The Biggest Thing Since the Light Bulb
creebulb.com
creebulb.com
This means that inside every "bulb" like this there is a small switching power supply. And small switching power supplies that can take you from 110/230V AC to 3-24V DC are a) expensive, b) not very efficient.
Even more amusing is the "dimmable" bulb: traditional dimmers in AC circuits use triacs to effectively cut out (e.g. cut to zero) a part of the sinusoidal AC waveform. Meaning you get a chopped-up sine waveform behind the dimmer. Any switching PSU won't really notice, as long as there is enough (let's use a technical term) "oomph" left in the waveform. So, what the "dimmable" solutions do, is look at the AC waveform coming in, notice that it isn't really a sine and a part of it has been cut out, estimate how much has been cut out, and provide a PWM dimming signal to the LED driver.
Sure, it's all still better than the incandescent bulb, but it's very costly and inefficient. It also generates a lot of waste: if you throw out an incandescent bulb, it's really just some glass and a little metal. The LED "bulb" contains at least 20 electronic components and a PCB apart from the LED itself.
I think that sooner or later we will need an additional electrical standard, 24 or 48V DC with an overlaid control signal for dimming and a new standard for sockets. 110/230V simply doesn't make sense for powering single bulbs anymore.
Presumably this already exists? Any home-hackers know who's making them?
And go too low on the voltage and the wires become so large as to be impractical.
These types of smart active electronics are getting cheaper and cheaper. I really don't see much need to eliminate them.
Actually, one of those metals is lead (Pb), which is highly toxic, so be sure to recycle your incandescents! If nothing else, to lower crime rates...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/theworldin2013/2013/01/lead-a...
I doubt there are any facilities at all that try to separate out the lead. All the metal is just melted together and the lead (if any) is diluted among it.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, you can get 14 watts from some implementations, 25 from others, and supposedly up to 51 from still others. That seems like more than enough for these new bulbs. I think the last CFL I bought from Ikea was in the neighborhood of 15 watts.
The control interface would hopefully evolve naturally from this. :-)
(Also, bonus points for figuring out how to make all of your light bulbs into boosters for your wireless network. They're already in all the places where people go in a house.)
Now, don't get me wrong. I really like PoE, and would love to have something similar for lighting, but PoE itself can't handle the current required for primary lighting.
How much power is lost with all of those dumb little DC bricks all over the place right now?
According to http://what-if.xkcd.com/35/, as a rule of thumb, any DC transformer that's not warm to the touch is wasting less than a penny of electricity per day, and a cellphone charger, if not warm to the touch, less than a penny per year.
Another problem is the lifetime of the driver electronics is limited too. So the benefits of having separately replaceable driver would be fairly limited.
On top of that, clicking an anchor (which on any normal website would take me _instantly_ to that point in the page) scrolls slowly from top to bottom. Do that a couple of times and watch what happens when you hit the back button a few times... shoot me now.
I guess I don't know what is preventing me for having a bad experience, but I guess one of those 3.
update Found the issue. JavaScript was disabled on the page. Sorry if my post mislead.
to whoever wrote this: let me decide the vertical position of your paragraph of text on my screen! :p
Why does it even have a scroll bar if the behavior can be redefined at will.
Ok, so anyway, people complaining about bad design should blame the bad design rather than the platform it uses. Happened with Flash when people said "let's say no to annoying ads on websites, and poorly made multimedia sites with intro screens, by hating on the technology they're made with!"
Actually this is one of the reasons I use noscript. A lot of web site interactivity is completely annoying, so I only turn it on when the site is interesting enough - which is not the case here.
Every other bulb, ie. the expensive Phillips bulb, only gives a 3-4 year warranty
I'd definitely give this a try @ $10
It's also dimmer compatible which is a big plus for me with X10 control, CFL cannot dim.
If this bulb does not operate for 10 years (based on 6 hours per day / 7 days per week of normal consumer use) from date of purchase when used as directed, return the bulb [...] Cree will send you a replacement or at Cree’s option refund the original purchase price.
ps. you can use ebates.com to get a $5 off $50 Home Depot coupon and 3% cashback which will reduce the cost on these
I've seen extremely few LED bulbs that say they are "dimmable" and I've been looking around a fair bit as I'm transferring all the lights in the house over to LED if on-time matters and CFL if it doesn't.
(in UK I should note)
If you have already X10 system in place, wouldn't X10 compatibility be more ideal than dimmer compatibility?
