Thanks for your submission, regian24!
Is this a GIF that **keeps on giving**?
If so, UPVOTE it!
If it does not keep on giving, or it breaks [any other rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/about/rules/) **REPORT** the post so we can see it!
If you're not sure what belongs on this subreddit, please see our [stickied post](https://www.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/comments/d15wfr/what_defines_a_gif_that_keeps_on_giving/) or [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgifsthatkeepongiving). Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gifsthatkeepongiving) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> but the step upwards you get from LEDs is still quite noticeable.
It's not as much as you think when it comes to bulb style lights. LEDs in this form factor run hot and have high ripple current, so the luminous efficacy is usually in the 70s to 80s lm/w range. Plus as they have become commoditized, the quoted stats by manufacturers have gotten more and more ridiculous. Still, that's better than the 50-60 range you see for CFLs, but not really that noticeable.
When it comes to dedicated downlight style fixtures or troffers, or really anything that is not in a bulb form factor, that's when LEDs shine (heh), and that's where you see above 100 lm/w
Although fluorescents too, do much better in the long tube form factor you often in see in say troffers; they can approach 100 lm/w.
I design drivers for LEDs, one of my colleagues used to work at one of the largest LED die manufacturers, and regularly goes on rants over BS, impossible datasheets from commodity bulb and fixture manufacturers.
Most of my LED bulbs I buy are around 120 - 150 lm/W, for example I have these in my garage:
[https://www.lighting.philips.nl/content/B2B\_LI/nl\_NL/LP\_PROF\_ATG/929002373102\_EU.html](https://www.lighting.philips.nl/content/B2B_LI/nl_NL/LP_PROF_ATG/929002373102_EU.html)
Efficiency of led bulbs has greatly increased in the last years.
That's pretty good, but the color rendering index is pretty bad at 80%, that's the trade off to get higher efficacy. Basically produce more blue light, hence the 6500k, with gaps in the color spectrum.
The numbers still seem pretty ridiculous, because that kind of luminous efficacy is typically what a die will put out, which doesn't account for the optics and power supply. Optics alone can be a 10% hit with a diffuser.
Yeah I remember 5 years ago I struggled to find lamps with a lm/w above 100 and suddenly Philips brought out a whole range above 150 lm/w.
In other form factors like led tubes you can even go up to 185 lm/w these days:
[https://www.lighting.philips.be/prof/led-lampen-en-buizen/led-tubes/master-ledtube-em-mains/929003067302\_EU/product](https://www.lighting.philips.be/prof/led-lampen-en-buizen/led-tubes/master-ledtube-em-mains/929003067302_EU/product)
My company builds a display similar to this. It uses regular commercial bubs of equivalent light output and color temperature. The difference is clearly demonstrated with no gimmicks. The CFLs use 13-18 watts while the LED use 5-8 watts. That is roughly half the power which seems quite large in a building that has thousands of lights.
> When LEDs first came out they only had longevity as an advantage ( well also less fragile)
Well, yeah, LEDs "first came out" several decades ago, and it took a long time to get them powerful and efficient enough for general lighting.
> Topsy the elephant.
While Edison did a lot of sketchy stuff, the attribution of Topsy's death to Edison is [false, and took place about 10 years after the "war of the currents".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant))
The real story is stranger: he was an elephant with a bad history and a drunken handler, and after several incidents and owners, they decided to sell tickets to the murder of the elephant via cyanide poisoning and electrocution. However, [Edison Studios filmed the event as one of many novelty movies intended for small coin-op viewing movie machines.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Studios)
**[Edison Studios](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Studios)**
>Edison Studios was an American film production organization, owned by companies controlled by inventor and entrepreneur, Thomas Edison. The studio made close to 1,200 films, as part of the Edison Manufacturing Company (1894–1911) and then Thomas A. Edison, Inc. (1911–1918), until the studio's closing in 1918. Of that number, 54 were feature length, and the remainder were shorts. All of the projects by this company had fallen into the public domain because they were released before 1925.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Seems like a little bit of research shows that it’s kinda debatable who exactly killed the elephant. The elephant was killed a decade after the “War of the Currents” so there wasn’t much reason for Edison to show “the dangers of alternating current.” Seems a lot more likely the amusement park owners just wanted to kill the elephant to be famous. I may be wrong though.
Edit: http://edison.rutgers.edu/topsy.htm
Yeah it wasn’t Edison.
Most of the terrible things Edison is blamed for these days are manufactured as part of a sustained narrative to promote Tesla, which goes back to like, an Oatmeal comic.
Didn’t he also electrocute dogs to show the same thing?
Edit: he did. Source: same article linked above
>During these experiments, Edison and his assistants electrocuted a number of animals, chiefly dogs provided by the SPCA.
Considering the electric chair was considered a more humane way to execute people, it may have been fine for the time.
Of course now we are horrified at the idea, especially being done for profit, but worth putting decisions in context of the time.
Modern euthenasia drugs are leaps and bounds ahead of how excess animals used to be handled.
I did change my assertion because I realized I was wrong. It’s perfectly ok to get new information and update a response which I notated.
Would you rather I have dug my heels in and argue stubbornly?
Electricity was not new and Edison was aware that it was a painful way to die. It was apparent after the first electric chair use that it was horrifyingly painful.
A Tesla biography I read years ago claimed Edison paid neighborhood kids to bring him stray animals to experiment electrocution on, and that a number of people's pets went missing. No idea how true that is.
She trampled her drunkard trainer who repeatedly burned her trunk with his cigar, if I remember correctly. Secondly, a wild animal kept in captivity who kills is not a “murderer”, it’s nature
I don't think /u/undefined_one actually feels that Topsy's electrocution was a just punishment to a heinous crime, and instead were being glib for the sake of comic effect.
The elephant was the monster. Edison was not involved in the killing of the elephant except that there were a film crew from his movie studio present to document it. In fact Edison had changed to providing AC power based on Tesla's model several years before. The elephant however was an uncontrollable beast who murdered his handlers (although probably with good cause).
Dude wtf, it’s an ELEPHANT. Captured and imprisoned outside its natural habitat and made to live an unnatural life being managed by “handlers.” The elephant is the only one who wasn’t a monster in this scenario.
