It is 2024 and incandescent is still better than LED

Cris Bessette wrote:Christmas LED strings generally do not use any rectification, they simply put the LEDs in series to drop the current and run them on AC

(The LEDs are only on during the positive going cycle, thats why you can see a 30hz flicker)

How would current drop by adding bulbs?, I think what you meant was what I said about adding enough leds in series to match the 120 volts of the ac supply. generally multiples of 30.

I never cut them open to check, but most(all?) of the strings I've played with seem to have a solid molded plastic bit attached just after the plug and I assumed it was a cheap mini rectifier circuit. Since leds are all diodes anyway, adding 4 more in a rectifier circuit would seem to be a minor thing and give twice the light.

I admit that i've never checked the voltage past that suspicious plastic to see if it was ac or dc, sounds like a good project sometime, would pulsing dc show up as dc on a cheap multi meter, cause I don't have an oscilloscope.

Each LED uses about 10-15 ma.  Red LEDs use about 2 volts and blue/green/white LEDs use about 3 volts.  

The only LED Christmas lights I've seen that run on DC are small battery powered sets and ones that have controllers integrated for different flash patterns.
Yes, Christmas light sets would look better without the 30hz flicker, but they are cheaper to produce without the extra diodes / capacitors necessary to make smooth DC to run them.  

It's cool to see this thread still alive.  I'm doing the debate after completing the construction on my small "office"

Going to go incandescent for the final recessed lighting when I get around to it...one of these days!  

Very interesting discussion! Some points I had never heard or considered.
Pretty happy with the LED bulbs we have here, and doubt incadescent would work well with our DC Microgrid. Being able to have light in the evenings year-round, even through weeks-long cloudy spells, with just one 100 amp-hour battery set providing light (and electronic charging) for the twelve of us, is pretty awesome. The LEDs might not be quite as "cozy," but they are making some with warmer yellow light, and the passive solar and straw bale insulation help keep us warm in the winter.
Don't know how the complexity and toxicity of DC LED bulbs compares to AC, but are LEDs really a lot more toxic than an incadescent? Pardon my ignorance, but I never heard mention of this before.
In any case, since using DC LED bulbs allows us to provide lighting with a small, affordable set of durable, non-toxic nickle-iron batteries (http://livingenergylights.com), which (together with "daylight drive" DC energy right off the solar panel to power larger motors - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Wk7inoIxI) allows us to break our dependence on the grid and more destructive approaches to off-grid living, I still stand by them as the best option, at least for our systems.

They are certainly use-appropriate, depending on the use. I was reminded of this when my much-better-half plugged in a string of ornamental incandescent bulbs strung in our kitchen on an overcast and chilly, but otherwise perfectly bright, day. When I asked why, she told me that her dough was proving, and that the bulbs made an excellent heater, better than the electric baseboard we have as an alternative.

We might not have that option in the future, as heating with lightbulbs might be prohibitively expensive on an off-grid solar setup.

-CK

The word "better" is so interesting.  At the moment I am very narrowly thinking of my outdoor flood lights.  I dont like mercury  vapor lights that turn on at night.  But, there are times I do need to throw a good deal of light onto my back yard to check my livestock. Using led frees me from having to climb a ladder to replace those bulbs.  

I think this conversation is interesting because incandescents can improve so very much, and that improvement will remove a lot of what is being touted as being of benefit.

If, for instance, you have a glass-coated, insulated filament inside a bulb, the life of that filament, and therefore the bulb, barring mechanical disruption, is greatly increased because it isn't subject to the rapid temperature swings of a conventional incandescent filament. But in so doing, even though the efficiency of the bulb might improve by 40%, it would cease to be such a great heater.

Personally, I disagree with the use of the word "better" in this context. Not that I hate on incandescents, obviously. But I have known since I was a little child that the electric baseboard heaters weren't good because they used electricity, which was expensive, and that even the pot-bellied iron stove was better, though you couldn't touch it when it was on, because it ran on wood, which you could get right outside, for a little forethought and elbowgrease.

A stray thought that occurs to me is that if it were a possibility to get a red-light LED spot to check your cattle, you could do so without ruining your nightvision, and the way most of these things are constructed, it basically wouldn't make sense to build one that doesn't also have a white light switch, for purposes of startlement (the predators, not the cattle, although I don't see it working much differently). Adding to this, I honestly wonder what the comparative output potentials are, considering comparative cost outlay. Perhaps not for the units, but those bulbs and setups can be freaky expensive, too, but honestly, if you had an LED system pumping the same power as your HIDs or mercury vapour bulbs, what kind of output could we be talking? Because the way I understand it to work, that's a lot of fucking lumens. That's "careful not to blind the cattle" bright. That's "put a lens on it and fry the coyotes" bright.

