Led lighting ?

M

mowhoong

Guest
Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:49:57 -0800 (PST), mowhoong
<mowhoong@hotmail.com> wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
Click to expand...
LEDs keep getting better. If they are packaged properly, they will be
both efficient and very reliable. Rolling three guys in a
cherry-picker truck to replace bulbs in street lights and traffic
lights is terrifically expensive, too.

John
 
In <eb112cc1-9d89-4a71-843b-ffbece1a2fad@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
mowhoong wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of history of new lighting technologies causing
disappointments. Sometimes, and especially in many cases with LED
replacement lighting, the claims of gain in energy efficiency are
overstated or half-truths. Also, the replacement lighting units sometimes
don't produce the same quality of light, or the same light distribution
pattern, as that produced by what was replaced.

Those in charge of procuring lighting units of a different technology
should check out units already installed for customers who are happy with
them. Preferably, a few existing units should be retrofitted on a local
pilot study basis.

I have seen a lot of stories of replacing HID lighting units with LED
ones that sounded to me too good to be true, especially considering the
efficiency of the best *feasibly and economically available* LEDs that
could have been used in units made before the times when some of these
stories came out.
One thing: I have not seen much in increase in claims of energy
efficiency improvement by going with LED here in the past 4 years, while
LED efficiency did increase significantly in that time. This makes me
think that the claims "were not quite right" back then, maybe to put it
mildly, and I would not count on them being "fully true" now until
tested/verified.

Things to watch out for:

* Comparison of brand new clean replacement units with aged/dirty
existing units

* Overstating energy consumption rate of existing units

* Overstating light output of replacement units for any or any
combination of several reasons, some of them ones of incompetence rather
than dishonesty

* Overstating benefits of different color or different spectrum of the
light from the replacement units

* LED life expectancy figures turn out to be optimistic (less likely
when the LEDs themselves are by a *big name major established LED
manufacturer* that publishes a datasheet, and the customer verifies that
the LEDs are reliably not having LED current or relevant temperature
(such as heatsinkable surface of the LEDs or adjacent heatsink) pushing
or exceeding limits specified in the datasheet for good life expectancy.
(Preferably the datasheet states for fading by typically no more than to
70% of "initial" light output at 50,000 hours.)
Watch out for how non-contact thermometers read bare metal, and how
any thermometer used by a salescritter or used in a manner recommended
by a salescritter can read low for what such salescritter is selling.

However, I actually do not like HPS lamps. I like metal halide better
for effectiveness of illumination, and I like LED better still when done
right and done with honest and verifiable numbers, if the numbers add up
to be advantageous.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
In <0fahl6lm15puemh35hjh493g9smkt8c7f5@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

On 2/13/11 19:49:57 -0800 mowhoong <mowhoong@hotmail.com> wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.

LEDs keep getting better. If they are packaged properly, they will be
both efficient and very reliable. Rolling three guys in a
cherry-picker truck to replace bulbs in street lights and traffic
lights is terrifically expensive, too.
Click to expand...
It appears to me that LED may be just now becoming preferable to
most currently existing HID lamp technology for most streetlighting.
If not, maybe just a couple more years now!

Have a look at my previous article in this thread.

Meanwhile, I do see a major difference here between streetlights and
traffic lights. For streetlights, LED replacements are competing mostly
against lamps achieving 70-110 lumens per watt and mostly lasting 3-6
years before needing replacement of a lamp costing $15 or less FOB in
quantities that municipalities would purchase. HPS is mostly achieving
5-plus, maybe often largely 7 years now before needing "relamping"
(replacing a lightbulb). This is at 11-12 hours average runtime per day.

How non-LED traffic lights are different: They use "traffic signal"
incandescents with 8,000-hour-life-expectancy. The filaments in those
incandescents appear to me to be of a "vibration resistant" sort of
design, which compromises efficiency in comparison to
shortest-straightest-fattest with-least-supports coiled-coil that tends to
be most efficient in most incandescents designed for at least 28 volts and
at least 60 watts.
Most of these achieve around ~10.2-11 lumens per watt at rated voltage,
though mostly around ~8.6-9.3 lumens/watt for 130V ones used at 120V.
This is before how roughly 94% of their usage is with red or green colored
filters that block around ~66-70% of their light output. At that point,
overall luminous efficacy of non-LED traffic lights is maybe 33-38% of
8.6-11 lumens/watt. That means maybe 2.8-4.2 lumens per watt for colored
LEDs to compare to. The incandescent systems *probably* have some
non-color-filter-related optical losses that systems based on colored LEDs
can improve opon.