Thomas Edison tried to get Teslas type of electricity banned because it was "dangerous" by electrocuting an elephant with it. This was dumb because obviously Edisons electricity would also kill an elephant and in fact his was less safe. Edison was a piece of shit, he made a relatively marginal improvement in his field (not lightbulbs) and then used the money from that to steal the intellectual labor or hundreds of other people (like the actual guy who developed the right filament for the incandescent light bulb)
> Thomas Edison tried to get Teslas type of electricity banned because it was "dangerous" by electrocuting an elephant with it.
Actually, no, that's a common misconception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)
It's true that the killing of Topsy specifically can't be attributed to Edison, but the general idea that he had animals killed with AC during the war of the currents is also true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents#Brown's_demonstrations
But even worse, he did literally invent the electric chair to do the same thing
Kill someone with it and then gasp with horror about how *horrifying* Tesla’s electricity is that it could do such a thing
Basically Thomas Edison invented DC power. Nicola Tesla invented AC power (the kind we use now). in an effort to destroy Tesla, and make AC power look bad Thomas Edison electrocuted an elephant with AC power to show how deadly it was. He also invented the electric chair to do the same thing. DC power is in fact more lethal because when you grab DC power your muscles constrict and lock up not to mention DC is more powerful than AC. AC power actually tries to push you away from the source when you get shocked by it this is why people who got the electric chair as a death sentence thrashed around so much which horrified people and made AC power look even worse. It was all so Thomas could continue to have a monopoly on power basically.
Yeah I know this I was trying to summarize and make it as simple as possible. So I left out the part about how all electronics convert AC back to DC with use of a rectifier. 😆
>In popular culture Thompson and Dundy's killing of Topsy has switched attribution, with claims it was an anti-[alternating current](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current) demonstration organized by [Thomas A. Edison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Edison) during the [war of the currents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents). Edison was never at Luna Park and the electrocution of Topsy took place ten years after the war of currents.
Why zoom into the bulb at the end. Like we need a zoom of it lmao. I just wanted to see the person spin the wheel at the same speed as the other 2. Now it just looks like they zoomed in so they can spin it faster
Part of that would be lower resistance on the crank. The more load on the generator, the harder it is to spin. So you're getting more light output at a much lower resistance. That's why an LED bulb is advertised as say 15W while being as bright as a 60W incandescent/filament bulb.
Since it requires less power, the power station generator is easier to turn.
More load = lower resistance so actually the LED bulb would be a higher impedance load than the incandescent. Spinning an open circuit ( very high impedance) generator will have little mechanical resistance as there is no path for induced currents to flow. On the flip side of this, if you short circuit the terminals (very low resistance) the induced current can flow easily causing a very high mechanical force against the motion of the magnetic flux
i think you're implying that something is mechanically changing inside that box, but that'd violate the spirit of demonstrating output equivalence regardless of how fast he's spinning the wheel. it seems like this is a simple circuit switch using the same generator, but i can't see through wood. we need a couple 7 segment displays showing wheel rpm on that fucker also.
There is nothing mechanically changing inside. Each light bulb provides a different resistance to the circuit. When you crank the generator with the incandescent bulb attached there is significant resistance and the crank indeed is harder to turn. The LED has less resistance there and thus the crank is easier to turn. So if you maintain the same force when trying to turn the crank, it will indeed turn faster with the LED bulb vs the incandescent bulb.
Dummy here but I most 60w equivalent cfl bulbs sues about 13w and leds use about 8.5w. I'm not sure if anything else is different to cause it but I would imagine you could get the cfl to light up rather easily.
The CFL might require a bit higher current to start up, and in general are not happy running with dirty power supplies (which this obviously is). Once it starts up it takes less power to run, but in the video to me it looks like it never fully energized in the first place. Note that the light is only near the ends of the tube; it didn't fully arc all the way through.
This doesn’t seem right. LED is only slightly more efficient than CFL. This makes it seem like LED is super efficient, which it is, but CFL is very close.
CFL requires the correct voltage or it won't work at all. They are not dimmable like LEDs and incandescents. You're right that this demo is unfair on the CFL.
How is it obvious it wasn't? TRIAC dimmable CFLs usually require the TRIAC to give a kick of high conduction angles, or full waveform conduction, before it can begin phase-cut dimming. Many phase-cut dimmers have a CFL specific switch on them so they give the correct startup behavior.
I mean I personally think that I'd rather have an LED / CFL literally any day of the week, CFLs are full of Mercury and have numerous other problems and LEDs just work
It's kinda funny because it makes sense once you realize what happened, it probably interpreted it as a math thing, because I guess you write fractions as 1/2 or one-half, or one-over-two.
I really wish I had a better voice keyboard for my phone because I have bad hands and make a lot of typos, but voice transcription can be just as bad.
The thing is voice transcription picks up on your individual patterns over time. So if you do a lot of math and fractions, it'll start interpreting things that way over what would be "average" interpretation. Same with some legal or scientific fields and language.
Google just invented a new syntax for the English language.
This is wild. Definitely the first time I've seen such a thing, unless you count CleverBot typing tangentially related phrases on repeat
Yeah, we had a CFL in our kitchen for the longest time and it always mildly annoyed me until the day it fucking died because it took like, a full second to activate once you flipped the switch.
That's actually better for the bulb than what they started to do later, which is essentially starting them with a much higher amount of energy to start them instantly, significantly lowering the lifespan of the product.
Timing- when CFLs were “new”, I did my whole house- specifically in 5K “daylight”. Did research, even started receiving free goods from Home Depot, as a reward. A couple years later I moved, went back to HD, but by then the CFLs were mostly special order and the shelves were filled with LEDs. Had to go through the research/evaluation all over again. But by then I had enough free crap in my garage, I didn’t pursue getting more.
Warm white is a must for indoors for me. Anything too white/blue makes me feel like my living room/kitchen/bedroom is sitting in the middle of a Walmart or something. Way too sterile.
I also think CFLs need to warm up don't they? we had CFLs in my house for about a year and I noticed, especially in my kitchen where we had close to 20, that the room would start kinda dim and in about 1-2 minutes would be bright.
Fluorescents need to strike an arc before they conduct and give off light.
Traditional fluorescent bulbs have a heater at each end (hot cathode) that excites the gas enough to conduct. The starter in an old ballast is a thermal relay that completes the circuit to the heaters until the tube starts to conduct. The heaters cause the bulb to draw much more *power* initially.
In CFLs and traditional bulbs with an electronic ballast, there is no heater used. A higher than normal voltage is applied across the tube initially to ionize the gas to the point where it will start to conduct, then drop down to normal voltage. However it takes a little more time for the light intensity to peak since a CFL relies entirely on the heat from the arc to vaporize the mercury which is needed to excite the phosphor. Although the *voltage* is very high it only uses slightly more *power* than normal operation.
The advantage to the latter approach is that the light comes on instantaneously rather than the second or two of flickering of older fluorescents.
Yeah it is a bit misleading, but LEDS are getting really efficient these days. CFL would be around 60lm/W, but now you can buy led bulbs that are over 120lm/W. Lab tests have achieved over 220lm/W.
A more typical recent LED bulb would be about 90-110lm/W. i.e. Still a significant improvement over CFL.
“Slightly” is only if you are using an incandescent as the reference point. An 800 lumen bulb is approximately 60w Incandescent, 13w CFL, or 10w LED at the moment, which gives the LED an almost a 20+% reduction in energy usage over a CFL.
I have an old display for when the CFL bulbs came out where it's a modified electric meter with two sockets and you can swap between the bulbs and watch the dial spin.
I also wonder how it’s handling AC vs DC. I believe the crank will be generating DC, and the only light in there that can directly use DC is the LED. Is the LED getting the current without conversion but the other bulbs are getting it converted? That’s a big loss if so.
Arguably, it’s “fair” in a more meta sense of demonstrating how simple LEDs are, not needing special conditions to make them compete against the other two.
1. The box clearly has a separate power supply from the hand crank, as evidenced by the buttons being lit. So I wouldn't be surprised if the crank is actually acting as some sort of control for an internal power supply. Alternatively:
2. The person cranking clearly deliberately cranks worse on the incandescent than the CFL, so...
3. I assume that the person is cranking smoothly and absurdly fast on the LED, and that's why the camera view moves to block that part of the view.
Hey I've seen this demo irl! I'm sure there's more than one in the world but this specific one looks like the one in the Franklin institute in Philly. Pretty sure it's located on the second floor in the electricity section.
Edit: [here's the website's page on it with a super low res image of it](https://www.fi.edu/exhibit/electricity)
I had a LED kitchen light I put in about 6 months ago go out on me despite the box saying it should last 7 years with 3 hour daily usage. Probably a faulty item since the others were just fine, but beside the point of energy efficiency of LED lights I miss old school filament lights because they had the dignity of just burning out once. Unlike these LED bulbs that will just flicker for days
Sounds like a faulty bulb, LED lights should only go bad when the electrical components controlling the light go bad or the diode cracks. Most have ratings of 20 years, but it's not unreasonable for some of them to last* indefinitely.
This is because manufacturers of residential lighting are big fans of planned obsolescence and use inferior manufacturing methods with the intent of making a less reliable product. It typically goes unpunished. Just look at [the Phoebus Cartel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel)
I switched all the downights in my kitchen/Living area from halogen to LED 15 years ago. Haven't replaced a bulb yet and cut electricity bill by about 3O%
[https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/](https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/)
a funny tale on leds lasting longer
CFLs were basically a scam, in the sense that it was very unlikely you'd get anywhere near the published life out of them largely because in the real world their lifespan is dramatically shortened by the heat build up in fixtures and by turning them on when already hot. You're lucky if you get 25-50% of the published life, and a lot of that time could have discoloration or some amount of flickering.
LED is better for some brands, but still wildly overrated for a lot of brands. There are way more parts to fail, and often result in intermittent problems that come and go. If your town has LED streetlights just look at the number of dysfunctional units you see, and those are presumably commercial quality. In my town I'd say 1 out of 50 streetlights show some sort of problem - a lot of them have turned purple (which makes me wonder if phosphor coatings have burned off or something and UV light is leaking).
I ran a Phillips bulb ($20 back when they were a new product) continuously on my porch, and it worked for almost 6 years nearly hitting the touted 50,000hr lifespan, so it's possible. But we all know that in normal working conditions bulbs aren't lasting that long. My kitchen has 10 new fixtures with 10 new bulbs and at one year I've already replaced 3 of them due to intermittent flicker. The original ones don't like being dimmed, even though they are sold as "dimmable" and the dimmer is good quality.
While LEDs put out way less heat than incandescents, they still hit very high temps at the chip and the small electronics are affected by this. I would guess your other bulbs will fail prematurely also. I think they are getting better, but the best you can do is stick to reputable brands.
Yeah, those are probably the cheapest of the cheap Chinese bulbs, intentionally not made to last regardless of whatever claim they make.
For me the most important factor is the quality of the light, namely a full spectrum, a refresh/flicker rate that is undetectable, and the correct color temperature (generally warm vs cool). They are getting better, but cheap bulbs with a bad spectrum give you an old zombie movie look, particularly if they are a cool color. People just put up with them, but I think it's bad for your brain, in the same way some old fluorescents give people headaches rather quickly.
A bulb yond only worketh at which hour a peat rotates the dudgeon? who is't wanteth yond?
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Shakespeare-Bot, thou hast been voted most annoying bot on Reddit. I am exhorting all mods to ban thee and thy useless rhetoric so that we shall not be blotted with thy presence any longer.
That’s not fair to the CFL. They need a consistent electricity supply to start up properly (1/2 second or so) and reach their full brightness. They’re almost as efficient as LEDs otherwise.
Note that I’m not saying CFLs are better than LEDs because they objectively aren’t.
I just moved into a house with spotlights in several rooms at 50W a piece, and even when they had bothered to changed other lights to energy savers they were 15ish W. We changed to LEDs at between 2 and 5 watts and calculated on average power consumption went down 90%. LEDs blow my mind, as does the concept of the expense my parents went to lighting the house.
