Chip with simple program for Toy

[ian field]

"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yeeha.com> wrote in message
news:651ne4hhgrbacafdo38ccdt2rh9hc2u0fb@4ax.com...

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net
wrote:

On Oct 6, 2:42 pm, John O'Flaherty <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:38:14 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net
wrote:

{snipped}

Although I myself have converted most of my bulbs to fluorescents,
there are definitely places where I prefer incandescents; and I'm
still wondering how much money I'm going to save on bulbs which
produce less heat, when I spend 3/4 of the year trying to heat my
house, and the cost per BTU of oil is pretty close to that of
electricity these days.

Right. In heating season, there's no gain from using CFLs (or any
other indoor energy conservation) if you have electric heat, and very
little otherwise. That would apply to fully-heated spaces, where any
heat from appliances would just displace heat from the furnace. In
basements or other unheated places conservation is still worthwhile.
--
John

but there isn't that much lightbulb use in unheated basements, etc.;
and in human homes, during air conditioning season when bulb heat is a
problem, it doesn't make a difference when the bulbs are off because
of daylight, which is long in the summer; when the bulbs are off
because people are asleep which is the major part of the dark hours in
the summer; and when the AC is off because the sun is down and it's
cooling off, which is relevant for some parts of the country.
basically, the big advantage of fluorescents is in big buildings where
the temp is completely air conditioned because there isn't any natural
ventilation, and the light is all from bulbs because there isn't any
sunlight except around the windows, and people are inside them during
daylight hours. and of course, they've been fluorescent for years.

It's not a question of whether bulb heat is a comfort problem but
that it's expensive, which it is whether or not air conditioning is in
use.
I do think CFLs are worthwhile, because there's plenty of electric
light used during times when a furnace isn't expected to run. Only
specifically during heating season when heat is being used is there no
energy-saving advantage, and even then there still may be an
advantage, in bulb life and trouble saved replacing them. The only
place I don't use CFLs is where I want immediate full light in a space
where I only stay a short time.
On another point, on channel 4 in St. Louis last night, they had a
news feature where they got all exercised about the mercury in CFLs
and the danger of breaking them. There's mercury in flourescent tubes
too, and they've been around a long time. I think it's worth being
careful of them too.
--
John

There is apparently mercury in coal (along with numerous other toxic heavy
metals) so its claimed that in any countries with a significant number of
coal fired power stations, the mercury in CFLs is easily offset by mercury
not dispersed by coal fired power due to the total energy savings.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <4904D5CA.4A605792@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.

Yes, I think you're about right there.

And that it takes 25-26 watts for a CFL to "fully match a 100W
'standard' incandescent", with 28 watts no better and 30 watt CFLs
"slightly brighter".

Now try buying one ?

My experience in USA is that 26 watt spirals CFLs of "full 100 watt
incandescent equivalence" are widely available where CFLs are sold,
including USA's two major drugstore chains as well as home centers of the
two main chains of those.

I do consider those to be prone to overheating in recessed ceiling
fixtures and enclosed fixtures. *Disclaimer* - my personal opinion with
data running low due to low usage rate that I consider advisable for such
light fixtures.

CFLs have major real bigtime advantage in energy efficiency - sadly
often-exaggerated to an extent leading to disappointment and
dissatisfaction! I see so much hype of LED lighting to even-worse-extent!
Ever wonder why lighting-installing electricians are stodgier
conservatives than Ronald Reagan on the job, even if voting for Obama?

I found the 'small print' btw. It is actually still on a recent Philips CFL
box. It says .... Uses 5 times less electricity.* Light output measured
according to IEC 969 standards, compared to a 1000 hr SOFT COLOUR (my
caps) bulb of similar ligh output".

I do see about 2% disadvantage of "soft white". Also, in USA-land, the
"standard" incandescents are "run to a hot extent" for "standard" ones of
75 watts or more to be rated for 750 hours life expectancy. In addition,
the 230V versions of incandescents suffer a bit from an economy of scale
or two causes efficiency of an incandescent of any given wattage and
givern life expectancy to be maximized when voltage is lower - as in close
to 12 volts for ones of wattage in the 13-100 watt range.

Soft colour = lower efficiency. FOUR times less is nearer the mark when
compared to standard GLS bulbs.