So, improvement upon pre-LED technology gets a lot easier for traffic
lights than for streetlights. Non-LED streetlights tend to mostly be
ballpark around 20 times as luminously efficient at converting electricity
to final output light as non-LED traffic lights.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
 
mowhoong wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
Click to expand...
Abuse?????

If these claims are true (about the savings), and the LED bulbs actually
produce the same illumination of the ones that they're replacing (safety
is always a concern), that's freakin' phenomenal!

There have been LED stop/go signals here (Whittier, CA) for some years
now; evidently somebody is doing something right.

I've even seen walk/don't walk signs that give a countdown - they've
got that red/orange hand for "don't walk", and the white caricature
of the walking guy, but lately I've seen ones that when the walk guy
comes on, the other side goes, "15, 14, 13, 12, " and so on, so you
know how long you have to cross the street.

Fuckin' amazing!

Cheers!
Rich
 
"mowhoong" wrote in message
news:eb112cc1-9d89-4a71-843b-ffbece1a2fad@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.

----------------------------

My posts are not from hash smoking

SO far LED lighting is crap and very limited in usage applications.

HPS is much more efficient and the bulbs may last longer than LED lighting
pushed to the new heights of luminance.
The LED hype is just that, HYPE mostly. I have used them in my home and they
are not up to snuff yet. They are not that efficient in white. despite the
cons the promoters would have you believe. The specs are typically bare
units and not encapsulated yet, the white light is not a balance spectrum
and their are doubts arising regarding the health of humans under them.


mike (the real one)
 
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnilhclo.94b.don@manx.misty.com...

In <eb112cc1-9d89-4a71-843b-ffbece1a2fad@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
mowhoong wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of history of new lighting technologies causing
disappointments. Sometimes, and especially in many cases with LED
replacement lighting, the claims of gain in energy efficiency are
overstated or half-truths. Also, the replacement lighting units sometimes
don't produce the same quality of light, or the same light distribution
pattern, as that produced by what was replaced.

Those in charge of procuring lighting units of a different technology
should check out units already installed for customers who are happy with
them. Preferably, a few existing units should be retrofitted on a local
pilot study basis.

I have seen a lot of stories of replacing HID lighting units with LED
ones that sounded to me too good to be true, especially considering the
efficiency of the best *feasibly and economically available* LEDs that
could have been used in units made before the times when some of these
stories came out.
One thing: I have not seen much in increase in claims of energy
efficiency improvement by going with LED here in the past 4 years, while
LED efficiency did increase significantly in that time. This makes me
think that the claims "were not quite right" back then, maybe to put it
mildly, and I would not count on them being "fully true" now until
tested/verified.

Things to watch out for:

* Comparison of brand new clean replacement units with aged/dirty
existing units

* Overstating energy consumption rate of existing units

* Overstating light output of replacement units for any or any
combination of several reasons, some of them ones of incompetence rather
than dishonesty

* Overstating benefits of different color or different spectrum of the
light from the replacement units

* LED life expectancy figures turn out to be optimistic (less likely
when the LEDs themselves are by a *big name major established LED
manufacturer* that publishes a datasheet, and the customer verifies that
the LEDs are reliably not having LED current or relevant temperature
(such as heatsinkable surface of the LEDs or adjacent heatsink) pushing
or exceeding limits specified in the datasheet for good life expectancy.
(Preferably the datasheet states for fading by typically no more than to
70% of "initial" light output at 50,000 hours.)
Watch out for how non-contact thermometers read bare metal, and how
any thermometer used by a salescritter or used in a manner recommended
by a salescritter can read low for what such salescritter is selling.

However, I actually do not like HPS lamps. I like metal halide better
for effectiveness of illumination, and I like LED better still when done
right and done with honest and verifiable numbers, if the numbers add up
to be advantageous.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Concur on all that but would like to add.

Many of the efficiency specs were issued without ballast circuitry losses
and without encapsulation losses.

Coloured LEDs win hands down over most of other lighting types but not
so-called "white" LEDs and some of the spectrum is missing which is being
blamed for health problems without a properly balanced light for humans.

Sodium bulbs are so far out front for efficiency that LEDS have a long way
to go, yet. LED's also have heat problems and require a lot of heat sinking
or their own inefficiencies burn themselves out.



mike
 
"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news:ijavcc$oan$4@news.eternal-september.org...

mowhoong wrote:

Recently , Our gorverment authorities, as part of a national pilot
exercise on energy saving, replaced 16 unit of street " high pressure
sodium lamps" with LED bulbs. The LED bulbs are said to have
electricity bill " 18 % energy saving " properties saving up to one
millon dollars on monthly. Subsequent plans to replace 100 K unit of
street lamp. The plan is to extend replacement of lamp bulbs with LED
to include fluorescent lighting used in the public housing, to a tune
of 340K units. This move is said to save another five million yearly
on electricity bills.
I feel that this a knee jerk reaction to the energy saving properties
LED lighting has. It is an abuse of the LED technolgy.
What do you thinks ? Can any members commemt ? Thanks for advice and
reply.
Click to expand...
Abuse?????