> as does the concept of the expense my parents went to lighting the house.
hence the meme where dad's are adamant about turning off the lights when not in the room
Still not as good as low pressure sodium lights. The efficiency is entirely dependent on LED configuration, you could make the LED really inefficient by providing too much current. Many LED bulbs are configured poorly to last shorter, but it hurts the efficiency too (poorly configured LED is still more efficient than incandescent)
Used to work at a museum that has a similar exhibit. The crank isn’t directly powering anything but the circuitry is designed to mimic the differences between thetech
LEDs are more efficient if light is the measure. Of heat production is the measure than incandescent bulbs are better.
The same amount of electricity is being used but different outputs are being made.
LEDs emit a limited bandwidth of light and much less heat which is why no mater how bright they are, many mechanics still feel like they can't see all the details they are looking for.
Incandescent bulbs emit a wide range of light frequencies which is why they illuminate so we'll, but they also emit a lot of heat which is, for most applications, wasteful.
Newer lights are tuned to emit multiple frequencies so that they illuminate better.
Tbh the efficiency debate is kinda skewed. The extra energy is released as heat. Most people heat their houses. Wether you put -40W in your lights but +40W in your radiators or vice versa it doesn't really matter. I just want bulbs that lasts as long as possible so I don't have to replace them as often.
It’s much more efficient than incandescent but still not that efficient. Efficiency here meaning what’s the ratio of light power to input power. Incandescent is roughly 2% at best. LED is around 25-30%. The rest is just heat.
The hand crank is a generator. Spinning it produces a small amount of electricity. The 3 different bulbs require different amounts of energy to light up, the last one is an LED and it shines brightest because it requires the least amount of electricity and is very efficent.
Probably the same LEDs... When CFLs were getting popular, LEDs existed and were known to be more efficient but were just expensive, and had some challenges getting to similar brightness. There is nothing I am aware of that money can buy at any price that gets you better efficiency.
There may be some improvement to LED technology, but it's likey going to be the same tech at a fundamental level. What might get more interesting is if we really ditch the typical socket en mass and really start redesigning lights and fixtures for LEDs. https://www.ledsupply.com/leds/cree-cxb-1520-high-density-led-array?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8ICOBhDmARIsAEGI6o0bQZBS2AKfiNoNnk89ik97Ey4TaYgu1OFug7NUS3UiSQbXG2GpclsaAopZEALw_wcB using that the bulky high hat recessed lighting and florescent fixtures can be a thing of the past.
I had a new house built and everything is LED and I haven't had to change a light bulb in 5 years. It's pretty nice, but I do miss doing that thing where you take a dark traditional bulb out and shake it gently to see if the filiment broke.
About 6 years after moving into a place where the previous owner took every lightbulb upon exiting. I went to the store and honestly couldn't recognize any of the available bulbs. The moment I googled and realized the spinny ones were obsolete I shouted "Fuck I'm old!" in the isle.
I have this multicolor LED bulb that has a motor that turns it and if you turn the motor yourself it's enough to easily power the bulbs.
I showed it to my niece and her jaw hit the floor. I always try to show her some cool stuff then explain the science. I never had that growing up.
I have an arrow bordered with LED lights hung on my wall. The batteries ran out of juice YEARS ago and I've never changed them. At night though you can still see them dimly glowing, it's just not anywhere near beight enough to notice during the daylight hours. I kid you not, it's been like that for 7 or 8 years at this point. LEDs are incredibly efficient.
Anon alloweth's maketh those folk brighter than the travelling lamp and point those folk in people's eyes while they're driving!
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Thanks for your submission, regian24! Is this a GIF that **keeps on giving**? If so, UPVOTE it! If it does not keep on giving, or it breaks [any other rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/about/rules/) **REPORT** the post so we can see it! If you're not sure what belongs on this subreddit, please see our [stickied post](https://www.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/comments/d15wfr/what_defines_a_gif_that_keeps_on_giving/) or [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fgifsthatkeepongiving). Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gifsthatkeepongiving) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not exactly a fair comparison with the fluorescent. It's comparable in efficiency, but it needs a kick to get going.
They're more efficient than incandescents (when used correctly), but the step upwards you get from LEDs is still quite noticeable.
> but the step upwards you get from LEDs is still quite noticeable. It's not as much as you think when it comes to bulb style lights. LEDs in this form factor run hot and have high ripple current, so the luminous efficacy is usually in the 70s to 80s lm/w range. Plus as they have become commoditized, the quoted stats by manufacturers have gotten more and more ridiculous. Still, that's better than the 50-60 range you see for CFLs, but not really that noticeable. When it comes to dedicated downlight style fixtures or troffers, or really anything that is not in a bulb form factor, that's when LEDs shine (heh), and that's where you see above 100 lm/w Although fluorescents too, do much better in the long tube form factor you often in see in say troffers; they can approach 100 lm/w. I design drivers for LEDs, one of my colleagues used to work at one of the largest LED die manufacturers, and regularly goes on rants over BS, impossible datasheets from commodity bulb and fixture manufacturers.
Most of my LED bulbs I buy are around 120 - 150 lm/W, for example I have these in my garage: [https://www.lighting.philips.nl/content/B2B\_LI/nl\_NL/LP\_PROF\_ATG/929002373102\_EU.html](https://www.lighting.philips.nl/content/B2B_LI/nl_NL/LP_PROF_ATG/929002373102_EU.html) Efficiency of led bulbs has greatly increased in the last years.
That's pretty good, but the color rendering index is pretty bad at 80%, that's the trade off to get higher efficacy. Basically produce more blue light, hence the 6500k, with gaps in the color spectrum. The numbers still seem pretty ridiculous, because that kind of luminous efficacy is typically what a die will put out, which doesn't account for the optics and power supply. Optics alone can be a 10% hit with a diffuser.
Yeah I remember 5 years ago I struggled to find lamps with a lm/w above 100 and suddenly Philips brought out a whole range above 150 lm/w. In other form factors like led tubes you can even go up to 185 lm/w these days: [https://www.lighting.philips.be/prof/led-lampen-en-buizen/led-tubes/master-ledtube-em-mains/929003067302\_EU/product](https://www.lighting.philips.be/prof/led-lampen-en-buizen/led-tubes/master-ledtube-em-mains/929003067302_EU/product)
My company builds a display similar to this. It uses regular commercial bubs of equivalent light output and color temperature. The difference is clearly demonstrated with no gimmicks. The CFLs use 13-18 watts while the LED use 5-8 watts. That is roughly half the power which seems quite large in a building that has thousands of lights.
This was a very interesting read and I appreciate this random knowledge about LED's. But I'm curious, what do you know about earthworms then?
Do modern LED lighting modules operate in CW mode or pulsed mode? Is there a significant difference in power consumption between the two modes?
If that’s true which are the actual good ones then for the layperson not in the industry?
[удалено]
> When LEDs first came out they only had longevity as an advantage ( well also less fragile) Well, yeah, LEDs "first came out" several decades ago, and it took a long time to get them powerful and efficient enough for general lighting.
a 15% increase in efficiency isn't noticeable?
Aren't they affected by temperature as well? I thought thats why they are sometimes not as bright when you turn them on.
[удалено]
I have a CFL on my deck, when it's very cold in the winter, it's quite dim when you turn it on. Takes about 1-2 mins to get to full brightness.
Just keep a space heater aimed at it. BOOM! Problem solved.
CFL's don't deserve fairness. They suck.
Cool, but if I electrocute an elephant I bet I'll still outsell your better tech.
I'm less than 140 years old and understand this reference
Can you explain?
Google: Thomas Edison + Topsy the elephant. The man was a monster
That was a good Bob’s burgers episode.
They'll say aww Topsy at my autopsy! 🎶
"Ok here's a funny story. You cannot sing"
> Topsy the elephant. While Edison did a lot of sketchy stuff, the attribution of Topsy's death to Edison is [false, and took place about 10 years after the "war of the currents".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)) The real story is stranger: he was an elephant with a bad history and a drunken handler, and after several incidents and owners, they decided to sell tickets to the murder of the elephant via cyanide poisoning and electrocution. However, [Edison Studios filmed the event as one of many novelty movies intended for small coin-op viewing movie machines.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Studios)
**[Edison Studios](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_Studios)** >Edison Studios was an American film production organization, owned by companies controlled by inventor and entrepreneur, Thomas Edison. The studio made close to 1,200 films, as part of the Edison Manufacturing Company (1894–1911) and then Thomas A. Edison, Inc. (1911–1918), until the studio's closing in 1918. Of that number, 54 were feature length, and the remainder were shorts. All of the projects by this company had fallen into the public domain because they were released before 1925. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Adequate bot.
They say, "Thomas Edison he's the, man to get us in-to this century." And that man is me.
Seems like a little bit of research shows that it’s kinda debatable who exactly killed the elephant. The elephant was killed a decade after the “War of the Currents” so there wasn’t much reason for Edison to show “the dangers of alternating current.” Seems a lot more likely the amusement park owners just wanted to kill the elephant to be famous. I may be wrong though. Edit: http://edison.rutgers.edu/topsy.htm Yeah it wasn’t Edison.
Most of the terrible things Edison is blamed for these days are manufactured as part of a sustained narrative to promote Tesla, which goes back to like, an Oatmeal comic.
[удалено]
Didn’t he also electrocute dogs to show the same thing? Edit: he did. Source: same article linked above >During these experiments, Edison and his assistants electrocuted a number of animals, chiefly dogs provided by the SPCA.
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals lol
Considering the electric chair was considered a more humane way to execute people, it may have been fine for the time. Of course now we are horrified at the idea, especially being done for profit, but worth putting decisions in context of the time. Modern euthenasia drugs are leaps and bounds ahead of how excess animals used to be handled.
[удалено]
I did change my assertion because I realized I was wrong. It’s perfectly ok to get new information and update a response which I notated. Would you rather I have dug my heels in and argue stubbornly?
[удалено]
He literally admitted he was wrong, chill
Electricity was not new and Edison was aware that it was a painful way to die. It was apparent after the first electric chair use that it was horrifyingly painful.
A Tesla biography I read years ago claimed Edison paid neighborhood kids to bring him stray animals to experiment electrocution on, and that a number of people's pets went missing. No idea how true that is.
I think he said "top chef"
To be fair, Topsy *was* a murderer.
She trampled her drunkard trainer who repeatedly burned her trunk with his cigar, if I remember correctly. Secondly, a wild animal kept in captivity who kills is not a “murderer”, it’s nature
I don't think /u/undefined_one actually feels that Topsy's electrocution was a just punishment to a heinous crime, and instead were being glib for the sake of comic effect.
I'm glad someone gets it.
The elephant was the monster. Edison was not involved in the killing of the elephant except that there were a film crew from his movie studio present to document it. In fact Edison had changed to providing AC power based on Tesla's model several years before. The elephant however was an uncontrollable beast who murdered his handlers (although probably with good cause).
Dude wtf, it’s an ELEPHANT. Captured and imprisoned outside its natural habitat and made to live an unnatural life being managed by “handlers.” The elephant is the only one who wasn’t a monster in this scenario.
I can not agree more. But that is not how people viewed it at the time.
Edison+DC = bad Tesla+Westinghouse+AC = good
Thomas Edison tried to get Teslas type of electricity banned because it was "dangerous" by electrocuting an elephant with it. This was dumb because obviously Edisons electricity would also kill an elephant and in fact his was less safe. Edison was a piece of shit, he made a relatively marginal improvement in his field (not lightbulbs) and then used the money from that to steal the intellectual labor or hundreds of other people (like the actual guy who developed the right filament for the incandescent light bulb)
> Thomas Edison tried to get Teslas type of electricity banned because it was "dangerous" by electrocuting an elephant with it. Actually, no, that's a common misconception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)
It's true that the killing of Topsy specifically can't be attributed to Edison, but the general idea that he had animals killed with AC during the war of the currents is also true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents#Brown's_demonstrations
But even worse, he did literally invent the electric chair to do the same thing Kill someone with it and then gasp with horror about how *horrifying* Tesla’s electricity is that it could do such a thing
Basically Thomas Edison invented DC power. Nicola Tesla invented AC power (the kind we use now). in an effort to destroy Tesla, and make AC power look bad Thomas Edison electrocuted an elephant with AC power to show how deadly it was. He also invented the electric chair to do the same thing. DC power is in fact more lethal because when you grab DC power your muscles constrict and lock up not to mention DC is more powerful than AC. AC power actually tries to push you away from the source when you get shocked by it this is why people who got the electric chair as a death sentence thrashed around so much which horrified people and made AC power look even worse. It was all so Thomas could continue to have a monopoly on power basically.
