E
E
Guest
"Adrian Jansen" <adrian@qq.vv.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:51099c1c$0$21730$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
hours
is just 2.5 times fluorescent tube lifetime ie. about 5 years. Lack of
replaceable
*standardized* bulbs is big drawback for led technology. Leds are damn
expensive to begin with and the need to replace the whole luminaire every
five years means much more installing work (expensive).
Also at 50000 h they typically quote something like 70% light output
remaining.
It means that to achieve some minimum lighting level at end of life, you
must
design with 30% extra power initially so most of lifetime you are making
more
light than necessary. Fluorescents drop only by 10% so not much a problem.
Of course if you have feedback on lighting level, then it is not any
problem.
Energy saving of leds compared to modern well designed fluorescent lighting
is anyway questionable at best. Of course if you compare leds to some old
non-designed system with 18W halophospate tubes with D-class ballast,
plastic diffuser and no reflector you get impressive numbers to put in ads.
Even if you spend big bucks for led lighting you do not necessarily save any
energy over fl. lighting. But using conventional light sources, natural
lightning and good design does not give you any "Green PR" like leds do.
viestissä:51099c1c$0$21730$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com...
For domestic that may be considered fixture, but for business use 50000On 31/1/2013 5:18 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Gosh, i am seeing LED lamp and luminaire ratings of 50,000 hours and up,
even claims of over 100,000 hours. You would need damn good PSUs for
those.
?-)
Or you need some imagination. That's around 35 years at 8 hours a day, so
there's little risk to making the claim and being off by 4:1 or so.
I too am very sceptical of those 50,000+ hour ratings. One can only
presume they do some sort of high temp accelerated test to base the figure
on. Unless its just purely marketing guesswork.
However even if they are optimistic by a factor of 5, that still makes the
LED regardable as a fixture, rather than a replaceable item, in the
average domestic/business installation.
hours
is just 2.5 times fluorescent tube lifetime ie. about 5 years. Lack of
replaceable
*standardized* bulbs is big drawback for led technology. Leds are damn
expensive to begin with and the need to replace the whole luminaire every
five years means much more installing work (expensive).
Also at 50000 h they typically quote something like 70% light output
remaining.
It means that to achieve some minimum lighting level at end of life, you
must
design with 30% extra power initially so most of lifetime you are making
more
light than necessary. Fluorescents drop only by 10% so not much a problem.
Of course if you have feedback on lighting level, then it is not any
problem.
Energy saving of leds compared to modern well designed fluorescent lighting
is anyway questionable at best. Of course if you compare leds to some old
non-designed system with 18W halophospate tubes with D-class ballast,
plastic diffuser and no reflector you get impressive numbers to put in ads.
Even if you spend big bucks for led lighting you do not necessarily save any
energy over fl. lighting. But using conventional light sources, natural
lightning and good design does not give you any "Green PR" like leds do.