/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5402376
I'll bet you 10 electrobucks that EK doesnt have LEDs for all lights in its house. Does that make it no true /sci/entist?

>>5402376
I light my house with Nichrome wires.

because they leak toxic fumes.

>>5402387
>>5402387
I hope you're enjoying a combusting house. Burn in house.

OLEDs, bitch

> ambient lighting
I installed some shitty white LEDs and now I live in a dim, cold, white cave.

>>5402414
You bought LEDs back when they where shitty and cold? Should have waited 6 months until they became warmer.

>>5402376
While LEDs are superior in some aspect, they are still
>expensive
>dimmer
And the colour temperature is still not entirely right.

I use my incandescent lamp to make my room warmer while getting quality light.

<span class="deadlink">>>5402412[/spoiler]
Too expensive and don't offer much more of an advantage than LEDs, when they're nearly on par with LEDs in price I will gladly buy them over LEDs.

>>5402376
I bought CFLs 6 years ago and they haven't stopped working yet. I'll buy LEDs when I need to replace them.

>>5402434
Dimmer, So? I'm lighting a room not simulating the sun.

>>5402445
Why light a room at all if it doesn't involve an accurate simulation of the sun? Might as well just live in a cave.

>>5402445
Exactly. You're LIGHTING a room.
You don't want shit lights if your intention is to make things brighter.

>>5402445
If you don't care, why would you care about a few cents worth of energy?

Non-LEDs were here when I moved in. Switching would be a bother.

Lights heat the room. The energy you save is lost, as your heating bill increases.

>>5402485
This assumes that you live in a cold environment.
If however you find yourself frequently airing out your house, opening windows or using airconditioning then using LEDs could be quite beneficial.

My power company gives out boxes of CFLs to anyone who makes a new account with them, so most of our bulbs are those.

I might switch to LED bulbs when those start failing.

>>5402376
I wanted all L.E.D.s... they're too expensive and I got my eco flourescent lights for 1$ a piece vs. 8$ a piece where I live.

>not using incandescent purely because it provides a smooth, even color spectrum
enjoy your shitty skin tones and poor color rendition of everything in your house, CFL/LED faggots.

http://www.jasonmorrison.net/content/2009/how-do-led-lightbulbs-compare-to-cfl-and-incandescent/

>>5402519
How's that needless waste of electricity going for you lately?

>>5402524
simply excellent.

>>5402530
Good, good.

please source on quantitative benefits of a LED vs other types of lamps. I'm genuinly curious.

>>5402519
But that article shows fairly clearly that LEDs are quite close to regular incandescents.
A little bit of improvement could get them close enough to be almost undetectable using simple instruments like that.
The way they are now would most likely still be undetectable for people in general.
What are you complaining about?

>>5402539
>Use less power
>Last longer
>Can take less space
>Good for hot environments as they don't generate much heat
>Can pretty much always be dimmed on a sliding scale to get exactly the amount of light you need/want
>Can change colors if necessary

>>5402576
80% quality is not 100% quality, I'm not going to suffer poor color rendition and shitty, directional lighting to save a few bucks over the long run, electricity is cheap as unholy fuck where I live, it makes next to no difference to me.

My electrical bills are paid communally while I must pay for lamp replacement myself, using money and labor. Since I would not advertise LED usage, and my electrical bills are averaged out among ~200 people, and electricity is at €0.20/kWh, I would save less than $0.15/month, which is around one light bulb per decade.

This is longer than the average lightbulb lifespan, so I would do well to wait for my bulbs to fail, rather than throw them away unused.

>>5402587
You see, Colorado utilities is a monopoly here... so its expensive as fuck where I'm at.

>>5402587
It says it is easily above 85% meaning it is closer to 90% than 80%.
And yeah, I know 90% and 100% aren't the same thing because then it would be an awful way to measure things.

You can't easily tell the difference between 90% and 100% CRI without the help of a cd or some shit so just cool your jets, energy waster.

>>5402620
this post is the reason why I asked for quantitative results.
>>5402576
I'm sure they use less power etc, but there is something called rentability.
Are you gonna invest in your own plane because it prevents the cost of buying your plane tickets? No, because the overall cost is much higher in that case. It's as simple as that.
So then again, is there any quantitative proof?
Because I don't care if my lamp produces heat or not, and I certainly don't care for the environment.

>>5402641
>implying I'm not a studied A/V enthusiast that can tell when a television is off calibration by even less than that percentage
oh man, you mean some people pay attention to some things more than most others would? shocker.