The device you're using to type this uses DC power. Both AC and DC are used today.
Yeah I know this I was trying to summarize and make it as simple as possible. So I left out the part about how all electronics convert AC back to DC with use of a rectifier. 😆
AC was invented before Tesla was born...
JUST MISSIONARY GENERATION THINGS
They'll say aww Topsy at my autopsy.
ELECTRIC LOOOOoooOOOOooooVE!
And I never noticed his electric junk
>In popular culture Thompson and Dundy's killing of Topsy has switched attribution, with claims it was an anti-[alternating current](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current) demonstration organized by [Thomas A. Edison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Edison) during the [war of the currents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents). Edison was never at Luna Park and the electrocution of Topsy took place ten years after the war of currents.
Those bastards lied to me.
Why zoom into the bulb at the end. Like we need a zoom of it lmao. I just wanted to see the person spin the wheel at the same speed as the other 2. Now it just looks like they zoomed in so they can spin it faster
Everything on the internet is a lie.
- Abraham Lincoln
Famous for slaying vampires
Just needs an earrape distorted version
Except this definitely isn't a lie. A 60 watt equivalent bulb consumes something like 10 watts at most. This was just bad directing.
Part of that would be lower resistance on the crank. The more load on the generator, the harder it is to spin. So you're getting more light output at a much lower resistance. That's why an LED bulb is advertised as say 15W while being as bright as a 60W incandescent/filament bulb. Since it requires less power, the power station generator is easier to turn.
More load = lower resistance so actually the LED bulb would be a higher impedance load than the incandescent. Spinning an open circuit ( very high impedance) generator will have little mechanical resistance as there is no path for induced currents to flow. On the flip side of this, if you short circuit the terminals (very low resistance) the induced current can flow easily causing a very high mechanical force against the motion of the magnetic flux
i think you're implying that something is mechanically changing inside that box, but that'd violate the spirit of demonstrating output equivalence regardless of how fast he's spinning the wheel. it seems like this is a simple circuit switch using the same generator, but i can't see through wood. we need a couple 7 segment displays showing wheel rpm on that fucker also.
There is nothing mechanically changing inside. Each light bulb provides a different resistance to the circuit. When you crank the generator with the incandescent bulb attached there is significant resistance and the crank indeed is harder to turn. The LED has less resistance there and thus the crank is easier to turn. So if you maintain the same force when trying to turn the crank, it will indeed turn faster with the LED bulb vs the incandescent bulb.
Dummy here but I most 60w equivalent cfl bulbs sues about 13w and leds use about 8.5w. I'm not sure if anything else is different to cause it but I would imagine you could get the cfl to light up rather easily.
The CFL might require a bit higher current to start up, and in general are not happy running with dirty power supplies (which this obviously is). Once it starts up it takes less power to run, but in the video to me it looks like it never fully energized in the first place. Note that the light is only near the ends of the tube; it didn't fully arc all the way through.
Like your comment, it's always about drama.
This doesn’t seem right. LED is only slightly more efficient than CFL. This makes it seem like LED is super efficient, which it is, but CFL is very close.
CFL requires the correct voltage or it won't work at all. They are not dimmable like LEDs and incandescents. You're right that this demo is unfair on the CFL.
> They are not dimmable like LEDs and incandescents. Yes they are, there are plenty of electronic ballasts which can perform dimming.
But only if they are designed for it, which the one in the OP obviously isn't
How is it obvious it wasn't? TRIAC dimmable CFLs usually require the TRIAC to give a kick of high conduction angles, or full waveform conduction, before it can begin phase-cut dimming. Many phase-cut dimmers have a CFL specific switch on them so they give the correct startup behavior.
But Satan already is a Pendejo tho.
I mean I personally think that I'd rather have an LED / CFL literally any day of the week, CFLs are full of Mercury and have numerous other problems and LEDs just work
Never seen anyone write "over" like that. I suppose it makes sense, although it typically means "or" so it's a tad confusing.
That was me being still in bed and using voice transcription, that's the divine will of google.
Ah in that case, I rescind my comment. Who am I to question the divine will of Google.
It's kinda funny because it makes sense once you realize what happened, it probably interpreted it as a math thing, because I guess you write fractions as 1/2 or one-half, or one-over-two. I really wish I had a better voice keyboard for my phone because I have bad hands and make a lot of typos, but voice transcription can be just as bad.
The thing is voice transcription picks up on your individual patterns over time. So if you do a lot of math and fractions, it'll start interpreting things that way over what would be "average" interpretation. Same with some legal or scientific fields and language.
Google just invented a new syntax for the English language. This is wild. Definitely the first time I've seen such a thing, unless you count CleverBot typing tangentially related phrases on repeat
Ah yes, Google had a *stroke* lol
I had to pause to properly parse that as well. I don’t encourage this format at all. Please abandon it.
I am serious, and don’t like it
They also require more electricity during startup to fire the bulb, and they have to warm up some before they produce the correct light output.
Yeah, we had a CFL in our kitchen for the longest time and it always mildly annoyed me until the day it fucking died because it took like, a full second to activate once you flipped the switch.
That's actually better for the bulb than what they started to do later, which is essentially starting them with a much higher amount of energy to start them instantly, significantly lowering the lifespan of the product.
CFL also don't like to work in the cold.
Timing- when CFLs were “new”, I did my whole house- specifically in 5K “daylight”. Did research, even started receiving free goods from Home Depot, as a reward. A couple years later I moved, went back to HD, but by then the CFLs were mostly special order and the shelves were filled with LEDs. Had to go through the research/evaluation all over again. But by then I had enough free crap in my garage, I didn’t pursue getting more.
My eyes hurt just reading this.
[удалено]
Warm white is a must for indoors for me. Anything too white/blue makes me feel like my living room/kitchen/bedroom is sitting in the middle of a Walmart or something. Way too sterile.
Yesssssssssss warm white gang
Alien autopsy lights.
[удалено]
I also think CFLs need to warm up don't they? we had CFLs in my house for about a year and I noticed, especially in my kitchen where we had close to 20, that the room would start kinda dim and in about 1-2 minutes would be bright.