Well maybe that's just a bit of hyperbole, but honestly, what other -bole is any fun at all?

But they do advertise those (probably illegal, probably not a bright move, considering how often I momentarily blind myself with normal flashlights) "self-defense flashlights," which for the footprint I would bet are extreme-high-output LEDs (they fit in what appears to be a conventionally-sized to large flashlight casing). So perhaps a cattle-defense model with a red-light mode might exist.

Either way, in most every application except as heating, incandescents still far outpace what came before them for most applications, and retain niches into modern day in which they excel. The technology has room for theoretical improvement that would lend it even more versatility through gains in efficiency, at the cost of their efficacy as space heaters.

I would, without a doubt, agree that incandescents are better inside my oven than anything else I can imagine. Mercury, circuitry, nonsense. Don't mix that with my much-better-half's baked deliciousness.

-CK

is there such a thing as a led heat lamp that can keep chicks alive?
back in the day when a friend and I did lots of dumpster diving in industrial areas we would find fluorescent tubes by the case full with a couple broken ones in the box the whole case would go to the dumpster I'm still using these, probably have at least one case full left.
free light bulbs are better than ones that cost $$$$. and why not use what would otherwise go to landfill unused. just keeping a bit out of landfill for now. just my $0.02 on subject.

bruce Fine wrote:is there such a thing as a led heat lamp that can keep chicks alive?

No. LED's run cool. So they can't warm up chicks.

Hell to the yeah!!! I don’t need a whole big scientific analysis on why LED lights are not good, all I have to do is turn one on to hate them!!! : ) They are the most horrible thing known to man after cancer and war. Boycott and ban these damn things puleeze.

There is something about the LED lighting, even in the newest versions, that just isn't the same.  I am really trying to like them, but I just can't. I like that they are Wi-Fi capable, and having many colors and color temperatures, groupable for control, etc. - all very, very cool. But, after using high end Halogen spotlights and GE Reveal incandescent for over ten years, these new LEDs... just don't cut it for me.

Although, after using the new smart LEDs for about a week I think now that I realize if I tune the color, and then set dimness to 1%, I can tolerate it without my skin crawling. lol Of course this isn't useful for much in the way of really lighting anything like a room or work area to a level that is functional for much, except as background lighting while using direct task oriented lighting for what you may be doing in your exact location.

However, all this aside, there is something very basic that bothers me about all the discussions - aside of course from the fact that about 100 times more energy is used to produce a bulb that is now only marginally more efficient than a well-made incandescent, 10 times more expensive to buy, and perhaps also 100 times more toxic to the environment. Once again, someone somewhere got some big money for pushing this legislation through and while it no doubt creates and supports a lot of jobs, etc., it isn't any kind of real solution energy and pollution-wise.

Yet, even given all this (which sadly may actually be true) this is what really bugs me: If a plant requires a CRI 100 bulb - a light source that produces the entire spectrum including those that cannot be seen by the human eye - to grow and thrive healthily, then why would it be any different for humans? Seriously, does the plant need to visually 'see' the ranges of the spectrum that are invisible to us in order for them to be affected by them. NO.

Then, why would we not also benefit from these wavelengths. You cannot normally visually see heat, and yet it affects you. You cannot see flickering of florescent lamps if at high rates, but it affects you. You cannot see sound vibrations, yet it affects you. I would guess that all the wavelengths of any radiation hits your entire body, and there is an affect, whether you can really 'see' the wavelengths or not.

I know immediately when I turn on even the smartest of smart LED lights that it is NOT anywhere close to as rich or complete a light radiating source as a good incandescent. I can feel it in my bones.

You know, many people cannot really tell the difference between an audio file that is a WAV format (Non-Lossy) or MP3. MP3 is more convenient. But, it is also 'Lossy', meaning not the same quality as the sound as it was recorded. It is thinner sounding, and has typically FAR less data, like perhaps 1/100th to 1/1000th of the original amount in a lossless (standard old) WAV PCM format recording. And less fullness and richness to the sound.

