Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

???

Thanx for the link but, it becomes very obvious that decent lighting is not a requirement for you, as you post.

Perhaps you could turn up the brightness on your LED backlit monitor, or put on your spectacles and read the posts before posting unrelated links. Even if the outdoor bulb did fit the fixture above my sink the somewhere between

390 and 450 lumens at somewhere between 2600K to 8000K colour temp. and low lux output would not fit the bill. I like to see what I am doing.

Let's face it. LED area lighting has not become a reality for humans, yet. ESL technology may be the next answer for a few decades.

You posted links to an outside rated bulb unit. Yup, reading details is really hard.

Especially with interlaced and/or bottom posting.

I have seen enough posts by saltydog and found them to be sensible that your data on number of posts and your claim of troll don't do your credibility well.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

That sounds to me like the Philips AmbientLED. There are two higher wattages 11 and 16, with much higher lumens/watt mid-upper 30's IIRC. And this is with 3100 K color and CRI of 85. Available at Home Depot for that matter.

Meanwhile, please find me a 7 watt 120V incandescent achieving much more than 6.5 lumens/watt with life expectancy 3,000 hours or more, let alone the 40,000 hours for Philips LED lightbulbs. For that matter, anyone find me even an off-the-shelf available 15 watt 120V incandescent lasting 2500 hours or more producing 155 lumens.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Someone please point out to me a complete part number including notation of customer-selectable binning / ranking of any LED lighting product or for that matter any LED with color temperature tolerance range of 2600 to 8000 K. Preferably for something not also available in versions with much narrow color temperature tolerance ranges.

What the heck is ESL?

Meanwhile, it appears to me that LED units comparable in color, efficiency and CRI to CFLs and lasting 2-5 times as long will be on home center shelves in a couple years. There are LED pot light fixtures with CFL-like efficiency, incandescent-like color and CRI of 92 and that have been on the market (not mass-market retail in my experience however) for something like a year already, though likely expensive.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

I did follow the link that was in the previously quoted material that I edited out for space, and did see 2600-8000 K.

I do consider such a wide tolerance range of color temp. to be an outright outlier in the area of white LEDs and LED lighting products, unlike anything else or even specs thereof I have ever seen.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

The top-poster needs to stop babbling junk about mostly a product line including an LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts being a "side issue" since this was in response to the top-poster complaining about an LED lamp producing 155 lumens from 7 watts.

Or is the side-issue that the top-poster complains against being the fact that 155 lumens from 7 watts at 120V is not a "nightlight" but more light than every 15 watt 120V incandescent I have yet to hear of?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

What did how been too when it was for that made up and down said by you when they didn't.

Apparently you still can't read.

Huh? Can you write?

And obviously you still can't post properly in a newsgroup. Despite having the proper way pointed out to you. Newsgroups are not e-mail.

Don (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I like my attachments at the bottom, my text attached to the poster's header and co-operate with the posting style of all the browsers out there.

Best of luck with your troll. Old argument that loses in most tech groups.

Browsers? This is a newsgroup. One uses newsreaders. Browsers are for the web.

Troll? You clearly don't know what the word means when used in a newsgroup. And you shouldn't quote all of the prior article. Newsgroups are question and answer dialogs. As I have done I address parts of your article piece by piece. I can assure you I have been following newsgroups longer than you.

Don (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Wow!

Wasn't it a pain to FTP the messages back then? Tell us what FTP software you used in the 70s.

Precisely. There are SO damn many variables to consider that a hard and fast number like 80K is immediately suspect, especially coming from a government that was so sure Saddam had WMDs we bankrupted the US trying to find them.

While both LEDs and CFLs clearly cut down on energy use, only LEDs do it without adding mercury to every house and business in the nation. The analysis is really quite simple. Choose the product *without* the deadly neurotoxin in every box. For the people unhappy about the color quality or the harshness of the light, consider this: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were both written with the help of candlelight. I don't know how many people on earth still live without electricity, but I've seen estimates that say that it's more than 1.6 billion that live in darkness.

Yes, LED bulbs are more expensive now, but what will it cost us to clean up all the mercury from CFLs in the future? If it's like some of our other former "miracle substances" like asbestos, the cost will be substantial. Remember, the Feds also urged people to insulate their home with asbestos until they found out it was a deadly carcinogen.

-- Bobby G.

My wife detests fluorescents of any kind, especially when she's working on a computer. She says they trigger migraines. I am not sure that LEDs will be much better in that regard, but I am hoping they will be. I recently read an article that said the recession was reducing carbon output way more than any other mitigation technique like CFLs.

As snipped-for-privacy@att.net pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem to include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help heat the home. The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from the enviroment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

We've stockpiled a fair number of incandescent bulbs at my house, because like you, I believe that I shouldn't be forced to use a technology that makes someone in my family sick. In a free country I should have the right to spend money on what I choose to, not what the government mandates.

If Americans truly want to save energy, how about dimming Las Vegas, which is reported to consume 5 gigawatts a day to keep all those lights running? I wonder how many tons of carbon are consumed by the thousands of people who fly in every day to gamble away their children's college fund? (-:

-- Bobby G.

See my previous post about:

Many people have photodermatoses:

a quote in that article leads to:

Which claims: "Polymorphous Light Eruption (PLE) or sun poisoning is a severe debilitating skin disorder with an incidence of 10-20% in the general population." It's also well known, as you've noted, that meds like fluoroquinones antibiotics and antidepressants like doxepin can seriously exacerbate any underlying skin condition.

I'm surprised a nurse would be unaware of the scope of this condition, but it's possible you've never run into a hospitalizable case.

No, wait. I apologize and take that back.

I discovered last week I have been pronouncing "hysteresis" wrong all my life.

It's entirely possible you've never seen a really bad case because people with severe photodermatoses don't get out much and for a good reason. There's just so much to know and learn in the modern world that I don't think any humans have a chance of knowing more that a little corner of it.

-- Bobby G.

After reading some of the reference materials supplied and some of the link that only result in garbage I have to conclude that Kurt stated things fairly validly

"But I haven't seen anything in 25 years of nursing to support that as a problem outside the sun or tanning booths."

CFL and fluorescent lamps do not emit high enough levels of UV to cause conditions similar to the UV levels of the sun, typically. If people could react to these low levels of UV emmision they would be dead in seconds of sun exposure. I believe your links would lead most researchers to conclude this quite frequently.

For fluorescnt bulbs to emit a lot of UV the coatings need to be changed from a usual visible lamp bulb.

OTOH: Here is an article focusing on macular degenration that identified a component of CFL lighting (and possibly LED lighting) that may be the cause of health problems for seniors due to spectral content. Off course this is only to occular influences and not at levels to affect skin chemistry.

Many people have photodermatoses:

a quote in that article leads to:

Which claims: "Polymorphous Light Eruption (PLE) or sun poisoning is a severe debilitating skin disorder with an incidence of 10-20% in the general population." It's also well known, as you've noted, that meds like fluoroquinones antibiotics and antidepressants like doxepin can seriously exacerbate any underlying skin condition.

I'm surprised a nurse would be unaware of the scope of this condition, but it's possible you've never run into a hospitalizable case.

No, wait. I apologize and take that back.

I discovered last week I have been pronouncing "hysteresis" wrong all my life.

It's entirely possible you've never seen a really bad case because people with severe photodermatoses don't get out much and for a good reason. There's just so much to know and learn in the modern world that I don't think any humans have a chance of knowing more that a little corner of it.

-- Bobby G.

"Josepi" wrote: How can UV from the sun affect these maladities? Sun exposure usually affects many maladities in a good way. Breast cancer is one that is statistically reduced, big time.

Something many may not have have thought of is that box we stare at for hours every night with the LCD sets and the lighting technology behind them. This could be a huge factor in our lighting input for the day.

You may be interested in this (spurred by your supplied links elsewhere) LEDs may be just as bad as CFLs for health damage due to spectral content.

As snipped-for-privacy@att.net pointed out, it's very hard to accurately assess the benefit of CFLs because of the complexity of the issue. Few models seem to include the fact that in the winter, incandescent bulbs actually help heat the home. The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any numbers they feel like. All they need do is adjust the underlying parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from the enviroment the same way we're now removing asbestos.

We've stockpiled a fair number of incandescent bulbs at my house, because like you, I believe that I shouldn't be forced to use a technology that makes someone in my family sick. In a free country I should have the right to spend money on what I choose to, not what the government mandates.

If Americans truly want to save energy, how about dimming Las Vegas, which is reported to consume 5 gigawatts a day to keep all those lights running? I wonder how many tons of carbon are consumed by the thousands of people who fly in every day to gamble away their children's college fund? (-: