Long Live the Incandescent!

[Dave Houston]

Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?hp

And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light.html

And here's another interesting read on CFLs.

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

[windcrest]

On Jul 6, 6:33*am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs...
>
> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light...
>
> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>
> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Looks good, I especially like the low parts count to make them. I
hope someone combines the reflective coating technique with the laser-
etched filament technique to possibly obtain even greater
efficiencies. I never liked throwing out a ballast and all those
other parts with a CFL. I still contend that the supply chain needed
to make a CFL (resistors, transistors, capacitors, coils, mercury,
phosphor, gas handling, etc) outweigh a simple bulb with only 5 low-
tech parts. If you add up the total cost of manufacturing and mining
and delivering the resources for all those individual parts then dump
them all into landfills, I think the "true cost" of CFL goes way up.
But the lobbyists conveniently leave out the cost of logistics and
deep supplier costs associated with all the parts needed to make a
CFL.

[Dave Houston]

windcrest <passport@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:

>On Jul 6, 6:33*am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
>> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
>> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs...
>>
>> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
>> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
>> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
>> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
>> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light...
>>
>> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>>
>> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
>
>Looks good, I especially like the low parts count to make them. I
>hope someone combines the reflective coating technique with the laser-
>etched filament technique to possibly obtain even greater
>efficiencies. I never liked throwing out a ballast and all those
>other parts with a CFL. I still contend that the supply chain needed
>to make a CFL (resistors, transistors, capacitors, coils, mercury,
>phosphor, gas handling, etc) outweigh a simple bulb with only 5 low-
>tech parts. If you add up the total cost of manufacturing and mining
>and delivering the resources for all those individual parts then dump
>them all into landfills, I think the "true cost" of CFL goes way up.
>But the lobbyists conveniently leave out the cost of logistics and
>deep supplier costs associated with all the parts needed to make a
>CFL.

Not being a physicist, I don't know whether the combination is possible. I
does seem an obvious way to further improve it. The laser etched filament
seems similar to the "tungsten lattice" developed at Sandia Labs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/676767/posts

There's also this...

http://spie.org/x26015.xml?ArticleID=x26015

[John M]

This looks like some interesting stuff Dave. In particular the 39
page article will be on my nightstand to read in bed tonight. I
woould have bet that LEDs are the wave of the future. In fact I have
4 lamps in my bathroom fixture. They product intensely white light.
Unfortunately the light goes straight down with very little spill to
the sides. I've become accustomed to it, and lean a little further
forward when I'm shaving ;-) These were reasonably priced at Sam's
Club for something like $7.00 each. IIRC they use around 4 watts
each. For 16 watts they product a LOT of light. At the same time
I've been using CFLs for perhaps 14 or so years now and have been very
happy with them other than much shorter life than advertised.

Cheers,

John, SW Missouri


On Jul 6, 6:33*am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs...
>
> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light...
>
> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>
> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

[Dave Houston]

John,

I also thought LEDs might be the winner but costs need to come down a lot
more plus they need to improve dispersion.

I've never denied that CFLs save money - I've only objected to the
propaganda that grossly over promised that they would save enough energy to
"save the world". If the 7% figure is accurate it means residential lighting
uses less than 3% of total US energy. (Interestingly, a study done in
Cambridge in the UK came up with the same figure.) Saving even half of that
3% isn't very significant, especially when most of the CFLs have low power
factors so the actual savings on the generation side ends up at much less
than 1%. As only about half of our electricity comes from coal-fired plants,
the reduction in C0² is near zero. Meanwhile, the rising sea levels and
disappearing arctic ice would indicate that we have already passed the point
of no return and that much more drastic measures are needed.

The obvious advantage of these new incandescents is that they can be built
on the same production lines used for the old style incandescents so
production costs should be lower.

BTW, the "tungsten lattice" project at Sandia and the silver band-pass
filter project at Rensselaer involved the same individual, Shawn-Yu Lin.

John M <2ac16mo@gmail.com> wrote:

>This looks like some interesting stuff Dave. In particular the 39
>page article will be on my nightstand to read in bed tonight. I
>woould have bet that LEDs are the wave of the future. In fact I have
>4 lamps in my bathroom fixture. They product intensely white light.
>Unfortunately the light goes straight down with very little spill to
>the sides. I've become accustomed to it, and lean a little further
>forward when I'm shaving ;-) These were reasonably priced at Sam's
>Club for something like $7.00 each. IIRC they use around 4 watts
>each. For 16 watts they product a LOT of light. At the same time
>I've been using CFLs for perhaps 14 or so years now and have been very
>happy with them other than much shorter life than advertised.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John, SW Missouri
>
>
>On Jul 6, 6:33*am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
>> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
>> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs...
>>
>> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
>> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
>> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
>> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
>> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light...
>>
>> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>>
>> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
>

[John M]

There hasn't been that many new products in the LED home lighting
products that I encounter here in the sticks, but I'm also a
flashlight fanatic - and there has been some really impressive
products introduced over the past couple years. My latest flashlight
is an Olight M30, 700 lumen blaster! This flashlight "feels" like it
puts out as much light as the 1,000,000 CP lights from the sporting
goods stores. It seems like ever other month they double the last
record for output. I'm still of the opinion that LED will be the
light of choice in the future for many applications in our homes and
automobiles. While I'm not happy about the narrow beam of the LED
lamps in my bath, I recognize that had I known about these lamps I
could have planned the lighting to work around the lamps
shortcomings. A couple extra recessed housings with LED lamps would
give me the lighting I want and the wattage is so low a few extra
lamps is nothing.

http://gizmodo.com/210326/first-led-headlights-appear-unleash-astonishing-styling-possibilities

http://www.light-reviews.com/olight_m30/

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=231491

[Dave Houston]

Have you managed to get through Rod Elliott's article? It's quite well done
with excellent use of supporting data.

John M <2ac16mo@gmail.com> wrote:

>This looks like some interesting stuff Dave. In particular the 39
>page article will be on my nightstand to read in bed tonight.

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:52:32 -0700 (PDT), John M <2ac16mo@gmail.com> wrote in
message <2533efd9-3379-43e9-9b71-d55b66efb15c@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:

>I woould have bet that LEDs are the wave of the future. In fact I have
>4 lamps in my bathroom fixture. They product intensely white light.
>Unfortunately the light goes straight down with very little spill to
>the sides. I've become accustomed to it, and lean a little further
>forward when I'm shaving ;-) These were reasonably priced at Sam's
>Club for something like $7.00 each. IIRC they use around 4 watts
>each. For 16 watts they product a LOT of light. At the same time
>I've been using CFLs for perhaps 14 or so years now and have been very
>happy with them other than much shorter life than advertised.

The notion that there is/will be a single 'winner' has always been -- and
will continue to be -- overly simplistic in my opinion.

As new technologies emerge, they in turn provide opportunities, increase
expectations, and create niche markets for what ultimately become 'must-have'
goods. For example, many of us can remember when dimmable electric lights
were not one of life's necessities ;-)

The lights in our kitchen are an example. There are now halogen incandescent,
CFLs and LEDs in the ceiling cans. The LEDs are purposely 'white' types that
complement well the natural daylight through the window. The CFL cans are
3200K and match the halogens at full brightness. 12vdc track lighting
provides task illumination and, when dimmed, warm lighting for ambience.

The mix is similar but different on the outside of the house. I still haven't
had to tie two ladders together to replace the halogen floodlights up at the
third floor eves. And maybe I won't have to because we changed our outside
lighting strategy to use candelabra-base CFLs' in the existing yard-level
lamps and only turn on the floods as an emergency/security/special need. In
this way we save maintenance, electricity and, with our change in expectation
and behaviour, even better than before.

I also recently purchased an outdoor RGB LED wall-washer that is controlled
by DMX512. It's the cat's meow for outdoor lighting. The output of the
110VAC-> 24vdc power supply is externally accessible. so it will be simple to
power from the distributed DC power system in our house with its intrinsic
backup.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=250448983502

It can be 'infinitely' dimmed, the color changed subtly or garishly, and made
to strobe or flash or otherwise vary intensity or color systematically for
holiday lighting, or panic/emergency signaling or ambience, or whatever.

I've been experimenting with DMX in my house for a decade. The emergence of
RGB and RGBY lighting becomes a compelling reason to have the multi-channel
capability that DMX-512 provides. Eventually being able to change color
and/or color temperature may become as much a "must-have" as dimmers ;-)

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:04:48 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
message <4a553bcc.55344406@nntp.fuse.net>:

>I've never denied that CFLs save money

Yes you have.

>- I've only objected to the
>propaganda that grossly over promised that they would save enough energy to
>"save the world".

No. You said that they were " a bad idea"

The assertion that others have claimed that CFLs would literally "save the
world" is a false straw man you created to distract from your intemperate and
disproved assertions and poor predictions.

>If the 7% figure is accurate it means residential lighting
>uses less than 3% of total US energy.

There are at least four major energy sectors, residential being the second
smallest. There will need to be reductions in each.

>(Interestingly, a study done in
>Cambridge in the UK came up with the same figure.) Saving even half of that
>3% isn't very significant,

Using Dave's broken logic, there is nothing worth doing because any given use
which in turn is only a fraction of the total usage within any of four major
energy sectors. There are very roughly 16 use-sector subdivisions so each
accounting for ~~6% -- EACH ONE OF WHICH needs to be reduced for global
efforts to be successful.

>especially when most of the CFLs have low power
>factors so the actual savings on the generation side ends up at much less
>than 1%.

Dave Keeps repeating this despite the fact that he now knows that current
CFLs (at least those in my house) have power factors > 0.93 measured (with a
Kill-a-watt).

[rest deleted] And like that. We've been through all this before.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Dave Houston wrote:
> Today's NYT has an article on incandescent bulbs that meet the energy
> efficiency mandates that were expected to make them obsolete.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?hp
>
> And last week, when announcing tougher energy efficiency mandates for
> straight tube fluorescents and reflector bulbs, Obama said that 7% of US
> energy use goes for lighting. That's about the same percent that I had come
> up with using DOE statistics and a far cry from the bogus 20-25% figure used
> by the eco-terrorists and other Wallmart shills.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/business/energy-environment/30light.html
>
> And here's another interesting read on CFLs.
>
> http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

Don't bother. LED lighting is the future.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

[John M]

Yes, I finished the article. It was a serious piece of work. I was
disappointed that it was so heavily into the CFL with very little on
LED. He did bring up some points about CFLs which I had not thought
about before. All in all a good read. I still like LEDs ;-)



On Jul 10, 7:25*am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Have you managed to get through Rod Elliott's article? It's quite well done
> with excellent use of supporting data.
>
> John M <2ac1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This looks like some interesting stuff Dave. *In particular the 39
> >page article will be on my nightstand to read in bed tonight.

[Jeff Volp]

Last year I bought several different LED lights for testing. Two were 12V
MR16 intended to replace the 20W halogens in our landscape lights. The
other was a 120V version for a dark interior hallway.

All these applications needed wide dispersion. While I bought the widest
dispersion LEDs I could find, they were still not quite as good as the
halogens. Brightness was similar, but the LED's turned our red landscape
rock gray.

The 4W 120V Lumoform turned out to be a horrible noise generator, causing
two Leviton X10 switches on that circuit to stop working. The Leviton
switches incorporate AGC to deal with powerline noise. I could see the
noise generated by that one bulb on the scope in my workshop, so its noise
was being broadcast throughout the house. I moved that LED bulb to another
application where a XPPF solved the noise problem. A dimmable CFL now works
perfectly in that hallway, and dims down to just a nightlight glow at night.

The LED landscape lights have also been retired. I replaced them with 12V
MR16 CFLs made by Feit. They are wide dispersion like the halogens, and the
color works well with our red rock. Best is that they cost less than half
as much as the better LED MR16, and only use only ¼ the power that the
halogens did.

While LEDs may eventually be the winner, they just aren't competitive yet.

Jeff

"John M" <2ac16mo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01fd4d69-bac0-497b-a642-6f0be622bb6b@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I finished the article. It was a serious piece of work. I was
disappointed that it was so heavily into the CFL with very little on
LED. He did bring up some points about CFLs which I had not thought
about before. All in all a good read. I still like LEDs ;-)

On Jul 10, 7:25 am, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Have you managed to get through Rod Elliott's article? It's quite well
> done
> with excellent use of supporting data.
>
> John M <2ac1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This looks like some interesting stuff Dave. In particular the 39
> >page article will be on my nightstand to read in bed tonight.

[B Fuhrmann]

"John M" wrote
I woould have bet that LEDs are the wave of the future. In fact I have
4 lamps in my bathroom fixture. They product intensely white light.
Unfortunately the light goes straight down with very little spill to
the sides. I've become accustomed to it, and lean a little further
forward when I'm shaving ;-) These were reasonably priced at Sam's
Club for something like $7.00 each. IIRC they use around 4 watts
each. For 16 watts they product a LOT of light. At the same time
I've been using CFLs for perhaps 14 or so years now and have been very
happy with them other than much shorter life than advertised.

Cheers,
John, SW Missouri

-------

Unfortunately, my experience with LEDs is different.

I agree with them being very directional, but that should be able to be
changed with appropriate diffusers. That will be improved as the product
becomes more mature.

The problems I have are:
The lights are very dim. They are stretching the truth with their
"equivalent to" numbers.
This may be fixed in the future.
The lights are not dimmable (assuming that they were bright enough that
dimming would be useful) even though they say that they are. When used on a
dimmer, they stay at full brightness until the dimmer is almost full off and
they go completely dark.
I like to have enough light available in a room for all tasks but keep the
lights dimmed for more typical use. This may be able to be fixed in future
designs by having groups of the LEDs go dark at different dimmer levels.


--
Bill Fuhrmann

[Bill Kearney]

"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
news:2r3f55ln06csh49o70ea44r0nuii4tfm27@4ax.com...
> Using Dave's broken logic, there is nothing worth doing because any given
> use
> which in turn is only a fraction of the total usage within any of four
> major
> energy sectors. There are very roughly 16 use-sector subdivisions so each
> accounting for ~~6% -- EACH ONE OF WHICH needs to be reduced for global
> efforts to be successful.

Thank you Marc for making that point. It's not a matter of which ONE is the
solution. Every little bit counts. There is the matter of 'total'
consumption cost. But I'm pained to read the endless rants from idiots
decrying ANY new movement because they've managed to brew up some numbers
that make it look bad. The status quo is obviously not working so some
movement is going to be necessary. I accept that this will take multiple
efforts on many different fronts. Thankfully there are more choices,
naysayers be damned.

[petem]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : psadnb2KkKxf68HXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
> news:2r3f55ln06csh49o70ea44r0nuii4tfm27@4ax.com...
>> Using Dave's broken logic, there is nothing worth doing because any given
>> use
>> which in turn is only a fraction of the total usage within any of four
>> major
>> energy sectors. There are very roughly 16 use-sector subdivisions so
>> each
>> accounting for ~~6% -- EACH ONE OF WHICH needs to be reduced for global
>> efforts to be successful.
>
> Thank you Marc for making that point. It's not a matter of which ONE is
> the solution. Every little bit counts. There is the matter of 'total'
> consumption cost. But I'm pained to read the endless rants from idiots
> decrying ANY new movement because they've managed to brew up some numbers
> that make it look bad. The status quo is obviously not working so some
> movement is going to be necessary. I accept that this will take multiple
> efforts on many different fronts. Thankfully there are more choices,
> naysayers be damned.
>
>

One sector that is not being looked at enough is the Fridge and freezer's
that people have at home...

One of the worst energy dinosaurs fridge that most American have is the old
20+ years fridge that keep our beer cold in the garage..

I've replaced my 7 years old fridge in the kitchen by an energy star one and
took the old one to the garage, and I dropped the very old one to be
recycled properly.

This was 4 month ago, I already see a difference in my electrical
consummation just by that move. (And the beers are still cold ;-))

[Dave Houston]

According to the Department of Energy, only 9% of residential electricity
use is for lighting so it should be obvious to even the simple minded
enviro-nuts (except those who fabricate their own statistics) that there are
bigger targets. Single malt, straight, without ice is another way to save
(electricity, that is). ;)

BTW, have you replaced the new fridge's light with a CFL?

"petem" <petem001@gmail.com> wrote:

>One sector that is not being looked at enough is the Fridge and freezer's
>that people have at home...
>
>One of the worst energy dinosaurs fridge that most American have is the old
>20+ years fridge that keep our beer cold in the garage..
>
>I've replaced my 7 years old fridge in the kitchen by an energy star one and
>took the old one to the garage, and I dropped the very old one to be
>recycled properly.
>
>This was 4 month ago, I already see a difference in my electrical
>consummation just by that move. (And the beers are still cold ;-))
>

[Robert L Bass]

"Dave Houston" wrote:
>
> According to the Department of Energy, only 9% of residential electricity
> use is for lighting so it should be obvious to even...
> <snip same tired, old rant>

The obvious thing is that we need to address energy consumption on all
fronts -- not just a few "big targets." By dragging feet on everything but
the most difficult areas to improve, we further delay doing anything at all --
while things continue to get worse.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>

[Frank Olson]

Dave Houston wrote:
> ... Single malt, straight, without ice is another way to save
> (electricity, that is). ;)

Now that's what I call "savings".... :-)

[John M]

I've done about all I can down here. I have a 3 month old Trane VS
two stage heat pump (SEER 19) coupled with a VS 3-stage propane
furnace (95%).

I have many CFL's in/outside the house, plus LED lamps in a couple
locations. ALL my appliances are energy star (thanks to the tornado 3
years back). I'm seriously considering a new VW Jetta TDI diesel -
just waiting for Obama to get the cash for clunkers rebate program in
full swing.

I have a 2 year old Plasma TV, but I sure would like one of the new
energy efficient LED TVs ;-)

[petem]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4a5da4e7.22601968@nntp.fuse.net...
> According to the Department of Energy, only 9% of residential electricity
> use is for lighting so it should be obvious to even the simple minded
> enviro-nuts (except those who fabricate their own statistics) that there
> are
> bigger targets. Single malt, straight, without ice is another way to save
> (electricity, that is). ;)
>
> BTW, have you replaced the new fridge's light with a CFL?
>

Nope! they dim on and off as we open the doors, so cfl would not work, but
i have a feeling that the are leds.. way too white for me..

[petem]

"John M" <2ac16mo@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion
: 29ca9e2f-e40f-4d5a-acce-fb3b0b414dd0@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> I've done about all I can down here. I have a 3 month old Trane VS
> two stage heat pump (SEER 19) coupled with a VS 3-stage propane
> furnace (95%).
>
> I have many CFL's in/outside the house, plus LED lamps in a couple
> locations. ALL my appliances are energy star (thanks to the tornado 3
> years back). I'm seriously considering a new VW Jetta TDI diesel -
> just waiting for Obama to get the cash for clunkers rebate program in
> full swing.
>
> I have a 2 year old Plasma TV, but I sure would like one of the new
> energy efficient LED TVs ;-)
>
>
>


Now! Thats the spirit!

Still you got an old fridge for the beer?? ;-)

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:33:28 -0500, "B Fuhrmann"
<b-fuhrmann-usenet@mplsfridayDELETEskate.com> wrote in message
<e-udnXWPEa0a98bXnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@posted.cpinternet>:


> The [LED] lights are not dimmable (assuming that they were bright enough
>that dimming would be useful) even though they say that they are. When used
>on a dimmer, they stay at full brightness until the dimmer is almost full
>off and they go completely dark.
>I like to have enough light available in a room for all tasks but keep the
>lights dimmed for more typical use. This may be able to be fixed in future
>designs by having groups of the LEDs go dark at different dimmer levels.

To (hopefully) clarify, LEDs are in fact intrinsically "dimmable". Their
light output is conventionally dimmed by holding voltage more-or-less
constant and reducing current.

But incandescent lamps are typically dimmed by reducing average voltage, not
current. So in practice, standard, conventional TRIAC-based dimmers are not
well suited for dimming LEDs because they dim by reducing average voltage and
current is held more-or-less constant (varies with filament temperature)
during conduction.

Another issue is the 'dimmer curve' of particular wall-mounted dimmer. One
description of a dimmer curve is the relationship between the rotation (in
degrees) of a physical dimmer knob to the phase angle (in degrees)of the
TRIAC conduction (output).

A typical household dimmer curve that is appropriate for incandescent lamps
may not be appropriate for an LED-based lamp. This issue is well addressed by
emerging electronic solutions as well as by some existing conventional
'professional' dimmer consoles and panels such as those used in
entertainment venues using DMX (DMX512)

There is at least one IC on the market that addresses both the
current-control and dimmer-curve issues by interpreting the complex "chopped"
waveform created by a TRIAC-based dimmer into the information needed by an
LED for continuous dimming with a useful dimmer curve and then providing the
appropriate current to the LEDs.

National's LM3445 detects the 0-180 degree phase angle of a conventional
TRIAC dimmer output and translates that information into a current output
with a 1:100 dimming range (about 6-1/2 f-stops of light).

http://www.national.com/analog/led/triac_dimming

Incorporation of this sort of smarter electronics into LED lamps will reduce
or eliminate the problem that Bill describes. I have a pair of dimmable LEDs
intended for ceiling cans in the kitchen which I can place on the same
circuit as halogen incandescents and CFLs in which they perform admirably.
Like CFLs, and unlike incandescents, they are not 'infinitely' dimmable, i.e,
they have an abrupt shut-off at about four to five f-stops below full
brightness.

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:43:17 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
message <4a5da4e7.22601968@nntp.fuse.net>:

>According to the Department of Energy, only 9% of residential electricity
>use is for lighting so it should be obvious to even the simple minded
>enviro-nuts (except those who fabricate their own statistics) that there are
>bigger targets. Single malt, straight, without ice is another way to save
>(electricity, that is). ;)

Here Dave succinctly repeats his own logical fallacies.

There may indeed be "bigger targets". But even a 100% reduction total
(elimination) of any one or two or five of the "bigger targets" will not
achieve the total energy and CO2 reduction needed. The solution will lie in
making reductions wherever and whenever possible.

Sober business owners and leaders, scientists, politicians, administrators,
journalists, and others that Dave maligns with regularity recognize that
there is often no single, simple fix to complex problems whether they be in
business, science, law or other human endeavors.

Dave Houston also demonstrates once again that his approach to a serious
problem is to create straw men with which to mount an self-serving, illogical
and specious attack on those who actually understand the issues and are
trying to implement actual solutions.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <npor555p2m248jkv6la6mq9r74sme1e0mb@4ax.com>,
Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:
> I have a pair of dimmable LEDs
> intended for ceiling cans in the kitchen which I can place on the same
> circuit as halogen incandescents and CFLs in which they perform admirably.
> Like CFLs, and unlike incandescents, they are not 'infinitely' dimmable, i.e,
> they have an abrupt shut-off at about four to five f-stops below full
> brightness.

Vendor, manufacturer, model numbers?

Thanks!

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:14:39 -0700, Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote in message <nospam-4EE939.09143915072009@news.eternal-september.org>:

>In article <npor555p2m248jkv6la6mq9r74sme1e0mb@4ax.com>,
> Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:
>> I have a pair of dimmable LEDs
>> intended for ceiling cans in the kitchen which I can place on the same
>> circuit as halogen incandescents and CFLs in which they perform admirably.
>> Like CFLs, and unlike incandescents, they are not 'infinitely' dimmable,
>> i.e, they have an abrupt shut-off at about four to five f-stops below full
>> brightness.
>
>Vendor, manufacturer, model numbers?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Steve


Mine are Cree LED Recessed Lighting Luminaire LR6C 6" Downlight Module and
are "Neutral Color 3500K" which provides daylight, i.e., cooler than
incandescent light.. As I recall, Cree also sells a warmer, 3200K version.

GooBing " Cree LR6C " for FAQ, vendors and manufacturer site.

They are expensive -- ~ U$87

Among the claims on the LR6C box are:

1) "Designed to last 50,000 hours"
2) ' uses 85% less energy than conventional bulbs and 50% less
than CFLs"

Note that CFLs and LEDs do not intrinsically put out warmer light when dimmed
as do incandescent lamps. I suspect that some bright manufacturer will
realize that part of the attraction of dimming incandescents is the resulting
reduction in color temperature. One can, of course create most any color with
a RGB or RGBY LED lamp using multi-channel DMX-512 (DMX512a) control.

I note that one web site cites specs of "dimming to 25%". I'll remeasure.

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:59:26 -0400, "petem" <petem001@gmail.com> wrote in
message <h3i3ag$88q$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>
>
>"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
>discussion : psadnb2KkKxf68HXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> "Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>> news:2r3f55ln06csh49o70ea44r0nuii4tfm27@4ax.com...
>>> Using Dave's broken logic, there is nothing worth doing because any given
>>> use
>>> which in turn is only a fraction of the total usage within any of four
>>> major
>>> energy sectors. There are very roughly 16 use-sector subdivisions so
>>> each
>>> accounting for ~~6% -- EACH ONE OF WHICH needs to be reduced for global
>>> efforts to be successful.
>>
>> Thank you Marc for making that point. It's not a matter of which ONE is
>> the solution. Every little bit counts. There is the matter of 'total'
>> consumption cost. But I'm pained to read the endless rants from idiots
>> decrying ANY new movement because they've managed to brew up some numbers
>> that make it look bad. The status quo is obviously not working so some
>> movement is going to be necessary. I accept that this will take multiple
>> efforts on many different fronts. Thankfully there are more choices,
>> naysayers be damned.
>>
>>
>
>One sector that is not being looked at enough is the Fridge and freezer's
>that people have at home...
>
>One of the worst energy dinosaurs fridge that most American have is the old
>20+ years fridge that keep our beer cold in the garage..
>

Back on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:44:26 -0500 in message
<bsght2tugqmtkturoib3k56dajr723itsk@4ax.com> in comp.home.automation,
Marc_F_Hult wrote (in part):

" The study I cited http://www.kouba-cavallo.com/art/eval2001.pdf
that Dave was apparently using to disparage folks that actually
measure things and understand what they measure ("bureaucrats
and ivory tower academics") was a study of actual measurements
of actual older refrigerators in actual use in the service area
of the metro Cincinnati utility that provided electricity for
the fridge in Dave's house."


See http://www.kouba-cavallo.com/art/eval2001.pdf "Low-Income Refrigerator
Replacement -- Selecting the Worst of the Worst" . )


HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <ug3s55t82njvp1dl856ttiv1s2iu4v597n@4ax.com>,
Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:14:39 -0700, Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote in message <nospam-4EE939.09143915072009@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >In article <npor555p2m248jkv6la6mq9r74sme1e0mb@4ax.com>,
> > Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:
> >> I have a pair of dimmable LEDs
> >> intended for ceiling cans in the kitchen which I can place on the same
> >> circuit as halogen incandescents and CFLs in which they perform admirably.
> >> Like CFLs, and unlike incandescents, they are not 'infinitely' dimmable,
> >> i.e, they have an abrupt shut-off at about four to five f-stops below full
> >> brightness.
> >
> >Vendor, manufacturer, model numbers?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Steve
>
>
> Mine are Cree LED Recessed Lighting Luminaire LR6C 6" Downlight Module and
> are "Neutral Color 3500K" which provides daylight, i.e., cooler than
> incandescent light.. As I recall, Cree also sells a warmer, 3200K version.
>
> GooBing " Cree LR6C " for FAQ, vendors and manufacturer site.
>
> They are expensive -- ~ U$87
>
> Among the claims on the LR6C box are:
>
> 1) "Designed to last 50,000 hours"
> 2) ' uses 85% less energy than conventional bulbs and 50% less
> than CFLs"
>
> Note that CFLs and LEDs do not intrinsically put out warmer light when dimmed
> as do incandescent lamps. I suspect that some bright manufacturer will
> realize that part of the attraction of dimming incandescents is the resulting
> reduction in color temperature. One can, of course create most any color with
> a RGB or RGBY LED lamp using multi-channel DMX-512 (DMX512a) control.
>
> I note that one web site cites specs of "dimming to 25%". I'll remeasure.
>
> HTH ... Marc
> Marc_F_Hult
> www.ECOntrol.org

Thanks for the reference. I'm looking a the can compatibility, and it
looks like they want most 6" cans, and the trims snap onto the lights,
not the cans. Also need to see if they're compatible with UPB dimmers.

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:22:14 -0700, Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote in message <nospam-07D5C4.17221415072009@nothing.attdns.com>:

>In article <ug3s55t82njvp1dl856ttiv1s2iu4v597n@4ax.com>,
> Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:

>> Mine are Cree LED Recessed Lighting Luminaire LR6C 6" Downlight Module and
>> are "Neutral Color 3500K" which provides daylight, i.e., cooler than
>> incandescent light.. As I recall, Cree also sells a warmer, 3200K
>> version.
>>
>> GooBing " Cree LR6C " for FAQ, vendors and manufacturer site.
>>

>Thanks for the reference. I'm looking a the can compatibility, and it
>looks like they want most 6" cans, and the trims snap onto the lights,
>not the cans. Also need to see if they're compatible with UPB dimmers.
>
>Steve


Yes, The LR6/LR6C trim replaces the existing trim in a retrofit. My existing
ceiling cans were not among those listed by Cree as compatible, and as I
recall, it took a minor tweak to coax them to fit. Something I'd want to
avoid if building a house from scratch but near-trivial compared to many
other retrofit tasks.

My only complaint is the high price. I do also note that the LR6C "Neutral
Color 3500K" seems much cooler than the 3400K photofloods of yesteryear. This
is consistent with Cree's indicating that their LR6 "warm" lamp is 2700K, not
3200K as I mis-remembered/wrote in my previous post.

Cree readily agreed to exchange my LR6C's for LR6's at no cost, but once I
got used to actually seeing and using mixed-temperature lighting, I 'warmed'
to the notion and decided to keep them. They are directly in front of a
north-facing window and complement and extend and simulate daylight from the
window very well.

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[D&SW]

> Meanwhile, the rising sea levels and
> disappearing arctic ice would indicate that we have already passed the
> point
> of no return and that much more drastic measures are needed.
>
>
This is so much poodle gas it is hysterical.

[John M]

I can see a relatively quick payback for these Cree LR6C lamps in a
commercial/industrial application, but for a home where they may not
be used more than an hour or two per day the payback would be many
years, unless they get the price down.

On my visit to the Cree website I didn't see any mention of dimming
capabilities.

And lastly, I hope they do a better job of living up to the claimed
life expectancy than CFL's did.

One place I would really like to incorporate LED lamps is under our
kitchen cabinets. I presently use inc. rope lights above the cabinets
and halogen under the cabinets. These new LED strips are interesting,
but they all have bulky power supplies to deal with. Have you used
any undercabinet LED's Marc?

[Marc_F_Hult]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:44:07 -0700 (PDT), John M <2ac16mo@gmail.com> wrote in
message <350dc051-02f2-4c16-b1d2-9959369996e3@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>:

>I can see a relatively quick payback for these Cree LR6C lamps in a
>commercial/industrial application, but for a home where they may not
>be used more than an hour or two per day the payback would be many
>years, unless they get the price down.

Our kitchen lights are not only the longest of any main interior light, they
had the highest power use before I switched to a mixture of incandescents and
LEDs ( 9 x 120watts = 1080 watts)

>On my visit to the Cree web site I didn't see any mention of dimming
>capabilities.

Note that the company has both www.cree.com and www.creelighting.com sites
with limited linking between the two. Residential products are primarily at
creelighting.com not cree.com

Dimming is variously listed at 20% and 25% ; Also power factor > 0.9
http://www.creelighting.com/downloads/LR6.pdf
http://www.creelighting.com/downloads/LR5.pdf
http://www.creelighting.com/downloads/LR4.pdf

I use DMX/analog-controlled dimmers with large inductors (chokes) mounted in
a panel in the basement for the kitchen lights, but Cree lists compatible
conventional dimmers:
http://www.creelighting.com/downloads/Dimmer_Compatibility_Rev011608.pdf

Lutron also has tested and recommends many of their dimmers with Cree lamps:
http://www.creelighting.com/downloads.htm

>And lastly, I hope they do a better job of living up to the claimed
>life expectancy than CFL's did.

Time will tell but the signs are propitious. The vulnerability of LEDs is
similar to that of CFLs in that it appears that a common failure mode of CFLs
is for the electronic circuitry to be cooked and then die and LEDs also
require at least some electronic components when used directly with AC
sources. Many of the failures of CFLs have been in base-up or enclosed
environments. (Remember the X-10 "socket rocket" and its short life when used
in base-up orientation ?) But Cree has designed their units for specific
orientation, geometry, and environment, namely 4", 5" and 6" ceiling cans and
so has theoretical and empirical knowledge of the heat production and
temperature distribution in normal, code-compliant use.


>One place I would really like to incorporate LED lamps is under our
>kitchen cabinets. I presently use inc. rope lights above the cabinets
>and halogen under the cabinets. These new LED strips are interesting,
>but they all have bulky power supplies to deal with. Have you used
>any undercabinet LED's Marc?

Funny you should ask. ABIR, in decades of putting up with my HA experiments,
my better half has never actually made a specific request until recently --
namely to illuminate the dark space under the black steel shelf I installed
for the black microwave and touch screen where the black coffee-making
gadgets are stored next to the black soapstone back splash. (OK. So I created
this black hole and now have to deal with it ;-) No progress or decisions
yet. I am (unduly?) fascinated by the potential for RGB and RGBY LEDs.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

[B Fuhrmann]

"Robert L Bass" wrote :
> The obvious thing is that we need to address energy consumption on all
> fronts -- not just a few "big targets." By dragging feet on everything
> but the most difficult areas to improve, we further delay doing anything
> at all -- while things continue to get worse.

However, the bulk of the effort (and cost) should be to those things that
give more reward and are feasible.

Another way of saying it is EFFECT / COST -> PRIORITY

--
Bill Fuhrmann

[Robert L Bass]

"B Fuhrmann" wrote:
>
> However, the bulk of the effort (and cost) should be to those things that
> give more reward and are feasible.

I do what is feasible for me. I can't directly control what government
agencies and power companies do. However, I can affect what happens in my
house. I can afford the extra cost of CFLs over incandescent bulbs so I use
them. I like to keep the temperature in the house about 72F during the summer
but that consumes lots of power so I leave it at 78F. Heating isn't much of
an issue for me since the temperature rarely gets cold enough to bother me,
even during Florida's frigid winter nights. I use solar energy to heat the
pool and the Jacuzzi. Weather permitting, I usually ride my bike rather than
drive the car. I used to ride a bicycle a lot but health issues make that no
longer an option.

These are all small things but if more people do them and lots of other small
things there can be a significant benefit. I agree that it's important to
work on the big polluters and energy consumers, but IMO that doesn't relieve
us all of the obligation to reduce our individual footprints.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>