I think that what we really have is a similar difference in the incandescent and LED lighting. Less data, in essence - though this is not a scientific description and I cannot provide one. In the case of music, well... some beauty of a song is lost. OR even of a great orchestra performing an astounding symphonic work. Considering it is a one time thing, the recording of a great performance of music, and that we cannot quantify completely the impact and worth of such music on our minds, bodies, and Souls, it would be truly a great loss not be able to have at least a single, real, lossless recording of said work for future generations to experience. But, in the case of our daily lighting needs, the impact could be even more huge, as we - like the plant - may not really be absorbing the wavelengths that, much like the Sun, the CRI 100 incandescent bulbs provide. I mean, there is enrichment of our existence, and then there are the basic needs of that existence. Lighting falls into the second category I think. Although arts like music are probably very close there as well, it is another level of requirement I think. Lighting is a very base need.

But, the real bottom line here is this:  Politics and big business don't care. Why?  I'll tell you why: Now, in our modern age, as a resource people are cheap. Now, we are by default automatically replaced at a higher rate than we die. So what if we are ultimately not as healthy throughout the course of our lives; we are imminently expendable. At this time in our history as a species thriving on the 3rd planet of Sol system, in a slow orbit roughly half-way from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, 5 new souls are born into this Universe, on Earth every second now, and 2 die. The rate of increase is only going to grow and accelerate now, moving into the future of mankind. As a result ultimately, for the large majority of people, our value per unit will go down, while our expendability continues to rise.

What I am saying is this: I think that being in an environment for a large portion of our lives (50%+ or whenever it is dark...) CRI 100 lighting has huge overall impact on us as living creatures. Those non-visible wavelengths that are absent in this new and far narrower spectrum of lighting (LED) have a huge impact on us, and I believe when they are missing it is immediately noticeable, and furthermore felt, if not 'seen', with possibly even far reaching impact upon us as living beings.

But, we now live in an era of 'quantity & speed' vs. quality. We needed to decrease energy usage, become more energy efficient as a species, and so this new legislation was adopted and we sought a 'new and exciting' technological solution. In the process spending far, far more capital, and using far, far more energy to develop, and even now will use far more energy (you know, that resource we were trying to save and the entire point of all this?) for ongoing production, and creating far, far greater amounts of highly toxic pollution moving forward, while quite possibly placing ourselves in an environment for up to 50% or more of our lives that lacks one of the most basic things we need to be healthy: Healthy lighting.

Am I being stupid? Or am I simply a highly sensitive person physically, able to 'feel' more of what is going on around him. We are energy creatures after all. Who is to say that some people are not simply a little more, or even much more, in touch with the effects of the energies surrounds them?

I have read that the very expensive Smart LED bulbs (now at the end of 2021 AD) are getting to a high enough CRI rating that they can finally produce a full enough range of wavelengths to approximate a good incandescent. We are talking still perhaps CRI 95 (95%), whereas a decent incandescent is 100% still, and that less expensive LEDs may be as low as CRI 60 (60%).

But, the very good LEDs are also extremely expensive. Who has the money to spend $50 per bulb? Or even $25. And no one talks about what those missing wavelengths might be doing FOR us, just like the plants. lol Sure, we are not plants. But we ARE alive. And we are energy, more than anything, in the form of vibration, solidified from our perspective. But, not so solid when you get right down to it scientifically. And there ARE effects when we are deprived of those 'invisible' wavelengths for too much time.

I think someone made a lot of money by heading us off in a new, highly technological direction, in basic lighting. The amount invested, and already earned (by those involved in the movement on the ground floor politically, and in business and science), and generated moving forward is probably incalculable; or, at will be least in the trillions in not too long a span of time. And even if they get the tech to where they can totally duplicate 100% a CRI 100 light source, the impact on the environment alone is enough to negate any point whatsoever, not to mention we will use 100 times more energy to build these stupid lights now moving forward.

I am probably wrong and just being petty, out of a dislike of having my 'skin made to crawl' by these poor excuses for bulbs, and aggravated that I can no longer enjoy something that was really a true marvel of technological advancement, which was the GE Reveal bulbs. Which of course are banned now. Or angry that now I night have to spend up to $50 USD for anything that even comes close to their performance, that doesn't make my skin crawl, or even for anything approaching a decent light bulb now.

But, this is my rant, and I am sticking to it. LOL

Enjoy the future people. We are here now, and it ain't what the brochure showed... not at all.

Interesting... all this, spurred by something as simple as taking away my favorite light bulbs? Well, I hate to see man’s best and most practically brilliant innovations banned, and things really moving backwards while being promoted as progress. And, well... as they say...

Sometimes, it's the little things.  

Nice to read that I'm not alone, for me, only incandescent!! No need to light up the rooms excessively, it's a trend to have these super cold and super bright rooms... I dont like it.
Now comes the winter and darker days, I love it! There is a time for everything.

We should expect that LED lights will be made better and better, although yes, for heating, the incandescent will always be better. I guess that having a light that does not heat up could also be in high demand in areas that demand air conditioning.
I came across this light that plugs in a regular socket. It has 3 *directional* lights, so that might be a plus if you seek to lighten the darker areas of a room, or flood a workbench...
You can put them in garages, which are usually not heated, so I expect that it would light up immediately in spite of the cold? [Big plus in Wisconsin zone 4b]
It gives you 4000 lumens. With a few mirrors strategically placed, it might be suitable for the most demanding interrogation room in the Kremlin!
The actual cost of the Triburst light was in the low $30s, so affordable if it lasts.
They say it is 400 times brighter than a 60 watt bulb but energy-wise, it is equivalent.
The estimated energy cost per year is $6.02. at 3 hrs/day and 11 cents per kWH.
At that rate, the life is estimated at 10 years if used 6 hours/day. [why did they switch from 3 to 6 hrs/day?] If you do use it 6 hours/ day, the cost is then 6.02X3= $18.06
Then, looking at the specs on the side of the carton, it says  "lightning facts per bulb". This one has 3 bulbs.
That kinda wrecks my calculations. There are things you can add up, per bulb, and things you can't, like duration.
It is made in china, which is a fact I don't care for. Can the lumens be added [4000lumens/ bulb would be X3=12,000 lumens???]
So it really pays to read the small print. As of now, I have not installed it yet [I need to wire a hard socket in the ceiling, so it will we a while.] I wonder what you think of this...
https://www.homedepot.com/pep/Bell-Howell-TriBurst-10-5-in-144-High-Intensity-LED-4000-Lumens-White-Flush-Mount-Ceiling-Light-with-3-Adjustable-Heads-8062/316728861?g_store=&source=shoppingads&locale=en-US&pla&mtc=Shopping-VF-F_D29A-G-D29A-Multi-Multi-NA-Feed-PLA_LIA-2153902-WF-MinorAppl_Minor_Appliances_Special_Buys&cm_mmc=Shopping-VF-F_D29A-G-D29A-Multi-Multi-NA-Feed-PLA_LIA-2153902-WF-MinorAppl_Minor_Appliances_Special_Buys-71700000042813121-58700004539894749-92700067474701002&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhMOMBhDhARIsAPVml-Falzdb8vgMldyUa8kvXpHFQ3Bdwr3Cj3oEq-U73BdXgzWe6oLT8nwaAlUdEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Hi Cecile. I do not know very much on electric lights/lamps, and there is much I do not understand about them. But I do know 4000 lumen is a lot of light! In my opinion that's much more light than you'll need.
OK, if you have your socket on the ceiling and you want to read fine print next to the floor, maybe. But I think it's better to have the socket not at the ceiling. When you have your light source close to where you work or read, you need much less light. I don't think you can add up the lumen of three light bulbs (as far as I know it's always 'lumen' without an s, at least it is in my language). Three light bulbs of 4000 lumen will use three times the electricity (Watts, KiloWatts/hour) and give 4000 lumen of light in three different directions, if I understand well ...

Inge Leonora-den Ouden wrote:Hi Cecile. I do not know very much on electric lights/lamps, and there is much I do not understand about them. But I do know 4000 lumen is a lot of light! In my opinion that's much more light than you'll need.
OK, if you have your socket on the ceiling and you want to read fine print next to the floor, maybe. But I think it's better to have the socket not at the ceiling. When you have your light source close to where you work or read, you need much less light. I don't think you can add up the lumen of three light bulbs (as far as I know it's always 'lumen' without an s, at least it is in my language). Three light bulbs of 4000 lumen will use three times the electricity (Watts, KiloWatts/hour) and give 4000 lumen of light in three different directions, if I understand well ...

I was hoping for a directional floodlight in a large unheated metal shed. This one seemed to fit my bill but  I wanted to know more before I bought a second one. Heck, it gives so much light [if it lives up to the advertising] that you could do a cavity search of a suspect without taking off clothing . Of course, that is *IF* it lives up to the hype. I know my fellow permies will  have bought this and give us the real nitty gritty. Thanks for your input.
[Apparently, you can add lumens in the English language. It said 4000 lumens right on the box.]

