Yeah, CFL is actually really efficient. Less flexible packaging than Led's, so they're really more complementary technologies for now.
Nice review!
Thanks for the review! I'm searching for a led bulb and this comparison is really helpful!
Hugely useful post and review. Thanks so much. Sounds like many of the LED lightbulbs still fall a little short for now.
It does however, tempt me to stop at Menard's this weekend and pick up one of these on sale:
Thanks4OP. Pretty much confirms what I suspect every time I see "4 watts" -- common sense will tell you it'll be as or probably less bright than one of those cheap 3 x AA "3 watt" headlamps with no-name emitters. Any decent LED bulb will need to be, what, 10 watts min, pref 17+.
DX has some interesting high-wattage large-surface bare LED's, like 20+ watts. They seem easy enough to hook to a computer heat sink and power with a regular DC power supply. However I've not seen anyone do that, just people torture-testing Cree's is as close as I see on that. No idea why we don't see these at market as a finished product? Even in wal-mart now I see these 4-watt pieces of shame. That's not acting in good faith in my opinion, as 4 watts by any means is not going to be much more than a night-light.
I think maybe we see Match's next project? The [multi?] XM-L "X-Lamp Lamp'? Seriously, how much would a well-made single Cree XM-L semi-directional/lower output light bulb really cost? I think going from AC to DC would be the hardest part, even beyond heatsinking? An XM-L die wholesale costs maybe, what--$5 wholesale or less? KD has 'em on a star for $8 shipped.
At this point the demand is so high and supply so low, yet bare parts available, I think someone could make at least decent side money cobbling such things together by hand, possibly a living like Nailbende, selling them on Ebay, shows/conventions, FORUMS, etc..
Some of the "higher" wattage ones at Wal-Mart (like 8? LOL) seem to have fans in them! I'm not sure, it's hard to tell. But I am NOT going to buy a bulb which makes noise of its own! Which is why I won't buy CFL--not (necessarily) audible noise (that too, sometimes), but they produce just TONS of electromagnetic garbage/noise. In fact that's how they produce the light in the first place. Put a handheld AM radio up near a CF bulb when they're both on and you'll hear the sound of death.
I'm really hoping that CF will be the "Windows Vista" of lighting technology: touted as the greatest next technology, horrible but some will love it just because it's supposedly great, only around for a short time, and in the end, not a replacement for the older technology... Replaced by something less bad, yet not a complete replacement solution for the old technology. LED will probably be the "Windows 7" of light: what CFL was always supposed to be but never was, still bloated (LED's are ridiculous expensive on the front end compared to incan), not great (LED's have a hard time producing the riciculous light an incan can), but not the bad dream the last "leapfrog" technology was. CFL's will hopefully be analagous to the zeppelins of the past: not the first flying technology, and replaced by simply better versions of a previously-developed technology.
So much energy and resources go into CFL's, some argue that they are not a net energy saver over their lifetime. Esp if they break a lot sooner than advertised, which is my own experience. That's why they cost so much: much more energy and environmental cost goes into producing them, vs incan's which are very lean on resources used. Same reason hybrids cost more than a comparable vehicle. To save $5 to $15 on electricity, that bulb will need to be used a lot, and last a long time.
Plus, CFL's can be very dangerous, and fail catastrophically at unpredictable moments. Had it happen to me, and have read worse stories of them breaking unexpectedly and spewing fiery plasma until turned off (not to mention the mercury). Just 1 whole-room carpet replacement for spilled mercury covers enough resources for a lot of incan light bulbs and electricity to power them for a LONG time. I now won't leave the home with a CFL running.
Personally, I'm stocking up on 100-watt incandescent light bulbs (30 cents apiece!) as in the USA, national socialists are trying to ban them. If nothing replaces CFL, I'll have to be a renegade and get DX to try to sneak my contraband incans past customs. Maybe I'll be arrested on a streetcorner trying to buy 100 grams of incandescents, or get my car towed when they find a few during another surrepetitious search. A woman can 'choose' to have an abhortion [sic] on demand and kll her own healthy, consensually-generated human offspring, but it's not our 'right' to 'choose' which light bulb we use? Wake up, this is the wisdom and ethics of Leftism.
From the looks of this Comparison, it unfortunately looks like LED replacement for incans is quite aways away.
thanks for sharing so patient, glad to here that especially for the different channels of getting them. pictures shows there is just for testing or have any ideas of creating the atmosphere...,
Plus, CFL's can be very dangerous, and fail catastrophically at unpredictable moments. Had it happen to me, and have read worse stories of them breaking unexpectedly and spewing fiery plasma until turned off (not to mention the mercury). Just 1 whole-room carpet replacement for spilled mercury covers enough resources for a lot of incan light bulbs and electricity to power them for a LONG time. I now won't leave the home with a CFL running.
Uh, the reason they can create that plasma is due to vacuum in the tube, and the trace amounts of mercury they contain aren't even enough to alarm those communist socialists in the EPA. http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Thanks a lot
It's definitely a help, since a lot of us were/are thinking in using these bulbs!
Have you noticed:
Now, that incans get banned people are getting VERY concerned about CFL´s containing mercury.
