[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 49, Issue 11
to some of us who live entirely off-grid and who are still relegated to
using only dc power without the option of having powerful enough inverters
to do it any differently (my homebuilt, one-of-a-kind system is an example
of such a setup), the ability to use led's, even at the higher cost, would
be a blessing. And, yes, led's are better than cf's in the disposal stream,
as cf's still use a bit of mercury in them.
On 9/10/07, aquatic-plants-request at actwin_com <
aquatic-plants-request at actwin_com> wrote:
>
> Send Aquatic-Plants mailing list submissions to
> aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> aquatic-plants-request at actwin_com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> aquatic-plants-owner at actwin_com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Aquatic-Plants digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. LED Technology (Jerry Baker)
> 2. Re: Plant weights, lead, zinc, etc. (Dave VanderWall)
> 3. Re: LED Technology (again) (Stuart Halliday)
> 4. Re: LED Technology (Richard J. Sexton)
> 5. Re: LED Technology (again) (Jerry Baker)
> 6. Re: LED Technology (S. Hieber)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:04:44 -0700
> From: Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>
> Subject: [APD] LED Technology
> To: APD <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
> Well guys, after many years of being and LED naysayer (and correctly
> IMHO), I think we're finally getting there. Several LED manufacturers
> have LED emitters on the market right now with efficiencies between 80
> and 100 lumens per watt. In addition, advances in LED phosphor
> technologies have created LEDs with somewhat normal spectral
> distributions.
>
> The efficiency and spectra appear roughly equal to other forms of
> aquarium lighting, but maintaining 70% of rated output after 50,000
> hours places these LEDs far and above other lighting sources in terms of
> length of service. All that is left is for costs to come down to sane
> levels.
>
> Current cost of the referenced LEDs is about 0.16 cents per thousand
> lumen hours, but the cost of typical CF bulbs (assuming 5,000 hours) is
> 0.08 cents per thousand lumen hours. The initial investment in LED
> emitters is very high at $370 for the equivalent of a 55-watt CF, but
> they will last for about 11 years on a 12-hour day cycle. By then LED
> manufacturers expect to achieve near theoretical limits of efficiency at
> around 300 lumens per watt.
>
> Any comments?
>
> REFERENCES
>
> Spectrum of Atlas LED NT-42D1-0425 (Daylight)
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1384/1351994314_bd913518a7_o.png
>
> Atlas LED Data Sheet
> http://www.ledsupply.com/docs/Atlas.pdf
>
> Atlas LED Prices
> http://www.ledsupply.com/bl-nt-42d0-0426.php
>
> CF lumen ratings
> http://www.ahsupply.com/bulbs.htm
>
> --
> Jerry Baker
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 17:03:38 -0500
> From: "Dave VanderWall" <dave at vanderwall_org>
> Subject: Re: [APD] Plant weights, lead, zinc, etc.
> To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
>
> > From: Stuart Halliday <stuart at mytriops_com>
> >To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
> > Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:11:17 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [APD] Plant weights, lead, zinc, etc.
> > I believe Dave VanderWall wrote this email section below:
> > > Can't we all just get along? :-) Well, maybe not, and here's why ...
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that the European Union (I realize the U.K. is not a
> > > member)
> >
> > Huh? Whatever gave you that idea?
>
> Probably my narrow worldview, and because my gut tells me so. Hey!
> Wikipedia says the UK *is* a member of the EU. I'll fix that for you.
>
> (I, stupidly, had euros on the brain. I stand corrected. Let us never
> speak of this again, please. Moving on.)
>
> I still maintain the US loves its lead. Just slap a label on it that
> says it is known to the state of California to pose a health hazard
> and call it good.
>
> :-|
>
> Dave VanderWall
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:05:23 +0100
> From: Stuart Halliday <stuart at mytriops_com>
> Subject: Re: [APD] LED Technology (again)
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
> I believe Jerry Baker wrote this email section below:
> > Well guys, after many years of being and LED naysayer (and correctly
> > IMHO), I think we're finally getting there. Several LED manufacturers
> > have LED emitters on the market right now with efficiencies between 80
> > and 100 lumens per watt. In addition, advances in LED phosphor
> > technologies have created LEDs with somewhat normal spectral
> distributions.
>
> Ahh we're getting there.