*SOFTONE* ! That was the brand name. See this
http://www.nextag.co.uk/Philips-100W-Softone-BC-528595584/uk/prices-html

I try in the Philips website, and find no match. Closest approximation
I find in 2-3 minutes is:

http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/ecat/Light/ApplicationRouter.aspx?
fh_secondid=923281345510_2&fh_view_size=10000&fh_start_index=0&fh_location=
%2f%2fprof%2fen_GB%2fcategories%3c%7bfepplg%7d%2fcountries%3e%7ben_GB%
7d%2fstatus%3e%7bact%7d&fh_search=softone&fh_eds=%c3%9f&fh_refview=search&tab=
&family=&&left_nav=gb_en&

I see a different shape/size/color bulb, but 1200 lumens! Meanwhile, it
appears to me that "The Standard" ("higher end" my words) in USA for 120V
750 hour A19 100 watt incandescent is 1710 lumens!

and this
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product/1062/philips-soft-white-t55-100w-bc
-2-pack/

I failed to see a statement of lumens.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <4904D76B.E7B221E0@hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

What I have seen are ultrabright LEDs failing prematurely.

Inadequate heatsinking would be my first bet.

I would bet on overpowering of mechanisms that cannot be remedied by
increasing heatsinking - such as overpowering the wirebonds and bonding
wires, or overheating the die bonding means.

And if such thermal stress overpowering is not outright, it occurs via
metal fatigue!

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Robert Monsen]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:10:56 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:26:45 +0200, Olivier Scalbert
olivier.scalbert@algosyn.com> wrote:

Olivier Scalbert wrote:
John Fields wrote:

I haven't found out how to do an FFT in LTspice yet, so there may be an
itermodulation problem lurking in there somewhere.

JF

Hi John,

For the FFT, just right click in the simulation screen and select FFT in
the popup menu.

Olivier
Also increase stop time in the simulation box to have more points.
---
OK, thanks.
---

BTW how to convert harmonic levels in FFT to distorsion in percentage ?

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_harmonic_distortion

JF

You can also insert a .FOUR directive, which will compute it for you
and write a table into the error log

..FOUR <Freq> <Node>

There are other options. See the 'help' for more info.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Eeyore]

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.

Yes, I think you're about right there.

Years back when Morrisons dropped the price of their 20W CFLs to Ł1.99 I
changed over but I was very disappointed with the light quality, my living
room has two light fittings and both had to be on for any kind of comfort to
my eyes, more recently they did a massive promo on Philips 18W CFLs - first
dropping the price to 0.99p and then a BOGOF offer as well. These are
actually very slightly brighter than the original own brand CFLs but I've
still had to resort to 2-lamp adapters so I can use just 1 fitting on except
when I'm working at my desk or reading when I need both fittings (4 18W CFLs
in all ) on.

Know what you mean. I try to get the 20/21W ones but they're not often at
discounted prices.

Morrisons are doing 3 of the smaller wattage ones (Philips) for Ł1 currently.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

ian field wrote:

"John O'Flaherty" <quiasmox@yeeha.com> wrote

On another point, on channel 4 in St. Louis last night, they had a
news feature where they got all exercised about the mercury in CFLs
and the danger of breaking them. There's mercury in flourescent tubes
too, and they've been around a long time. I think it's worth being
careful of them too.

The amount is minute, 4mg typically amd mostly bound up in the other internal
materials. As kids we 'played' with mercury in the school labs. Nobody keeled
over.

There is apparently mercury in coal (along with numerous other toxic heavy
metals) so its claimed that in any countries with a significant number of
coal fired power stations, the mercury in CFLs is easily offset by mercury
not dispersed by coal fired power due to the total energy savings.

By a considerable margin AIUI.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.

Yes, I think you're about right there.

And that it takes 25-26 watts for a CFL to "fully match a 100W
'standard' incandescent", with 28 watts no better and 30 watt CFLs
"slightly brighter".

Now try buying one ?

My experience in USA is that 26 watt spirals CFLs of "full 100 watt
incandescent equivalence" are widely available where CFLs are sold,
including USA's two major drugstore chains as well as home centers of the
two main chains of those.

Not here sadly. You have to seek them out.

I do consider those to be prone to overheating in recessed ceiling
fixtures and enclosed fixtures. *Disclaimer* - my personal opinion with
data running low due to low usage rate that I consider advisable for such
light fixtures.

Would make sense though.

CFLs have major real bigtime advantage in energy efficiency - sadly
often-exaggerated to an extent leading to disappointment and
dissatisfaction! I see so much hype of LED lighting to even-worse-extent!
Ever wonder why lighting-installing electricians are stodgier
conservatives than Ronald Reagan on the job, even if voting for Obama?

I found the 'small print' btw. It is actually still on a recent Philips CFL
box. It says .... Uses 5 times less electricity.* Light output measured
according to IEC 969 standards, compared to a 1000 hr SOFT COLOUR (my
caps) bulb of similar ligh output".

I do see about 2% disadvantage of "soft white". Also, in USA-land, the
"standard" incandescents are "run to a hot extent" for "standard" ones of
75 watts or more to be rated for 750 hours life expectancy. In addition,
the 230V versions of incandescents suffer a bit from an economy of scale
or two causes efficiency of an incandescent of any given wattage and
givern life expectancy to be maximized when voltage is lower - as in close
to 12 volts for ones of wattage in the 13-100 watt range.

Soft colour = lower efficiency. FOUR times less is nearer the mark when
compared to standard GLS bulbs.

*SOFTONE* ! That was the brand name. See this
http://www.nextag.co.uk/Philips-100W-Softone-BC-528595584/uk/prices-html

I try in the Philips website, and find no match. Closest approximation
I find in 2-3 minutes is:

http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/ecat/Light/ApplicationRouter.aspx?
fh_secondid=923281345510_2&fh_view_size=10000&fh_start_index=0&fh_location=
%2f%2fprof%2fen_GB%2fcategories%3c%7bfepplg%7d%2fcountries%3e%7ben_GB%
7d%2fstatus%3e%7bact%7d&fh_search=softone&fh_eds=%c3%9f&fh_refview=search&tab=
&family=&&left_nav=gb_en&

I see a different shape/size/color bulb, but 1200 lumens! Meanwhile, it
appears to me that "The Standard" ("higher end" my words) in USA for 120V
750 hour A19 100 watt incandescent is 1710 lumens!

That's a BIG difference.

and this
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product/1062/philips-soft-white-t55-100w-bc
-2-pack/

I failed to see a statement of lumens.

I was just showing the product. They were cutesy slighly coloured versions of
standard bulbs intended for 'mood lighting' and never kicked out as many lumens as
stardard GLS bulbs.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Peter Hucker wrote:

What I have seen are ultrabright LEDs failing prematurely.

Inadequate heatsinking would be my first bet.

I would bet on overpowering of mechanisms that cannot be remedied by
increasing heatsinking - such as overpowering the wirebonds and bonding
wires, or overheating the die bonding means.

And if such thermal stress overpowering is not outright, it occurs via
metal fatigue!

Yes, that would happen. Talking of wirebonds, ever seen a TO-3 with a hole
in the top of the can ?

Graham

 

[Olivier Scalbert]

John Fields wrote:

Empirically.

In the simulator, what I did was (with 0V into R1) arbitrarily choose R6
and R8 at 1000 ohms and then adjusted R4 and R5 for 30mA of current
through both MOSFETs.

In the real world, what I'd do would be to replace the resistors with
1000 ohm pots, like this: (View in Courier)

+----------------------------+
| |
+V>---------------------|---+----------+-------+ |
| | | | |
| | | D |
[510] | [POT]<--G NCH |
| | | S |
| | [DIODE] | |
VIN>-------------[100]--+--|-\ |K | |
| >--------+ +-----+
+--|+/ |A | |
| | [DIODE] | [LOAD]
[82] | | S |
| | [POT]<--G PCH GND
GND | | D
| | |
-V>-------------------------+----------+-------+

Then, before applying power I'd make sure Vin was grounded and the pots
were cranked to zero ohms between the gates and the diodes.

After that, I'd apply power and crank one of the pots until I got 30mA
through the load and then crank the other pot until the current through
the load fell to zero.

That 30 mA will now be in both MOSFETs and will be the current causing
the stage to run AB which will kill crossover distortion. Also, the
load will be DC coupled to the input and will be at zero volts with zero
volts on Vin, which is what you want.

