"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by naile » Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:16:34


yes, get a new BMW and check.
Quote:
>Are "white" LEDs legally white.  As in, a white lamp must be fitted to
>the front of the vehicle and a red lamp must (usually) be fitted to
>the rear and operational during times of darkness.

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Androcle » Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:15:06


Quote:


>> Are "white" LEDs legally white.  As in, a white lamp must be fitted to
>> the front of the vehicle and a red lamp must (usually) be fitted to
>> the rear and operational during times of darkness.
>> ==========================================
>> Yes, they are. If you compare older incandescent car headlights
>> with later halogen lights one will appear to have a yellow tinge
>> whilst the other appears bluish. Both are legally white.
>>   http://www.catdiaries.co.uk/images/photography_personal/img_1.jpg
>> From a legal standpoint you can use a hurricane lamp if you wish,
>> or even a candle with a glass wind shield. There is no legal requirement
>> to use an electric light, the law was made before electric lighting
>> became commonly available.
>>   http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/15262/wm/pd1068794.jpg
>> Legally the lights are required so that you can be seen, not for you to
>> see by; in Britain a high brightness red rear fog lamp is now a legal
>> requirement.

> That was the issue all along - that it's based on power not brightness.
> It's how you can have incredibly bright car headlights based on halogen
> and other metals and really shite yellowish bulbs that are still bits of
> coiled wire - both are perfectly legal as the power consumption is the
> same.
> LED's gave us the chance to 'shine', the battery life is a bonus.

Yeah, LEDs are more efficient, no doubt about it. If we are to have
a legal definition then it should be in lumens, not watts, and wavelength,
not colour. But then, it probably is defined that way. I'm not that much
of a legal eagle to want to find out.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by thirty-si » Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:17:01


Quote:


> > Are "white" LEDs legally white. ?As in, a white lamp must be fitted to
> > the front of the vehicle and a red lamp must (usually) be fitted to
> > the rear and operational during times of darkness.
> > ==========================================
> > Yes, they are. If you compare older incandescent car headlights
> > with later halogen lights one will appear to have a yellow tinge
> > whilst the other appears bluish. Both are legally white.
> > ?http://www.catdiaries.co.uk/images/photography_personal/img_1.jpg
> > From a legal standpoint you can use a hurricane lamp if you wish,
> > or even a candle with a glass wind shield. There is no legal requirement
> > to use an electric light, the law was made before electric lighting
> > became commonly available.
> > ?http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/15262/wm/pd1068794.jpg
> > Legally the lights are required so that you can be seen, not for you to
> > see by; in Britain a high brightness red rear fog lamp is now a legal
> > requirement.

> That was the issue all along - that it's based on power not brightness.
> It's how you can have incredibly bright car headlights based on halogen
> and other metals and really shite yellowish bulbs that are still bits of
> coiled wire - both are perfectly legal as the power consumption is the
> same.
> LED's gave us the chance to 'shine', the battery life is a bonus.

I don't think there is any point in attempting to compete with car
headlights.  If we can obtain similar brightness and size to a 24W
incandescent (not legal) reversing lamp then we have all the
visibility requirements we need.  Experience shows this is way in
excess of what we need to illuminate the road effevtively.  I have a
flood type car headlamp reflector of around 3" and would like to see
this with an LED driver fitted if possible.

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:08:19


Quote:




> > > It's obvious that the mundane "white" LED bicycle lights do not light
> > > up the asphalt roads very well. Incandescents, halogens, and sodium
> > > lights do better.

> > That's not at all obvious to me.

> Same here. ?Watt for watt, there is no comparison. ?LEDs, even cheap
> 'n crappy 5mm LEDs that are overdriven and color-distorted, put out so
> much more light for a given amount of juice compared to incandescents
> that you might as well compare them to cigarette lighters or
> glowsticks.

> Chalo
> ========================================
> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
> not watt-for-watt.
> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

Ah!  And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
aircraft landing lights?  And aircraft landing lights do not light the
pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
and weight.  We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
us.

Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Clive Georg » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:54:09


Quote:
>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
>> not watt-for-watt.
>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

>Ah!  And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
>aircraft landing lights?  And aircraft landing lights do not light the
>pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
>and weight.  We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
>us.

>Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
happening.
 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Androcle » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:08:18


Quote:


>>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
>>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
>>> not watt-for-watt.
>>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
>>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

>>Ah!  And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
>>aircraft landing lights?  And aircraft landing lights do not light the
>>pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

>>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
>>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
>>and weight.  We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
>>us.

>>Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

> Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
> happening.

In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
lights.
Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
change doesn't happen overnight.
 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:17:28


Quote:




> >>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
> >>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
> >>> not watt-for-watt.
> >>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
> >>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

> >>Ah! ?And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
> >>aircraft landing lights? ?And aircraft landing lights do not light the
> >>pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

> >>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
> >>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
> >>and weight. ?We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
> >>us.

> >>Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

> > Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
> > happening.

> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
> lights.
> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.

Hey!  I was supposed to be plonked!  That's supposed to be a promise
that you won't respond to my posts!

Please uphold that standard - or be recognized as a liar, or a person
of weak resolve.  Or both.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Chal » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:48:43

Quote:




> >>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
> >>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
> >>> not watt-for-watt.
> >>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
> >>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

> >>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
> >>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
> >>and weight. ?We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
> >>us.

> > Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
> > happening.

> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
> lights.
> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
> Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
> change doesn't happen overnight.

In my real world for the past half dozen years or so, LED flashlights
and bike lights consume at least 1.3 watts each, need heat sinking,
and make at least dozens of lumens (in a pretty decent facsimile of
daylight white).

For my part, I can compare the 2xAA Planet Bike 1200x handlebar-
mounted incandescent headlights I had before, to the Luxeon and Cree
LED versions I converted them to.  I have a couple of each now.  They
are the same size (because they use the same bodies),
indistinguishable in weight, and they use the same batteries.  The LED
versions run longer on a charge; have a much broader, smoother,
brighter, and whiter beam; continue to work well after the batteries
diminish in voltage, have a high and low beam, and can flash
continuously if I want them to.

A pair of AA NiMH rechargeable batteries contains about 5 watt-hours
of energy, and it is inexpensive and easy to substitute if it fails in
an emergency.  This energy source allows a headlight to have a very
convenient pocketable shape and size.  To reap these benefits, you
have to accept the energy limitation-- which makes a watt-for-watt
comparison of LEDs versus other light sources quite relevant.  In my
analysis, quantity of light per watt is the most important measure of
a bicycle light source.

Chalo

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Clive Georg » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:45:52


Quote:





>>>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
>>>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
>>>> not watt-for-watt.
>>>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
>>>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

>>>Ah!  And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
>>>aircraft landing lights?  And aircraft landing lights do not light the
>>>pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

>>>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
>>>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
>>>and weight.  We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
>>>us.

>>>Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

>> Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
>> happening.
> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
> lights.

It's amusing to see the pompous way you'll plonk people and compare it with
the stupidity which you exhibit to prompt the posts which invoke it.

In the real world LEDs are traffic lights, bike lights, car lights, street
lights. Just because they aren't universal doesn't mean they aren't there,
and aren't growing in number.

Quote:
> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
> Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
> change doesn't happen overnight.

Dude, _you're_ the one who says sodium street lights are better than LEDs.
You're also apparently the one who has no real life experience of bike
lights, but that bit has been covered already.

<awaits pompous plonking>

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Androcle » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:53:14


Quote:






>>>>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
>>>>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
>>>>> not watt-for-watt.
>>>>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
>>>>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

>>>>Ah!  And sodium street lights do not light the pavement as well as
>>>>aircraft landing lights?  And aircraft landing lights do not light the
>>>>pavement as well as nuclear explosions?

>>>>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
>>>>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
>>>>and weight.  We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
>>>>us.

>>>>Perhaps "Androcles" didn't realize that.

>>> Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
>>> happening.
>> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
>> lights.

> It's amusing to see the pompous way you'll plonk people and compare it
> with the stupidity which you exhibit to prompt the posts which invoke it.

> In the real world LEDs are traffic lights, bike lights, car lights, street
> lights. Just because they aren't universal doesn't mean they aren't there,
> and aren't growing in number.

>> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
>> Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
>> change doesn't happen overnight.

> Dude, _you're_ the one who says sodium street lights are better than LEDs.
> You're also apparently the one who has no real life experience of bike
> lights, but that bit has been covered already.

> <awaits pompous plonking>

Dude, the cost of a sodium lamp street light is $70, less than
 a bicycle. The cost of a LED street light is $485, more than a bicycle.
You're also apparently the one who has no real life experience of economics.
As requested, here's the plonk.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ***wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and *** off.

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Androcle » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:56:59


Quote:




> >>> How did "watt for watt" come into it?
> >>> The comparison is LED for incandescent/gas discharge lamps,
> >>> not watt-for-watt.
> >>> Nobody is denying LEDs are more efficient, but they do not
> >>> illuminate asphalt roads as well as sodium street lights - OBVIOUSLY.

> >>Meanwhile, in the real world, lights for vehicles (especially
> >>bicycles) will continue to be limited by things like power input, size
> >>and weight. We'll not be carrying our own sodium street lights with
> >>us.

> > Androcles also apparently doesn't realise that LED street lamps are
> > happening.

> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
> lights.
> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
> Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
> change doesn't happen overnight.

In my real world for the past half dozen years or so, LED flashlights
and bike lights consume at least 1.3 watts each, need heat sinking,
and make at least dozens of lumens (in a pretty decent facsimile of
daylight white).

For my part, I can compare the 2xAA Planet Bike 1200x handlebar-
mounted incandescent headlights I had before, to the Luxeon and Cree
LED versions I converted them to.  I have a couple of each now.  They
are the same size (because they use the same bodies),
indistinguishable in weight, and they use the same batteries.  The LED
versions run longer on a charge; have a much broader, smoother,
brighter, and whiter beam; continue to work well after the batteries
diminish in voltage, have a high and low beam, and can flash
continuously if I want them to.

A pair of AA NiMH rechargeable batteries contains about 5 watt-hours
of energy, and it is inexpensive and easy to substitute if it fails in
an emergency.  This energy source allows a headlight to have a very
convenient pocketable shape and size.  To reap these benefits, you
have to accept the energy limitation-- which makes a watt-for-watt
comparison of LEDs versus other light sources quite relevant.  In my
analysis, quantity of light per watt is the most important measure of
a bicycle light source.

Chalo

===========================================
   http://progress-energy.com/custservice/shared/LEDStreetLightTestProje...

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Just zis Guy, you know » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:17:49


Quote:
> In the real world sodium lamps are still in use and LEDs are xmas tree
> lights.
> Perhaps "Frank Krygowski" didn't realise that.
> Clive George apparently doesn't realise in the real world
> change doesn't happen overnight.

Your real world is stuck in the last millennium.  These days you'll
find LEDs in use in a variety of lighting applications, including some
(OEM) automotive lighting applications.  The colour temperature of
LEDs is also a close match to that of the highest specification
automotive headlights, the projector type lamps fitted to a lot of
current luxury and sports cars.  LEDs are also used in some of the
best and most expensive bicycle headlights on the market.
--
Guy
 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Chal » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:27:18

Quote:


> > A pair of AA NiMH rechargeable batteries contains about 5 watt-hours
> > of energy, and it is inexpensive and easy to substitute if it fails in
> > an emergency. ?This energy source allows a headlight to have a very
> > convenient pocketable shape and size. ?To reap these benefits, you
> > have to accept the energy limitation-- which makes a watt-for-watt
> > comparison of LEDs versus other light sources quite relevant. ?In my
> > analysis, quantity of light per watt is the most important measure of
> > a bicycle light source.

> ===========================================
> ? ?http://SportToday.org/

I don't understand what you are getting at by this.  White LED is a
better quality light source than high-pressure sodium, but it is not
categorically more power-efficient.  Low-pressure sodium lighting is
more efficient yet, and even worse in light quality.

To my knowledge, there is no form of high-pressure sodium lighting
that can be carried on a bicycle, let alone powered by a pair of AA
cells.  However much it may excel in terms of lumens per watt, it does
not qualify as a bicycle light.

Are you suggesting that bicycle lighting should be more pre***ly
yellow like street lighting?  Note that there are high efficiency,
high flux amber LEDs that operate at full power with less than 3 volts
to the emitter.  I have used amber Luxeon LEDs in combination with a
larger number of white Luxeon LEDs for better color rendition in
portable sign lighting.  I experimented with adding red LED light as
well, but it did not help significantly for the signs I was
illuminating.