Computer analogy: Imagine you would like to adjust the performance/power of your computer. You could plug the computer to a dimmer and then engineer the computer to adjust itself according to the dimmed mains voltage. Or you could route the X10 signal to the computer and use it to adjust the power profile. Which solution seems more reasonable to you?
Personally I think PLC based system would make most sense for home automation, considering that a large portion of the devices are mains-powered anyways. And if you design the system really cleverly then having the same network extend wirelessly to those nodes where PLC is unsuitable.
I could be wrong.
I often see it written with two 'L':s, I think it's mainly due to pronunciation by English speakers.
6 to discuss the efficiency of the new light bulb, 10 to propose alternative designs to the light bulb components, 15 to point out various health and environmental concerns of old and proposed new light bulb components, and 25 to criticize the design of the webpage promoting the new light bulb.
My light fixtures were designed for a few 100 watts, replacing them with these 60 watt LEDs may save me power, but at the cost of my eyesight!
I am more interested in true 100, or even better, 150 watt, replacement bulbs. Get those in a good package size with some energy savings!
A Japanese IKEA I went through recently had a display which would allow you to switch between 'Japanese' style lighting' and 'Western' style, with western style being dimmer, and with warmer color temperature.
I immediately found the Western one more comforting, relaxing, while my wife (Japanese) prefers the brighter one. Internal lighting in Japan is almost uniformly overhead neon, without the baffles you'll see in many North American offices.
I've grown used to it, but would rather work in the dark.
I'm sure there are many people that, like you, feel that these LED bulbs are too dim. If you're at all curious though, I'd recommend that you find one and give it a shot, many of them /feel/ brighter than the numbers would lead you to expect when compared to an incandescent.
It might be better to compare on the basis of Lumens, as watt's are a measure of power instead of brightness[1].
Ditto for "desk lamps" that can't evenly illuminate two Letter-sized sheets of paper side by side (the typical dimensions of an open textbook), let alone the whole desk. To this day I still don't understand why students buy those. Maybe they just put them on their bedside tables in case they need to find their way to the bathroom at night.
On the other hand, everyone's computer screen is too bright for me. My screens are usually set to 25%-40% brightness unless I'm using it outside on a sunny day. So I suppose people do have varying tastes about illumination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/magazine/what-does-it-mean...
I actually threw out all my flourescent bulbs and bought a truckload of incandescents while they were still available because the flourescent light was too dim and "hollow" to feel comfortable.
I am not sure LEDs are any better, I believe the cheaper ones have huge spectrum gaps.
Note that 80 is the minimum legal to qualify for Energy Star.
Bulbs in question are 2700K and 5000K. Does your conclusion still hold?
But the CFL costs $1, this costs $13.
It lasts 3 times as long, but still - unless you really need great color accuracy (i.e. CRI), I can't see myself buying this. (I'm comparing to a CFL with the same warm color temperature.)
Edit: CRI of 80! That's worse than the CFL I'm comparing it to!
Why would anyone want to buy this? The small boost in energy efficiency is not worth the $10.
And you don't have to vent your house, that's an urban legend. The mercury is elemental mercury which isn't very toxic, and extremely poorly absorbed on top of that.
(The toxic mercury is organic mercury. Some elemental mercury will be converted, which is why people worry about it - but it won't be converted in your house.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Toxicity_and...
Both elemental mercury and "organic" mercury are toxic (I assume you mean "organic mercury compounds", since mercury is never "organic"). The relative toxicity of mercury does depend on the compound. Dimethylmercury is exceptionally poisonous: it will go right through latex gloves, skin, and the blood-brain barrier; minute concentrations will kill you. Metallic mercury is much less toxic, but when you inhale mercury vapors it gets absorbed rather well into your circulatory system.
The amount of mercury in a CFL is very low. If I broke a CFL, I would make sure to ventilate the room for a few hours, but I would not be worried. However, it is downright irresponsible to tell people that elemental mercury is not toxic.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#Elemental_mer...
The OSHA limit is 0.1 mg/m^3. A CFL has 5mg of mercury - so even if every bit of the CFL mercury stayed in a room 13x13x10 feet (which it won't since most gets absorbed by the wall of the CFL) you would still be legal. And that's for continuous exposure! Not a single event.
I can't seem to find good data on the LD50 of elemental mercury, everything is for compounds of it, but compared to everyday compounds, it's toxic - but not very.