>>5402620
Well, obviously at this point there's no need to throw away usable bulbs but you would still benefit long term by replacing them with led bulbs as the current ones expire.
As for the average bill thing, this is why the world still wastes electricity. Because the average person doesn't give enough of a shit to spread the message.
Think how much you would all stand to gain long term if you started purchasing led bulbs instead of incandescents.

It's almost as if people are afraid of being aware of their energy consumption.

>>5402658
Yeah I was implying that because it is irrelevant to the discussion of the benefit of LEDs as a whole.
The world doesn't revolve around you and your skillset. Don't be an idiot.

>>5402661
then tell us how much money we would save. I insist

>>5402661
let the fucks at the power generation companies worry about efficiency, why should I pay to upgrade my 1/250,000th of an end when they can make the whole system more efficient at the source?

I'm an interior decorator though, and I can't use most LEDs because they fuck up the room's feel. That said there are some really spiffy programmable-color LED bulbs coming out on the market that I will use.

>>5402652
Quantitative proof of what?
If you don't care about the environment or saving money by using less power then what is it you want to know about?
How much you would save all things considered? Because that really depends on you.
I'm not sure about the pricing of led bulbs where you live but if you find a way to get them that costs less than getting incandescents then clearly you will be saving money regardless of energy efficiency.

Also, no that is not why people don't buy planes. Because buying a plane would for the average person never be cheaper than buying a plane ticket.
You have to consider fuel costs, fees for storing your plane, airfield rent or whatever.
There's a shit load of other expenditures than just paying for the plane.

>>5402684
>there's a shitload of other expenditures
that's my point. If buying a LED is more costly overall, or if it would only save me $1 over 8 years, I'm not interested.
Most humans are lazy, and I am one of them.

>>5402670
>>5402671
Am I being trolled here?

>>5402670
I don't know how much each individual person on the planet would save. How would I possibly know that? All I know is that if as you say, you would save about 15 cents/month then you just multiply that by ~200 if all of you switched.
Suddenly it's approcimately 30 dollars a month in electricity alone.
If you live in a warm climate then you can add to that a slight decrease in energy used by airconditioning but most people would probably not see a significant change in their habits regarding heat regulation. The latter is just conjecture though. Could be noticable for some.

>>5402671
But if the bulbs cost less then you wouldn't be paying anything to upgrade. Most led bulbs are compatible with a standard socket.

>>5402697
That quote was about planes. Nice work taking a piece of what I worte out of context to suit your view.

If you can get led bulbs cheaper than the regular incandescents in your area then there is no other expenditures OR effort required.
Unless you are so lazy that you order your lightbulbs online and have them delivered to you and getting LEDs would require a different supplier which costs more or something.

I'm pretty sure most standard shops that sell incandescents do or will eventually offer LED bulbs aswell.

>>5402697
lazy would mean you buy an led once so you dont have to replace anymore unlike regular bulbs. the word that you are searching for is ignorance

>>5402697
>>5402684
okay I found some quantitative stuff
it says that a LED is cost effective after 8 years.
LOL. Seriously? this doesn't deserve a thread.
You're better off trying to optimize thermal motors' efficiency by 0.01%

>>5402376
Check your ableist privilege, OP. Some people don't need lights at all.

>>5402707
the only way LED bulbs could even approach incandescent in price is if the local municipalities subsidized their cost heavily, and guess what they do to make up for those subsidies? raise the price of electricity.

>>5402712
>There is only one type of LED and it will never improve
That is what you sound like. Why are you even on /sci/?
Did you even check the date on that "quantitative stuff" you found?
BTW any increase in efficiency, not matter how small is a good thing.

I leave for one hour and this is what happens? Jesus Fuck.

>>5402721
i don't understand why everybody is crying about the price? one of them costs 5€ and about 70% brighter than the hallogen lamps i had before. it lasts at least 10 times as long and uses 10% of the energy

>>5402721
These stats tell a different tale.
50.000 hours is approximately 5,7 years for those too lazy to figure it out themselves.
That's a pretty significant amount saved and that's just assuming you bought ONE led bulb.

>>5402751
Here's a chart showing the comparisons given that 25 bulbs are replaced.
And this is if LED bulbs don't improve at all for 6 years which is highly unlikely.

