Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #61
Only "confusing" to those perpetually confused, as are the majority of your posts. Like all Lefties, you read what you want to read, and understand only what you want to understand. What I said was "They all put out less light, and the light they do put out is of lower quality, and yes, I got a light meter." A light meter measures the amount of light a source puts out.
A thermometer measures heat. I have a thermometer in each room, and an outdoor version outside the window. This means I am able to monitor both the outside temperature, and inside temperature on a room-by- room basis. The landlord replaced the light fixtures about 16 months ago, all but one with your crappy LED crap. The other one I ain't sure what it is. Halogen? Mercury-halide? What ever it is, it pours out heat worse than a damn infrared heatlamp.
Anyway, I did not go for this BS, so I went to the salvage yard, bought me three incandescent stand lamps and one thingie with a lightbulb screw-n fixture on one end and a corded plug on the other, which I hang from the ceiling. So now I have a choice. When I use LED crap my tiny studio turns into a sweatbox within four hours. When I use incandescent, the temperature rises a little, but is tolerable. Now I got a portable air conditioner, so I could set that up and use your gawdawful LEDs...but why would I? Your crap:
1. Raises the temperature in my studio to the point I have to turn into a nudist!
2. Puts out less light than incandescent, and that light is an inferior quality.
3. Costs more, and when the bulb burns out the landlord has to come by to replace it.
Not only will I not break out the portable air conditioner to accommodate this "Nanny State' crap, I will make no such accommodations whatever! What I will do is continue to stockpile incandescent bulbs, and use what works best. Exactly as I did when the braindeads outlawed plastic bags, and made recycling mandatory.
First, I'll say this: I am totally opposed to government dictating what kind of light bulbs anyone may or must use or not use, for anything short of legitimate safety-related issues. I believe that government has far overstepped its rightful boundaries in its restrictions against incandescent bulbs.
And now, let me add that I am an electrician, so I know what I am talking about, here.
It is a simple, hard fact, that both LED-based lights, and fluorescent lights (including CFLs) convert a higher portion of the energy that they consume into light, and less into heat; than incandescent bulbs do.
If you really are getting more heat dumped into your home when you use LED-based lights than when you are using incandescent lights, to produce a comparable amount of light, then there is something very wrong with the writing in your home that is feeding those LED lights. That excess heat is •NOT• being created by the LED lights themselves. You need to have that checked out by a qualified professional electrician. Something in your home's wiring is producing a significant amount of heat that it isn't supposed to be producing. That's the sort of issue that sets houses on fire. Please get this checked out by a qualified professional, as soon as possible. This is a severe safety hazard.
In a rare and spectacular example of the cliché about a stopped watch being right twice a day, even deanrd said something that is true and obvious:
Not true. Heat is energy. The energy has to come from somewhere. If LED bulbs use 1/10 the energy and you can put your hand on it and not get burned then it’s not heating up your room. To say otherwise is just stupid.
You and I both agree, I think, that deanrd is much, much less often right, than a broken clock is, but this extremely-rare time, he nailed it.
Conventional incandescent bulbs convert anywhere from 0.7% to 2.6% of the electrical power that they receive, into visible light. Some halogen-filled incandescents make it up to around 5% efficiency. Where do you think nearly all of the remaining 95% to 99.3% of that power goes? If you guessed that it is given off as heat, which would raise the temperature of the room in which it is being operated, then you'd be correct.
Fluorescents run at anywhere from about 8% to 16% efficiency, and LEDs are at around 20% to 25% efficiency. That means that to produce the same amount of light, they consume less power, and produce less heat, than incandescents.
As for amount and quality of light, I have noticed that some CFL and LED-based lights—older and/or cheaper ones in particular—seem to be incorrectly represented as producing light comparable to an incandescent of a particular wattage, and when you replace an incandescent with the allegedly-comparable CFL or LED, it is noticeably not as bright. This does not appear to be an issue with newer, higher-quality LEDs; just with older ones, or very cheap, poor-quality ones.
I think both these technologies were pushed out before they were really mature. CFLs have become obsolete, before they had a chance to mature, if they were ever going to. I'm not sure if I can say that LED lighting has finally matured, to the point where it ought to render incandescents completely obsolete. At whatever point that has occurred, or will occur, there'd be no reason for government to step in and impose restrictions on incandescents; any more than there would ever have been any reason for government to impose restrictions on obsolete technologies like floppy disks or cathode-ray tube-based televisions and computer displays. When a new technology matures to the point that it offers consumers better performance and better value for their money, the old technology that replaces will fade away on its own.