kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Wasn't any more or less obvious then what you said.
T12 bulbs in T8 fixtures saves watts. For real. Constant current circuit
- Thread starter Electric-Light
- Start date
- Status
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Would this be a realistic statement?
That is wrong. An Incandescent uses about 6.5 times more energy than an LED, not 12+ like that pictures claims.
Regarding the other figures you mentioned, maybe they were comparative efficiencies not absolute? Something like an HPS is 90% more efficient than XXXX?
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
I suggest everyone go to the Wikipedia article already referenced, it's very eye opening on the true efficiency of lighting sources. It's true that LED is more efficient than HID, fluorescent and incandescent and is rapidly replacing those obsolete technologies. But it's far from 90% efficient.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Maybe I missed something but I don't think anyone really claimed 90% efficiency.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
You did miss something. :slaphead:
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
How is a T8 tube a direct comparison to a screw base lamp? The only valid comparison for efficiency would be a T8 tube to a comparable LED tube with T8 ballast. Furthermore, similar luminaires would have to be comparied to make a valid comparison with an HID luminaire vs. LED.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Electric-Light
Senior Member
This thread has gone off course, but I am glad that it is branching off to something of professional interest. At this point I would like to address a relatively uncommon jargon luminous e-f-f-i-c-a-c-y rather than the similar and related and commonly thrown word efficiency.
They are sometimes used interchangeable and can often be. When we are talking energy processes, efficiency is strictly the ratio of (form of energy out) vs desired form of energy. Units are often different but it can be expressed to the same unit (watts out/watts in)
brake-horsepower at shaft expressed as watts vs heating value of gasoline input in watts allows expression as efficiency.
Sound pressure power expressed as watts vs. electrical watts fed into speaker is efficiency.
Intensity is energy per area.
Given the same sound energy intensity in watts per square inch, we do not perceive it the same if frequencies are different.
1,000 to 4,000 Hz is heard loudly but a 16,000-20,000 Hz is heard a lot less intensely even if the same energy due to the audience characteristic.
So the loudness per watt is higher for 1,000 to 4,000 Hz than 16,000 to 20,000 Hz. So same amount of power and intensity, the latter is a lot less intense because of human hearing curve.
Lumens per watt works exactly the same way. "ideal lumens per watt", or kind of like "what if... all energy going into speaker was converted to sound with 100% efficiency at ??? Hz". Let me know if clears thing up for anyone.
When you mix and match different different incandescent lamps, they behave close enough between different lamps to not present issues.
LEDs suffer from dimming mismatch in both in 0-10v utilized in commercial lighting as well as standard in-line dimming methods. If you have four cans that light up the same area and connected to the same dimmer and you have to replace one, because of a fried LED ballast, there is a very high chance that it will be obvious to the casual user that the replaced lamp behaves very differently from the remaining lamps especially near the lower limit. Enough to drive people nuts
Road hazard happens and sometimes you have a tire that can not be repaired. If the other tires have a lot of life remaining and you were forced to change all tires to maintain good road handling, you would not like it.. would you?
FWIW, our eyes approximately follow square law curve. Set starting point as 1.0. The perceived brightness is square root of the new level. This means you can remove a lot and not lose as much brightness, or you can add a ton and not gain as much. So, when students return to CEU class about LEDs from break and the classroom's F32T8 lamps have been turned down to 70% through a dimming ballast while they were away, many wouldn't notice. If they compared it side by side, the perceived difference is 16%. If you look at the power power, you will see approximately 30% drop in wattage. There existed (still does maybe? ) a "tunable ballast factor ballasts" that let you tune the BF upon install. It is functionally equivalent to setting the slider to a desired level and duct taping it in place.
This is NOT an excuse to continue to consume the same power and lose 30% output. one problem with your method of evaluation is that you have not taken proper readings and lack a second point of reference, that is dimming down fluorescent lamps to match the new level provided after LED retrofit. After relamping to match the color temp of LEDs, of course. It is better to start at 30% less and not lose any if the 70% level is acceptable. LED industry needs to drop the practice of doing lighting estimation using initial lumens.
Then there are LED sales reps who misunderstands that technology like N80 is not a form of LED degradation compensation that raises output to make up for LED decay.
