Expert: LEDs could start replacing lightbulbs soon

Iria · Nov 4, 2006, 03:55 AM

Source: ZDNet
________
SAN JOSE, Calif.--Light-emitting diodes will become economically attractive as replacements for conventional lightbulbs in about two years, a shift that could pave the way for massive electricity conservation, according to a researcher.

Matth · Nov 4, 2006, 04:10 PM

Those who have not already converted to CFL, will be in no hurry to convert to LED.

Incandescent bulbs have miserable efficiency, smaller and long life bulbs even worse. Compact flourescent are much better (11W CFL = 60W standard), last longer than a "long life" bulb, and are no longer that expensive, falling to "pound store" price, with even brand name (Philips) seen on special offer at 99 pence. At current prices, with a lifespan rated around 8x that of a standard bulb, they probably work out cheaper than the equivalent number of bulbs, before any energy saving is taken into account.
They are also available in bulb-like design (at higher prices), and small enough to fit inside some housings designed for normal bulbs.

CFL drawbacks are the slow start, taking 30 seconds to a minute to reach full brightness. The quality of the light is better than in older designs, where it did tend to be a little odd. Start cycles increase wear.

In smaller applications, the LED is king. I have a pump action torch (LED) that delivers 14 minutes of running for 1 minute of pumping, compared to old style "dynamo torches" that required continuous pumping to light.

LED is capable of instant switch on, with no issues on start cycles, but to reach the power level of 60-100W incandescent or 11-18W CFL is very expensive.

Unless LED significantly beats the efficiency of CFL, the only real advantage is in applications requiring a lower power, instant and frequent switching, extended replacement interval or low tolerance for failiure. It should be possible for a compound LED lamp to fail gracefully, due to weakening or failure of individual elements.

It is questionable if LED will be competetive with CFL in normal domestic illumination.

The most amazing paradox, the former "difficult" colour in LED technology, BLUE, is now the driving force. The normal "WHITE" LED is a blue LED chip with some of the blue converted into broad spectrum yellow by a phosphor, though the resulting light has a pretty poor spectrum and is red deficicient. The alternative way of generating white is to use red, green and blue LEDs.

Paradox Enigma · Nov 4, 2006, 04:53 PM

LED's are fast replacing Florescent in most robust display backlighting applications (military) - and even some rear projection Televisions (DLP based) are entering the market with LED light engines....

Fact is a lot of the research dollars for LED's (both inorganic and organic) come from Department of Energy.

vailr · Nov 5, 2006, 01:02 AM

CFL produce much more RF (radio frequency) pollution , compared to incandescent bulbs. LCD bulbs also likely produce less RF pollution, compared with CFL.
Conclusion: LCD bulbs cost more to purchase, but cost less to operate and "RF pollute" less.

TheBlackCat · Nov 5, 2006, 01:48 AM

Unless you are using instruments that are extremely sensitive to electromagnetic interference, I don't really see the RF noise being that big a deal.

Lelisevis · Nov 5, 2006, 02:21 AM

After reading this thread at last I have seen the light.

Lame

swimtech · Nov 5, 2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox Enigma

LED's are fast replacing Florescent in most robust display backlighting applications (military) - and even some rear projection Televisions (DLP based) are entering the market with LED light engines....

Fact is a lot of the research dollars for LED's (both inorganic and organic) come from Department of Energy.

Samsung is using LED's in the consumer market now for backlighting of LCD displays - the main effect of this effort is for more accurate and vibrant colors (the LEDs can be colored to change to overall color envelope) and increased brightness and contrast. I saw one this past summer, and it looked really nice...

TheBlackCat · Nov 5, 2006, 04:47 PM

A guy I knew got an LED. It was the size of a small bead and cost about $4. He was demonstrating it to his boss, who was kind of looking at me funny when I put my sunglasses on indoors. Then he turns the LED on and the boss covers his eyes when the LED was turned on full power. It was practically blinding.

Don't worry, I won't make any "blinded by the light" jokes.