If these claims are true (about the savings), and the LED bulbs actually
produce the same illumination of the ones that they're replacing (safety
is always a concern), that's freakin' phenomenal!

There have been LED stop/go signals here (Whittier, CA) for some years
now; evidently somebody is doing something right.

I've even seen walk/don't walk signs that give a countdown - they've
got that red/orange hand for "don't walk", and the white caricature
of the walking guy, but lately I've seen ones that when the walk guy
comes on, the other side goes, "15, 14, 13, 12, " and so on, so you
know how long you have to cross the street.

Fuckin' amazing!

Cheers!


-----

Talk to the traffic people servicing these units and they will tell you they
get replaced every 3-4 years for segment burnout problems.
They do not last forever when pushed that hard and are much more expensive
to replace.


mike
Rich
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-02-14 02:35 PM, josepi, wrote:

more forged garbage





Copies of forged postings forwarded to Josepi's internet providers

abuse@highwinds-media.com
abuse@teranews.com



mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNW1q4AAoJEJXfKw5kUPt7F50H/R24104Hk23A2oZoVusjfYtZ
SZkFop2B9sCQZ+ljGu4hX68cKUt1jupUhctkekekmlug/wbS7Bra36bbJEp6ThBe
2CJuqSPbH2rz7boeK/ACP+xO/Wb6snWIhfUk0wHGEqKrBzaEgmbwtrC6X0X7fESP
RvzKu/Nqqy6RISId3kFS4F9Y3l3wnyeWzf+HQ3bbPo4I60q+Ti9rSsUemXDhLgdW
3tgpkQ8jxmLWEtbMRxCgvU/TlcO0XUfYAZXAO6hZFpJGSFOEsU5FN4JSh/R9ypmw
zR25Z3OU//5Hd1fowAVf5BwMQ+WzRjLgVrvzLpUEoSJnrkzVeIwMFbbmk7hTdr8=
=qEqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-02-14 02:36 PM, Josepi wrote:

more forged garbage




Copies of forged postings forwarded to Josepi's internet providers

abuse@highwinds-media.com
abuse@teranews.com



mike





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNW1tMAAoJEJXfKw5kUPt7YwgH/jnNZaFE/1yZHPD/NJWX9pD4
O9xb7jr6UHON6lqLENpQDoBTfhzKIE8F+AErNyZeEspGC+OvzsLQhsVRgsBtEIZg
XdHlm+Zfq6t9cDQjNHOG3kXa11KIgXtPTcvyoD8RrftHbxfghC04HXDGZWZ+Q7Zz
LDQxhpK5lEqRcDWyYDfKnfZGwheduD7OdRaHvC+NTFJ1dKmoF2xq+BWkGBqhjF2B
hRDNaqUFvUBS4hs5AlA5RbKBJjcZoGfuHF0wI7TpKjUjRLgL5ZIeiMKWm6rN+fFL
QbAQDGBVzpHAU69+RHrGWw8cEU7hIAsHwkKOohsl7hVjfq1+QTsAE8hh0J1RCWg=
=xKUj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 11-02-14 02:30 PM, Josepi wrote:

more forged garbage




Copies of forged postings forwarded to Josepi's internet providers

abuse@highwinds-media.com
abuse@teranews.com



mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNW1uaAAoJEJXfKw5kUPt73bQH+QF9WggkcNBVtAQ0Pm4VmO/j
ANWFLnS2+v6ZVJ9usrC8FhhIi+n+FraiNrqUYnS7wMny7TWIZsYTjvSTPOlRUoW2
tPjkaa5IHHkhJl9kc38pgJXKG0vKDw9e8kwJW/HKtySdVrHG9ZgX49W/N3CUvBsO
WnPTfUWnZv1m8Bu3U+gMjUtpD5XMsZ688542Yv8+XiT7r2hN3z53oteynYvdHseo
gbwOmUUsvxuA1Z79Y35HzLAuz0TDpJPSNRtBRu7awsPcGbEcqxA5XiVPfZmKFGbc
oTjnsICkrXatXLdMmvZI+EqkgaWGNd0/xzZn1QLwf+hF8Eq5lBTWdI22SVZv5Rg=
=G8fS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top