From: fluffy bunny on
In article <f6-dnZPGEfNTk1zYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d(a)comcast.com>,
"Don K" <dk(a)dont_bother_me.com> wrote:

> > Its hard to overstate the breakthrough (or if you prefer, the profound
> > incremental steps) represented by the recent few years of LED
> > engineering.
>
> But you did manage to do so anyway. :-)

i forgot to include gaslights (coal gas in illinois) in my soliliquy of
obsoleted lighting technology.

I think the main reason the straight fluor. tube failed to take over in
the residental market was simply its geometry. It was never made into a
consumer-friendly install, and due to its geometry, it suffered from
severely limited installation.

CF's have clearly overcome that hurdle, while recognizing much of their
current popularity upsurge is the result of various economic
subsidizations. So i'd say that finally, the fluorescent tube is
replacing the filament lamp for home use.

Obviously, the tube long ago exterminated the filament in office.

(Aprapos nothing, I've always been a fan of the sodium vapor lamp,
having first seen them illuminating the highway between Ludwigsburg and
Stuttgart some 35 or so years ago. Beautiful, if peaky spectrum.)

Back to the thesis that LED's will displace filament lamps, i base my
position into three trends, and arrive at my 10 and 20 year numbers.

Firstly, i'm assuming the basic engineering of the gap material quantum
efficiency will follow some sort of attenuated Moore's Law for the next
few years. I also consider the issue of the fluorescent downconverter
material spectrum to be effectively a non-issue, and trivially solved.

Given the current state of watts/lumen, LEDs are pretty much in the
[metaphorical boxing] ring with CFs, so any gains above will merely
strengthen their advantage.


So the next two trends necessary for LED to take over are obviously,
production and applications development.

I figure ten years is plenty enough time to capitalize, design and build
enough fabs and necessary upstream supply systems to saturate the market
with LEDs.

Which leaves applications. I think a decade will be long enough for
lighting engineers, architects and interior designers to catch up with
the technology and start incorporating LEDs into their designs. I
forsee a move from direct volume lighting to distributed indirect
lighting. E.g. instead of lighting a room with a volume-illuminating
incandescent ceiling lamp or table lamp, we might imagine a strip of
wall mounted, obliquely directed ceiling washing LEDs for volume
applications.

I expect to see quite rapid replacement of virtually all MR-11/12
fixtures.

By the end of a decade, as the supply and applications pipes are filled,
i expect to see LEDs very much in control of new construction
residential (ok, but probably not for offices) After that happens, it's
just a matter of time for the incandescent supply chain to atrophy,
older systems to be slowly replaced, rising energy costs to militate the
switch over, legislative fiat to make incandescents less attractive, etc.

I think one of the truly irresistable dynamics will be the reliability
of LEDs. This is an area where CF's have truly screwed the pooch. I
know i'm seeing a 5~10% infant mortality for the CFs i get from Menards
(even higher for the pretty colored ones!), and as has been noted, they
haven't endeared themselves with the enclosed-base-up problem.
Consumers are going to be strongly attracted to a product whose claim of
"up to X" years of service has some chance of actually being valid.

10 years/ 20 years. Let us revisit the discussion and see how right i
am. :-)


..max
From: throwitout on
On Feb 1, 10:25 am, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> throwit...(a)dodgeit.com wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, BeaFor...(a)msn.com wrote:
> >> I have changed all my light bulbs to flouresent and the savings was
> >> considerable, until the utility company raised rates. Now I am
> >> starting
> >> to see LED bulbs. Seem kind of spendy. Anyone have experience with
> >> them?
> > Won't see them replacing your household lights anytime soon.
> > Efficiency is about the same or worse than Florescent. I've yet to see
> > one match the light output of a normal light
>
> Their killer savings area is in flashlights, whose requirement for a
> small focussable light source rules out fluorescents. They save a
> great deal on battery power. A high power white LED flashlight running
> of AAs can now outperform a big incandescent flashlight running of D
> cells. The impact this has had on my domestic lighting is that we now
> use torches for a lot more things, such as going to the toilet in the
> middle of the night, instead of firing up half a dozen big mains
> powered lights for several minutes, or even leaving the hall light on
> all night "just in case".

For night-time lighting I like the 0.25Watt electroluminescent lights
that use about 2 cents of power in a year. I can pick them up at the
Dollarama (CSA / UL approved). Leave one in the hall, and one in the
bathroom and I can use the toilet at night without farting around with
flashlights or normal lights, and it doesn't destroy my night vision.

From: SMS on
fluffy bunny wrote:

> CF's have clearly overcome that hurdle, while recognizing much of their
> current popularity upsurge is the result of various economic
> subsidizations. So i'd say that finally, the fluorescent tube is
> replacing the filament lamp for home use.

Pretty much, though they have their drawbacks. They take a while to
reach full brightness, and they're not good for high-intensity lamps.
For women, putting on make-up in a bathroom lit by fluorescents doesn't
work well.

I was especially pleased to see all the fluorescent bulbs for recessed
lighting. I have a lot of recessed lighting in my house, about 40
recessed fixtures, and they are almost all fluorescent now. I spaced
them a little closer together than I would have if I had been using
incandescent.

LED lamps are great for low intensity applications, but the higher
intensity LEDs (5W Luxeon) generate a lot of heat that is difficult to
manage.
From: bearclaw on
In article <1170371912.190092.101190(a)q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
throwitout(a)dodgeit.com wrote:

> For night-time lighting I like the 0.25Watt electroluminescent lights
> that use about 2 cents of power in a year. I can pick them up at the
> Dollarama (CSA / UL approved). Leave one in the hall, and one in the
> bathroom and I can use the toilet at night without farting

Wow. Those are some special lights :-))
From: throwitout on
On Feb 2, 2:30 am, bearc...(a)cruller.invalid wrote:
> In article <1170371912.190092.101...(a)q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> throwit...(a)dodgeit.com wrote:
> > For night-time lighting I like the 0.25Watt electroluminescent lights
> > that use about 2 cents of power in a year. I can pick them up at the
> > Dollarama (CSA / UL approved). Leave one in the hall, and one in the
> > bathroom and I can use the toilet at night without farting
>
> Wow. Those are some special lights :-))

Helps keep from waking the wife :-)