LED lightbulb life

[RMD]

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

RMD <rmd@invalid.invalid> wrote:

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

Yes, the same applies to CFL bulbs as well (I've got a very dim one
above me right now).

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

 

[Charlie+]

On Thu, 09 May 2019 23:17:12 GMT, rmd@invalid.invalid (RMD) wrote as
underneath :

Yep, I reckon on about 3 years as average replacement time for daily
used led bulbs in the 8W-15W range, they run too hot to last well
without dimming with use. So if you buy expensive bulbs then the
economics begin to sag a bit! C+

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

 

[Lucifer]

On Fri, 10 May 2019 07:48:46 +0100, Charlie+ <charlie@xxx.net> wrote:

On Thu, 09 May 2019 23:17:12 GMT, rmd@invalid.invalid (RMD) wrote as
underneath :

Yep, I reckon on about 3 years as average replacement time for daily
used led bulbs in the 8W-15W range, they run too hot to last well
without dimming with use. So if you buy expensive bulbs then the
economics begin to sag a bit! C+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

 

[Lucifer]

On Thu, 09 May 2019 23:17:12 GMT, rmd@invalid.invalid (RMD) wrote:

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

In my experience the LEDs themselves don't fail.
The power supply is what fails.
You can reuse a failed LED globe by connecting a suitable low
voltage DC power supply directly to the LEDs.

>Ross

 

[#BoycottEurovision2019]

RMD wrote:

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

in my experience it is the power supplies not the fluorescent coating that
wears out (same with CFL)
Imagine if LED TV's faded because of "fluorescent coating" there'd be riots
in the streets, people wanting their money back .

I've pulled apart a few of them, and the LED is practically new but
the switching power supply is gone.

Understandable since they're totally sealed with silicone, & running hot
thus
destined to burn up & fail.
https://imgur.com/a/eOSEnMC

They should be better designed to run cooler, perhaps with heat sink fins,
ventilation holes?

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Lucifer <LuciferMorningstar@bigpond.com> wrote:

In my experience the LEDs themselves don't fail.
The power supply is what fails.

That's true for when they stop working altogether, but the LEDs
themselves do loose brightness over time. White ones also become
more yellow.

Of course it could probably be compensated for by running higher
brightness LEDs at lower current to start with, then having the
current limiter slowly allow more current through as the LEDs get
older. There would be a corresponding cost increase for that
feature though.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

 

[keithr0]

On 5/10/2019 9:17 AM, RMD wrote:

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

I've had el cheapo Aldi LEDs for the last 5 years. In that time one has
died and I can't see any change in the rest of them, they seem just as
bright as when new.

 

[Daniel60]

Lucifer wrote on 11/05/2019 8:15 AM:

On Fri, 10 May 2019 07:48:46 +0100, Charlie+ <charlie@xxx.net> wrote:

On Thu, 09 May 2019 23:17:12 GMT, rmd@invalid.invalid (RMD) wrote as
underneath :

Yep, I reckon on about 3 years as average replacement time for daily
used led bulbs in the 8W-15W range, they run too hot to last well
without dimming with use. So if you buy expensive bulbs then the
economics begin to sag a bit! C+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting

Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??
--
Daniel

 

[Charlie+]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12/05/2019 8:26 am, #BoycottEurovision2019 wrote:

RMD wrote:
Hi All,

I never cared for the CFL bulbs with the slow starting, and I much
preferred the LED lights which were "intstant on".

The life of of LED bulbs is sometimes quoted on packaging as 50,000
hours, which in domestic use ought be "forever".

However, I've found while the LED bulbs don't actually ever fail,
they just get dimmer and dimmer, until they are useless for purpose.

The LEDS are working fine, but the fluorescent coating, which actually
emits the visible light, wears out much sooner than "forever".

What I'm doing is that once the bulbs get too dim to (say) read the
newspaper by then I put them in (say) a toilet or other non-crtical
area where the lack of brightness isn't a problem.

Btw initially I thought either my eyes were failing, or my reading
glasses prescription was now wrong, before discovering it was actually
dim LED bulbs. I put in new LED bulbs and my eyes were working fine
again! The difference in brighness from new to old LED light bulbs was
actually quite startling!

Ross

in my experience it is the power supplies not the fluorescent coating that
wears out (same with CFL)
Imagine if LED TV's faded because of "fluorescent coating" there'd be riots
in the streets, people wanting their money back .

I've pulled apart a few of them, and the LED is practically new but
the switching power supply is gone.

Understandable since they're totally sealed with silicone, & running hot
thus
destined to burn up & fail.
https://imgur.com/a/eOSEnMC

They should be better designed to run cooler, perhaps with heat sink fins,
ventilation holes?

Doesn't help that they're built using capacitors that are barely
adequate when new.

Sylvia.

 

[Daniel60]

Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and all
modes, i.e e-mail and UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make more
sense .... but only very rarely!! ;-)

--
Daniel

 

[FMurtz]

Daniel60 wrote:

Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and all
modes, i.e e-mail and UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make more
sense .... but only very rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

 

[~misfit~]

On 15/07/2019 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:

Daniel60 wrote:
Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and all modes, i.e e-mail and
UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make more sense .... but only very
rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

Who said that?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

 

[FMurtz]

~misfit~ wrote:

On 15/07/2019 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Daniel60 wrote:
Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and
all modes, i.e e-mail and UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make
more sense .... but only very rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

Who said that?
I did as I have found that on many occasions.

 

[~misfit~]

On 16/07/2019 12:08 PM, FMurtz wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:
On 15/07/2019 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Daniel60 wrote:
Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and all modes, i.e e-mail and
UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make more sense .... but only
very rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

Who said that?
I did as I have found that on many occasions.

Wooosh.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

 

[FMurtz]

~misfit~ wrote:

On 16/07/2019 12:08 PM, FMurtz wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 15/07/2019 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Daniel60 wrote:
Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second
on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times
and all modes, i.e e-mail and UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make
more sense .... but only very rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

Who said that?
I did as I have found that on many occasions.

Wooosh.
You are the Whooshey one as it is a fact

 

[~misfit~]

On 18/07/2019 9:22 PM, FMurtz wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:
On 16/07/2019 12:08 PM, FMurtz wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
On 15/07/2019 3:09 PM, FMurtz wrote:
Daniel60 wrote:
Charlie+ wrote on 14/06/2019 4:06 PM:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:34:26 +1000, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote as underneath :

snip

Lucifer, what did you mean by quoting the link, above, about
Usenet_quoting??

Probably because I top posted (as per email replies) in usenet by
mistake! There is often some pedant police with too much time on hand
who will pick up on that sort of thing, dont even waste a second on it!
C+

Me, Myself and I prefer EVERYBODY would BOTTOM post at all times and all modes, i.e e-mail
and UseNet!!

Well, O.K., at times I can see that INTERSPERSED posting might make more sense .... but only
very rarely!! ;-)

And blind people often top post.

Who said that?
I did as I have found that on many occasions.

Wooosh.
You are the Whooshey one as it is a fact

LOL, I know it's a fact. I post in groups where there are blind people.

<https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh>
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.