>>5402751
$35.95 ?
i bought them for 5€ with shipping included

>>5402755
In addition to all this, LED bulbs break less easily than incandescents and CFLs.
They usually come with a 2 year warranty which is about the time it would take a defective LED bulb to malfunction and then there's also the fact that this chart shows the projected differences over a 6 year period whereas most leds will last for much longer than that. Up to 3 or 4 times longer infact.

>>5402733
But it's a decent discussion. What's the problem?

>>5402759
It's an average based on multiple retailers in the US.
Obviously they come cheaper and more expensive and this comparison might not be entirely up to date but if it has changed then it is most definitely in the favor of LEDs.

>>5402751
>60 watts
>implying I don't use 30W bulbs because anything higher sears my retina

>1.25
>implying I don't pay less than 50 cents a bulb

hell, I bought an 8 pack of 30 watts over 6 years ago and I still have 2 left unused, and I'm lighting 2 bedrooms, the living room, kitchen and bathroom. Meanwhile I've heard myriad cases of LED bulbs failing after a few months of use.

>the person that made that chart in charge of accurate numbers

>>5402772
Everyone except you is being an idiot and is saying " WRUUUUH, ELL EEE DEE IS BAED 2 EKPENSIF"

>>5402783
>implying I don't use 30W bulbs because anything higher sears my retina
No, I was not implying that at all. How could I possibly even know that?
Either way, what sears your retina isn't the wattage. It's the lumen. The leds priced at an average of 35 dollars are all dimmable and dimmable leds also cost an approximate of 40% more than non dimmable leds.
If you want a non dimmable led which outputs the same amount of lumen as a 30 watt incandescent then the price would be considerably lower and you would likely save even more power/money.
Are these statistics quantitative enough for you?

>>5402785
Ah, right.

>>5402783
>Meanwhile I've heard myriad cases of LED bulbs failing after a few months of use.
And that is where the 2 year warranty comes into play.
5 years in Norway and probably other places in scandinavia and europe but 2 years is more than enough for them to become cost efficient.

>>5402808
>Are these statistics quantitative enough for you?
no, because they're not accurate

>taking MTBF as gospel
>arbitrary electricity costs
>arbitrary bulb costs
>arbitrary bulb wattage
they skewed everything in favor of LED because on paper, it is an attractive option, in practice it's fairly shit for most.

>>5402820
>And that is where the 2 year warranty comes into play
oh boy, so I get to either invest in multiples of their defective product or go without light while I pay shipping to them so they can send me more of their defective product, huzzah.

>>5402823
Do you even know what arbitrary means?
The cost of electricity has to be arbitrary because it varies so significantly from place to place, even within the united states.
The bulb costs are an average and for leds you can bet your ass they will get cheaper with time whereas incandescents might actually get more expensive in an attempt to phase them out of use.
The bulb wattage is not arbitrary either. They picked a common wattage for comparison.
The cost of electricity and bulb wattage are both scalable anyway so unless you're completely mentally retarded the comparison is still quite usefull and easily modified to suit your specific situation.

As for MTBF I don't know what that is.

And here are some more statistics which people may find interesting/useful.

Who would have though /sci/ was so full of luddites?

>>5402831
Wow. I'm not even sure what to say. Clearly you are set in your ways and will say anything to argue.
You don't like that technology improves, fine but don't try to shift the argument towards the validity of warranties just because you don't want to accept that you're view on the matter is entirely egocentric.

>pay shipping to them
Stores still exist. Stores you can go to when you need something.
Very few people if any, are ever in a situation where all their lightbulbs fail at once so the "go without light" argument is just ridiculous especially since it is the same regardless of the type of bulb you use.

>>5402840
>As for MTBF I don't know what that is
mean time before failure

there isn't a single significant statistic in either image that relates to real world usage, I've gotten several times more hours on my incandescent bulbs than those images assert, I don't touch them once I put them in the lighting fixture so durability is irrelevant, I neither use air conditioning in the summer or heat in the winter, bulb cost and electricity cost is a fraction of that in the image.

Entirely irrelevant for me and I will venture to say the vast majority.

>>5402840
>Who would have though /sci/ was so full of luddites
I must be a luddite because I don't get a hardon for any and every product that professes to be good for the environment but actually provides no benefit to me, or even detracts from my experience?

You are what happens when someone raises their autistic child to be a self-righteous, ignorant cunt.

>>5402864
Your entire argument reeks of "Every situation is exactly like mine" as evidenced by the frequent use of I, yet at the end of your post you pretend to speak for the majority?
If the statistics I have provided are so inaccurate then where are the statistics that support your argument that the vast majority of people are in a similar situation as yourself?

