What is an inexpensive replacement for these garage flourescent lights?
There are four of these sets of lights, each of which holds 4 flourescent
bulbs, which keep flickering, burning out, and making humming sounds.
In a word, they suck.
So, instead of replacing the bulbs for the rest of my life, is there a good
but inexpensive quick and simple replacement strategy?
Are they T12? If so, you can go to T8 by changing the ballast in each,
though you will also need T8 bulbs (smaller dia).
If you want to change the entire fixtures, then I suggest LEDs. Prices
are dropping. A two lamp fixture of an LED will replace the 4 lamp
fluorescent in light output. In addition, the LEDs will just about last
One huge problem with LED-lifetime claims, as I understand them anyway, is
that the *electronics* doesn't last as long as the LED.
Of course, their claims are for the LED only.
The electronics fails much sooner (I'm told).
Especially in our case, where the power goes out frequently due to trees
landing on the lines at least a few times a year.
Correct. The LED bulbs will last a lifetime (longer life than a house
fly). It is the driver that needs to be of sound quality. Therefore,
when purchasing an LED, it should be routine to ensure they will replace
or refund the entire lamp if it simply stops functioning regardless of
One problem, apparently, is that LED bulbs deteriorate over time, so, claims
of lifetime should take that deterioration into account.
Looking up lifetime claims, I found this note:
"Contrary to the company’s calculations, an LED’s lamp’s lifetime is
properly measured as the point at which its capacity decreases by 30
percent, according to the order. LED lamps slowly diminish in output over
time, rather than failing catastrophically."
So, LEDs fail too.
They just fail differently.
Lifetime actually depends on usage, though, an actual lifetime will not
be 80 years. It's more a figure of speech.
If the LEDs stay on 24/7, then they may reach 5 years on a 50,000 hr.
claim with that % drop as you stated. If the lamps are used less than 8
hours a day, the life will increase to an average lifetime of 17 years
also including the % drop in the lamp output. Therefore, since a few are
taking my "lifetime" comment literally, that was not my intent. It's
simply a matter of expressing the potential life span of LEDs.
Anyone notice how we've been totally ripped off with all this lightbulb
nonsense? Save the earth, my ass!
I used to buy a 4-pack of incandescent bulbs, generic brand for $1.00.
Now I buy a 4-pack of halogen bulbs for approx. $6.00
Guess what? The halogen ones don't last any longer than the old ones.
My electric bill is still the same so no savings there.
Thanks to all the whiny environmentalists.
This little piddly lightbulb nonsense when people are still driving
their cars everywhere, constantly...just can't stay at home for even one
I quit! I just quit. >;-
I think we just swapped one problem for another.
The weak link in the incandescent bulbs was the energy used, and the fact
the filament burned out rather quickly.
The weak link in the fluorescent curlies was that the light energy output
stunk by way of comparison, and they were far more expensive than what they
were replacing, and that they only lasted a little longer than the break
I think the weak link in the LED bulbs is that the LED output decreases over
time rather startlingly soon, and that the electronic part is prone to
sudden failure, such that the life of the LED bulbs is effectively far
shorter than some people are imagining.
I need to look that stuff up though, because the first two are based only on
experience, while the last is mere conjecture on my part.
Halogens claim some improvements over the old bulbs: A higher luminous
efficacy and color temperature.
Their physics says they should.
They use the *same* power as the old bulbs so there is
no power savings to be expected.
Can't blame the environmentalists on halogens. They would likely say
that halogens are just as bad as the incandescent bulb as a power
waster. I imagine that they would prefer you use a bulb that takes less
power such as a LED or fluorescent. But they too have environmental
problems so who knows.
On 11/2/2016 8:01 AM, email@example.com wrote:
No, it's due to industry demand for improved efficiency and longer
life. The lighting industry is constantly developing new lighting to
meet that demand, and it eventually makes it onto the
When you're running an airport, or shopping mall, or manufacturing
plant, or doing the lighting for miles of roadway, reducing cost and
increasing service life are paramount concerns. To meet that demand,
the lighting industry came out with improved-efficiency fluorescents,
halogen lights, compact fluorescent bulbs, and now LEDs.
Thing is, as with everything, the quality of the product is only as
good as its manufacturer. If you're buying generic Chinese
manufactured lights, they will not perform as claimed. There's no
'company' per se. It's just a bunch of rebranders marketing the same
cheap light under their own labels, but the lights all come from the
same knockoff factories.
My brother was in the commercial/industrial lighting division of GE
his entire career, so for decades I've been stuck with listening to
him on this subject. On the other hand, he also supplied me with
retail versions of the different kinds of new lighting in their
earliest stages, which was interesting. But in the end, it's the same
ol' same ol' - cost concerns drives innovation.
I like this thread.
I didn't know anything about bulb life before this thread, other than I have
never gotten anywhere near what the package says for both incandescent and
fluorescent bulbs, which means I trust LED bulb claims even less.
My "guess", before doing any research, is that LED bulbs last nowhere near
what they say. They probably last five or ten years, at most, is my guess,
not only due to the LED deteriorating over time, but due to the electronics
instantly giving up the ghost at inopportune times.
I'm not saying LEDs are less reliable than the other formats; just that none
of them are reliable.
However, rather than guess, I am now going to google for what the "official"
bulb life rules are, and I'll let you know what I find out.
I'll post a separate thread once I find something out.
That's what I was thinking.....
When there is a power outage, I normally shut off all the breakers
except one, That one is just somewhere that only serves a few outlets,
and I will plug in a lamp or something that wont get harmed, to tell me
the power came back on. When they turn the power on, there can be a
However, I think lightning does more damage. Even if it dont hit the
power lines directly, it comes thru the wires. That includes the phone
lines. I have lost several modems over the years. Now, I unplug the
phone line all the time I'm not using the modem, and shut everything
down when there is lightning in the area.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:59:56 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I have considered shutting off the breakers, but I just unplug the stuff
that has blown in the past due to power outages, such as the motor control
board on my washing machine (which had holes blown in it that showed up the
first time it was used after a series of power outages during the night).
I agree though that your method of shutting everything off is better, but we
get a lot of power outages (sometimes as many as a dozen a year) as I have
never seen a single year without at least a one day power outage.
We just got rain, for the first time since May or April, and the trees just
start to fall on the wires. They'll continue to do so until the rains stop
in about April or May.
I would tend to agree with you. We don't get lightning much out here, but it
sometimes happens (once every five years or so). It even makes the news when
it happens, it's that infrequent.
So, for us, it's the frequent power outages, particularly the ones where the
power flickers on and off repeatedly for fifteen minutes to an hour, before
finally going out for a half day or two.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 05:37:33 GMT in
Sounds like one or more attempts to bring the power back on surged
your appliance. Significantly by the sounds of the damage.
Here's the thing though with his method... If the incoming 'surge' is
high enough, it's going to jump across the contact points seperated
in the breaker in the 'off' position. It would almost be like the
breaker being switched on. Same effect with small appliance switches
of various kinds. There's just not that much of a gap and if the
incoming current is high enough, it's going to cross it. If you want
to isolate them, unplugging is the better option. It's MUCH harder
for it to jump out of the outlet to your devices power prongs. [g]
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 01:26:59 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
This is good to know because we had a series of power outages this very
weekend, which is normal for us, and I unplugged the frig and the washing
I also unplugged the dryer, but I wonder, are 220VAC appliances as
vulnerable? Or does the offset phase confer any protection?
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.