There also probably needs to be some soft-start circuitry in there
somewhere to protect the load and the MOSFETS against power-on
transients from the opamp. Something as simple as a relay momentarily
shorting the opamp's output to ground during power-on should work:


+V-----+--------+------+ NC
| | | |<-O------+
| [DIODE] [COIL]- - -| |
[R] |A | C O |
| +------+ | |+\ |
| | | | >--+-->TO DIODES
| C | |-/
+------B |
| E |
[C] | |
| | |
GND>---+--------+---------------+

JF

Thnaks for the info John !
Olivier

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2008-10-26, stiganielsen@gmail.com <stiganielsen@gmail.com> wrote:

hi Jasen,

Thanks for the schematics, It is an 8560 here is the datasheet,
http://www.paulanders.com/G5-LED/ver1/datablad.pdf

I don't find an lm555 just here in my pile of electronics, but i'd
like to ask if its nessecary to generate a frequency if i just need
the display to show me values given by sensors through my arduino.

you need to generate a frequency, it doesn't need to be a precise or
even predictable frequency, anything between 30 and 100Hz is probably
fine, there is an aesthetic requirement is that it should be
approximately symmetrical.

The
idea was to just use the chip to control the display saving some pins
on my arduino.

the chip only drives half the display at a time, you need some way to
switch halves rapidly enough to see the complete display.

In case i could hook it directly to the arduino with an external power
of 7v dc could i then just give let in 7v to pin 15 or and 20 (Vss,
Vdd)?

the chip would not run, it need some sort of clock signal to be able to
measure how long the button inputs are active for, and to tell it which
LEDs its output pins will drive. (you see that pins 1 to 13 each drive
2 segments of the display depending on which half-cycle the AC supply
is in.)

Stig

--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[ian field]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49057654.1D849EEF@hotmail.com...

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.

Yes, I think you're about right there.

Years back when Morrisons dropped the price of their 20W CFLs to Ł1.99 I
changed over but I was very disappointed with the light quality, my
living
room has two light fittings and both had to be on for any kind of comfort
to
my eyes, more recently they did a massive promo on Philips 18W CFLs -
first
dropping the price to 0.99p and then a BOGOF offer as well. These are
actually very slightly brighter than the original own brand CFLs but I've
still had to resort to 2-lamp adapters so I can use just 1 fitting on
except
when I'm working at my desk or reading when I need both fittings (4 18W
CFLs
in all ) on.

Know what you mean. I try to get the 20/21W ones but they're not often at
discounted prices.

Morrisons are doing 3 of the smaller wattage ones (Philips) for Ł1
currently.

Graham

Let me know if they do a promo on the 5W CFLs - I transplant the PCBs into
lantern style bug-zappers which use a 6W tube, the electronic ballast causes
the tube to operate more efficiently so there is no loss of light output.
The original zapper ballast is a "wattless dropper" capacitor with
resistance to limit surge, with this the tube doesn't last a full summer,
with the modification it lasts at least a year.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:11:38 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In article <op.ujnc1zo24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:13:47 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In article <op.ujm262fd4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:
On 26 Oct 08 05:43:42 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

Both singly and doubly coiled ones are still available today. The
"industrial service"/"shock resistant"/"vibration resistant"/"rough duty"
ones tend to have singly coiled filaments. I also saw in recent years in
a few locations Sylvania "economy" incandescents, with both light output
and life expectancy reduced slightly compared to the "standard" ones.

Not what I'd call "economy". Most of the cost of an incandescent is the
electricity, so reducing the output is not good.

I certainly agree here! I'm glad those "economy" cheapies by Sylvania
are not common!

I don't use incandescents anyway. They're out of date technology.

Some rather decent white LEDs even have life expectancy of only 10,000
hours. I have seen cheaper ones fade by about half in about 4,000 hours.

Ouch!

http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS60.pdf

"Industry Best Lumen Maintenance 50,000 hours life at 1000 mA with 70%
lumen maintenance" (on page 1)

"Philips Lumileds projects that white LUXEON K2 with TFFC products will
deliver, on average, 70% lumen maintenance at 50,000 hours of operation at
a forward current of 1000mA. This projection is based on constant current
operation with junction temperture maintained at or below 120°C."

(on page 3)

Just done some calculations on that. Those are extremely inefficient.
They don't do much better than an incandescent! The ones I get pre-made
from Japan are 12 times as effiecient as an incandescent.

Can you provide a link to mfr, part number and a datasheet?

The most efficient laboratory prototype LED that I have heard of
achieved 150 lumens/watt at a usual amount of current (20 mA).

A 240 volt 100 watt lightbulb is said to be about 1300 lumens, so you'd need 8.67 watts worth of those. That's about what I'm seeing with mine - I get 100 watts equivalent (subjective estimation) from 8 watts input. The specs actually work out to 120 watts for 8 watts input.