Have any of you noticed any debate before this? I mean, like 95% (at least at here) of schools, daycares, hospitals, libraries, stores, supermarkets, offices have had CFL-tubes as main source of light for how long, from 70´s?
Nobody at least in here has bothered to take sweat to get these banned for last 40yrs...
Ok, CFL´s have mercury. If I remember correctly, it was some 5-6mg tops.
If a bulb breaks, how can you assure yourself, you can get it all into your system? You have to be under it with mouth open and inhale fast & keep it there to maximise dosage.
After succesfully absorbing it, you may have gotten a part of this 5-6mg to your body.
BTW, do you eat fish?
Have you ever been worried about the amount of mercury in fish meat?
A couple of times in a week was enough to get you almost the same as from one CFL if you eat fish, that has the highest approved limit for consumption. Correct me if I remember incorrectly.
Yes, a lot people are good with names and bad with numbers/quantity. Not a problem if you're careful but sometime it's used to their detriment in propaganda.
I wasn't meaning for this thread to turn into an Obama-light-bashing post!
I'm not a fan of the legislation banning standard incan lights, but I still prefer CFLs. I had adopted CFLs long before the impending ban was ever mentioned. I vastly prefer the cooler operation of the CFLs. In NE Texas, it has been 100+ degrees almost every day for the past month, and we are continuing to experince these high temperatures. Running a incan lights adds a large amount of heat which will then need to be removed by running the air conditioning longer. Also, I don't like the heat that radiates directly from an incan bulb when you are working near it; the CFLs are much more comfortable to work around.
I have also had very good luck with the CFLs lasting much longer than incandescent bulbs. I am using bulbs that I have had for years, and I have carried with me from a house I lived in 5 years ago.
As a bonus, I have located my power meter (a Kill-A-WattEZ) and will be testing these LED bulbs to compare the rated power usage vs the actual measured usage. I'll post the results here when I have them available.
Good comparison. It would be a great guide when we make new purchase.
Thanks for this great review!
I was about to order some for testing but I will wait for better bulbs and/or go for some more expensive.
Hey you stole my thunder LOL
An update!
About six months later, one of my MF-purchased GU10 bulbs has failed. The issues appears to have been a bad connection or failed LED on the LED board. As I originally mentioned, I had broken one of the drivers on one of the E27 bulbs. I had retained this bulb for parts, allowing me to removed the LED board and used it to replace the one on the failed GU10 bulb and it worked perfectly once again!
Can you please post real life pictures how well the room is lit up using this bulb, otherwise your post might be considered as spam.
no matter 5050,3014 or 5630 LEDs, the LED brighting is too strong for reading, it's better to install a diffuser on your LED lamps so as to have soft light for reading.
By the way, the lamp shown in your link have 44 pcs 5050 LEDs, let's caculate 1 pcs of 5050 LED has luminous of 18 Lm, then 18 x 44 = 792 Lm, this brightness is closed to that of 100W incandescent bulb, do you really need so much light for reading?
I'm surprised anyone is still reading this thread!
First, to answer Woundedeagle, (if he shows up again):
I had two bulbs, each with 22 5050 emitters; these bulbs were not exceptionally bright, and one failed pretty quickly. The second one still works fine. These bulbs are rather dim and I would estimate the light output to be equivilent to a <20W incandescent bulb. Also, my limited research indicates that a 100W incandescent bulb is closer to 1700 lumens; many times brighter than any of the LED bulbs I have ever tried.
Just as a general update: The 109LED corn lights were pathetic, so I stopped using them. I had them allocated for porch light duty, but they were far to dim for that. One finally began failing after a very short while (sections of LEDs would start to flicker) and after I moved, I never unboxed these.
The Manfont 4W bulbs have been great, for the most part. I had purchased several of these for myself, as well as several to replace the expensive and high-failure-rate halogen bulbs used in the stove vent-a-hood for a family member. These bulbs have been rather reliable but with a few failures due to individual emitters failing, possibly due to poor heat sink contact. The metal base of the emitter isn't soldered to the plate, but rather sits loosly on the plate with a small amount of heat sink paste underneath. As these fail, I'm replacing the defective emitters and applying Fujik in an attempt to improve heat transfer. I was able to buy a bag of 10 replacement warm-tint 1W egg-yolk emitters very cheaply from eBay, and installing the replacement is extremely easy. I have enough spare emitters now to last for years...
10 lumens per watt is a much more realistic number for the effective output of an incandescnt bulb.
This thread is all about very cheap led-bulbs, just thought it was fair to join in with an experience with a quite expensive one, I bought it half a year ago for I think it was 30 dollars at the time, a GU10 reflector bulb replacement:
Output is similar to a 50W halogen, beam is better than most halogen lamps, tint is really pleasant (got the ww version). Gets too hot to touch when running longer periods, but it has not failed yet, with at least 4 hours of use every day.
When opened up you can see 4 XP-E emitters on a board screwed onto an alu heatsink that is one big piece forming most of the body of the lamp, the light is colected by 4 TIR's that are frosted on the outside, all looks like a good design:
