areas not. In our area they have lots of wood shops that used gas powered air compressors. Then they use air tools for their work. One of the most interesting things I saw when I first moved to the area was an Amishman backing his horse and buggy up to a public boat ramp on a lake. He had a trailer with a boat and a Honda motor on it. Alot of them have phones outside in what appears to be an outhouse. Several households will share the one phone. But they can not be in their homes. The list goes on.

        • living a simple life (Score:5, Interesting)

          by chocolatetrumpet ( 73058 ) <slashdot.jonathanfilbert@com> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:27PM (#10882039) Homepage Journal
          As the grandparent said, this "complex system of rules" is just religion oriented rule utilitarianism in action. The point is to live a simple, happy life in service of God.

          A story I once heard on the radio: some Amish people are outside doing their laundry by hand, as a group; laughing, playing, and having a grand old time.

          Meanwhile a person living a modern-lifestyle goes miserably jogging by. This person was not enjoying their jog, plus stressed out by a job that is used to buy expensive labor saving machines (washer/dryer) that STILL required time to load and operate.

          The Amish doing their laundry by hand were getting exercise and camaraderie, and as a bonus they got their laundry done all at the same time. They were also not involved in an time-consuming job to pay for expensive gadgets.

          See how it all works? Over time, the rule utilitarianism builds up to a happy life.

          Of all the things modern society has to offer, you might think that wandering a modern store the Amish would be most amused by modern electronic gadgets. This is not the case - the simple pleasures always win out. Check out any Amish people in a modern store and you will certainly find them, especially the children, trying out high sugar snacks and beverages.

          Pop - one of the most pleasurable modern amenities :-)

          • Re:living a simple life (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ajayvb ( 657479 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @06:11PM (#10883053) Homepage
            Awww....give me a break. Have you ever washed clothes by hand? I have. I lived in India, and when I lived in dorms during my engineering days, we had no laundry facilities. "Going home to do the laundry" acquires a totally new dimension then (My parents had a washing machine at home). Try wringing out a pair of jeans to dry on a cold morning at 40 F , and then we'll talk.

      • Amish Lights-Worldview. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "I thought Amish people didn't use technology, since when are LEDs not technology?"

        They use technology...intelligently.

        It's not the center of their worldview like it is for us.

        For example the phone is communal, and outside.

      • Re:Amish Lights (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MrResistor ( 120588 ) <.peterahoff. .at. .gmail.com.> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:47PM (#10881812) Homepage
        They aren't Luddites, they just feel it's spiritually important to keep things simple, and not get so caught up in modern consumerism that they forget what's important.

        IIRC, they have a counsel of sorts to deal with things like this, where something comes along that is so much better and safer, but no more complicated, comes along. Having grown up off-grid, and having plenty of experience with kerosene lamps and candles, I can definately appreciate where these guys are coming from.

  • This is slightly off-topic, but I thought LEDs would make great Xmas lights with their high brightness and SAFER low power. But when I froogle "LED Christmas" I just see see a few knicknacks. Are they too expensive?
    • I was in Target last night and found a string of LED lights in the shape of small Candy Canes. The string of (I think) 50 lights was US$9.99. Not outrageously expensive, but certainly not cheap enough to line your entrie house with them yet. I went to the Target website and can't find a link to the product. Does anyone else have a link to this or a similar product that's on sale now?

  • Never have to change them? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:36PM (#10881723)
    No, I did the math, and it would have to be changed every 5-6 years. 50,000 hours is approximately 2083 days. 2083 days is about 5.7 years. So running one 24/7, and yes, some people seriously do that, I'd have to buy one every 6 years.

    I realize how stupid this comment is, but just felt like pointing it out since the story did say, "but you never have to change them.".
    • I run a light 24/7 because the hallway is dark, and there's only one light switch in the hallway. I have multiple solutions, I just need the money. And energy is pretty cheap per kilowatt too, I think less than a cent per kilowatt hour.

      1. Installing a switch at the other end, so flipping the switch toggles the light on/off. Hassle if I'm carrying something, but would save energy.

      2. Find a motion detector, if they work with the energy saving light bulb I use now. The heat that's put off from regular bulbs
    • Ok - they are guaranteed for 50,000 hours. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll die right then, though.
      A friend of mine has a company that makes LED products, and she says that they don't die at 50,000 hours, she just didn't want to guarantee them any longer than that becuase after that, it's not really cost effective. Granted, they might not last THAT much longer after that period, but still, it's awhile.
      Not to mention the fact that when LED lights die, they don't turn entirely dar

  • rawr (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 )
    And..

    They willl promptly be shut down for violating some law they just enacted specifically against that company to raise profits of the 'traditional' manufacturers.

    Skeptical?

    Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.
    • Right-to-profit is now becoming the next big thing. No more skipping commercials. No more fast forwarding through trailers. No more choices. Corporations have a right to profit, and they will lie/cheat/steal/sue to protect that.

      We have to protect the companies in order to protect the workers' jobs! In socialist america, anyway. Think "recycling program" -- 12,000 jobs in my state!

    • When I was shopping for energy efficient lights years ago, Target had some tucked away in the corner of the lightbulb aisle.

      The manufacturer was Sunbeam. GE dominated the rest of the row with incandescent and halogen bulbs.

      Today, Sunbeam is gone. GE still dominates this row but within that GE domination, compact fluorescent lights rule the area.

      Companies want to make profit, sure. But to think they want that profit coming from any particular product is not understanding capitalism. Markets change and

  • What a dilema for students (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:38PM (#10881732)
    Be cool, trendy and enviromentally friendly like students want to be and get these leds at the price of a weeks drinking money per bulb and also the loss the main heat source in their house.

  • A little Late (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cubase_dag ( 827101 )
    I used to work in my highschool stage as an assistant stage manager. and we've been using low power LED Fixures for the last 2 1/2 years. you think somebody would have done this sooner.

  • The Savings (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:39PM (#10881742)
    Using their calculator. (One bulb)
    • Current annual electricity costs: $5.69
    • Current bulb life: 20.5 months
    • Current annual replacement bulb costs: $1.76
    • Current maintenance hours per year: 0 hours
    • Current annual maintenance costs: $0
    • Current annual lighting costs: $7.45
    • Enlux LED Flood unit cost: $80
    • Enlux LED Flood wattage: 22W
    • Annual electricity costs with Enlux LED: $1.93
    • Enlux LED Flood life: 50,000 hours or 411 months when used for 4 hours per day
    • Months until break even point: 167 months
    • Total savings with the Enlux LED Flood: $112.06

    • Re:The Savings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:45PM (#10882145) Homepage Journal
      Also keep in mind that their calculator does not figure the time-value of money into the equation at all. If you plan on doing anything better with your cash than investing in LED lighting products, the break even will NEVER, EVER happen -- at least for a homeowner.

      LED bulbs are making a bit more business sense in certain commercial installations where you actually have to pay a human being a minimum feee for an hour or so of labor to go replace a few lightbulbs. Especially in situations where the bulbs are so difficult to reach that it takes a few hours to actually change them and causes an inconveneince for other people while they are being changed -- the fee to change a bulb could easily outstretch the cost of LED lighting. Often in situations where 'expensive' bulb changes happen, they will change all the bulbs at the same time even if they don't need it simply because all the rigging and labor will be there and ready to go.

      • Re:The Savings (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ChrisMaple ( 607946 )
        Where I live, electricity is 12 cents/kWh. A 100 W drain is $105 a year. Where I sit, I use the equivalent of a 100 W incandescent 12 hours a day. That's $52 a year with incandescent, $13 a year with fluorescent, $6.50 a year with LEDs. The time value of money can't catch up with savings like this.

  • they are not 200 watt equivalents (Score:4, Informative)

    by planetary gear ( 833255 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:39PM (#10881749) Homepage
    They come in 45 watt and 65 watt equivalent bulbs, not twice the output of a 100 watt bulb as stated in the article ;) At this moment a CF bulb can be more efficient than them, pulling as little as 14 watts to produce the same output they do at 22. Tubular fluorescent bulbs are even more efficient. They do look cool though, and LED's get better and more efficient every year. At a watt or 2 there is nothing that can touch an LED as far as efficiency, but as soon as you go to higher power levels then even a halogen bulb can be more efficient. In my 1AA flashlights nothing is better than an LED. Plugged into the wall you're better off with a CF bulb.
    • They come in 45 watt and 65 watt equivalent bulbs, not twice the output of a 100 watt bulb as stated in the article .

      Check out the specs for their colored bulbs, those are probably what the article was referring to.
    • I noticed that the LED "bulbs" were wildly inefficient, and IMO, a bad choice.

      At less than $5 bulb-replacement screw-in flourescent runs at 15W and emits the equivalent of 60W incandescent at roughly the same looking color as incandescent. Flourescents are available at many different color temperatures, so the complaint that they are too blue in general doesn't hold anymore.

