Cheap LED's have arrived.....

[russ]

It's their new lower-cost design with flow-through ventilation instead of a heat sink at the base.

Fantastic ide! For a money transfer anyway - for lighting probably not so much.

[SunEagle]

It's their new lower-cost design with flow-through ventilation instead of a heat sink at the base.

Ok. That makes sense.

I can see how a "flow through" would cost less to manufacture but it would have limited applications unless there was a lot of air movement or it would not cool properly.

[DanKegel]

I can see how a "flow through" would cost less to manufacture but it would have limited applications unless there was a lot of air movement or it would not cool properly.

Any vertical application in a non-closed fixture should do, thanks to the chimney effect. But time will tell. Anyway, I've moved on to Osram for new bulbs; they look less weird, give great light, hum less, and are cheaper here.

[SunEagle]

Any vertical application in a non-closed fixture should do, thanks to the chimney effect. But time will tell. Anyway, I've moved on to Osram for new bulbs; they look less weird, give great light, hum less, and are cheaper here.

I have these ceiling can lights in the kitchen where I use those 4 watt LED lamps. The cans originally came with 50watt quartz lamp with the GU10 base.

It was easy to swap them out with the LED but because of the attic insulation above the can I don't think there is much air flow. I can see other applications where the flow-through would work.

[DanKegel]

fun teardown video here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...own-and-Review

In a vertical can with closed top, the 4flow might have a nice local convection circulation that at least gets the heat out of the bulb proper, even if there's no net flow through the can.

The 4flow bulb warranties are shorter than for the old ones with a real heat sink, but that might not all be due to poorer cooling.

[RedDenver]

Until they can exceed 100L/Watt T5 is more efficient.

Certainly more efficient, but most (all?) fluorescent bulbs use mercury. That's a worse polluter than the extra electricity IMO. LED's might be better for toxicity than florescents and for efficiency than incandescent.

[russ]

Certainly more efficient, but most (all?) fluorescent bulbs use mercury. That's a worse polluter than the extra electricity IMO. LED's might be better for toxicity than florescents and for efficiency than incandescent.

Congrats! You bought the green line totally apparently. Learn how much mercury before chattering.

[RedDenver]

Congrats! You bought the green line totally apparently. Learn how much mercury before chattering.

While the amount per bulb is very small, there are a LOT of bulbs releasing an estimated 2-4 tons of mercury annually. And even a single bulb when broken can exceed occupational exposure limits to people nearby:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

Since mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, I think that limiting exposure is a good idea. Whether that evidence convinces you or not is up to you.

[SunEagle]

fun teardown video here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...own-and-Review

In a vertical can with closed top, the 4flow might have a nice local convection circulation that at least gets the heat out of the bulb proper, even if there's no net flow through the can.

The 4flow bulb warranties are shorter than for the old ones with a real heat sink, but that might not all be due to poorer cooling.

Interesting lamp. Thanks for the link.

[SunEagle]

While the amount per bulb is very small, there are a LOT of bulbs releasing an estimated 2-4 tons of mercury annually. And even a single bulb when broken can exceed occupational exposure limits to people nearby:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

Since mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, I think that limiting exposure is a good idea. Whether that evidence convinces you or not is up to you.

Short of ingesting a large quantity, mercury really isn't as toxic as people are led to believe and touching it won't kill you or make you sick.

I use to play with that stuff all the time back in high school and never got sick. That was over 45 years ago, years ago, years ago....

[russ]

While the amount per bulb is very small, there are a LOT of bulbs releasing an estimated 2-4 tons of mercury annually. And even a single bulb when broken can exceed occupational exposure limits to people nearby:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf

Since mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, I think that limiting exposure is a good idea. Whether that evidence convinces you or not is up to you.

The green line on mercury is total horse stuff - coal fired plants release far, far more quantity. Eat most any ocean fish and you exceed the amount of mercury in a lamp.

Like SunEagle noted - I also used to play with the stuff 60 years back - polishes silver coins nicely.

I never have worried if a lamp was broken and never will.

[RedDenver]

Short of ingesting a large quantity, mercury really isn't as toxic as people are led to believe and touching it won't kill you or make you sick.

I use to play with that stuff all the time back in high school and never got sick. That was over 45 years ago, years ago, years ago....

The green line on mercury is total horse stuff - coal fired plants release far, far more quantity. Eat most any ocean fish and you exceed the amount of mercury in a lamp.

Like SunEagle noted - I also used to play with the stuff 60 years back - polishes silver coins nicely.

I never have worried if a lamp was broken and never will.

While I appreciate what you're both saying, that's not exactly convincing. And it's not like I'd go running from the house if I broke a tube. The medical research I've seen suggests that minimizing exposure is always preferred, especially for kids.

My point is that if LED's can provide efficiencies similar to florescents, why take the exposure risk?

[DanKegel]

if LED's can provide efficiencies similar to florescents, why take the exposure risk?

Cost, I suppose. LEDs are still a little expensive. (I've switched entirely to LEDs myself, but others may not have that option practically.)

Also, if you clean up a broken bulb promptly (within a day), the risks are evidently small; see

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/some-comfort-about-broken-cfls

[russ]

The medical research I've seen suggests that minimizing exposure is always preferred, especially for kids.

My point is that if LED's can provide efficiencies similar to florescents, why take the exposure risk?

Have you ever read the MSDS for a bottle of iron ore reagent? That is about as safe as you can get - however - the MSDS has you running to wash etc. The warnings have turned into a "no one should ever be affected in 100,000 year type of thing. Half the things I grew up with are now outlawed because some fool figured out how to abuse them and get himself hurt.

Agreed that one should minimize exposure.

[SunEagle]

Have you ever read the MSDS for a bottle of iron ore reagent? That is about as safe as you can get - however - the MSDS has you running to wash etc. The warnings have turned into a "no one should ever be affected in 100,000 year type of thing. Half the things I grew up with are now outlawed because some fool figured out how to abuse them and get himself hurt.

Agreed that one should minimize exposure.

Common sense seems to have gone out the window when it comes to danger so everyone now expects the manufacturers to warn people about everything they should NOT do with their product.

One of the crazy warnings that I had to laugh at was on aerosol paint cans where it stated "Do not point at face and DO NOT INHALE FUMES". Sort of a "no brainer" but I guess some people don't have a clue.