Not sure who the manufacturer is, and I've lost the place that had all the specs, but this looks like the same thing:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/WFLB96.htm

They claim 480 lumens for a 96 strip using 7.68 watts (although this is converting from their own units using their own calculator).
2.7 of these required to replace a 100W incandescent = 1300 lumens using 20 watts, which is the same as a compact fluorescent. That can't be right LEDs are more efficient than fluorescents.

Also available at:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230241671047

http://www.nichia.com/about_nichia/2006/2006_122001.html

Another achieced about 170 lumens/watt at an efficiency-maximizing
current of a few percent of the amount it was made for, and 136
lumens/watt at the "characterizing current". 136 lumens/watt is the
world record for a single chip LED at 350 mA.

http://www.led-professional.com/content/view/1086/61/

The most efficient LEDs on the market are achieving 100 lumens/watt
at usual amounts of current, and maybe 120 when moderately severely
underpowered.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:44:04 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:


When I was about 10 years old (mid 80s), I remember having the choice of standard and coiled coil bulbs. The coiled coil ones were advertised as lasting longer and (I think) being brighter for the same power input.

I do recall 'coiled coil' being made an issue of but I reckoned it was more in the 70s. And they are brighter IIRC.

The main thing advertised on the box was "double life" - 2000 hours instead of 1000.

Also CFLs do lose brightness over their 6000-15000 hor lifetime.

So do incandescents don't they?

Actually, CFLs and fluorescents in general tend to fade over their
life expectancy more than at least gas-filled incandescents do.

I agree from experience.


LEDs don't fade at all during their 30,000 hour life.....

Sure ?

No. But I've never noticed them doing so. Flourescents (especially the compact ones) definitely fade.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:45:36 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ken wrote:

"Peter Hucker" <none@spam.com> wrote:

Actually, CFLs and fluorescents in general tend to fade over their
life expectancy more than at least gas-filled incandescents do.

LEDs don't fade at all during their 30,000 hour life.....

LEDs fade.

I thought so too. Else, what mechanism would mark end of life as
semiconductors can go on for 100,000 power-on hrs plus ?

I assumed they eventually broke. Failing suddenly. Try running one at too high a current - the ultrabrights at least will function very brightly for a short while, then go off instantly.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If space is a vacuum, who changes the bags?

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:47:39 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:

What I have seen are ultrabright LEDs failing prematurely.

Inadequate heatsinking would be my first bet.

Some are sealed in plastic (waterproof), so I might agree - except they don't even reach body temperature. The others were exposed to the air in a circular fashion on a PAR spotlight shaped device.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