Chalo

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Androcle » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:17:57


Quote:


> > A pair of AA NiMH rechargeable batteries contains about 5 watt-hours
> > of energy, and it is inexpensive and easy to substitute if it fails in
> > an emergency. This energy source allows a headlight to have a very
> > convenient pocketable shape and size. To reap these benefits, you
> > have to accept the energy limitation-- which makes a watt-for-watt
> > comparison of LEDs versus other light sources quite relevant. In my
> > analysis, quantity of light per watt is the most important measure of
> > a bicycle light source.

> ===========================================
> http://SportToday.org/

I don't understand what you are getting at by this.  White LED is a
better quality light source than high-pressure sodium, but it is not
categorically more power-efficient.  Low-pressure sodium lighting is
more efficient yet, and even worse in light quality.

To my knowledge, there is no form of high-pressure sodium lighting
that can be carried on a bicycle, let alone powered by a pair of AA
cells.  However much it may excel in terms of lumens per watt, it does
not qualify as a bicycle light.

Are you suggesting that bicycle lighting should be more pre***ly
yellow like street lighting?  Note that there are high efficiency,
high flux amber LEDs that operate at full power with less than 3 volts
to the emitter.  I have used amber Luxeon LEDs in combination with a
larger number of white Luxeon LEDs for better color rendition in
portable sign lighting.  I experimented with adding red LED light as
well, but it did not help significantly for the signs I was
illuminating.

Chalo
=============================================
$70 a 25-year unit versus $485 a 15-year unit.
As with any fixture, maintenance will still be required for wires, brackets,
knockdowns, adjustments, periodic cleaning, animal damage, pole maintenance,
and potentially earlier fixture replacement (12 - 15 years) vs. today's
replacement cycle of 20-25 years.

If you want to be seen by other road users, display a simple and cheap light
for safety - any old LED will do although the law has a colour requirement,
white front and red rear. If you want to illuminate the environment, whether
by headlights or street lights, ya gotta pay. I'm happy for you to spend
your
money on bicycle lights - don't spend mine on street lights. Which makes a
lumen-for-penny comparison of LEDs versus other light sources far more
relevant than a watt-for-watt comparison.
That's what I'm getting at.

 
 
 

"white" LED's vs. incandescent and halogen lights

Post by Marc » Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:33:21

Quote:





>>> A pair of AA NiMH rechargeable batteries contains about 5 watt-hours
>>> of energy, and it is inexpensive and easy to substitute if it fails in
>>> an emergency. This energy source allows a headlight to have a very
>>> convenient pocketable shape and size. To reap these benefits, you
>>> have to accept the energy limitation-- which makes a watt-for-watt
>>> comparison of LEDs versus other light sources quite relevant. In my
>>> analysis, quantity of light per watt is the most important measure of
>>> a bicycle light source.
>> ===========================================
>> http://SportToday.org/

> I don't understand what you are getting at by this.  White LED is a
> better quality light source than high-pressure sodium, but it is not
> categorically more power-efficient.  Low-pressure sodium lighting is
> more efficient yet, and even worse in light quality.

> To my knowledge, there is no form of high-pressure sodium lighting
> that can be carried on a bicycle, let alone powered by a pair of AA
> cells.  However much it may excel in terms of lumens per watt, it does
> not qualify as a bicycle light.

> Are you suggesting that bicycle lighting should be more pre***ly
> yellow like street lighting?  Note that there are high efficiency,
> high flux amber LEDs that operate at full power with less than 3 volts
> to the emitter.  I have used amber Luxeon LEDs in combination with a
> larger number of white Luxeon LEDs for better color rendition in
> portable sign lighting.  I experimented with adding red LED light as
> well, but it did not help significantly for the signs I was
> illuminating.

> Chalo
> =============================================
> $70 a 25-year unit versus $485 a 15-year unit.
> As with any fixture, maintenance will still be required for wires, brackets,
> knockdowns, adjustments, periodic cleaning, animal damage, pole maintenance,
> and potentially earlier fixture replacement (12 - 15 years) vs. today's
> replacement cycle of 20-25 years.

> If you want to be seen by other road users, display a simple and cheap light
> for safety - any old LED will do although the law has a colour requirement,
> white front and red rear. If you want to illuminate the environment, whether
> by headlights or street lights, ya gotta pay. I'm happy for you to spend
> your
> money on bicycle lights - don't spend mine on street lights. Which makes a
> lumen-for-penny comparison of LEDs versus other light sources far more
> relevant than a watt-for-watt comparison.
> That's what I'm getting at.

Not very well.