Hambone Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm glad to see 'budget' LED fixtures using 1W LEDs (Chinese sweatshop Luxeon rip-offs, I imagine!) arriving for us amateurs. The cheapy LED PARs I bought are virtually useless. Anyone with any experiences with these? Pros and cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This might yet get merged into the main LED PAR thread but in the meantime... As you'll see from my 'shootout' thread I've been doing some real measurements on LED cans. It has struck me that the reason the stuff that's currently on the market is so poor is the beam angle. With figures around 50 degrees it's no wonder they can't hold their own against other fixtures. If they could drop the beam down to around 20 degrees (which is still pretty wide) you'd have a beam intensity 7 times what it is at the moment. I haven't seen figures for the 1W units, any pointers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 http://www.chauvetlighting.com/fixtures/colorado_fix.shtml http://www.thomann.de/gb/stairville_hl_x_h...d_washlight.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 A quick BOAFP calculation (back-of-a-fag-packet) shows that because of the smaller beam angle the peak intensity is going to be around 3 - 3.5 times greater than the PAR64s I measured. Based on the figures for the chauvet unit they are putting out about 30% more light. However, on the Chauvet unit there is a discrepancy between the .pdf manual, which claims 6111 lux at 1m, and the webpage which claims 3070. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 However, on the Chauvet unit there is a discrepancy between the .pdf manual, which claims 6111 lux at 1m, and the webpage which claims 3070. It was cold that day in the lab.... 54 1W LEDs, which generally work out at about 1.2W each, hence the 54 1W LEDs and 84W power consumption unless they`re using a really poor power supply scheme. Heatsink is definately on the optimistic side to handle high duty cycle full on, look at an AC ColourBlock: http://www.aclighting.com/products/chroma-...htm#colourblock Belt and braces heatsink arrangement , big `sink and 2 fans and that has all of 12 * 1W LEDs. Cheap high power LEDs have poor thermal conductivity from dice to heatsink, this is one reason behind faster aging with lower cost high power LEDs. Running LEDs hotter because of over economised heatsinking will result in lower LED lifetime and lower output. Optics are much more controllable on high power LEDs, good precise control from couple of degrees up and elongated beams like 6 by 25 degrees are available off shelf. Wonder if the Chauvet unit will make it to market under that brand though, refer you to the bundle of licencing stickers that the ColourBlock carries to allow its sale in the U.S. Chauvet are a U.S. brand..... If a.n.other brand were to import it for Euro consumption, would like to see a bigger heatsink plate on the back, extruded alloy really isn`t that expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I had the UK's Lamina rep in last week to show me the Titan LED Light Engine. Does about 900 lumens from 40W but with a heatsink that wouldn't look out of place on a 500W audio amplifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I had the UK's Lamina rep in last week to show me the Titan LED Light Engine. Does about 900 lumens from 40W but with a heatsink that wouldn't look out of place on a 500W audio amplifier. At about 22.5 Lumens per Watt not a record breaker though ;-) This if gets past vapourware stage looks impressive: http://www.ledlightingfixtures.com/index.htm 59l/W , always due for release next quarter for past year. Thats a 6" lamp with 11W total power consumption and a very big heatsink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 At about 22.5 Lumens per Watt not a record breaker though ;-)Nope but they a) are real product, b) have real meaningful specs, c) work and d) are affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 At about 22.5 Lumens per Watt not a record breaker though ;-)Nope but they a) are real product, b) have real meaningful specs, c) work and d) are affordable. Not disagreeing about the LLF unit but Cree Xlamp is a real deliverable product that comes somewhere near its published specs, in a very cold room, with 70 lm/W. http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?I=1160427137863 Bit missing is what size would an Xlamp array to be to achieve 900 lumens at 70 lumens watt efficiency,answer probably impractically large. Or like the LLF unit use a larger amount of underdriven Cree LEDs, efficiency goes up with underdriving but it has some cost implications... Lamina have an interesting product that uses a different approach, sure has its uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 No matter what happens, it looks like LED technology will revolutionize lighting as we know it. It's only going to get brighter, better, and cheaper. No more hot, heavy, and inefficient fixtures... no more projection lamps blowing out... instant on/off... huge color palettes... the benefits are endless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niclights Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Though they do open up wonderful new possibilities, I do hope they are never considered a replacement. IMO they are just another tool. Sometimes you don't want instant on/off for example. And a filament changing colour temp over intensity is a beautiful thing. The issues over focusing are still considerable & I think we are a very long way off seeing options for moving spots. I also think cost is going to remain considerable for some time. Even if 11W downlight is finally enough I can't see the cost of these being justifiable, either in terms of energy-saving or consumables/man-hours to replace, in the foreseeable future. Apologies for taking this yet further off-topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I can't see the cost of these being justifiable, either in terms of energy-saving or consumables/man-hours to replace, in the foreseeable future. LED efficiency is currently accelerating at a very fast rate , not quite Moores Law but certainly ahead of road maps published couple of years ago by the major makers. Energy saving is about to mean a lot more than just the bottom line on your power bill, Part L of the new building regulations for instance means energy efficient lighting is a legal requirement. Would like to provide a reference to world leading research by a UK Government department but unaware of any, so heres a US Government link: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/energy_star.html Back to somewhere nearer the topic advantage we do have in Europe is a Patent system that isn`t broken , allowing development to continue apace and offer us a larger range of colour changing products , than that available to our American cousins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niclights Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 You can (as I do) already achieve energy efficiency with fluorescent lamps. Much as I hate the light (even the so called 'warm' versions) and the time taken to reach full output it's hard to argue against. But these are approx £6 each. I would see £10 as a ceiling for using LED's in these applications. At the moment 5W Luxeon type are far more than that and they are not suitable for general illumination. 10/11W brings the two types effectively level on consumption but I just can't see such units getting down to the required price for a good while, much as I wish they would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 10/11W brings the two types effectively level on consumption but I just can't see such units getting down to the required price for a good while, much as I wish they would!The Chinese-sweatshop reverse-engineered Ruxeons will be here before you know it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musht Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I just can't see such units getting down to the required price for a good while, much as I wish they would! Dunno where your still paying £6 for a decent CFL, got a pile of Philips Geni 11W for 47p each in Asda recently. Though environmentally friendly dosent come into it for these ones, high early failure rate, taking into account energy in manufacturing and the mercury and other heavy metals in the lamp, large shot in foot for Philips reputation for me. When CFL first came out, 15 odd years ago?, colour was even worse, cold starting could be bad and the lamps were over 10 quid each. Apart from industrial users no one bought them. Lot of occasions where the 60p for the lamp pales against the cost of risk assessment, safety zone, traveling time, access equipment and labour to actually change the 60p lamp. LEDs are at moment advancing faster than CFLs did and the market is a different place, lot more interest from consumers in energy saving which helps drive demand. Only problem is explaining difference, to even a professional customer, between, a Chinese `Ruxeon` , TM Hambone, unit and a big brand LED unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.