Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[TECH]The GeoBulb - yours for US$199.95'
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything more than the hype
er advert on the webpage.
'The first 60-watt direct replacement, Premium Quality High Brightness
(PQ-HB) bulb that uses less than 8 watts. The GeoBulb is the same size
as a conventional incandescent bulb suitable for direct replacement in
any indoor open fixture. It puts out more light than a standard
60-watt bulb but uses less than 8 watts. LED bulbs last 3 years of
continuous use or 10 years at about 8 hours per day. Every part of the
GeoBulb is built for long lasting durability. The GeoBulb is the first
bulb built to withstand 10 years of use.'
Hmm doesn't appear available in bayonet fitting
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 15:51 +1000, cdb wrote:
> Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything more than the hype
> er advert on the webpage.
> 'The first 60-watt direct replacement, Premium Quality High Brightness
> (PQ-HB) bulb that uses less than 8 watts. The GeoBulb is the same size
> as a conventional incandescent bulb suitable for direct replacement in
> any indoor open fixture. It puts out more light than a standard
> 60-watt bulb but uses less than 8 watts. LED bulbs last 3 years of
> continuous use or 10 years at about 8 hours per day. Every part of the
> GeoBulb is built for long lasting durability. The GeoBulb is the first
> bulb built to withstand 10 years of use.'
While the power usage is impressive (8W vs. the 13W of a CFL) I do
wonder about whether it's REALLY better for the planet as a whole.
Has there been any study into the amount of energy used to produce the
CFL bulb and later dispose of it vs. the energy needed to produce the
LED based bulb, and it's disposal?
Too often only the energy usage during used during normal usage is
considered, the total energy used during the production, usage and
disposal of of an item must be considered.
I'm skeptical. They seem to have skewed the test results.
My experience was always that LEDs dimmed badly with age. How did they manage to
stop that effect (which plagues OPTOFETS, optoisolators etc across the board and
has for years)...
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Herbert Graf <gmail.com> wrote: hkgraf
Well since I recently bought 5 CFLs for £1, this would have to
use an incredibly tiny amount of energy to make up for
costing nearly seven hundred times as much (useful life
notwithstanding) so I for one won't be rushing to buy them!
Certified performance results here showing it is a very mediocre performer
wrt good quality CFLs. .
7.14 Watts at 120 VAC.
It uses 8 x LEDs at ~= 1 Watt each.
Modern 3W+ LEDS such as Osram Golden Dragon Plus t\run in the 100-110 lumen
/ Watt range in the top available flux bin.
Nichia Raijin (1/6 Watt) run 120 l/W min, 130+ l/W typical, 160 l/W in top
flux bin (few percent).
Most efficient available white LED on earth [AFAIK]. [Tell me about a better
one by all means].
3 year operation 24/7 ~= 26,000 hours.
LED lifetime is typically specified to 70% of initial.
This lifetime level is easily enough achieved by top LED suppliers or by
those who licence their technology. And by vanishingly few others. Ask me
how I know :-).
In no partiular order: Lumiled, Osram, Nichia, Cree, HP, ... .
A good quality 'cool white' CFL (eg Philips Tornado) will produce > 70 l/W
at say 20W level and somewhat less at lower wattages.
So, the Geobulb performance is directly on par with a good CFL.
A good straight tube fluorescent achieves > 100 l/Watt !!!
CFL lifetime is claimed as 3000 hours. Some report never getting anything
near this. I have had variable results with some running to around 20,000
Being conservative a Geobulb las a lifetime of perhaps 10 x CFL.
I wouldn't want a $200 bulb with a bayonet fitting ! :-).
The Geobulb envelope is causing some of the LED light to be radiated at high
angle (see above report).
Using the LEDs essentially open to air with an appropriate radiation pattern
would give better real world results.
William \Chops\ Westfield
On Apr 11, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Certified performance results here showing it is a very mediocre
Light bulb marketing is becoming a mash of very misleading information
and outright lying. "Equivalent wattage" is getting seriously
inflated. Wikipedia claims that a 40W incandescent puts out 500
lumens. The most recent "40W replacement" CFLs (7W) are about 350l
(according to the package.) (I could swear that the last batch of
"40W" CFLs I bought were 9W; I think they got more optimistic rather
than more efficient!) The "40W replacement" LED bulbs I bought don't
have a lumen rating, but they claim to be 1.5W consumers, and even if
they had "state-of-the-art" LEDs in them, they wouldn't be coming
close to 500l...
And energy conservation pundits wonder why consumers are so slow to
adopt the more energy-efficient technologies...
> Well since I recently bought 5 CFLs for £1, this would have to
> use an incredibly tiny amount of energy to make up for
> costing nearly seven hundred times as much (useful life
> notwithstanding) so I for one won't be rushing to buy them!
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
More people need to be taught how to calculate TCO, RIO etc.
I've got an old fridge (no freezer compartment) that people keep telling me
to replace. "New ones are better, they use less power and so on."
It costs under 5 cents a day to run, so that's under $20 per year. A
replacement might be $500, so that's some 25 years before I "start saving
I think I'll keep the old one.
On a trip to Merry ol' England I bought a pack of four led lamps, 240 volt
GU10. I think they were ten pounds per pack, ( ~ $3.50 each). I just need a
way to power them off 120volts efficiently.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Tony Smith <beagle.com.au> wrote: ajsmith
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009
, 2010 only
- New search...