well here in Canada Daytime Running lights are mandatory so this is one reason why manufactures have switch to LED if not headlight's definitely the DRL lights.
The rest I agree with weight and assembly would also be beneficial.
Light bulbs.
- Thread starter one.of.a.kind
- Start date
well here in Canada Daytime Running lights are mandatory so this is one reason why manufactures have switch to LED if not headlight's definitely the DRL lights.
The rest I agree with weight and assembly would also be beneficial.
It takes energy (fuel) to power all the lights in cars. A 5-10% reduction (as an example) in energy consumption multiplied by millions and millions of vehicles does add up!
I wouldn't say we're arguing over light bulbs, rather discussing the benefits of newer technologies.
Same thing with batteries, they're getting better all the time. As for stove top burners, gas is still the way to go.
I still think it has more to do with longer bulb life and automation. Although, if there are 200 watts of lights on the car and it could be reduced to 50 watts using LED lights, the car would not need as big battery, wiring and alternator.
Cars have 400 watt radios, heated seats, air conditioning, etc, Automakers care about manufacturing costs, I doubt they really care much about gas usage, except what is shown on the ratings.
I agree the goal of LED vehicle lighting is not less fuel consumption but rather an overall side benefit of new technology once the majority of cars adopt these.
All right, energy consumption in lighting is in MA (milliamps) which is calculated between Voltage and Wattage. In the case of a 13 watt 120V Cfl the consumption should be .108 ma.
But if you look at the base of your cfl where the tech inscriptions are you will notice .190ma. That is because they have included the ballast's consumption as well.
Here's the calculation Table. http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/watt-volt-amp-calculator.htm
And also to this day, a concern about Led lighting affecting your Biological Clock. Things to take note of.
INSIDE SCIENCE
You come into contact every day with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) -- they illuminate alarm clocks, new televisions,
traffic lights, and smartphone displays. Increasingly, you will see white-light versions of LEDs
becoming available for energy-efficient home lighting, car headlights, and streetlamps.
What you may not know is that the most common form of white LEDs -- which emit a spectrum of colors, including blue light --
is inadvertently effective at sending signals to our brain's biological clock, which regulates daily activities such as sleep.
The realization of the body's special sensitivity to blue light has spurred scientific investigations of whether the light can disrupt our
circadian rhythms, the roughly 24-hour cycle in animals that sets the body's patterns for sleep and other biological processes.
While organizations such as the International Dark-Sky Association urge caution on using white LEDs for outdoor nighttime lighting and
some scientists are already calling for regulations to ban the outdoor use of blue-rich light, others estimate that the effects are small and
caution that more rigorous scientific studies are needed before determining if white LED light has any health impacts at all. Some scientists
argue that other factors, such as sleep deprivation and abnormalities in a person's overall 24-hour pattern of exposure to light and dark, may
do much more to disrupt circadian rhythms. Epidemiological studies have linked circadian disruptions to health problems, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease,
and obesity, and scientists are trying to determine if light at night -- and blue-rich LEDs -- are a cause.
Abraham Haim of the University of Haifa in Israel considers white LEDs a form of "light pollution." "What is called 'friendly' environmental illumination is unfriendly,
" said Haim, who is a chronobiologist, a scientist who studies biological rhythms and cycles in animals.
He has conducted studies showing that blue light can disrupt circadian-related hormones in nocturnal animals such as voles, moles and rats.
In the most common design, white LEDs create a mixture of blue and yellow light that the eye sees as white.
Other light bulb varieties, including incandescents and compact fluorescents, tend to produce much less blue.
Until the 21st century, scientists only knew of two types of light-sensitive cells in the eye: rods and cones.
But in 2001, David Berson from Brown University established that the eyes of mammals contain a third type of cell for absorbing light.
"This has been a very exciting discovery in the whole world of chronobiology and vision research," said Jay Neitz,
a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We always thought rods and cones were responsible
for circadian rhythms and then we find there's a particular cell that [sends signals] to the superchiasmatic nucleus, the brain's central clock important for daily biological rhythms."
The recently discovered type of cell, called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, are much smaller in number than other light-sensitive cells --
approximately only one of them for every million cones. But they contain a key light-sensitive protein called melanopsin. When light strikes melanopsin,
it can trigger the ganglion cells to send signals to the superchiasmatic nucleus, a small brain region that regulates the body's circadian rhythms.
INSIDE SCIENCE
You come into contact every day with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) -- they illuminate alarm clocks, new televisions,
traffic lights, and smartphone displays. Increasingly, you will see white-light versions of LEDs
becoming available for energy-efficient home lighting, car headlights, and streetlamps.
What you may not know is that the most common form of white LEDs -- which emit a spectrum of colors, including blue light --
is inadvertently effective at sending signals to our brain's biological clock, which regulates daily activities such as sleep.
The realization of the body's special sensitivity to blue light has spurred scientific investigations of whether the light can disrupt our
circadian rhythms, the roughly 24-hour cycle in animals that sets the body's patterns for sleep and other biological processes.
While organizations such as the International Dark-Sky Association urge caution on using white LEDs for outdoor nighttime lighting and
some scientists are already calling for regulations to ban the outdoor use of blue-rich light, others estimate that the effects are small and
caution that more rigorous scientific studies are needed before determining if white LED light has any health impacts at all. Some scientists
argue that other factors, such as sleep deprivation and abnormalities in a person's overall 24-hour pattern of exposure to light and dark, may
do much more to disrupt circadian rhythms. Epidemiological studies have linked circadian disruptions to health problems, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease,
and obesity, and scientists are trying to determine if light at night -- and blue-rich LEDs -- are a cause.
Abraham Haim of the University of Haifa in Israel considers white LEDs a form of "light pollution." "What is called 'friendly' environmental illumination is unfriendly,
" said Haim, who is a chronobiologist, a scientist who studies biological rhythms and cycles in animals.
He has conducted studies showing that blue light can disrupt circadian-related hormones in nocturnal animals such as voles, moles and rats.
In the most common design, white LEDs create a mixture of blue and yellow light that the eye sees as white.
Other light bulb varieties, including incandescents and compact fluorescents, tend to produce much less blue.
Until the 21st century, scientists only knew of two types of light-sensitive cells in the eye: rods and cones.
But in 2001, David Berson from Brown University established that the eyes of mammals contain a third type of cell for absorbing light.
"This has been a very exciting discovery in the whole world of chronobiology and vision research," said Jay Neitz,
a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We always thought rods and cones were responsible
for circadian rhythms and then we find there's a particular cell that [sends signals] to the superchiasmatic nucleus, the brain's central clock important for daily biological rhythms."
The recently discovered type of cell, called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, are much smaller in number than other light-sensitive cells --
approximately only one of them for every million cones. But they contain a key light-sensitive protein called melanopsin. When light strikes melanopsin,
it can trigger the ganglion cells to send signals to the superchiasmatic nucleus, a small brain region that regulates the body's circadian rhythms.
C'mon Titalian!
A "mA" is .001 of an amp. Current = Power/voltage = 13/120 = .108 amps = 108mA <-- this is basic electrical math and basic metric system. However, POWER (WATTS) MATH ONLY APPLIES TO RESISTIVE LOADS WITH NO POWER FACTOR
In response to your comments regarding current rating and power rating.
The difference is due to power factor. An incandescent bulb represents a resistive load, which have power factors of 1 which means VA = watts. Power factor comes into play when you have a capacitive (current leads voltage) or inductive (voltage leads current) load, for example an electrical motor. Power factor = True Power / Apparent Power = watts/volt amps. Normally in your home this is a non-issue, but it is a significant issue in a factory. Hydro distributes power factor correction devices throughout their infrastructure specifically to correct this.
In your example the bulb has a power factor of 13 / (120)(.190) = .57 Again, in your house setting this has no meaning and therefore isn't good or bad. But is does explain the numbers on your CFL's base.
To my fellow engineers, do you remember ELI and ICE? How about Z and j? Glad I don't have to do that math anymore.
See: http://ceolas.net/Docs/Sylvania_on_CFL_Power_Factor.pdf
I thought you were in the lighting biz?? I'm getting a headache.
NOT ALL LED LIGHTING IS SHITTY AND HARSH. The root problem is: you selected the wrong colour temperature and/or brightness (lumen output) and/or bulb packaging for your intended application. LED bulbs are now available from 2700K to 7000K in a variety of brightnesses in a variety of packaging. Don't just mindlessly buy the $4.99 LED bulb at Canadian Tire because it's the cheapest. At the very least consider how you will be using the bulb and select an appropriate colour temperature and packaging (directional vs dispersed).
http://www.standardpro.com/product-information/colour-temperature
I just bought a pile of incandescent bulbs.
I like the light they throw and the way the bulb looks, especially the replica squirrel cage bulbs.
Fuck cfl and led.
I like the light they throw and the way the bulb looks, especially the replica squirrel cage bulbs.
Fuck cfl and led.
Very good James so do I. Incandescent and especially Halogen (which have not been banned yet) are the way to go for that warm cozy feeling.
It took some getting used to but i like whote led lights or incandescent bulbs with natural white light. It is not till you ise those that you notice how yellow a lot of bulbs we grew up with are.
Over the last five years every time a bulb burns out i replace it with a led. I have yet to replace a led.
Over the last five years every time a bulb burns out i replace it with a led. I have yet to replace a led.
Discussing, and getting real information about home lighting choices. When incandescent was the only option—fluorescent tubes never made it outta the basement rumpus room—there was little to discuss or learn. But today, picking a light source means lining up watts, lumens and kelvins inm some sort of sensible way. And then you still have to figure whether the damn thing you chose will go into the fixture and be operated by the control (which we used to call the switch). Lotsa blather required.…I wouldn't say we're arguing over light bulbs, rather discussing the benefits of newer technologies.
Same thing with batteries, they're getting better all the time. As for stove top burners, gas is still the way to go.
Burners: Go gas in case of hydro outages, but make sure the unpowered spark igniter doesn't also choke off the gas. For fume-free efficiency go induction.
I was joking about the stovetop burner talk but, now that we're here, that is true. I have an electric stove but have thought about switching to gas. I like charring peppers right on an open flame.
Carbon is carbon, and apart from the pattern you won't know if you burned them on an electric element, or with a can of Sterno™ kept for the purpose. But the gas cooker's still more fun in a sorta deep-down stone-age way. I'll likely go back to the flame for that reason, when I pension off the 1954 Moffat BakeMaster.
shakenbake
Senior Turgid Member
Sometimes, it is the on-off cycle that stresses them and reduces the active lifespan.
Similar threads
