On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:49:44 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
Well the "retro" type are available but the basic collection of
straight filament sticks are (mostly) the most effcient domestic
light bulbs out there at > 100 lm/W. They are my bulb of choice now,
provided the price is right (<£3 ish). Not had any failures in the
aproximate 9 months since starting to use 'em. Been disappointed with
the life of chip based LED bulbs.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:45:12 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:
I have various one in use. The first were a "distress" purchase of
SES candle type to fit some new light fittings, 3 for 2 offer in
Tesco, so £4 each. Others have come from Homebase (on offer) or
I think the important feature is not the shape of the filament, which in
many applications you can't see, but the wide angle of illumination,
which often works better in light fittings designed for traditonal
I find its actually a very good idea - I use them almost exclusively.
The main attraction (other than being nicer to look at in applications
where you can see the bulb) is the 360 degree radiation pattern, that
closely resembles a GLS lamp. Hence any fittings that use the lamp cap
down or the whole lamp side on, still give the intended illumination.
There is a second significant advantage, in that the strips are
typically arranged into relatively high voltage chains such that they
can be be wired in sets of 4 directly across the mains with no need to
use dropper capacitors. Hence better reliability and less temperature
Does GLS have a standard size? I have one of these LED filament bulbs
in my sitting room but the diffuser has a 65mm hole and won't fit
over the bulb.
Any ideas for an LED with equivalent light output in a smaller bulb?
I got a "candle" format GLS BC LED from somewhere for a table lamp with
a glass globe that has a small hole and won't fit over a incandescent
bulb, much less a standard LED one. I think it came from B&Q.
Today is Boomtime, the 17th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3184
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
'GLS' is the shape and size of the ordinary incandescent bulb, so you can't
have a GLS candle - it's a bit like having a 3-wheeled bike!
There is a number for the standard size but ICR what it is.
Sometimes it's confusing; IIRC, MR16 is a shape, GU10 is a base/cap but is
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:00:09 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
I'm afraid that's most definitely untrue. The closer the 'filament'
drive voltage rating approaches the supply voltage, the greater their
sensitivity to supply voltage variations becomes in regard of their
forward voltage drop conductivity.
LEDs can't be driven directly from a constant voltage source without
risk of thermal runaway when being driven close to their operational
limits typical of GLS applications. They need some form of current
limiting whether a simple capacitive dropper that drops 30 to 70% of the
supply voltage or else a more sophisticated electronic ballast that
supplies a more tightly controlled constant current optimised for the
LEDs used in the filament strings or the COB array.
Since my commissioning tests on each new LED GLS lamp I've purchased
during the past 5 years or so have revealed a higher consumption than
that claimed for these lamps in every case, I've finally come to the
conclusion that it's a consequence of meeting a minimum Lumens output
(typically a 60W equivalent of 810Lm) at the bottom of the 220 to 240
volt mains voltage range when powered from a 240v UK supply.
The first of the latest "High Efficiency" 68LPW GLS "60W equivalent" LES
lamps bought from Asda about 5 years ago claimed a consumption wattage
rating of 12W. Testing revealed that it was actually taking 14W but I
wasn't bothered too much about that since it certainly provided far more
light output than the 20W CFL "60W equivalent" it replaced.
The only downside being that it was rather heavier than the replaced CFL
due to the use of a meaty well engineered finned heatsink which placed an
extra burden on the height adjustable pendant luminaire over the dining
It was eventually replaced a year or two later with an even more
efficient (and lighter) 81LPW "60W equivalent" LED with a claimed
consumption of just 10W which measured pretty close to 12W. Again, the
extra consumption wasn't an issue (but I was beginning to see a pattern
emerging). The Asda branded lamp (part number: LDA12WE27COA3000K)
landed up in my Anglepoise desk lamp where it remains to this day.
Interestingly, a recent test revealed a consumption figure of 13.5W which
most likely was the result of the voltage being lower this time round
compared to the original test voltage condition some 5 years ago.
More recently, I've seen the same sort of inflated measured consumption
versus the rated consumption with the Poundland lamps - 6W versus 5.5 for
the SBC 470Lm lamps and the later 510Lm versions. Even the three quid
Home & Bargain 12W 1500Lm (125LPW) LES "100W equivalent" showed an
inflated wattage reading of about 13.5W when I tested it before
installing it into the bathroom light fitting which had housed the last
remaining incandescent GLS lamp.
 Curiously, this Asda branded lamp quotes 50/60Hz in addition to the
220 to 240 volt supply @67mA (implying a PF of 0.85) which strongly
suggests an electronic ballast more sophisticated than a mere dropper
However, the 220 to 240 volt range seems to be more in keeping with UK
and European supply voltages where 50Hz is the standard frequency of
supply so it's just possible that the mention of 60Hz may simply be a
matter of mislabelling (possibly a "force of habit" error).
The only other place where 60Hz is standard outside of the USA that
comes to mind is Japan (well, roughly half of Japan - the other half does
use 50Hz) so it seems a little unusual that a lamp designed to operate in
the range of 220 to 240 should also include the 60Hz option.
Since ICBA to find a couple of 7AH SLAs to black start my spare APC
SmartUPS700 in 60Hz mode, this claim of 60Hz compatibility is going to
remain untested for the foreseeable future.
Yup, actually I would agree with that ;-)
I am both over simplifying and typing faster than I was thinking!
They do of course include current limitation - and that quite often is a
capacitive dropper. However what I was getting at was that they often
have less "complicated" drivers - and can quite often get away without
using electrolytic caps commonly found in many switching supplies, which
seems to be the weak spot of many.
Many use a (simple) RC network as a current limit, usually then feeding
a bridge rectumfrier. The individual strips usually have a forward
voltage drop of around 60V. Often strung with a couple in series
(paralleled up on the higher wattage versions). That means you are
dropping around half the voltage in the supply. Many seem to slightly
under run the filaments (although that may be a reflection of the
voltage range they are designed to cover).
(personally I am less worried by a small loss of efficiency fron under
running given the relatively low power anyway such that the gains are
Most of the "60W" ones I have claim 740lm IIRC. Oddly I noticed some
recently where they lumens figure was actually lower on the daylight
Do you know if that was a true power 14W or was there a reactive
component in that figure?
I recall someone trying to use an (early ish) CFL in an anglepoise. The
results were fairly predictable!
Possibly just someone specifying something they felt ought to be in the
spec... (wither that or they had a job lot returned from someone trying
to use them on an aircraft 400Hz supply ;-)
Yup, there are some things that even enquiring minds don't really need
On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:47:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
Actual RMS power as shown by my Metrawatt analogue watt meter.
The Asda lamp wasn't as heavy as those early Philips jam jar SL13s of
which I presume you speak. The anglepoise seems to handle the weight of
the Asda lamp with ease (certainly far better than the Ikea pull down
pendant luminaire I'd transplanted it from).
Well, since it functions quite well as a slightly brighter equivalent to
a 60W incandescent light bulb in the anglepoise lamp, I'm not overly
bothered about the details. Replacing it with a 150LPW version in a few
years time is only going to save a mere 7 watts or so which is neither
here nor there in the larger scheme of things anyway. It will eventually
be replaced, but only after I've had my money's worth out of it.
I'm looking forward to the more efficient LED GLS lamps *finally*
reaching the market not for their reduced running costs so much as for
removing the need to stop being so fussy about which of the existing
luminaires can safely take a 150W equivalent lamp without risk of
premature failure due to overheating. :-)
The slight reduction in the overall electricity bill is a welcome side
effect but not enough reason by itself to invest in the improved
efficiency of 150 and 200 LPW lamps. The original CFLs grabbed all the
low hanging fruit of electric lighting running cost savings over two
decades ago, leaving LED GLS lamps to slowly gather the high hanging
fruits of energy savings during the past 5 years as an exercise in
Twenty years ago, it made good financial sense to invest 50 quid in CFLs
to knock 250 quid off the annual electricity bill. Today, it would take a
50 quid investment in the latest LED GLS lamps just to knock another 40
to 50 quid off the electricity bill. It's just not enough of a saving,
especially when you know you'll most likely be able to achieve the same
savings a year or two later for a mere 20 or 30 quid investment in LED
I think quite a few (well, me!) got them for a lot less than that. And
while there can be some pretty good savings, CFLs had more to them than
that - with warm up, slow fade to fail and not always (or often IME) as
listed light output/quality. Although personally I quite like the light
of some CFLs.
With the exception of a couple of small ES dimmable LEDs, one strip
fluorescent in the kitchen, and a couple of multi LED fixtures (which
proved better/cheaper than bulbs/shade), I don't think I've spent more
than £2 on a bulb (mainly £1), and replaced when CFLs etc failed. Not a
single failure (yet), with the oldest at about 10,000 hours. And I tend
to keep some lights on, and have a lot of table lamps (not a fan of one
main room light most of the time).
So for my use (and maybe that of a few others) it can work out at a
decent long term saving, especially if advertised bulb life can be assumed.
It would hopefully have a knock on in the sense of grid capacity
requirements, especially as street lights start to be changed to LED
My main criticism, on the loose assumption that they don't all start to
fail, is the directional nature of the light. I seem to have got used to
that - although whether that's a good thing to get used to or not is an
> especially when you know you'll most likely be able to achieve the same
> savings a year or two later for a mere 20 or 30 quid investment in LED
Yep, that'll probably happen.
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.