LED Lights and Garage Door Opener???
in [Design]
|
Prev: memristors
Next: Will this EMP bomb work?
From: Spehro Pefhany on 14 Apr 2010 10:08 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:31:44 -0400, PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:13:16 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:15:30 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >> >>Good grief, I've been having the same erratic problem: the garage door >>will go up but won't close. I overhauled all the mechanics, cleaned >>the limit switches, tweaked the big nasty dangerous spring, all that. >>It appears to be a control problem, not a mechanical one. And after a >>while it started working again. The receiver/motor box is straddled by >>two light sockets on the ceiling, with CFs, drived from a motion >>sensor. The bulbs inside the Genie housing are still incendescents. >> >>Next time it acts up, I'll try incandescents for the ceiling lights. >> >>John >> > >And sweat the day when you can't get incandescent light bulbs any more >because you've been told that they are too inefficient! I doubt that will happen, though they may well disappear from grocery store and convenience store shelves, and the price will likely go up to dollars a bulb from dimes a bulb. >I'm sure we're going to see a sharp rise in residential fires in the >next 10 years, too... Mostly due to cheap chinese CFL lamps failing >when used in locations that are totally inappropriate, a move forced >by those who "think" they know best for everyone. Who forces consumers to buy cheap flea-market unapproved products? We usually buy Philips brand, and they always carry the appropriate approval marks. All products with authentic (!) cULu markings (or equivalent) should not cause an excessive number of fires. One of the major contributors to home fires in the past couple of decades has been halogen lamps in poorly designed fixtures that can allow the extremely hot bulb envelope to come into contact with flammable materials. We've still got some incandescents in the dining room, but most everything else has been warm-white electronic ballast CFL for years now. They're a far cry from the flickery 100Hz ting-ting-ting-flicker-start lamps I remember from my first budget trips to Europe. I still have a bunch of ceramic-based 85W halogen floods in my office (along with some under-counter flourescents and accent MR16 halogens and LEDs) because the raw lumens for my aging eyes are just not available from equivalent CFLs. BTW, I put CFL lamps in our mb shower a few years ago, and it seems to be working just fine. I did coat the lamp bases with silicone conformal coating before installing to protect against any steam that gets into the fixture. Nice and bright, starts instantly, and they have outlasted the incandescents by ~3:1 so far (a bit of a hassle to replace- ladder, screwdriver etc.).
From: Jim Thompson on 14 Apr 2010 10:35 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:04:54 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:31:44 -0400, PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote: > [snip] >> >>And sweat the day when you can't get incandescent light bulbs any more >>because you've been told that they are too inefficient! > >I'm goint to order a few cases of them, a lifetime supply, before they >become illegal. I suspect there will always be an ebay black market, >too. http://www.1000bulbs.com/Light-Bulbs/ I buy case lots of commercial grade 130V incandescents... standards and floods :-) [snip] > >Next we'll have expensive LED bulbs that "last up to 100,000 hours" >with crappy electronics. Nearly all the green LED traffic lights in >San Francisco have failed, in interesting patterns, and had to be >replaced. Only the greens, for some reason. > >John That's odd, they seem to do quite well here in AZ. Maybe it's the fog in San Fransicko ?:-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Joel Koltner on 14 Apr 2010 12:15 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:09ibs5dqho0sul6rlhc57r4qi2jtf8efks(a)4ax.com... > I'm goint to order a few cases of them, a lifetime supply, before they > become illegal. I suspect there will always be an ebay black market, > too. I'm going to hope politicians aren't dumb enough to completely outlaw them. > CFs don't work in cold locations, and most can't be dimmed, and most > won't work with 2-wire motion sensors. This is a fair statement, but... -- Dimmable CFLs vs. non-dimmable one is primarily a cost issue today; you can readily find dimmable ones at a Home Depot or similarly well-stocked store, but you end up paying a couple bucks more per each. Over time I wouldn't be surprised if that cost difference diminishes to the point where they pretty much all become dimmable. (Remember how some early CFLs still flickered at turn-on, using a bi-metallic strip-based starter and magnetic ballast, but that these were slightly cheaper than the all-electronic versions.) -- I've noticed that these days some motion sensors advertise that they will, in fact, work with CFLs (and one can presume the ones that don't advertise this won't :-) ) -- I suspect the design changes amounts to a slightly bigger capacitor or something; nothing significant once the problem is well-defined. It's kinda a hack anyway to get the power for your circuitry when you're "in-line" with the controlled device; motion sensors that have their own full power connection (hot, neutral and ground) always struck me as preferable, but of course I realize this isn't easily retrofittable into existing fixtures in almost all cases. In any case, this problem as well I expect to largely disappear over time. > Next we'll have expensive LED bulbs that "last up to 100,000 hours" > with crappy electronics. I'm amazed at just how expensive the LED bulbs are right now -- I remember the first CFLs being in the $20-$25 range, whereas the first big (e.g., replacement for 60+ watt incandescents) LED bulbs are more like $40-$60! (But just so that it's clear -- I think banning incandescent bulbs is a really stupid idea, as there will always be applications where incandescents are the best option.) ---Joel
From: GregS on 14 Apr 2010 12:54 In article <vgkbs55fbnh59sqe49vhdciv4jpq0blvcd(a)4ax.com>, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:04:54 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:31:44 -0400, PeterD <peter2(a)hipson.net> wrote: >> >[snip] >>> >>>And sweat the day when you can't get incandescent light bulbs any more >>>because you've been told that they are too inefficient! >> >>I'm goint to order a few cases of them, a lifetime supply, before they >>become illegal. I suspect there will always be an ebay black market, >>too. > >http://www.1000bulbs.com/Light-Bulbs/ > >I buy case lots of commercial grade 130V incandescents... standards >and floods :-) > >[snip] >> >>Next we'll have expensive LED bulbs that "last up to 100,000 hours" >>with crappy electronics. Nearly all the green LED traffic lights in >>San Francisco have failed, in interesting patterns, and had to be >>replaced. Only the greens, for some reason. >> 100,000 hours at half power and low ambient temp. I see many failed lights now. greg > >That's odd, they seem to do quite well here in AZ. Maybe it's the fog >in San Fransicko ?:-) > > ...Jim Thompson
From: GregS on 14 Apr 2010 12:56
In article <ZSlxn.171679$Bs1.83180(a)en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com>, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:09ibs5dqho0sul6rlhc57r4qi2jtf8efks(a)4ax.com... >> I'm goint to order a few cases of them, a lifetime supply, before they >> become illegal. I suspect there will always be an ebay black market, >> too. > >I'm going to hope politicians aren't dumb enough to completely outlaw them. > >> CFs don't work in cold locations, and most can't be dimmed, and most >> won't work with 2-wire motion sensors. > >This is a fair statement, but... > >-- Dimmable CFLs vs. non-dimmable one is primarily a cost issue today; you can >readily find dimmable ones at a Home Depot or similarly well-stocked store, >but you end up paying a couple bucks more per each. Over time I wouldn't be >surprised if that cost difference diminishes to the point where they pretty >much all become dimmable. (Remember how some early CFLs still flickered at >turn-on, using a bi-metallic strip-based starter and magnetic ballast, but >that these were slightly cheaper than the all-electronic versions.) I have worked with good dimmable ones in the past. I bought some Costco Feits and one failed on turn on, and the dimmable feature is a joke. Good ones are probably still near $15 a piece. greg >-- I've noticed that these days some motion sensors advertise that they will, >in fact, work with CFLs (and one can presume the ones that don't advertise >this won't :-) ) -- I suspect the design changes amounts to a slightly bigger >capacitor or something; nothing significant once the problem is well-defined. >It's kinda a hack anyway to get the power for your circuitry when you're >"in-line" with the controlled device; motion sensors that have their own full >power connection (hot, neutral and ground) always struck me as preferable, but >of course I realize this isn't easily retrofittable into existing fixtures in >almost all cases. In any case, this problem as well I expect to largely >disappear over time. > >> Next we'll have expensive LED bulbs that "last up to 100,000 hours" >> with crappy electronics. > >I'm amazed at just how expensive the LED bulbs are right now -- I remember the >first CFLs being in the $20-$25 range, whereas the first big (e.g., >replacement for 60+ watt incandescents) LED bulbs are more like $40-$60! > >(But just so that it's clear -- I think banning incandescent bulbs is a really >stupid idea, as there will always be applications where incandescents are the >best option.) > >---Joel > |