LED bulbs, BC GLS or golf ball

Who's good this year? In terms of long life?

Looking for a couple for bulkheads (so enclosed, medium power, not oversized) and also for general use.

I've been very impressed with Philips for the high power end but they are long and hot running and not terribly cheap.

What's the LEDHut stuff like?

Reply to
Tim Watts
Loading thread data ...

As with many things these days, nobody seems to make one model long enough to know how reliable it is as its been replaced by the next generation by the time you find out the issues. at least that seems to be theway of things at the moment. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

I've been looking at LEDs for a while (waiting for the CFLs to die/fade and LEDs to improve) and most of the golf ball and GLS have little more than 180 deg. - a hemisphere. Candle seem to have better dispersion - might even shine capwards. As for output and cooling, the COB in corn format (not corn-on-the-cob COB, but corn-cob shape) seem to be hitting 100 lumens/watt now and radiate almost omnidirectionally. Amazon has quite a lot, as does Ebay, but it's worth reading the details and narrative to avoid Chinglish which, to me, suggests over-run chips.

Reply to
PeterC

Picked up a couple of Asda own brand LED BC 18w 1500lm 3000K last week and they work well as a substitute for 100W GLS and are no bigger (they fit uplighter type shades well). Full brightness on startup and rather better colour temperature than the CFLs which seem to be rather red to me (2700K).

They were quite expensive (£15 ea) but a great improvement on the 4 x

16w CFLs they replaced. Reliability remains to be seen but they don't get too warm in conventional pendant fittings.

Of course, they are now NLA - only a "temporarily out of stock" sign now :-( Only the ES versions were left.

Seems that many of the more useful bulbs now come in ES by preference - and why is it seemingly impossible to find ES pendant fittings or lamp holders...

Chris K

Reply to
ChrisK

They are selling similar in B&Q for ?8 each. Very satisfied with them. Supposed to have 15000 hr life. We'll see.

Reply to
harryagain

Thanks Peter and Chris - both very useful posts :)

Reply to
Tim Watts

Got a couple of LEDHut ones. They are the very plain GLS-style - though somewhat smaller than true GLS filament lamps.

Happy with brightness at 9W. Disappointed that their "cool white" is

5000K rather than, say, 4200K or so. But quite usable depending on decoration of the room they are in.

I don't like their marketing ("free delivery", "no VAT", excessive emails) but it was surprisingly difficult to find anything between 4000 and 6000K.

Have not really had them long enough to give a proper assessment.

Reply to
polygonum

Virtually indistinguishable from the Lidl 'Müller-Licht' LEDs but more expensive ... both good colour,rapid start, dimmable, traditional size/shape.

Reply to
Andy Burns

I was in our local Asda superstore a fortnight ago and spotted a 12W

810 lumen example of the otherwise identical looking 10W 810 lumen lamps[1] sat on the 15 quid shelf a couple of shelves above the two quid shelf it was resting on.

Both were LES cap which, in this case, was exactly what I needed. When I asked the girl on the till to check, it was priced at £3.50. I didn't argue the toss since it was an even better bargain than the 5W

370 lumen BC LED lamp I'd snagged at a bargain price of £4.99 the year before.

Careful comparison against the 20W CFL it was replacing shows a small but distinct improvement in illumination level with the bonus of instant light. The CFL started off a dim pink for the first 5 or 6 seconds after switch on, taking about half a minute or so to get to full brightness so the upgrade was something to be marvelled at, brighter and instant light for 8 watts less consumption.

I've got to say, the rarity of BC LED lamps compared to the surfeit of ES and LES types is a bit of a puzzle when the demand must surely be for BC lamp types to match the use of BC holders used almost exclusively in domestic lighting here in the UK.

Hopefully, in a year or two's time when the price of the properly efficient LED lamps only just now entering production (12 fold better efficiency over incandescent versus the current crop of 6 fold better lamps) drops out ofthe stratosphere, we'll start seeing the manufacturers and distributors stop ignoring the UK market requirements. I _can_ wait!

I think the ES phenomena is just a combination of suppliers tapping into the initial high volume production runs for the more common worldwide market in ES type lamps in order to maximise profits. Once the pricing drops to more sane levels to drive up the demand in the BC lamp market, we should start seeing a proliferation of BC LED lamps.

I think it's just a matter of holding back until the suppliers see the error of their ways. After all, the CFL makers seemed happy enough to supply the demand for BC lamp types, so I can't think of any good reason why the same shouldn't apply to LED lamps.

The only reason we might not see a let up in this ridiculous situation is if the UK consumer caves in and starts to accept LES as "The New Standard" which, btw, is a crappy one for lamp fittings compared to the more superior BC fitting.

I see it as our duty to get the message across to our friends and family that LED lamps are currently way over-priced and a bad investment right now, especially as most householders will undoubtedly have an ample stock of CFLs to tide them over for the next year or two (and, in any case, they're still readily available at more realistic prices if replacements still need to be purchased). Lets face it, who in this group wants to see the BC replaced by LES in all of our light fittings?

[1] I have to say, the extra two watt saving on consumption for the same 810 lumen output just didn't justify the extra 13 quid difference in price. A view that remained unaltered even when the price difference turned out to be only 11 1/2 quid when I got to the till.

I can wait another year or two for the 810 lumen lamp wattage to drop another 2 or 3 watts along with a drop in price to around a fiver or less. There's no great rush to buy into this new lighting technology right now.

The really big energy saving technology has been with us all for the past decade or so in the form of the CFL. Swapping out our CFLs for modern[2] high efficiencly LEDs will make an almost negligable reduction in our annual electric bills so we can afford to sit tight on this technological marvel of the age... for several years if needs be. Let's just for once, make the lamp manufacturers dance to the consumers' tune for a change.

[2] That basically excludes most of the not so efficient crap being flogged in Aldilidl. Just don't be taken for mug is what I'm advising.
Reply to
Johny B Good

I had a look at that lamp on LEDhut's website, including the video description and the extra images. Interestingly, they've used the more efficient 60W 120v 750 hour American incandescent as their base line standard rather than our 75W lumen equivilent 240v 1000 hour GLS tungsten lamp.

I noticed a rating of 9.2W on their warm white 806 lumen varient versus the cool white 9.5W 850 lumen example. When it comes to comparing lamp efficiencies, you need to know both the colour temperature and which of the two possible GLS incandescent lamp standards (American 120v 750 hour 60W 810 lumen or the UK 240v 75W

1000 hour 810 lumen lamp) is being used to make such out of date comparisons.

A more meaningful comparison these days (at least as far as the consumer is concerned) would be a comparison against the typical CFL or (even braver, a linear fluorescent lamp in an electronically ballasted fitting - 100 lumen per watt lamp).

At 8 quid, the price whilst lower than in stores like Asda, even if you have to add on VAT, is still a quite bit on the high side for my liking. I'm waiting for the latest 200 lumen per watt lamps to appear at _this_ end of the distribution channel in a year or two's time and at a much better price point before I buy into this latest 'Wonder Technology of The Age'.

For comparison, that 9.5 watt lamp is at around the 80 Lumens per watt mark. Philips have already demonstrated the 200 lumen per watt lamp and Cree's latest marvel has just topped the 300 Lumen per watt mark.

Lead times between laboratory examples and actual product on the shelves is reckoned to be some 18 to 24 months. You can see why I'm finding the currently available 'high efficiency' LED lamps a bit of a Yawn Fest. :-)

Another good reason to hang fire on upgrading to the latest most efficient LED lamps right now (unless you've just been diagnosed with a terminal illness that's likely to see you shuffle off this mortal coil within the next year or two), is that the higher efficiencies will reduce the amount of waste heat that needs to be convected away from the lamp which means, even for the same total energy input, issues with badly vented lamp shades in cap up burning (pendant ceiling hung) fittings will be somewhat reduced, even more so if the lamp is selected for a target Lumens output rather a specific wattage.

Reply to
Johny B Good

Personally, I'm glad to get rid of BC fittings and say goodbye to cross-threaded shade rings and jammed bulbs.

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

In that case, are you sure the break even point would be reached?

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

Surely that is why the BC types fly off the shelves leaving behind the ES... Certainly seems the way in aldidle. Ok the supply chain ought to be able to keep up but ...

Yep, I won't pay over a fiver, preferably less, for a LED lamp. It's simply not economic over CFL.

Do they?

I keep an eye out and if I spot a lamp I want of the required spec (fitting/CT/Lm) and it's around the £3 to £4 mark I might buy it to try. But no way am I buying LED for routine. They are getting there regards light level, quality and distribution but the price is too high for routine replacement.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

That soundsto me more like a whine from a cackhanded butter fingered technophobe forced by the demands of fashion to frequently 'upgrade' their lampshades to stay in fashion rather than the typical denizen of this news group. :-)

Reply to
Johny B Good

In this case, the ROI break even point is... well, beside the point. I was thinking more of the "Let me enjoy the benefit whilst I can and hang the expense!" factor. :-)

Reply to
Johny B Good

The fact of the matter is that it is a long time since I changed a lampshade, and bulbs last longer these days, but my memory is even longer.

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

That sounds like an argument for tungsten. ;-)

Chris

Reply to
Chris J Dixon

If you wait for technology, you'll wait forever as it's always moving thataway..

Your post prompted me to look at my electricity consumption figures, as I take readings every month, and a couple of years ago I replaced all the lights in the house (bar two for which I can't yet get a suitable LED) with LEDs.

Taking July and August figures (summer, no heating, live on salads, least variability, etc) to compare the last four years data gives this (figures are kWh):

Jul 2011 310 Aug 2012 321 mean 316 Jul 2013 202 Aug 2014 204 mean 203

So, on the face of it I'm saving 113 kWh per month.

But let's look at the yearly figures

2011 4257 2012 4393 mean 4325 2013 3530 2014 3281 mean 3356

So somewhere I'm now not using 970 kWh per annum or 80 kWh per month

The two savings figures are suggestive that I'm measuring the same thing, but let's run with the lower figure of 970 kWh per annum or

1940 kWh over the two years. At 8 kWh to the £ that's £242 saved by using LEDs in that time. I think I spent about £180 or so on buying them in the first place, so I'm £60 to the good already. These savings will continue until the lamps give out, somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 hours of use. In that time I won't have spent anything on multiple replacements. As a bonus I get instant light at start-up and better colour rendition.

To my mind, waiting for the latest technology is like ignoring significant savings now. If there was a leap in technology in say two years time, I could go for that because having already saved £60 towards it, I'm now saving £10 per month (80 kWh) for an additional £240 in that time totalling £300 to the good. I could then throw away all my current LEDs as they'd paid for themselves years before.

Another way of looking at this is that I'm saving £10 per month, but am currently £60 to the good over the original cost of the LEDs, so that means that they've paid for themselves in 24 - 6 = 18 months.

At today's prices I could have done the replacement for much less cost, suggesting that current payback time would be even shorter, say a year.

Fit LEDs, it's a no-brainer.

Reply to
Terry Fields

Only for ceiling lights, DIY:

formatting link
BTW, "ready to use" - hadn't spotted these before:
formatting link

Reply to
PeterC

Probably wouldn't fit existing widely supplied shades though, the ES holders are wider & probably need a bigger shade ring than is normally the case.

Seems like we have a mixture of incompatible standards at the moment...

Chris K

Reply to
ChrisK

HomeOwnersHub website 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.