Nov 4, 2006, 03:55 AM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Expert: LEDs could start replacing lightbulbs soon Source: ZDNet ________ SAN JOSE, Calif.--Light-emitting diodes will become economically attractive as replacements for conventional lightbulbs in about two years, a shift that could pave the way for massive electricity conservation, according to a researcher.

Nov 4, 2006, 04:10 PM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Those who have not already converted to CFL, will be in no hurry to convert to LED. Incandescent bulbs have miserable efficiency, smaller and long life bulbs even worse. Compact flourescent are much better (11W CFL = 60W standard), last longer than a "long life" bulb, and are no longer that expensive, falling to "pound store" price, with even brand name (Philips) seen on special offer at 99 pence. At current prices, with a lifespan rated around 8x that of a standard bulb, they probably work out cheaper than the equivalent number of bulbs, before any energy saving is taken into account. They are also available in bulb-like design (at higher prices), and small enough to fit inside some housings designed for normal bulbs. CFL drawbacks are the slow start, taking 30 seconds to a minute to reach full brightness. The quality of the light is better than in older designs, where it did tend to be a little odd. Start cycles increase wear. In smaller applications, the LED is king. I have a pump action torch (LED) that delivers 14 minutes of running for 1 minute of pumping, compared to old style "dynamo torches" that required continuous pumping to light. LED is capable of instant switch on, with no issues on start cycles, but to reach the power level of 60-100W incandescent or 11-18W CFL is very expensive. Unless LED significantly beats the efficiency of CFL, the only real advantage is in applications requiring a lower power, instant and frequent switching, extended replacement interval or low tolerance for failiure. It should be possible for a compound LED lamp to fail gracefully, due to weakening or failure of individual elements. It is questionable if LED will be competetive with CFL in normal domestic illumination. The most amazing paradox, the former "difficult" colour in LED technology, BLUE, is now the driving force. The normal "WHITE" LED is a blue LED chip with some of the blue converted into broad spectrum yellow by a phosphor, though the resulting light has a pretty poor spectrum and is red deficicient. The alternative way of generating white is to use red, green and blue LEDs. __________________ Mary had a little lamb, Her father shot it dead Now Mary takes her lamb to school, Between two crusts of bread Last edited by Matth; Nov 4, 2006 at 04:22 PM.

Nov 4, 2006, 04:53 PM	#3
Paradox Enigma Lurker Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Planet Earth (I think) Posts: 126 Rep Power: 0	LED's are fast replacing Florescent in most robust display backlighting applications (military) - and even some rear projection Televisions (DLP based) are entering the market with LED light engines.... Fact is a lot of the research dollars for LED's (both inorganic and organic) come from Department of Energy. __________________ ...thread killer...

Nov 5, 2006, 01:48 AM	#5
TheBlackCat DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Searching for the Candle in the Dark Posts: 567 Rep Power: 0	Unless you are using instruments that are extremely sensitive to electromagnetic interference, I don't really see the RF noise being that big a deal. __________________ [color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color] -H. L. Mencken

Nov 5, 2006, 04:47 PM	#8
TheBlackCat DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Searching for the Candle in the Dark Posts: 567 Rep Power: 0	A guy I knew got an LED. It was the size of a small bead and cost about $4. He was demonstrating it to his boss, who was kind of looking at me funny when I put my sunglasses on indoors. Then he turns the LED on and the boss covers his eyes when the LED was turned on full power. It was practically blinding. Don't worry, I won't make any "blinded by the light" jokes. __________________ [color=#000000]There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible and wrong.[/color] -H. L. Mencken

Nov 5, 2006, 01:02 AM	#4
vailr DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 72 Rep Power: 0	CFL produce much more RF (radio frequency) pollution , compared to incandescent bulbs. LCD bulbs also likely produce less RF pollution, compared with CFL. Conclusion: LCD bulbs cost more to purchase, but cost less to operate and "RF pollute" less.

Nov 5, 2006, 02:21 AM	#6
Lelisevis Howlin at the moon Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,663 Rep Power: 0	After reading this thread at last I have seen the light. Lame