> Chronic exposure by inhalation, even at low concentrations in the range 0.7–42 μg/m3, has been shown in case control studies to cause effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers.
CFLs are not the only source of mercury. Some barometers and thermometers have significant quantities of the stuff. So if you tell people, "not very toxic", I am worried that these people will think that it is okay not to clean it up.
From: http://www.ehs.gatech.edu/chemical/mercury_and_compounds.pdf
> All forms of mercury are toxic.
> All forms of mercury penetrate the placental barrier and should be considered terratogenic and reproductive effectors.
It lists an exposure limit of 0.025 mg/m3.
I don't see why this has capitals?
The point was valid it's urban legend / vaccinations cause autism style rubbish about breaking light bulbs being bad.
When do we get exposed to mercury in real life that we need to highlight mercury is bad in capitals? To stop people breaking light bulbs and licking them? We all know not to drink from a thermometer. I though the point of HN is we didn't have to talk at grade school/reddit level.
[Edit] And you don't need to ventilate a room after breaking a CFL. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environment...
That's a bad example.
From: http://www.ehs.gatech.edu/chemical/mercury_and_compounds.pdf
> Elemental mercury
> Poses a health hazard because it is volatile and can be absorbed through the skin. As a vapor, penetrates the central nervous system, where it is ionized and trapped, attributing to its extremely toxic effects. Is not well absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract; therefore, when ingested, it is only mildly toxic. Mercury metal and mercury compounds are highly hazardous if inhaled or if they remain on the skin for more than a short period of time.
Saying that CFLs are safe is different from saying that mercury isn't very toxic. There are plenty of compounds which are toxic and found in minute quantities in everyday objects. I'd rather educate people of the dangers.
That's fortunate. When I was a kid, we used to amuse ourselves by coating pennies with elemental mercury. Very shiny!
Of course, some organic compounds of mercury are a different story, e.g., dimethylmercury.
Over 10 years, the difference probably makes this cheaper, even with such a small difference.
2.5 Watts, 6 hours/day, 300 days/year, 10 years, 0.13 USD/kWh [2]
=> 7.2 USD saved in electricity [1]
Count in the replacement CFL prices, 3 USD vs 13 USD, and the costs are pretty much equal.
Point being: Electricity is the biggest cost.
[1] right?: https://www.google.com/search?q=2.5*6*300*10*0.16%2F1000
[2] from here: http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpilosa_energy.htm
Use wolfram Alpha with units and you can be sure: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+watts+*+%240.13%2Fk...
But the thing is I don't trust the hour ratings, not on CFLs not on these. So I'd rather pay the smaller amount upfront and not gamble.
Where have you deducted the expected ROI on the money you've invested on the asset?
Also the numbers are to high, not many rooms are on 6 hours a day.
Electricity is actually a fairly insignificant for lighting/ power use by consumers in general. People like these things because they are easy fixes, not because they achieve much.
But I'd say the real benefits is in business and cost reductions in labour replacing light bulbs. It's the longevity not the reduced power use that has the value in commerce.
There is also the long term benefit of lowering global consumption of electricity: probably less CO₂ rejected in atmosphere, and decreasing power outage risk in regions badly interconnected with the grid.
But at this price point it's already about different convenience - not having to deal with replacement. Regular lamps go out and then you have to replace it, it's a hassle - stockpiling different nominations, opening fixtures, disposing old lamps. With LEDs you just put them in and forget about it. I basically replace all bulbs that go out with leds if fixture allows it because of this.
So if your CFLs are slow buy better ones. Walmart has good ones.
A CFL will last about 8,000 to 10,000 hours - I have to replace maybe 1 bulb a year in my house.
Light bulbs made 100 years ago are still working today, because the materials used, more precisely, the filament, was made out of a lot more durable materials. However, companies quickly realized that if ligh bulbs lasted so long, no one would buy new light bulbs.
If you have not seen the light bulb conspiracy, please watch it on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WPrTk90VZM
Planned obsolescence...
You can buy long lasting light bulbs made with stronger filament, of course they are no LED, but will probably last a century.
Implying that this light bulb will save you money would imply that you're terrible at keeping your lights off, and thus you should save money by continuing to exercise bad habits that cost you money.
The way I see it is, the problem with energy consumption in households usually stems from the consumer' habits, and not so much from the equipment used. People are terrible at turning the lights off. Just like my roommates. If I don't turn the lights off, no one else does.
Disclosure: I work for an energy efficiency company and basically telling people to do turn off / lower the settings is our business: opower.com.
We humans are quite bad at rote work...
A modern TV might be 100 or 200 watts.
Saving 80 watts in a 2 bulb fixture starts to compare to those numbers.
Heating and cooling, lighting does not compare to.
You can trade long life for energy efficiency. That's all.
After some tweaking and market testing people settled on the current balance.
The old stuff is just not very efficient, that's why it lasts so long - nothing stops you from doing that today, just derate the bulb, use a bulb intended for a higher voltage (or put a dimmer on it).
FWIW, old style incandescent lightbulbs have effectively been banned in europe, australia, brazil and other places for years, and will be such in the US next year, IIRC.
While I think that is overall a good thing it's not exactly an invisible hand thingy.
The CEO has reported discredit campaigns and even death threat letters [2]
(spanish links sorry)
[1] http://www.oepelectrics.com/ [2] http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/06/03/economia/1338718307...
This is a bit of an urban legend. There is indeed a lightbulb that has been running for >100 years I think, but it is nearly never cycled. And that's what kills filaments, not continuous running.
However, we aren't buying a car here. Nice that Cree's 60 watt replacement which actually produces 800 lumens, compared to other bulbs that claim to replace 60 watt lightbulbs that actually produce 400 lumens. Amazing that they managed to produce that amount of lumens with such little amount of energy - has anyone tested this bulb here? Also, very affordable compared to most manufacturers!!
Disclaimer - I use to work for Pharox. They were leading for a while but seem to have been overtaken.
So let me get this straight — the light bulb took us from expensive, unreliable, dangerous light (candles) to instant, cheap, reliable, safe light. The light bulb is one of the greatest inventions of humanity. You made it a little more efficient, and you invented the biggest thing since the light bulb? Gotcha.
Are there any lightbulb engineers on HN that can confirm that lightbulbs are indeed, so to speak, "made to fail"? Or is it actually really difficult to make a long-lasting lightbulb?
You can buy "rough service" light bulbs: http://www.bulborama.com/Turbo-Life-20-000-Hour-Light-Bulbs-...
They are, of course, much more expensive per-unit.
You can pick any longevity you like - it's a straight tradeoff of energy efficiency.
A standard 100 Watt lightbulb gets about 16 lumens/watt. The 9.5 Watt lightbulb here can get ~ 84 lumens/watt. The 9 Watt (more blue) lightbulb gets almost 89 lumens/watt The above project can get about 90 lumens/watt.
.. but higher efficiencies and cooler temperatures are possible .. e.g: this one spaces out the LEDs and claims to get 133 lumens/watt: - I don't know if they are from CREE or from a competitor: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/619878070/nanolight-the-...
Higher efficiencies are coming from Cree and others in the future - so it's going to get better. In the lab they're sometimes getting even in the realm of 200 lumens/watt.
The website does not tell if Cree is using two band LEDs of a blue LED with yellow dotation, or a 3 band UV LEDs with R, G, and B dotations. Its likely only two band, because those are much cheaper. So they are worse than any 5 band fluorescent lamp. And not comparable in light quality with a good old light bulb or tungsten halogen lamp.
They are not suited for sewing, when you need to match the color of the thread to the cloth, and they are badly suited for electronics, when you need to read the color code of a resistor.
Except for those outdoor pictures at the bottom, because all I see is a massive amount of light pollution. Does a Burger King really need to be lit like that?
No-one is there, perhaps the lights should dim dramatically and sensors should make them come on depending on movement.
For indoors these bulbs are great, but for outdoors I care more about the excessive light pollution than the power usage.
If they'd just asked 5 people for feedback.
bought 2 for the office and 1 for the car too. mine use regular AA batteries not the expensive high voltage rechargeable ones.
edit: this comment is about the same cree LEDs except in flashlight form.
Next time actually read the linked article before posting.
Note that I did not downmod him, but at least 3 other people did. I was warning him before his account got hellbanned.
But I guess you see prefer to see bad intent.
i use a cree LED in a flashlight to walk my dog
if i get 'hellbanned' for this comment, i'm not really sure what to say. i probably won't try registering again because that's just really mean.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3D...
It's $15 when it's on sale.
I think the story itself, however, is a demonstration of an extremely annoying web site design.
If the joke was about the horrific web design (and it was horrific), I didn't get it.