Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Philips' new 100 equivalent uses 23W
Philips 60W uses only 12.5W.
Could it be that 100W is pushing the limits of what LED can do? (so far ;))

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Philips is coming out with a better 100W equivalent than the GE soon. similar specs but 73.9 lm/W instead of just 60 lm/W. They also just came out with an updated version of their 60W equivalent that only uses only 10W and has an impressive 94 lm/W and 92CRI. See link below. Personally I have bought some of Philips 60W equivalent 12.5W A19 LED lights since the price dropped to less than $25 each and have been very happy with them. Can't wait until the price drops on the new, better ones.

http://www.extremetech.com/electroni...ns-on-just-23w

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

LEDs are only 10 to 15% efficient at converting electrical power to luminous light, so figure that nearly all of the rated power of the bulb will be waste heat.

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Who has the best warranty?

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

I agree on the flashlights with CREE technology. I have at least 3 of them.

I have some sylvania and some ecosmart LED floods in recessed cans at home, and haven't had any issues with them after over 12 months (not a long time frame, I know). They are between the 40-65 watt equivalent. They aren't on to often, and I suspect if they meet their expected life rating in terms of hours, will probably out last me lol.

I also can agree with the heat that gets put out by the LEDs, like the poster about his bike light. If I use my flashlights on the HIGH setting, they can get pretty warm, and that was in the winter when I was walking after dark. I can only imagine when ambient temps are 60 degrees higher, what it would feel like. I currently have 2 LED bike lights (not yet used - haven't been able to take the bike out due to other obligations), so I will probably put both on it and run them on a lower setting.

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

So what advantage do they claim over CFL ??
GE isn't stupid, so there must be some claimed advantage over CFL
1)Apparently it isn't efficiency- 23 vs 27.
2) Certainly isn't cost to buy

Perhaps they last longer?
Maybe "better light quality"-do CFLs flicker/cycle(not that humans are aware of it)

So what is it-how are they better?
Charlie

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Fluorescents of all kinds do flicker and some people are sensitive to it.
Efficiency is about a wash. See the Philips bulb I linked that uses the same 23W.
They're stronger. There's less to break and if you do manage to break one (how?!!) there's no mercury in it.
They're much more shock and vibration resistant.
They last longer. They also cost more so right now this is a wash. Soon that will change...
Instant-on light, and no warmup dimness.
Better dimmability.
Better cold weather performance.

I have a couple in my house now, and one place they're not good is in up-facing sconce lights. They light is still somewhat directional so if you need light out the side of the bulb it's not so good.

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Comparing GE's lumen specs to Cree's is not apples-to-apples. The Cree specs of 100+ lm/W are for the bare emitter under optimal thermal conditions. Reflectors, optics, lenses and higher temps can easily knock 30-40% off that. Since this GE is attempting to provide omnidirectional light, it probably has some sophisticated optics that carry a cost in terms of efficiency. And it probably runs fairly warm, which further reduces efficiency. Most Cree-based flashlights are marketed using baldfaced lies, quoting the emitter's theoretical maximum output rather than measured OTF (out-the-front) lumens.

Also the Cree lm/W spec are based on the current going directly into the LED. In general, power LEDs are rarely driven directly off source current, and are almost always fed through driver electronics which add significant overhead.

I have a bike light that uses the relatively new Cree XM-L, and it puts out an awesome amount of light. It's being driven with just a tad over 9W (2.8A @ 3.3V, to be specific) ... but the total consumption including the driver is probably more like 11W. If it were a commercial product it would likely be advertised as a "1000 lumen" light, even though the reality is that about 650-700 lumens are making it out the far side of the lens. So it's only producing maybe 60lm/W even though it's based on the latest, most efficient Cree.

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Better quality light plus, theoretically, much longer life. However they have problems with overheating due to manufacturers making the pegs round instead of homeowners squaring the hole.

Re: 100W Incandescent LED Replacement Nears
 

Longer life isn't worth much when the bulb cost is disproportionately higher.

The only significant advantages I see are being mercury-free and being less adversely affected by cold environments or by short cycles. What will actually sell them is that they appeal to early-adopter types.

The sooner we get beyond describing the output of CFLs and LEDs in terms of silly, antiquated, unscientific, cumbersome phrases like "incandescent equivalent watts," the better. Think in lumens, not incandescents!