>
> > The efficiency and spectra appear roughly equal to other forms of
> > aquarium lighting, but maintaining 70% of rated output after 50,000
> > hours places these LEDs far and above other lighting sources in terms of
> > length of service. All that is left is for costs to come down to sane
> > levels.
>
> Once household lighting shops gets hold of them the costs will come down.
> Look at the price of CF bulbs now. Less than a quid for a 60W CF now.
>
> But I can't see daylight LED bulbs in peoples houses. I tried them once
> and
> my wife was horrified at how it 'changed' the colour of everything.
> I could spot my house from miles away at night. It was the only white
> light
> and stood out like a lighthouse!
>
> One company I know where I work are working on a prototype ceiling tile
> LED
> affair. You slot the tiles in place of the normal office tiles and you
> have
> virtually parallel light with little to no shadows. Looks very nice and
> very
> controllable.
> I can certainly see household lamps getting radically redesigned. So this
> will be a huge market.
>
> > Current cost of the referenced LEDs is about 0.16 cents per thousand
> > lumen hours, but the cost of typical CF bulbs (assuming 5,000 hours) is
> > 0.08 cents per thousand lumen hours. The initial investment in LED
>
> > ... By then LED
> > manufacturers expect to achieve near theoretical limits of efficiency at
> > around 300 lumens per watt.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> It will be the product cycle of rechargeable batteries all over again.
>
>
> I wonder if LEDs are better for global warming or are CFs?
> I guess LEDs use less materials to make and easier to dispose of.
>
> > emitters is very high at $370 for the equivalent of a 55-watt CF, but
> > they will last for about 11 years on a 12-hour day cycle.
>
> After 2-3 years you'd probably want to buy the latest LED technology as it
> will no doubt be so much better than the last generation... ;-)
>
> --
> Stuart Halliday
> http://mytriops.com/
> 200 Million years in the making...
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard at aquaria_net>
> Subject: Re: [APD] LED Technology
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
> >Any comments?
>
> "LED lighting will be practical *soon*"
>
> Just like it has been for 30 years. Never mind there's an
> advance in fluorescent and HID ballasts that make them
> almost half as expesive to run in the works.
>
>
>
> --
>
> /"\ / http://lists.aquaria.net
> \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / Killies, Crypts, Aponogetons
> X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://new.killi.net
> / \ AND POSTINGS / http://images.aquaria.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:46:22 -0700
> From: Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>
> Subject: Re: [APD] LED Technology (again)
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
> Stuart Halliday wrote:
> > Once household lighting shops gets hold of them the costs will come
> down.
> > Look at the price of CF bulbs now. Less than a quid for a 60W CF now.
>
> Very true. The technology is growing by leaps and bounds almost monthly.
>
> > But I can't see daylight LED bulbs in peoples houses. I tried them once
> and
> > my wife was horrified at how it 'changed' the colour of everything.
> > I could spot my house from miles away at night. It was the only white
> light
> > and stood out like a lighthouse!
>
> That's funny. I tried them too and my living room window stood out. The
> contrast made my window look blue. Any thoughts I had that the lights
> were too blue were dashed when I was taking a shower one morning before
> dawn and I saw a glow in my hallway. "It is WAY too early for the sun to
> be up," I thought to myself. It turned out to be the daylight bulb was
> on. Fooled my unconscious, so it must have been a close approximation.
>
> Philips new Rebel LED emitters come in cool white, warm white, and
> daylight colors. Of course the phosphors necessary for anything other
> than the daylight color reduce the lumen output somehwat, but there are
> warm white LEDs that are still in the range of 75 lumens per watt. They
> would make ideal under-cabinet lighting, and shower lighting.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
> Subject: Re: [APD] LED Technology
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
>
> Sort of like Hoboken, always on the verge of breaking out of the shadow
> of, well, you name it. ;-)
>
> sh
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at aquaria_net>
> To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:58:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [APD] LED Technology
>
>
> >Any comments?
>
> "LED lighting will be practical *soon*"
>
> Just like it has been for 30 years. Never mind there's an
> advance in fluorescent and HID ballasts that make them
> almost half as expesive to run in the works.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
>
> End of Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 49, Issue 11
> **********************************************
>
--
It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees!
Russell
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants