3-way LEDs... at last?

Page 1 of 3  
Anyone seen these?
http://ledsmagazine.com/news/10/11/13
There's been some discussion of these over on CPF, but only two reported spottings both in CA. A web search for these yields only the link above and two threads on CPF. Lowe's web site does not have them listed, my local Lowe's doesn't have them, although a CPF poster helpfully posted the following
For the 30/70/100 [A21 size]: Item# 424732, Model# LA30/100R/LE 0017801998832 600/1100/1600 lumens, 8/16/22 watts For the 50/100/150 [A23 size]: Item# 424733, Model# LA50/150R/LE 0017801998849 800/1600/2200 lumens, 10/22/32 watts
just wondering if anyone had actually managed to find these little guys in the wild and your thoughts on them. Are they really "150W equivalent?" I suspect not, shouldn't that be closer to 2800 lm for a true replacement? Tint? Color rendering?
I've gone as far as making a custom 3-lamp holder for a torchiere that holds 3 Philips L-prize bulbs and screws into a 3-way socket (lights one, two, three, none of the bulbs as you turn the key) but that is not an optimal solution for table lamps etc. and of course L-prizes are expensive and discontinued.
I miss being able to use incans without guilt :(
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/2013 07:59 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

The other day, I complained here about the lack of availability of a decent LED to replace an incandescent and was informed they do exist.
Went to the h/w store today and yep, they do exist but at $50 each I think I'll skip it.
Now we need an affordable LED
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Feit A-19's are about $13 at costco. R-30's are about the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/2013 10:29 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

In my wife's studio she uses six, full spectrum fluorescent tubes
and three spotlights with 100 watt incandescent "Reveal" bulbs.
The full spectrum LEDs are quite expensive so I bought enough "Reveal" incandescents to last several years...and hopefully the price will come down. For the rest of the house any standard bulb will do ...so will eventually get switched over to LEDs
I have a seldom used antique chandelier in the living room of our 19th century home...and that one uses antique reproduction incandescents which I will be keeping.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In my shop, I have eight F96T12C50's. However, the Feit A-19's work just fine as a general 60W incandescent replacement.
While 60W incandescents are in the past, there are plenty of 58W incandescents still being made and sold.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/17/2013 11:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

In my collection of bulbs are a number of 57 and 58 watt incandescents.
I was wondering why they made such an odd value...I assume it's because 60watt and up are being banned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's right. It was a deal between the DOE, the energy advocates and the lamp manufacturers in 2007. The idea was to replace standard bulbs with energy-saving bulbs. The manufacturers said what they could do to improve incandescent bulb efficiency and then they all decided to set wattage limits so the manufacturers could tinker with light output and rated life to make bulbs that consumers would buy. The advocates were only after energy savings so they liked the idea of wattage caps. Since it was a consensus among the "stakeholders" who came to the public meetings, Congress passed the bill and George Bush signed it.
But the fun begins again next month since the law allows periodic reviews of the bulb regulations. The next phase includes the possibility of requiring all general service bulbs sold to be 45 lumens/watt. The halogen bulbs range from 15.5 to 22.2 lpw now. Will the advocates get their way? It probably depends upon who shows up at the DOE rulemaking meetings.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

--- And 72 watt, 52 watt, 43 watt and 29 watt halogen. There's no shortage of halogen bulbs in any store that I've seen.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

There are "Reveal" CFL and LED bulbs now -- also more expensive. Those bulbs reduce the amount of yellow light so other colors appear brighter, especially reds. Complexion tones improve too, so they make people look healthy even if they aren't. I call it theatrical lighting for the home.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/18/2013 12:36 PM, = wrote:

My wife is an artist and the Reveal work well for her...though most of the light in her studio is full spectrum fluorescents and the skylights.
As to those 72 watt halogen with the 100 watt equivalence... I have no idea how they can pull that crap. They are equivalent to a 75 watt bulb!
--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXl38aA9bM&feature=youtu.be


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Today I came across a post of some high brightness led panels. Some of the smaller, warmer color temps look very interesting. Seems many of these use around 30 volts dc.
http://dx.com/p/200w-6500k-16000lm-led-emitter-cool-white-light-plate-dc30-36v-157978
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/18/2013 12:36 PM, = wrote:

I tended to think of "Reveal" as one of the lighting scams, so I looked for some information:
From GE Reveal - "100W replacement" 1120 initial lumens [1600 is a reasonable lumen figure for a 100W bulb]
using 28% less energy than regular incandescent [giving you 30% less light]
CRI 100 ["filters out dull, yellow rays" and they have a high CRI? according to http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/22418166 (digital photography review) the CRI is about 70 "Unscrupulous bulb mongers push these horrible bulbs at many different groups."]
delivers outstanding energy efficiency [Reveal 1120L/72W = 15.6L/W real incandescent 1600L/100W = 16L/W filtering the yellow lowers the efficiency]
1000h rated life [750h for a normal incandescent - they actually didn't lie about this one]
IMHO Reveal is a scam. Did I miss something? ========================= I was just looking for 100W light bulbs for a garage. CFLs aren't good because of the cold. LEDs probably aren't available in 100W, and are not a particularly good choice for bulbs that aren't used much. That leaves halogen. For 3 brands the "100W equivalent" was in reality a 75W equivalent. I agree with philo that this is consumer fraud.
Why aren't they prosecuted?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't find waiting for CFL's and fluorescents to warm up a problem. If your looking for an intruder, might be a problem. Still got an incandescent in the door opener.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I find it exceedingly objectionable. I normally only have lights on a few minutes (sometimes a half). I want to see when I turn them on, not five minutes after I turn them off. I do have CFL in our GDO because it never gets that cold here. In VT, there was no way I'd use them. The ones in our living room took ten minutes to come up to full brightness. It was rarely on more then 30 seconds (long enough to climb the stairs).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Look at the ratings of those products again. The 100 watt standard incandescent bulb has a rating of 1600 lumens and so does the 72 watt halogen equivalent. It's the light output (lumens), not the watts that are "equivalent". As I indicated in another post, all of these ratings and phase-out issues were negotiated by the lamp companies and energy advocates. The government (Congress and the DOE) didn't get involved until EISA 2007 passed in Congress.
All of these bulbs have to have a "Lighting Facts" label. If you can show that any of the ratings don't match what the label says, you have a case and should alert the FTC. They're the light bulb police.
As for the Reveal bulb, what's wrong with a less efficient bulb that gives better color light as long as the numbers are there so the consumer can see them. Before GE and others started making the Reveal and other color-enhanced bulbs, they were specialty products known as "neodymium bulbs". Then the big companies caught on to the fact that there was a market. Consumers liked the color.
Tomsic

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That about sums up the reveal bulbs I tried. I don't currently have a use now. Not great for room lights.
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

SNIP

I agree. There's one in our 3-way floor lamp now. There's plenty of light, but colors seem overly bright.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2013 10:31 AM, = wrote:

I think that's the idea; if you like the effect, great; if not, just stick with an unfiltered "bulb."
Oddly, the Cree True White LED "bulb" uses the same technology but in this case it actually improves the color rendering of the LED emitters (at least on paper, giving it a higher CRI rating) rather than artificially changing it as do the "reveal" incandescent bulbs. They appear to be only available in stores in California however, likely due to the "California quality LED specification" - very similar to the L-prize standards, both requiring >90 CRI (the "Energy Star" requirements only require a CRI of 80, so most of the consumer LED bulbs have CRIs only in the low 80s) but the California spec goes a step farther and requires power factor >0.9 whereas the L-prize rules did not specify (and my checking of a Philips L-prize lamp with a Kill-A-Watt showed that it did in fact have a low power factor, and that power factor decreased dramatically as the lamp was dimmed with a Lutron dimmer.)
Now do the Cree TW's actually look better in use as general home lighting than the standard issue Cree LED bulbs? I can't say, as I'd have to mail order them and I haven't been bothered to do so yet; I still have one unassigned L-prize that I picked up when they were still available for the $15 subsidized price.
I find it a little surprising that the general populace has just accepted inferior lighting, when those of us who grew up 20+ years ago had excellent albeit inefficient lighting in our houses in the form of incandescents but have grudgingly accepted slow warm up times, sometimes odd tints, and low CRI as acceptable. I went out of my way to purchase the L-prize bulbs because to me quality lighting is just a nice luxury and I also definitely support purchasing quality products when they're available.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/23/2013 1:03 PM, = wrote:

I agree that 1600L is a good value for a 100W equivalent lamp. It is the value I used, above, and I compared lumens.
If you start at (GE Reveal) http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/na/consumer/products/highlights/reveal/light-bulbs/
and click on 100W you get
http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=CONSUMERSPECPAGE&PRODUCTCODEc009
I used the data from there in my analysis, above.
A Reveal "100W equivalent" is 1120L. Consumer fraud. In addition, as indicated above, GE fraudulently says - the bulb has "outstanding energy efficiency" when it is lower than a standard incandescent - the bulb has a CRI of 100 even though they subtract yellow, and digital photography review says the CRI is about 70.
And they misleadingly say the bulb uses "using 28% less energy than regular incandescent" when it also gives you 30% less light.
It is all in the analysis above.
Do you know where the negotiated equivalent watt-lumen numbers are?

As I wrote, 2 other brands at Lowes had "100W equivalent" halogens that had lumen values that were actually equivalent to 75W incandescents. The Reveal 1120L is a 75W equivalent lumen value.
The equivalents I use are the same as Consumer Reports (and reasonable values from my old lamp catalogs): 40W 450L 60W 800L 75W 1100L 100W 1600L 150W 2600L
and from the lamp catalogs 200W 3850L 300W 6200L
From the lamp catalogs, 40 and 60W lamps are 1000 hr. The rest are 750 hr.
I do have an ordinary GE halogen 75W equivalent that is 1050L (an honest equivalent) and 53 actual watts. I have tried to be careful to not buy the fraudulent-rated bulbs. The market has a whole lot of bad buys now (including long-life incandescent, low-lumen bulbs).

The numbers that "are there" are fraudulent and misleading.
Incidentally both you and Nate have interesting information on lightning. Thanks.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/21/2013 08:05 PM, bud-- wrote:

If these are old school porcelain bare bulb lampholders, just get a y-adapter and use two Cree LED "60W" bulbs in each. Probably the cheapest "energy efficient" solution you're going to find other than CFL or doing the same thing with halogens.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.