_..._
|_____|
|_____|
|_____|
|_____|
|_____|
/ _____ \
|| ' ||
|| | ||
||- | -||)
|| \ ||
||__.__||
\_______/
|_____|
|_____|
|_____|
|_____|
|_ _|
```

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <op.ujo3edlk4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote (edit for space):

On 26 Oct 2008 20:11:38 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In article <op.ujnc1zo24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:

Just done some calculations on that. Those are extremely inefficient.
They don't do much better than an incandescent! The ones I get pre-made
from Japan are 12 times as effiecient as an incandescent.

Can you provide a link to mfr, part number and a datasheet?

The most efficient laboratory prototype LED that I have heard of
achieved 150 lumens/watt at a usual amount of current (20 mA).

A 240 volt 100 watt lightbulb is said to be about 1300 lumens, so you'd need 8.67 watts worth of those. That's about what I'm seeing with mine - I get 100 watts equivalent (subjective estimation) from 8 watts input. The specs actually work out to 120 watts for 8 watts input.

Not sure who the manufacturer is, and I've lost the place that had all
the specs, but this looks like the same thing:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/WFLB96.htm

They claim 480 lumens for a 96 strip using 7.68 watts (although this is
converting from their own units using their own calculator). 2.7 of
these required to replace a 100W incandescent = 1300 lumens using 20
watts, which is the same as a compact fluorescent. That can't be right
LEDs are more efficient than fluorescents.

Most LEDs are actually not more efficient than fluorescents - only the
very most efficient few are. And even the best of those are hardly more
efficient than T8 4-foot fluorescents.

Also available at:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230241671047

http://www.nichia.com/about_nichia/2006/2006_122001.html

Another achieced about 170 lumens/watt at an efficiency-maximizing
current of a few percent of the amount it was made for, and 136
lumens/watt at the "characterizing current". 136 lumens/watt is the
world record for a single chip LED at 350 mA.

http://www.led-professional.com/content/view/1086/61/

The most efficient LEDs on the market are achieving 100 lumens/watt
at usual amounts of current, and maybe 120 when moderately severely
underpowered.

By that I mean maybe 1 or 2 Nichia models, the top rank of Lumileds
Luxeon "Rebel" at 350 mA in one or two shades of white, top rank of Cree
XRE at 350 mA in only one shade of white, and top rank of Seoul
Semiconductor P4 (uses a Cree chip) at 350 mA in only one shade of white.
Even then, many of these can sometimes fairly easily achieve as little as
90 lumens/watt at 350 mA. Many of these are rated for at least 700 mA
but they operate less efficiently at higher currents. (As of last time I
checked.)

The most efficient 3 and 5 mm ones I have seen so far (at the usual 20
mA) is Nichia white ones with D revision letter. I don't have any hard
luminous flux data, but these appear to me to be achieving around 60
lumens/watt or somewhat more, maybe 70. Nichia has a slightly more
efficient white with a shorter life phosphor - and I guess it is intended
for flashlights, keyfob lights and the like.

The Chinese knockoffs have achieved consistently less so far in my
experience of reading their specifications.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <op.ujo3qikr4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:47:39 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:

What I have seen are ultrabright LEDs failing prematurely.

Inadequate heatsinking would be my first bet.

Some are sealed in plastic (waterproof), so I might agree - except they
don't even reach body temperature. The others were exposed to the air in
a circular fashion on a PAR spotlight shaped device.

I usually see white LEDs receiving enough power to make them get warm.

Also, I have heard of some of the cheapies having poor internal
connections. I have even seen some that failed after mere hundreds of
operating hours and mere hundreds of on-off cycles and several months of
storage. I don't know who made those (Chinese cheapie), but I did tell
the product assembler to use something else.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:38:30 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In <op.ujo3edlk4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote (edit for space):
On 26 Oct 2008 20:11:38 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In article <op.ujnc1zo24buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:

Just done some calculations on that. Those are extremely inefficient.
They don't do much better than an incandescent! The ones I get pre-made
from Japan are 12 times as effiecient as an incandescent.

Can you provide a link to mfr, part number and a datasheet?

The most efficient laboratory prototype LED that I have heard of
achieved 150 lumens/watt at a usual amount of current (20 mA).

A 240 volt 100 watt lightbulb is said to be about 1300 lumens, so you'd need 8.67 watts worth of those. That's about what I'm seeing with mine - I get 100 watts equivalent (subjective estimation) from 8 watts input. The specs actually work out to 120 watts for 8 watts input.

Not sure who the manufacturer is, and I've lost the place that had all
the specs, but this looks like the same thing:
http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/WFLB96.htm

They claim 480 lumens for a 96 strip using 7.68 watts (although this is
converting from their own units using their own calculator). 2.7 of
these required to replace a 100W incandescent = 1300 lumens using 20
watts, which is the same as a compact fluorescent. That can't be right
LEDs are more efficient than fluorescents.

Most LEDs are actually not more efficient than fluorescents - only the
very most efficient few are. And even the best of those are hardly more
efficient than T8 4-foot fluorescents.

Also available at:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230241671047

http://www.nichia.com/about_nichia/2006/2006_122001.html

Another achieced about 170 lumens/watt at an efficiency-maximizing
current of a few percent of the amount it was made for, and 136
