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:
Isn’t it amazing how in just over a year technology could change so fast? Now if only prices could catch up, that’s the only factor that’s keeping me off LEDs lol. But perhaps a review of the current, expensive LEDs should be done too just to even it out, not just those from ebay as they’re mostly cheap knock-offs? I would suggest reviewing from different parts of the world such as http://www.ikea.com, http://www.ledlightsmart.co.uk/, http://www.ledcentral.com.au/, and http://www.illustralighting.com.
I know it could be quite an expensive review for one person, so how about those who already have lights from these manufacturers post theirs here and we also agree to some standards for the tests? 
Nice review, but i will go with led lights for their economical benefits.
I believe philips do make led lights?
Ikea led, 400 lumens, 5€ (maybe 7$ in the us). Warm tint (claimed to be 2700K). Better build quality than budget led bulb. Even cheaper than brand fluorescent bulb and no warm-up delay.