And pretty much all the statistics relate to real world usage as much as is possible. Just because your expenditures might be less or more than that displayed that doesn't mean that the relative differences between the different types of bulbs are any less relevant.

Instead of trying to nitpick my arguments in an attempt to make them seem less valid why don't you provide some arguments of your own for why leds are generally worse?
Especially since all you're doing is saying that they don't suit your particular situation.

>>5402878
There we go. I was wondering how long it would take for personal attacks to come into play.

>I must be a luddite because I don't get a hardon for any and every product that professes to be good for the environment
No, your arguments are what make you seem like a luddite.

>but actually provides no benefit to me
How does the benefit to you specificly have anything to do with being good for the environment?
As I said. Egocentric.
The world does not revolve around you and everyone else is not in your exact position.

>or even detracts from my experience
How? I am still waiting to hear how they are any worse than incandescents.
In general mind you.
I feel I should specify this time since you clearly have difficulties grasping the concept of a majority.

I just have lights good for scattering cockroaches, making my eyes hurt, and causing me to wake up horribly if I leave them on through the night.

>>5402751

$50 over 5 years of suffering through crappy lighting.

Nope.

>>5402890
except MTBF, that figure is entirely unrooted in reality, do you think incandescent manufacturers are more likely to overrate or underrate their average product lifetime? they don't want to get slammed in reviews or buried in user complaints for promising 10,000 hours, but in my experience the figure is much closer to that than 1,200. Similarly, what would a company do when they're trying to act like they've got the new, hot shit product on the block? Inflate their numbers and sell the lie, who's going to call them out on it, earth-rapists? They must be earth-rapists, because they're either enviro-nuthuggers or they're just plain molesting the land we live and breath on.

As far as I'm concerned, you didn't provide anything of actual substance in the first place, why are you asking me to list detractors for an unproven technology? good job, you bought some nuthugger lamps, stop attention whoring.

>>5402908
>claiming ad-hominem when he started the insulting remarks first
lel, moral high ground denied, crawl back in your LED-lit basement, faggot.

Why are people bitching about LEDs looking bad? The LEDs released in the past few months are indistinguishable from CFLs or incandescent lighting.

someone have the town crier alert the authorities, they're practicing necromancy in the Livermore, CA fire department building:

http://www.centennialbulb.org/photos.htm

>>5402917
>Crappy lighting
>Takes less power to produce more lumen
>Some of the led bulbs have a CRI of 92 or higher
Oh, I forgot you had such super specific vision which can detect minor differences in wavelengths produced but at the same time can't adjust to allow for more or less light to hit your retina.
Sorry.

>>5402921
I haven't bought LEDs yet.
This is a discussion about wether or not they are beneficial.
That is why my arguments are non-biased, something yours clearly aren't.
>As far as I'm concerned, you didn't provide anything of actual substance in the first place
Oh, I forgot your opinion automatically meant you were right.
Keep digging that hole, bro.

>>5402926
Constructive! Nice job.

I'm just gonna monitor this thread while I wait for some actual well reasoned arguments that have even ten minutes of thought behind them.

>>5402946
ur a niggerfag

>>5402937
Except CFLs break more easily and they contain about 5mg of mercury per bulb, which is one of the reasons alot of people didn't get them to begin with.
Personally I think this was a good thing though as LEDs are a far better alternative.

>>5402946
>That is why my arguments are non-biased, something yours clearly aren't
I see what you did there, by using charts and images from biased sources you can claim you aren't biased yourself.

This one is crafty, folks.

>>5402950
Good one.

>>5402956
ur a cunt chuckler

>>5402956
That wasn't who you were arguing with, but thanks.

>mfw /sci/ takes seriously a pile of marketing bullshit put out by a lighting company

Any links to a good place to buy LEDs?
I tried them once, bout a year ago. It was something like $10 for a bulb and it barely lit my room. Since then, I installed a new lighting fixture that can hold three bulbs. I wouldn't mind experimenting again.

So how much energy and resources does it take to make a CFL or LED light as copmared to a tungsten bulb?
When you factor this in are they still more energy efficient and environmentally friendly? How about recyclability?

>>5402951
I'm backing up LEDs, not CFLs you fool.

>>5402967
I'm right there with you, brother, let us band together and shine our brilliant incandescent lights on the lies of these insidious villains.

>>5402970
You should check the lumens before you buy bulbs, regardless of type.
Between 600-800 is good for most people.
You should check your local store(s) first though.
Just so you know whether they are cheaper or more expensive in the local warehouses.