Cécile Stelzer Johnson wrote:......
You can put them in garages, which are usually not heated, so I expect that it would light up immediately in spite of the cold? [Big plus in Wisconsin zone 4b]

I can't comment on the particular referenced item per se, but for LED in general, yes.....my experience for several years now is that they can operate in rather cold temperatures.  I have installed several of the lights shown below on the exterior of outbuildings and they have reliably turned on for 5+ years in temperatures often around -20F.

Garo Gagliano wrote:
If a plant requires a CRI 100 bulb - a light source that produces the entire spectrum including those that cannot be seen by the human eye - to grow and thrive healthily, then why would it be any different for humans? Seriously, does the plant need to visually 'see' the ranges of the spectrum that are invisible to us in order for them to be affected by them. NO.
Then, why would we not also benefit from these wavelengths. You cannot normally visually see heat, and yet it affects you. You cannot see flickering of florescent lamps if at high rates, but it affects you. You cannot see sound vibrations, yet it affects you. I would guess that all the wavelengths of any radiation hits your entire body, and there is an affect, whether you can really 'see' the wavelengths or not.
But, in the case of our daily lighting needs, the impact could be even more huge, as we - like the plant - may not really be absorbing the wavelengths that, much like the Sun, the CRI 100 incandescent bulbs provide. I mean, there is enrichment of our existence, and then there are the basic needs of that existence. Lighting is a very base need.
At this time in our history as a species thriving on the 3rd planet of Sol system, in a slow orbit roughly half-way from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, 5 new souls are born into this Universe, on Earth every second now, and 2 die. The rate of increase is only going to grow and accelerate now, moving into the future of mankind. As a result ultimately, for the large majority of people, our value per unit will go down, while our expendability continues to rise.
Am I being stupid? lol Sure, we are not plants. But we ARE alive. And we are energy, more than anything, in the form of vibration, solidified from our perspective. But, not so solid when you get right down to it scientifically. And there ARE effects when we are deprived of those 'invisible' wavelengths for too much time.

No, you are far from stupid and anyone who raises chickens knows that too much light [any kind of light BTW] to make chickens lay more eggs are trading this profit for the shortened life of their chickens. [6-10 yrs ---> 2 years].
Those lights *are* different from natural sunlight and many [I hope well intentioned folks] are warning us about too much sunlight and how it will give us skin cancer, so they can sell us various creams and sun blockers, chemicals that are absorbed by our skin that don't do us much good either.
Similarly, by extending the amount of time WE spend in artificial lighting, the human race as a whole has become much more productive in factories and even in our own homes and contributed to the rat race we all suffer from.
I know that as a teacher in a classroom where we had fluorescent lighting, I would get headaches and my eyes would sometimes burn/ itch. When you look closely at a film/photo taken under fluorescent lighting, the incessant on/off creates a poor quality film/photo.
As to vibrations, we've all heard stories of a bridge that can fail as it was being crossed by troops walking on cadence. It created a vibration that could be enough to collapse a bridge. [It might pay to have a few troops that are out of step ]
Talk about "the London bridge is falling down" song!
https://www.livescience.com/34608-break-stride-frequency-of-vibration.html
Every "progress" comes at a price. Change comes at a price. Every time. we have to analyze the + and - choose correctly.

"heating" with a light-bulb would be truly stupid where I am, not only is it up near the ceiling where I don't feel it but electric is more expensive than fuel for the boiler even taking into account the efficiency of the boiler and the 7W an 100W equivalent LED uses it's still cheaper to buy fuel for the furnace for heat and use LED's for light. And how about the few months of the year when it's summer and I don't want any extra heat?  No LED's are better for daily use in a house in my opinion.

Skandi Rogers wrote:"heating" with a light-bulb would be truly stupid where I am, not only is it up near the ceiling where I don't feel it but electric is more expensive than fuel for the boiler even taking into account the efficiency of the boiler and the 7W an 100W equivalent LED uses it's still cheaper to buy fuel for the furnace for heat and use LED's for light. And how about the few months of the year when it's summer and I don't want any extra heat?  No LED's are better for daily use in a house in my opinion.

Hi Skandi. Yes, that's true, here too the fuel (often natural gas in the Netherlands) for the heating is cheaper than the electricity needed ... but ... why is that fuel cheaper? How is it possible that oil or gas taken from the Earth is so cheap? Only because we do not pay the real price!
For the natural gas now the Dutch gouvernment makes it more expensive every year, because they see there's an end to it ... But they go on producing electricity with oil, even coals (and other non-renewable sources like imported wood pellets!) and still promote the use of electricity by subsidies ...
In general I can say: we have to use much less of all energy sources! There's only one planet Earth!

I'll speak to my experiences with lighting. Our main home is grid and our tiny home is off grid.

CFL bulbs are several things: Junk, garbage, ill conceived and worthless. Once LED bulbs came on the market, I've switched and never looked back. I use many types from solar flood lights (40 chip) to track lights to normal household types, 9, 11 & 20 watt varieties from towards the blue spectrum to normal daylight.

I can't emphasize enough how much LED bulbs save when you're running on a battery bank.

During the dark ages of CFL, I typically replaced them between 150 - 200 hours because they stopped working. In one case the smoke monster came out.

To date, I've replaced exactly one LED bulb.

Hi, I still buy incandescent bulbs.

Yes they were outlawed by congress, except for the 40w Refrigerator bulb. So go ahead and buy your frigerator bulbs for your home. BTW I use less fuel to heat the home now that i have a couple of lamps radiating on me.

One more reason to add LEDs to the naughty list… they increase the risk of migraine headaches. With migraines affecting so many people and knowing fluorescent lights can cause migraines, it should be a no brainer for doctors and manufacturers to realize the impact of LEDs on migraine sufferers. I’m finding mine getting worse and found out today from my chiropractor that LED lights could most likely be the cause. I knew about blue light issues but didn’t know that most LED lightbulbs are blue light and red light (also bad for migraines). Therefore, we need doctors, the migraine societies, and others to pushback at these manufacturers. I’m going to start looking for and buying long-life incandescent bulbs. And there are several studies that focused on and proved LED effects on migraine sufferers. Thank you for sharing this information. Julia

Julia Gulbrandson wrote:One more reason to add LEDs to the naughty list… they increase the risk of migraine headaches. With migraines affecting so many people and knowing fluorescent lights can cause migraines, it should be a no brainer for doctors and manufacturers to realize the impact of LEDs on migraine sufferers. I’m finding mine getting worse and found out today from my chiropractor that LED lights could most likely be the cause. I knew about blue light issues but didn’t know that most LED lightbulbs are blue light and red light (also bad for migraines). Therefore, we need doctors, the migraine societies, and others to pushback at these manufacturers. I’m going to start looking for and buying long-life incandescent bulbs. And there are several studies that focused on and proved LED effects on migraine sufferers. Thank you for sharing this information. Julia

I think you're right Julia. All of those 'modern' lights LED, TL, other energy-saving lamps) cause health problems (headache, but also other issues). And I think doctors know. And manufacturers know. And gouvernments know. But they still have their reasons (their 'agenda') to want the people to buy and use those lights ... But maybe I am a 'conspiracy-theorist' ...

I don't think it is a good idea to mix light quality and temperature (blue/red) with the technology used to produce the light.
It is just very difficult to produce lots of blue light with incandescent lamps.

From my understanding, a higher color temperature (more blue light) improves concentration and ability to see. So it makes sense for companies and schools to push for that light. Due to the way that LEDs work, it is very easy to pick the preferred color temperature, where as with incandescent lights, the filament has to be at that temperature, which is technically difficult and expensive.

But as you are the one deciding which LEDs to buy, there is no need to get those blue LEDs, but instead more towards warmer sunlight colors (5000K).
The second best light I have seen has been from a high power LED, the best being arc lamps, which are really annoying to operate.

paul wheaton wrote:

Steven Kovacs wrote:Thanks for this, Paul.  You've clearly put a lot of thought into the issue.

More like:  my brain is infested with a huge amount of thoughts on a lot of topics.   Lovely people then ask a simple question like "What do you think of LED lights these days?" and I am instantly tongue tied because my answer is not a simple "I still prefer incandescent."  My answer is huge.   In fact, my answer is even larger than what I provided, but I need to stop at some point.

Just started reading this string having lots to say and will later. Excellent intro Paul, my light color preference is 3000k that leans towards incandescent bypassing CFL's with LED's having a place.

Great thread, thanks! Learned many things, very timely read for me as news hits that halogens and incandescents will once again be unavailable in the US by August. And as the 3.5 yo LEDs in my house all die in tandem this month (yay!) My myopic stimulant junkie better half and I have come to an understanding over the years and we are looking for a compromise. Right now we just try to take turns in the kitchen and use separate workspaces, him with the 150W overhead LEDs and me with the 25W halogens and Gunnar blueblockers. I would do candles if we could afford it. Thinking about buying a pallet of halogens and getting started on bees.

I found the article on light being absorbed by the skin very validating. I have worn long sleeves, gloves, hats and sunglasses when needing to be inside under strong fluorescents and LEDs for a long time, since before LEDs. I also wanted to add a somewhat muddy data point, that I know two people with non-24 and they have opposite opinions:  one uses blue light LEDs and doesn't get much sleep, the other one tries to limit all light after sunset and... doesn't get a lot of sleep either, but more, and he's healthier, but then again he is younger. The health aspect is what interests me more than saving energy and living in harmony with our planetary budget, as I believe there are better ways. I'm also very interested in neurotransmitter dominance and this seems to come up sometimes.

Environment Canada is banning CFL bulbs in 2023 because of the environmental damage the mercury does. Yes, the very same CFL bulb that was mandated by Environment Canada and promoted by the likes of David Suzuki not too many years ago.

Incandescent bulbs were banned on Jan 1, 2014, and replaced by the CFL for environmental reasons.

The Duke of Permaculture 1, Canada 0.

Nick Kitchener wrote:The Duke of Permaculture 1, Canada 0.

I choose to pretend that without my effort they would never have made the change.   My CFL video is now ten years old with 108,000 views.

And now I hope they unban incandescent.

I realize a well built incandescent might have a longer life span than the ones I normally encounter, but I find that LEDs, in hard to reach places, do have a place on my homestead.   It is nice to screw in a bulb and have it still burning brightly 8 years later. Conservatively, that saved me 8 trips up and down a ladder for each LED bulb.

 As for fluorescents I have always tried to avoid using them.   One problem I have not seen pointed out, is that fluorescents have a nasty reputation for exploding.  As for fluorescents in general, when  I was a CEO, our State Fire Marshal demanded at all  fluorescents be enclosed in a plastic cover to prevent glass from flying all over the room when/ if they exploded.

The problem with LEDs is the refresh rate which can be annoying to the eye and we can not detect it. An LED flashes at around 60 times per second, it is not a constant light.

Dennis Goyette wrote:The problem with LEDs is the refresh rate which can be annoying to the eye and we can not detect it. An LED flashes at around 60 times per second, it is not a constant light.

I'm not sure that's true across the board. LEDs run on DC. Good electronics converting AC to DC wouldn't cause a 60 Hz flicker. It's possible that LEDs with cheap electronics might flicker though, and possibly at 30 Hz, which still allows persistence of vision but could be noticeable.

Julia Gulbrandson wrote:One more reason to add LEDs to the naughty list… they increase the risk of migraine headaches. With migraines affecting so many people and knowing fluorescent lights can cause migraines, it should be a no brainer for doctors and manufacturers to realize the impact of LEDs on migraine sufferers. I’m finding mine getting worse and found out today from my chiropractor that LED lights could most likely be the cause. I knew about blue light issues but didn’t know that most LED lightbulbs are blue light and red light (also bad for migraines). Therefore, we need doctors, the migraine societies, and others to pushback at these manufacturers. I’m going to start looking for and buying long-life incandescent bulbs. And there are several studies that focused on and proved LED effects on migraine sufferers. Thank you for sharing this information. Julia

I’ve been getting into light therapy(phototherapy) lately. I started off with a small red light device(near infrared, and red light). Then, I bought some low blue light LED lightbulbs, which I use after sunset only. Next, I got a green LED lightbulb for my dad since he has migraines. Turns out he’s not the light sensitive type of migraine sufferer. I guess it’s only a subset that have issues with light. Green light is the only light which doesn’t trigger migraines from what I’ve read, and they used LEDs. All the phototherapy devices I came across use LEDs. Apparently halogen and fluorescent are out of the picture due to the inability to control wavelength precisely.

I’ve also heard of people getting relief from migraines using red and near infrared(NIR) LEDs together. The green lights seem to work simply by not having the other troublesome wavelengths. So it doesn’t take a high power light. It’s basically like sitting in the dark—it’s avoiding the cause of the trouble. For red light and NIR, the anecdotes I’ve seen online involve proper red light devices which are rated to have a certain amount of irradiation. I imagine if this does actually relieve migraines, it’s probably due to the healing benefits of high irradiation red light itself. Benefits like increased mitochondrial function, for example. I also would imagine that someone prone to light-triggered migraines would want to wear a good pair of light blocking goggles while using red light therapy.

I haven’t found much info on colors beyond red(including near infrared, and far infrared), blue, and the emerging research on green. Green light benefits go beyond the absence of other wavelengths though. Green light devices have been used to reduce bilirubin in infants with a particular type of jaundice.

Jaundice(edit: this one mentions fluorescent light)

Green LED(GLED) for migraines

I should point out that I know next to nothing about electricity, light bulb types—the subject matter of this conversation. Some studies use lasers, but plenty use LED. It seems to me that LED lights vary greatly when it comes to their health impacts. Everything from harmful, to lacking certain harms(low blue light, green light), to high powered therapeutic devices with some impressive healing benefits. I usually feel pretty good after using my red and NIR LED.

Very diverse, informative thread! We are far north of Montana and while a 60 watt incandescent gives off heat, I certainly don’t see one bulb as making any noticeable difference when it’s below zero outside. Maybe if I sat in a small closet with it a foot above me? But that’s not practical. As my eyes age, I find bright white light the most effective for doing pretty much everything, and LEDs deliver that perfectly. Counting all the bulbs here- indoor, outdoor, shop, shed, we have maybe 40. At any given time the number in use varies from zero to ten or twelve, depending on time of day, year, and number of people. Since maybe 50% of this lighting is used as outdoor or shop illumination, LED is the clear winner for efficiency given the amount of lumens needed. Our electric cost is about $.25/kWh. The bulbs we changed out for LED around 5 years ago are still functioning just fine. New 40-60 watt equivalent bulbs are only about $2 each for high quality.  Unfortunately there’s no renewable energy option for electricity when we need it for lighting, but there is for heat and cooking (wood) so it makes perfect sense to heat with wood and use LED to save electricity and get far better quality lighting. I think for many people finding a better way to heat water might be priority one, as it’s a year round need.

Julie Reed wrote:As my eyes age, I find bright white light the most effective for doing pretty much everything, and LEDs deliver that perfectly. ... Since maybe 50% of this lighting is used as outdoor or shop illumination, LED is the clear winner for efficiency given the amount of lumens needed.  

I'm firmly in the "gimme LED" camp as well. If I want light, it's LEDs all the way.

If I want heat then of course it's incandescents/halogens or other glowing filament/resistive devices. These are sometimes useful to prevent a pipe freezing in a critical spot, or for emergency heat under a tarp in a freak freeze. I still have a box of odd incandescents in my garage for such purposes. I have also used a white 250W brooder heat bulb in my unheated garage when I need to fix something and it's bloody cold -- then the combination of the two in a directional package is extremely useful.

I appreciate and respect others' varying experiences, but for me, the second LED lighting was available I was all over it. I even built my own early fixtures with loose Luxeon LED emitters, aluminum heat sinks, and 1W resistors. The colour quality has improved much since the early days. And since my grid power is still fossil fuel based, and likely to remain so, I think using less is simply better.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:
And since my grid power is still fossil fuel based, and likely to remain so, I think using less is simply better.  

They was kind of our reasoning as well. I think there are good cases to be made for incandescent in certain situations, but don’t see it as necessarily ‘better’ in any clear black and white way. Even with a couple situations where I could substitute a 300 watt halogen bulb, there would be enough times I don’t want that heat that it still wouldn’t make sense. If there existed a way to store enough power for 3 or 4 months, to have maybe 5kwh a day, then we could go total solar. For the time being, a generator simply can’t compete with the (comparatively) lower cost of the local utility, and it’s fossil fuel either way. Even solar would have a 20 year payback, but that trade off would be worth it, again- if we could have power year around.

Why halogens are as good as incandescents:

The gas is a mix of inert gas and halogens (iodine or bromine, not the bad ones.)

Also these for big places:
High-intensity discharge lamp

Julie Reed wrote:

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:
And since my grid power is still fossil fuel based, and likely to remain so, I think using less is simply better.  

They was kind of our reasoning as well. I think there are good cases to be made for incandescent in certain situations, but don’t see it as necessarily ‘better’ in any clear black and white way. Even with a couple situations where I could substitute a 300 watt halogen bulb, there would be enough times I don’t want that heat that it still wouldn’t make sense. If there existed a way to store enough power for 3 or 4 months, to have maybe 5kwh a day, then we could go total solar. For the time being, a generator simply can’t compete with the (comparatively) lower cost of the local utility, and it’s fossil fuel either way. Even solar would have a 20 year payback, but that trade off would be worth it, again- if we could have power year around.

100%