Of the light that ends up outside the visible spectrum, everything other than LEDs have reasonably good ability to reject it by radiating. This is how a 100W light bulb can cool passively while a 100W CPU requires a rather hefty cooling in order to be able to remove 100W by conduction while keeping the temperature quite low. 60 input watt (not 60w bulb equiv) LEDs need a hefty heat sink or a desktop PC like cooler to last long.
They are sometimes used interchangeable and can often be. When we are talking energy processes, efficiency is strictly the ratio of (form of energy out) vs desired form of energy. Units are often different but it can be expressed to the same unit (watts out/watts in)
brake-horsepower at shaft expressed as watts vs heating value of gasoline input in watts allows expression as efficiency.
Sound pressure power expressed as watts vs. electrical watts fed into speaker is efficiency.
Intensity is energy per area.
Given the same sound energy intensity in watts per square inch, we do not perceive it the same if frequencies are different.
1,000 to 4,000 Hz is heard loudly but a 16,000-20,000 Hz is heard a lot less intensely even if the same energy due to the audience characteristic.
So the loudness per watt is higher for 1,000 to 4,000 Hz than 16,000 to 20,000 Hz. So same amount of power and intensity, the latter is a lot less intense because of human hearing curve.
Lumens per watt works exactly the same way. "ideal lumens per watt", or kind of like "what if... all energy going into speaker was converted to sound with 100% efficiency at ??? Hz". Let me know if clears thing up for anyone.
Residential users have expectations of dimming. Dimming has been and still is one of the most difficult challenges facing LEDs.
When you mix and match different different incandescent lamps, they behave close enough between different lamps to not present issues.
LEDs suffer from dimming mismatch in both in 0-10v utilized in commercial lighting as well as standard in-line dimming methods. If you have four cans that light up the same area and connected to the same dimmer and you have to replace one, because of a fried LED ballast, there is a very high chance that it will be obvious to the casual user that the replaced lamp behaves very differently from the remaining lamps especially near the lower limit. Enough to drive people nuts
Road hazard happens and sometimes you have a tire that can not be repaired. If the other tires have a lot of life remaining and you were forced to change all tires to maintain good road handling, you would not like it.. would you?
FWIW, our eyes approximately follow square law curve. Set starting point as 1.0. The perceived brightness is square root of the new level. This means you can remove a lot and not lose as much brightness, or you can add a ton and not gain as much. So, when students return to CEU class about LEDs from break and the classroom's F32T8 lamps have been turned down to 70% through a dimming ballast while they were away, many wouldn't notice. If they compared it side by side, the perceived difference is 16%. If you look at the power power, you will see approximately 30% drop in wattage. There existed (still does maybe? ) a "tunable ballast factor ballasts" that let you tune the BF upon install. It is functionally equivalent to setting the slider to a desired level and duct taping it in place.
This is NOT an excuse to continue to consume the same power and lose 30% output. one problem with your method of evaluation is that you have not taken proper readings and lack a second point of reference, that is dimming down fluorescent lamps to match the new level provided after LED retrofit. After relamping to match the color temp of LEDs, of course. It is better to start at 30% less and not lose any if the 70% level is acceptable. LED industry needs to drop the practice of doing lighting estimation using initial lumens.
Then there are LED sales reps who misunderstands that technology like N80 is not a form of LED degradation compensation that raises output to make up for LED decay.
Of the light that ends up outside the visible spectrum, everything other than LEDs have reasonably good ability to reject it by radiating. This is how a 100W light bulb can cool passively while a 100W CPU requires a rather hefty cooling in order to be able to remove 100W by conduction while keeping the temperature quite low. 60 input watt (not 60w bulb equiv) LEDs need a hefty heat sink or a desktop PC like cooler to last long.
Last edited:
Electric-Light
Senior Member
For those not in the knows, anyone can edit Wikipedia. It's a common practice for PR firms to pollute Wikipedia with links to their client's page to manipulate the neutrality of articles at the request of their paying clients.
LEDs crush CFLs. No argument over that. Fluorescent lamp gives light all the way around the tube and whatever light emitted into the middle where tubes face into is trapped and wasted.
You can compare all technologies for hi-bay lighting as they're all usable, and all except for HIDs needs to be recognized for immediate power cycling capability.
You've got to exclude fluorescent from comparison for street lighting, because it's not practical. The immediate power cycle capability doesn't lend to much kWh reduction for street lights. Before praising LED street lights, we need to consider that the value of kWh saved in street lighting depends on the generation source and off peak kW demand saving isn't worth much.
Fluorescent lighting and Induction lighting aren't well for street lighting for multiple reasons. It's hard to optically control a blob of light. I never hear much about induction these days, has it taken a back seat to LED? I remember there being a bit of a fight by the Induction crowd to say it was comparable to LED, but street lighting would never be one of them.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Trust me, there is plenty :lol: Sadly I fall for it every time :rant::happyyes:
Probably. But then again its the internet. Our founding fathers said it first :happyyes:
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
We can agree here.
But when all said and done, even taking relativity into account, there is more lumens from LED regardless of CRI (which is going up) and color temps (which come in many varieties) and bandwidth (remember that Venture's PS metal halides have a color spectrum of large bands {similar to most HID} but produce light that IMO is better than daylight).
I can agree here, but for me single miss match (assuming you did not buy an extra) its worth the energy savings imo. And with a life of 20,000 hours and over, mixed in with good quality LEDs, its not likely to happen.
BF= breaker failure
To me this would sound like a design issue. Mixing lights in a building is a bad idea, ie I know of supermarkets that had strong HPS in the back stock rooms and MH through out the rest. Or buildings with HPS in the lobby/vestibule but cool white flouro in the corridors.
I can agree with this to a degree, but not enough in magnitude to not consider LED.
I agree and well put.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Trust me, there is plenty :lol: Sadly I fall for it every time :rant::happyyes:
Probably. But then again its the internet. Our founding fathers said it first :happyyes:
Is Lincoln considered a founding father?
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Electric-Light
Senior Member
Induction is basically a donut CFL with no physical connections inside the lamp. So it degrades quite a bit with usage. Electronics are still delicate and they can't handle higher wattage systems very well. LEDs and induction CFL both use transistorized ballast and this is the most common failure point. Some LED street lamps even have a compartment for ballast replacement. Think about this one. It took one of the kind power surge to damage appliances, but they are quite vulnerable to surge damage today.
Theoretically glassware should last as long as tableware, but that's not the case in reality. Same deal with transistorized ballasts.
This doesn't make any sense at all.We can agree here.
But when all said and done, even taking relativity into account, there is more lumens from LED
Sometimes, it's going down. You'll find some products have gone down to 80 from mid 80s under the same SKU.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but I am not sure why you say a common MH is a better light than the sun light?
Mismatch can be severe. The low end you can dim down to differs a lot between each LED lamp. Some only dims to 20% and it would appear to our eyes as only dimming by half. In contrast, those that dim to 1% appears as dimming to 1/10th. Exceptional dimming comes at exceptional prices, unless it's an incandescent. You must have very little experience with LED lighting products. Dimming problems caused by personality conflicts between the wall dimmer and LED ballast is the most common cause of LED related callbacks. The actual "LEDs" are pretty much the same dimming wise. It's the LED ballast.
I am talking about mixing different LED products. Again, I don't think you don't have knowledge of how much issues the personality conflicts between LED ballast and wall dimmer switch cause.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
It does, otherwise why are so many switching to LED? No matter what, LED will always draw less power over all compared to other lighting technologies like linear fluorescent and HID.
I agree, but its up to the user to decide. The beauty of LED is that you have choices.
Not common MH, formed arc tube PS MH lamps:
I've seen these used in car dealer ships, and despite the light spectrum being far away from genuine sunlight or incandescent, the results are excellent and many prefer it.
What I mean regarding spectrum:
Or I have used the same LEDs and I am satisfied with the dimming. In places like Supermarkets, retail and outdoor lighting there are many times where dimming is not a concern (not done), but the energy saved is huge.
Even if all LEDs were incompatible with all dimmers, this does not thwart the other advantages. Over all, I am very satisfied with the new LED lights coming out for both home use and the ones I am seeing dropped into offices and retail.
Yes I have seen and personally tried some horrible LED lights, but over all I prefer them. Now, if you want me to talk about a light bulb I have a beef with, try CFL :lol:
- Location
- Massachusetts
We offten do dimming in all those applications. I believe energy code driven.
The ones we dim have dimming leads on the drivers and dim nicely.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
But for everything? Including the lights in the aisle and mezzanine?
Dimming not a problem :thumbsup:
- Status