Incandescent bulbs - decision, plus Edison Screw question

Steve Thackery wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Yes, there's about a hundred of them in parallel. Is that a bad thing?

Weeeelll..... it is if you read the electronics mags. The story goes
that the forward voltage drop varies slightly between otherwise
identical LEDs, and the ones with the lowest forward voltage drop will
hog a disproportionate amount of current, and thus overheat and burn
out.

I should have mentioned that these are 12V LEDs. The PSU is a pretty
good one, set to 11.5V. Should be all right, shouldn't it?

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

I should have mentioned that these are 12V LEDs. The PSU is a pretty
good one, set to 11.5V. Should be all right, shouldn't it?

Ah! That explains it. They aren't just LEDs, but have a little
regulator chip in them as well, which means all the stuff I was talking
about doesn't apply. In this case they can be wired in parallel quite
happily, and indeed that is the normal configuratino.

I'm embarrassed that I had just assumed they were "pure" LEDs.

And yes: 11.5V will be just fine for them.

--
SteveT

On 27/05/2014 23:38, Steve Thackery wrote:

That aside, "works" isn't a binary state, because there's always the
question "How well does it work?" Trust me, I could bang on about this
for hours, having been a Reliability Engineer in a previous career!

I don't think we are ever going to agree, and I don't think that matters.

All I will say is that if those who share your view of obsolescence put
the cast-offs on Freecycle rather than in a skip, those with an approach
like mine will happily use up the residual life.

Waste not, want not, as they say.

Jim

Steve Thackery wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

Go on then, sell me the advantages.

No, I'm not doing all the work for you! Personally I don't care at
all what bulbs you use. I merely point out that your impressions
might be out of date. It's up to you whether you care to bring them
up to date or not.

There's no point in trying just for the sake of trying. If there's no
obvious advantage to be gained, and there apparently isn't, why bother?

What I was asking you for was a carrot. Sadly, it seems you're hoarding
them all to see in dim light.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 22:09:29 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

I think you might be missing the point, Norman. I believe all
anyone is saying is that if you try one of the latest LED lamps,
you may no longer prefer incandescents.

Go on then, sell me the advantages.

I thought we already had, but to summarise, they're more efficient,

Only slightly if you take heat emitted into account and what that heat
does.

they run cooler,

No real advantage in itself.

they give a pleasant light and don't go dim and flickery like CFLs,

So do incandescents, which are also a lot cheaper and more versatile.

and although more expensive to purchase (for now)
the reduction in running cost can give a payback time a great deal
less than their estimated life.

I agree that wouldn't be a justification for refitting your entire
house in one go, but I don't think anyone is suggesting this, simply
that you might like to consider trying one with a view to replacing
your incandescents one by one as needed.

But WHY? You seem to think that it's an inevitable progression from
incandescents to the sunlit uplands of LEDs but no-one seems able to
show they're any better than what we have, nor that they will be. It's
not progress but simply difference, and that's not good enough.

Steve Thackery wrote:

Just by way of example: as far as I'm concerned, any lamp that
flickers before it comes on might - arguably - work, but it doesn't
work well enough for me so it gets replaced. Ditto if it's too dim,
takes too long to brighten, or gives off light of the wrong colour.

You're referring of course to CFLs. Weren't we told how wonderful
/they/ were when they were introduced?

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 22:07:47 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

...I don't have any 40W or 60W bulbs. What can I get to replace
100W or even 150W incandescents?

Well, you can get any number of CFLs or LEDs.

The only problem is that they won't be anywhere near as bright.

What? Individually they might not be as bright, but we're suggesting
several of them added together. You do realise that, don't you?

Perhaps they ought to come with an extension socket on the bulb end so
we can daisy chain them together then?

Most people don't have limitless fittings.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2014 19:27:10 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Have we still not convinced you to give LED bulbs a try? :-) The
initial purchase cost is higher than for filaments, but I sometimes
justify a purchase to myself by deciding its cost has come from the
"curiosity fund", and is thus valid because it could be interesting.

Go on, you know you want to.

But why should I? What's in it for me, or anyone else for that
matter? What good will it do?

It may enlighten you, in more ways than one.

Are they 'progress' or just 'different'?

Norman Wells wrote:

There's no point in trying just for the sake of trying. If there's
no obvious advantage to be gained, and there apparently isn't, why
bother?

Well, that does seem to be a rather passive approach to life. Do you
not do anything out of curiosity? You never look round a shop? An art
gallery?

Actually, I don't believe you really think that way - I think you are
just trying to justify your slightly unusual stance on LED lamps.

It's OK - we've all made our points.

--
SteveT

Bill Wright wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:

Should I try homosexuality too?

You mean you haven't already?

If you look down when you're wanking that's homosexuality.

I thought that was auto-eroticism. Or is that something to do with
cars?