lumens/watt at the "characterizing current". 136 lumens/watt is the
world record for a single chip LED at 350 mA.

http://www.led-professional.com/content/view/1086/61/

The most efficient LEDs on the market are achieving 100 lumens/watt
at usual amounts of current, and maybe 120 when moderately severely
underpowered.

By that I mean maybe 1 or 2 Nichia models, the top rank of Lumileds
Luxeon "Rebel" at 350 mA in one or two shades of white, top rank of Cree
XRE at 350 mA in only one shade of white, and top rank of Seoul
Semiconductor P4 (uses a Cree chip) at 350 mA in only one shade of white.
Even then, many of these can sometimes fairly easily achieve as little as
90 lumens/watt at 350 mA. Many of these are rated for at least 700 mA
but they operate less efficiently at higher currents. (As of last time I
checked.)

The most efficient 3 and 5 mm ones I have seen so far (at the usual 20
mA) is Nichia white ones with D revision letter. I don't have any hard
luminous flux data, but these appear to me to be achieving around 60
lumens/watt or somewhat more, maybe 70. Nichia has a slightly more
efficient white with a shorter life phosphor - and I guess it is intended
for flashlights, keyfob lights and the like.

The Chinese knockoffs have achieved consistently less so far in my
experience of reading their specifications.

The reason I buy the ones I quoted is that they are the only preassembled long flexible strips I've been able to find. Certainly with a high density of LEDs - there are some with about an inch between each one! It makes them nice and easy to put them wherever you want them, coiled into a circle, as a strip, or rolled up inside an old compact flourescent with the inners removed. They're 12 volts, which works great with my solar power array. Plus I can make decent brightnesses by using a lot of them. The pre-made bulb shaped ones are pathetic - I've not seen one over 30 watts equivalent!! Bulbs are historically 40, 60, and 100 watts! What are people doing with them, installing 3 times as many light fittings in their homes?!?

This site seems to think they are TEN times as efficient as an incandescent:
http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

In a recent survey 40% found they didn't have time to answer the
question, 25% hung up the phone when the question was being
asked, 20% couldn't speak English, and 15% gave answers that
weren't asked.

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:46:08 -0000, Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:

In article <op.ujo3qikr4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net>, Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:47:39 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:

What I have seen are ultrabright LEDs failing prematurely.

Inadequate heatsinking would be my first bet.

Some are sealed in plastic (waterproof), so I might agree - except they
don't even reach body temperature. The others were exposed to the air in
a circular fashion on a PAR spotlight shaped device.

I usually see white LEDs receiving enough power to make them get warm.

Never felt one that felt warmer than my own hand.

Also, I have heard of some of the cheapies having poor internal
connections.

Now that sounds familiar. I have a strip running now in fact (a few days old), which has a few of them flickering! It will be going back under warranty (as long as they don't mind me having cut the wires during installation.....)

I have even seen some that failed after mere hundreds of
operating hours and mere hundreds of on-off cycles and several months of
storage. I don't know who made those (Chinese cheapie), but I did tell
the product assembler to use something else.

A strip I bought from the UK (I've stopped buying any LEDs from the UK!) failed in a few weeks. I sent it back and the replacement did the same. After SIX replacements, I gave up. Oddly, they no longer sell this model. I also avoid (like the failed one) 240 volt models. They tend to have hundreds in series, so you lose one, you lose half the strip.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

----------------
' _ _ `
| (_) (_) |
| |
| .--------. |
| |\/\/\/\/| |
| | | |
.-| | | |-.
/ | |/\/\/\/\| | \
/ /| `--------` |\ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
(____)| |(____)
|------------------|
| /\ |
| | | |
|-------| |-------|
( )( )
--------- ---------

 

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:40:42 -0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Michael Black wrote:

The comparison is so people know that a 23watt CFL is about the
same as a 100W bulb.

In the UK they'll try to kid you 18W does it !

My experience in USA "120V land" is that "better" 18-20 watt CFL at
optimum temperature with no aging past a 100 operating-hour break-in
period is a good match to "better" 75 watt incandescents.

Yes, I think you're about right there.


And that it takes 25-26 watts for a CFL to "fully match a 100W
'standard' incandescent", with 28 watts no better and 30 watt CFLs
"slightly brighter".

Now try buying one ?


CFLs have major real bigtime advantage in energy efficiency - sadly
often-exaggerated to an extent leading to disappointment and
dissatisfaction! I see so much hype of LED lighting to even-worse-extent!
Ever wonder why lighting-installing electricians are stodgier
conservatives than Ronald Reagan on the job, even if voting for Obama?

I found the 'small print' btw. It is actually still on a recent Philips CFL
box. It says ....
"Uses 5 times less electricity.* Light output measured according to IEC 969
standards, compared to a 1000 hr SOFT COLOUR (my caps) bulb of similar ligh
output".

Soft colour = lower efficiency. FOUR times less is nearer the mark when
compared to standard GLS bulbs.

*SOFTONE* ! That was the brand name. See this
http://www.nextag.co.uk/Philips-100W-Softone-BC-528595584/uk/prices-html

and this
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/product/1062/philips-soft-white-t55-100w-bc-2-pack/

I used to have softone bulbs, i never noticed they were dimmer.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Did you hear about the little Indian chief who didn't know the difference between heads and tails?
He was always bringing home scalps with holes in them.