>>5402969
Recyclability is very high if the people actually bother to recycle them properly and don't just throw them in the metal or plastic dumpsters or something.
As far as what it takes to produce them I don't know but I will remember to look into it.
Incandescents have been in production for what? 100 years give or take? So the process of making them has had time to become very efficient I would imagine.
But when you consider how many actually have to be produced per household over time I would venture a guess that LEDs atleast will use much less resources.

>>5402975
I know. Just pointing out that there is a difference that tips the scale in favor of leds compared to CFLs.
No need for namecalling, friendo.

>>5402995
ur a fagit

>>5402991
>when you consider how many actually have to be produced per household over time
pretty sure you have no idea what that number even is.

>>5403008
Pretty sure it is less than the number of CFLs or incandescent as Leds are much more durable and sturdy so the exact number doesn't really matter in this case.

>>5402991
I figured that incandescents would have the lowest footprint. As you say we've been making them a long time and they use very little resources. They're essentially just large resistors and every part can be recycled.
With LEDs how much can be recycled and how much is just scrap? Can the SM components be reused or recycled or the board? The larger amount of components needed for manufacture also would imply a far larger industrial base needed for production as well.

>>5403002
I'm rubber and you're glue so anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

herro
I'm interested in getting LED lighting except I want to use a large quantity of small white singular low voltage LEDs instead of bulbs. Where can I get small warm white LEDs?

>>5403017
>Pretty sure it is less than the number of CFLs or incandescent as Leds are much more durable and sturdy
You haven't even owned one, let alone used one for a significant period of time. How about you stop looking up what amounts to marketing brochures and go read some user reviews at least.

>>5403019
All good questions.
As I said I am not entirely sure.
But since LEDs used as lighting in common households is still a fairly new occurence it wouldn't be unreasonable to assert that manufacturing would improve significantly over the next 5 years.
As for the situation right now, I really am not sure.

>>5403033
>As for the situation right now, I really am not sure
why are you talking

>>5403037
I'm not. I'm typing.

>>5403027
That is exactly what I have been doing.
You think I get my info from the manufacturers? That would be dumb.

>>5403026
You could try electronics stores?
You might have to order them online though.

>>5403042
u r 1 cheeky kunt m8 u better shut ur trap or i swer 2 christ ill hook u in the gabber m8

>>5403041
All of them are cold white ;_;

>>5403047
Step off, sir.

>>5403058
http://www.electron.com/1w-led-warm-white-e12pw3c-o.html
Not that one.
Took me 30 seconds in google.

>>5403066
That's not what I want, I want small milimeter sized LEDs of about 4000K temperature, 3000K is a bit too warm.

>>5403079
There are plenty warm white leds of different types in singles on that site.
Different lenses and temperatures and everything.
Come on, man. Atleast try.

>>5403090
My PC is broken and using a smart phone is annoying as fuck.

>>5403097
That sucks.

>>5402376
Nigger, ain't no one got money for that shit.

>>5403195
poor

still have my CFL lamps from 5 years ago, will replace when broken... i'm sure it's less environemental impact then switching right now

>>5402376
LED Christmas tree aww yeah

>>5402376
op you are an idiot who spends $50 on light bulbs.

>>5403195
>>5403195
>Nigger

still using racial epithets on /sci/
2013
please leave and come back when you learn manners, thank you.

>>5404635
rich

I havent looked in a while but when i did it was somehting like this.
60 watt incandescent ~$1
13 watt for a compact florescent of the same lumens ~$2 and lasts 8 times longer than incandecent
12 watt led light bulb ~$40 and lasts 25 times longer than incandescent

So you really only save 2 watts when using led over compact florescent and you have to spend 20 times more. Dissreguarding electrical costs (becuase you only save 1 watt) the led light lasts 25,000 / 8,000 = 3.125 times as long. 3.125 * $2 per light bulb = $6.25 total cost for compact florescent equalized to the life span or the $40 led light.
ONLY IDIOTS BUY LED LIGHT BULBS

>>5405197
1 watt*

>>5405197
Just wanted to cite my blubs. |3
http://1000bulbs.com/category/60-watt-standard-shape-light-bulbs/
http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU
http://www.lowes.com/pd_221498-3-78792_?PL=1&productId=3375050

Unless im missing something there is no monetary reason to move from clf to led.

>>5402376
My compact fluorescents haven't burned out yet.