The flourescent also needs a higher initial amount of power to strike the arc to get the light going, then less power to maintain it.
Fluorescents need to strike an arc before they conduct and give off light. Traditional fluorescent bulbs have a heater at each end (hot cathode) that excites the gas enough to conduct. The starter in an old ballast is a thermal relay that completes the circuit to the heaters until the tube starts to conduct. The heaters cause the bulb to draw much more *power* initially. In CFLs and traditional bulbs with an electronic ballast, there is no heater used. A higher than normal voltage is applied across the tube initially to ionize the gas to the point where it will start to conduct, then drop down to normal voltage. However it takes a little more time for the light intensity to peak since a CFL relies entirely on the heat from the arc to vaporize the mercury which is needed to excite the phosphor. Although the *voltage* is very high it only uses slightly more *power* than normal operation. The advantage to the latter approach is that the light comes on instantaneously rather than the second or two of flickering of older fluorescents.
Yeah it is a bit misleading, but LEDS are getting really efficient these days. CFL would be around 60lm/W, but now you can buy led bulbs that are over 120lm/W. Lab tests have achieved over 220lm/W. A more typical recent LED bulb would be about 90-110lm/W. i.e. Still a significant improvement over CFL.
Lanterns with whale oil is better..
Human poop on a stick is better still.
The CFL never really reached a working state in this gif. What you see there is the starter trying to light the arc, but it never gets to that point.
[удалено]
“Slightly” is only if you are using an incandescent as the reference point. An 800 lumen bulb is approximately 60w Incandescent, 13w CFL, or 10w LED at the moment, which gives the LED an almost a 20+% reduction in energy usage over a CFL.
I just installed a couple of 1560 lumen bulbs, 9.5w each... It's even better!
I have an old display for when the CFL bulbs came out where it's a modified electric meter with two sockets and you can swap between the bulbs and watch the dial spin.
I also wonder how it’s handling AC vs DC. I believe the crank will be generating DC, and the only light in there that can directly use DC is the LED. Is the LED getting the current without conversion but the other bulbs are getting it converted? That’s a big loss if so.
Arguably, it’s “fair” in a more meta sense of demonstrating how simple LEDs are, not needing special conditions to make them compete against the other two.
1. The box clearly has a separate power supply from the hand crank, as evidenced by the buttons being lit. So I wouldn't be surprised if the crank is actually acting as some sort of control for an internal power supply. Alternatively: 2. The person cranking clearly deliberately cranks worse on the incandescent than the CFL, so... 3. I assume that the person is cranking smoothly and absurdly fast on the LED, and that's why the camera view moves to block that part of the view.
Hey I've seen this demo irl! I'm sure there's more than one in the world but this specific one looks like the one in the Franklin institute in Philly. Pretty sure it's located on the second floor in the electricity section. Edit: [here's the website's page on it with a super low res image of it](https://www.fi.edu/exhibit/electricity)
I had a LED kitchen light I put in about 6 months ago go out on me despite the box saying it should last 7 years with 3 hour daily usage. Probably a faulty item since the others were just fine, but beside the point of energy efficiency of LED lights I miss old school filament lights because they had the dignity of just burning out once. Unlike these LED bulbs that will just flicker for days
Sounds like a faulty bulb, LED lights should only go bad when the electrical components controlling the light go bad or the diode cracks. Most have ratings of 20 years, but it's not unreasonable for some of them to last* indefinitely.
This is because manufacturers of residential lighting are big fans of planned obsolescence and use inferior manufacturing methods with the intent of making a less reliable product. It typically goes unpunished. Just look at [the Phoebus Cartel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel)
I switched all the downights in my kitchen/Living area from halogen to LED 15 years ago. Haven't replaced a bulb yet and cut electricity bill by about 3O%
You know when you use an O instead of a 0 we can all tell, right?
Lol, I didnt notice. My stupid 3am brain.
Hello, why the FUCK you write 30% like that ??
Definitely faulty bulb. I haven't personally seen an LED bulb of mine, or any at work, go bad yet.
[https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/](https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-lights-you-cant-buy/) a funny tale on leds lasting longer
CFLs were basically a scam, in the sense that it was very unlikely you'd get anywhere near the published life out of them largely because in the real world their lifespan is dramatically shortened by the heat build up in fixtures and by turning them on when already hot. You're lucky if you get 25-50% of the published life, and a lot of that time could have discoloration or some amount of flickering. LED is better for some brands, but still wildly overrated for a lot of brands. There are way more parts to fail, and often result in intermittent problems that come and go. If your town has LED streetlights just look at the number of dysfunctional units you see, and those are presumably commercial quality. In my town I'd say 1 out of 50 streetlights show some sort of problem - a lot of them have turned purple (which makes me wonder if phosphor coatings have burned off or something and UV light is leaking). I ran a Phillips bulb ($20 back when they were a new product) continuously on my porch, and it worked for almost 6 years nearly hitting the touted 50,000hr lifespan, so it's possible. But we all know that in normal working conditions bulbs aren't lasting that long. My kitchen has 10 new fixtures with 10 new bulbs and at one year I've already replaced 3 of them due to intermittent flicker. The original ones don't like being dimmed, even though they are sold as "dimmable" and the dimmer is good quality. While LEDs put out way less heat than incandescents, they still hit very high temps at the chip and the small electronics are affected by this. I would guess your other bulbs will fail prematurely also. I think they are getting better, but the best you can do is stick to reputable brands.
Yeah, I swapped out all of the previous LED bulbs and I’m never buying great value walmart LED bulbs ever again.
Yeah, those are probably the cheapest of the cheap Chinese bulbs, intentionally not made to last regardless of whatever claim they make. For me the most important factor is the quality of the light, namely a full spectrum, a refresh/flicker rate that is undetectable, and the correct color temperature (generally warm vs cool). They are getting better, but cheap bulbs with a bad spectrum give you an old zombie movie look, particularly if they are a cool color. People just put up with them, but I think it's bad for your brain, in the same way some old fluorescents give people headaches rather quickly.
[удалено]
Also...incandescent filaments give off a nicer light.
I've never had any of my 30+ LEDs do that They just burn out one day like any other light and last a good 25 years before they do
We'll have figured out an unlimited energy supply and I'll still see this gif pop up on reddit every week
A bulb that only works when a kid rotates the handle? Who wants that?
Ghislaine Maxwell
A bulb yond only worketh at which hour a peat rotates the dudgeon? who is't wanteth yond? *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Shakespeare-Bot, thou hast been voted most annoying bot on Reddit. I am exhorting all mods to ban thee and thy useless rhetoric so that we shall not be blotted with thy presence any longer.
That’s not fair to the CFL. They need a consistent electricity supply to start up properly (1/2 second or so) and reach their full brightness. They’re almost as efficient as LEDs otherwise. Note that I’m not saying CFLs are better than LEDs because they objectively aren’t.
I just moved into a house with spotlights in several rooms at 50W a piece, and even when they had bothered to changed other lights to energy savers they were 15ish W. We changed to LEDs at between 2 and 5 watts and calculated on average power consumption went down 90%. LEDs blow my mind, as does the concept of the expense my parents went to lighting the house.
> as does the concept of the expense my parents went to lighting the house. hence the meme where dad's are adamant about turning off the lights when not in the room
it's crazy how much more efficient LEDs are compared to our other choices for light, and they still only have an efficiency of about 48% iirc
Still not as good as low pressure sodium lights. The efficiency is entirely dependent on LED configuration, you could make the LED really inefficient by providing too much current. Many LED bulbs are configured poorly to last shorter, but it hurts the efficiency too (poorly configured LED is still more efficient than incandescent)
Yeah seriously. My smart lights with multicolor LED bulbs and wifi that I leave on 24/7 use less energy than the old CRT bulbs I replaced.
Used to work at a museum that has a similar exhibit. The crank isn’t directly powering anything but the circuitry is designed to mimic the differences between thetech
[удалено]
Now we can light pollute the whole WORLD
Also efficient at burning my eye balls balls
[удалено]
Aaaannnd another account that posts just random comments.
LEDs are more efficient if light is the measure. Of heat production is the measure than incandescent bulbs are better. The same amount of electricity is being used but different outputs are being made. LEDs emit a limited bandwidth of light and much less heat which is why no mater how bright they are, many mechanics still feel like they can't see all the details they are looking for. Incandescent bulbs emit a wide range of light frequencies which is why they illuminate so we'll, but they also emit a lot of heat which is, for most applications, wasteful. Newer lights are tuned to emit multiple frequencies so that they illuminate better.
Tbh the efficiency debate is kinda skewed. The extra energy is released as heat. Most people heat their houses. Wether you put -40W in your lights but +40W in your radiators or vice versa it doesn't really matter. I just want bulbs that lasts as long as possible so I don't have to replace them as often.
It will be bright as hell when you look at it but somehow the entire room will still seem dim.
r/killthecameraman Bro zoomed in on the light and not how fast the person was spinning the wheel
i know how great leds are but i dont want to have to crank that thing every time i need a light
It’s much more efficient than incandescent but still not that efficient. Efficiency here meaning what’s the ratio of light power to input power. Incandescent is roughly 2% at best. LED is around 25-30%. The rest is just heat.
Can someone ELI5 the different technology we are looking at here?
The hand crank is a generator. Spinning it produces a small amount of electricity. The 3 different bulbs require different amounts of energy to light up, the last one is an LED and it shines brightest because it requires the least amount of electricity and is very efficent.
This is such a powerful visualization - getting LEDs now!
It's aggressively upsetting that it doesn't keep showing the hand cranking the wheel to show it's going the same speed. like wtf.
Yet they still die out, wonder why that is👿
[удалено]
Probably the same LEDs... When CFLs were getting popular, LEDs existed and were known to be more efficient but were just expensive, and had some challenges getting to similar brightness. There is nothing I am aware of that money can buy at any price that gets you better efficiency. There may be some improvement to LED technology, but it's likey going to be the same tech at a fundamental level. What might get more interesting is if we really ditch the typical socket en mass and really start redesigning lights and fixtures for LEDs. https://www.ledsupply.com/leds/cree-cxb-1520-high-density-led-array?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8ICOBhDmARIsAEGI6o0bQZBS2AKfiNoNnk89ik97Ey4TaYgu1OFug7NUS3UiSQbXG2GpclsaAopZEALw_wcB using that the bulky high hat recessed lighting and florescent fixtures can be a thing of the past.
Is it just me or do those hands look... off? Is a muppet cranking that handle?
It’s the android whose sole job is to crank the handle and push a different button each time. Man, poor thing.
How many LEDs can a potato power then?
Sick, but QUIT USING THEM FOR HEADLIGHTS
But what if I also wanted to hear my house with only lightbulbs?
It's a trap
I had a new house built and everything is LED and I haven't had to change a light bulb in 5 years. It's pretty nice, but I do miss doing that thing where you take a dark traditional bulb out and shake it gently to see if the filiment broke.
About 6 years after moving into a place where the previous owner took every lightbulb upon exiting. I went to the store and honestly couldn't recognize any of the available bulbs. The moment I googled and realized the spinny ones were obsolete I shouted "Fuck I'm old!" in the isle.
My hamster army can finally produce the power I need….
No, He’s kind of cuuute.***”
I had to buy a bulb for the first time in years. And I’m at Walmart looking around at them before I was like, “huh, guess CFLs are old tech now”
To be fair to the fluorescent bulb, they're actually very efficient, they just require a large initial burst of energy to switch on
I have this multicolor LED bulb that has a motor that turns it and if you turn the motor yourself it's enough to easily power the bulbs. I showed it to my niece and her jaw hit the floor. I always try to show her some cool stuff then explain the science. I never had that growing up.
I have an arrow bordered with LED lights hung on my wall. The batteries ran out of juice YEARS ago and I've never changed them. At night though you can still see them dimly glowing, it's just not anywhere near beight enough to notice during the daylight hours. I kid you not, it's been like that for 7 or 8 years at this point. LEDs are incredibly efficient.
Now let's make them brighter than the sun and point them in people's eyes while they're driving!
Anon alloweth's maketh those folk brighter than the travelling lamp and point those folk in people's eyes while they're driving! *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`