      It also doesn't seem to pulse noticiably unlike the older flourescents, and it doesn't require a massive heat sink either. I won't
  • I would bay $70 a bulb if they made these for indoor use as a replacement for the regular light bulb. They could probably run it at 10 watts. And they would last 10-20 years depending on use. Think of the savings on your power bill!

  • No good in outdoors Minnesota (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They are only rated to -4F. We expect at least -10F every Winter in Minneapolis area.

  • Does NOT generate 100 watts of light with 22 (Score:5, Informative)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:43PM (#10881781)
    THIS IS NOT TRUE!!

    The specs for the light are I beleive 300 lumens. This is more like a 45-60 watt bulb.

    A 100 watt bulb might generate 1500+ lumens.

    It still is significantly more efficient, and with a SIGNIFICANTLY longer life span, but it is not equal to a 100 watt bulb.

    When these first came out (won some awards) I checked them out for this very thing.

    They also are not an all around type light a la a lightbulb, more of a spotlight (90 degree beam angle?), so better for flooding a wall or artwork with color / light.

    Still super cool. Still a bit expensive.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:45PM (#10881789)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • if you read closely, the claim that the lights put out twice the light output of a 100w flood only applies to the COLORED floodlights.

      Which makes sense. A red LED floodlight will be made only with red LEDs, which emit nearly all their light in the red part of the spectrum. a 100w incandescent red floodlight is a regular incandescent with a red filter on the glass, which absorbs most of the light. The implication is that a 100w colored floodlight puts out about 150 lumens. I can believe that.

  • Great for Grow Ops. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by qualico ( 731143 )
    It's the MJ growers that will get the greatest benefits from this technology.

    Strike that.
    It's the electric company they are stealing from that will benefit due to the use of less electricity.

  • Flashing (Score:3, Funny)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:46PM (#10881794)
    Do they flash when accessing your hard drive, or toggle on/off pressing CAPS LOCK? Otherwise, no good for us lot here...
  • The big guy so far has been Lumileds [lumileds.com] , e.g. their Luxeon Star is one beast. I think it's now included in the headlight fixtures of some cars. No harm in having more competition, but those luxeon stars really would be tough to beat. Impressive engineering.

  • Not much better than flourescent... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:50PM (#10881826) Homepage Journal
    The site's slashdotted, so I can't actually go and see what they've got, but I know that in the past white LEDs had problems because they don't do white very well. I wonder if they've managed to solve them...

    Flourescent lamps work by using a mercury vapour discharge tube to produce ultraviolet light, which excites a phosphor coated on the inside of the tube to produce white light of various colours. They work pretty well; my house pretty much only uses 22W flourescent bulbs, which are roughly equivalent to 100W incandescents. The colour's not bad, but the spectrum is a bit weird, and some things look a little strange. (My parents have a glass vase that shows up purple under sunlight or incandescent light, but green under flourescent light.)

    White LEDs can use the same system, with a UV LED that excites phosphor, but these are inefficient and very expensive. (Or at least were, the last time I looked.) A more common way is to use a red, green and blue LED in the same package. These can be cool because you can change the colour by simply changing the relative brightnesses, but they produce a spectrum that makes flourescent tubes look normal. Compared to incandescents, they're very blue, and some things look really strange.

    Does anyone actually know what these things are?

  • So, what does this mean for the DIY projectors that /. linked (here [slashdot.org])to a few days ago? Those projectors were supposed to be fairly loud, due to the cooling required for the 400 watt light bulb. If this thing is 10 times the efficiency of a normal light bulb, it could probably get by without the primary cooling system, making the projector much quieter.
    On the other hand, it sounds like it's a bit dimmer than the 350 to 400 watt bulbs, so maybe it's not practical yet, though it likely will be soon. The col

  • Motion Lights (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fone626 ( 6793 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:00PM (#10881890)
    I've got flood lights on motion sensors. The idea is to drive off the theives from stealing stuff around my house.
    With these LED lights my stuff would be further protected by having the light itself worth more than anything else lying around worth stealing.
    Hmmm, maybe I should get motion lights for my motion lights.

  • I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deragon ( 112986 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:02PM (#10881905) Homepage Journal
    I hope they are "warmer" than fluorescent lamps. I hate the pure white light that they emit. I like a light with a yellowish hue. That is why I still prefer incandescents bulbs, despite all the advantages of fluorescent lamps.

    I wonder why they do not paint fluorescent tube with a yellowish hue to make them warmer. I bet if they would do this, they would conquer a greater market.

  • Floodlight? Totally misses the point! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:13PM (#10881965) Journal
    Although a big incentive may exist in using existing lighting fixtures, by making a standard point-source light, they totally miss the advantage of using LEDs as a light source. If you want a point source of light, you get more light for less energy by using a fluorescent.

    Now, with a point source of light, you need it much brigher than the levels you want at, for example, a wall/floor 10 feet away. Just a simple matter of applying an inverse square law.

    The big potential in LED's lies in allowing people to effectively get around the distance part of the same inverse square law... They tend to produce very directional light, and they cost little per unit (unlike these Luxeon monstrosities, which cost an arm and a leg).

    Imagine, rather than a desk lamp or a ceiling light, that your entire ceiling has a grid of LEDs spaced every six inches. The combined light output measures far lower than a single incandescent (or fluorescent) bulb, but provides better overall illumination of the room. As a result, you have no glare, better light, and impressive electricity savings even over a fluorescent.


    As much as I hate marketing buzzwords, the switch to LED-based lighting shift will have to coincide with a paradigm (ugh) shift in the entire way we think about room lighting. Only then will we really see why LEDs can provide superior illumination for less power. Trying to force a million fireflies into a bottle just pisses off the fireflies.

  • Fluorescent bulbs are already annoying enough (Score:4, Informative)

    by Twid ( 67847 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:14PM (#10881970) Homepage
    Is anyone else annoyed by the trend by hotels with replacing EVERY bulb in a room with compact fluorescents? One hotel I was at recently (the Boston Westin) did this, and I've seen a trend towards this more and more. With every light in the room on, it was still a bit dim and uncomfortable to read a book on the bed. Pretty annoying. It seems like much of the savings of fluorescent and other "cost saving" bulbs are from dimming the lumens of output.

    Given that these LED bulbs are dimmer than a normal one too, the savings seem questionable. It's like saying that you can double your gas mileage in a new car assuming you drive it half as much.

  • NOT the first. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by outanowhere ( 686527 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:26PM (#10882031) Journal
    "This company (enlux) claims to have the first LED flood lights that you simply screw in as a replacement for your old bulb. "

    This claim is false.

    Commercial white LED floods and other replacements for high-voltage incandescent bulbs are available for any standard base in the world, including the funky euro and russian bases. They are available at three colour temperatures and in any other LED colour, including IR and UV.

    They have been available for more than two years.

    Enlux had no such products available a year ago.

    Seems they define "flood" a bit broadly: According to their own data, it illumines a narrow region like a spot would.

    50K hours seems a little short-lived.

    And white LEDS dim quite noticeably over a very short time. They will most likely be too dim long before 50K hours. Most likely in a bit less than half that time, around 20K hours.

    If they are willing to lie about being the first, and deceive about the useful life of their lights, what else will they lie or cheat on?

    Wonder if enlux will do for LEDs what Lights of America did for fluoros...

    • Lights of America (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )
      The Lights of America ballasts are fine, though the color of the lamps themselves are horrid. But for setting up a cheaply blacklit room, there's nothing quite like a $6 ballast and a $6 tube. I helped a fledgling rave promoter get their equipment together on a small budget -- they allocated $50 to blacklights, and I managed to get the entire room covered for that cost (found a supplier that would take the white bulbs back for $2 credit, so got 5 blacklights for $50). I also gave them a laser show unit on "

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:52PM (#10882189)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:specs kinda suck (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BP9 ( 516511 )
      These aren't apparently any good for indoor area lighting (I have dozens of ceiling can lights I'd love to use such a thing in): per the website they cannot be installed in can's (temperature issues?) and cannot be dimmed (which leads me to wonder how you run them at 15W to get the rated lumen output rather than 22W as speced).

      No dimming is the reason I haven't switched to using excellent warm compact flouresecent lamps.

      Maybe they just stuck a resistor in series with a bunch of LED's and they're burning t

  • Sulfur Microwave Lamps (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lhaeh ( 463179 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @04:13PM (#10882301)
    Sulfur Microwave Lamps [195.178.164.205] are the most efficient light source, in terms of visable, white light.

    The article is really old, there have been major improvements since then, but it gives you a good idea of the basic principals of operation.

    I want to try makeing one of these, just put some sulfur and argon, both easy to get, into a glass tube. Toss it into the microwave and see what happens.

  • Yet more lies or misconceptions... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NerveGas ( 168686 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @05:54PM (#10882924)
    and only uses 22w to produce twice the light of a 100w bulb."

    A 100-watt light bulb puts out around 1500-1600 lumens. These lamps are rated at 280 and 320 lumens. A more accurate statement would be "and uses one-fifth the energy to produce one-fifth the light"

    steve

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close