LED Lights and Garage Door Opener???

On 9/18/2014 7:59 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/18/2014 8:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>> "John Larkin"
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ** The terms "dimmable" and "non-dimmable" are applied by marketing
>> pukes to CFL lamps and packaging. What they refer to is using a
>> regular triac dimmer intended for incandescent lamps to dim the CFL.
>>
>> If you use a trailing edge IGBT dimmer, most CFLs work fine.
>>
>> Every CFL I have ever seen will dim nicely if you use a Variac.
>
> I haven't tried using different dimmer types with different bulbs, but I
> have tried multiple devices of both types labeled "works with most
> dimmers" or "works with most CFL/LED dimmable bulbs".  None worked
> properly.

We've tried "dimmable CFL floodlamps" (e.g., BR30's).   The lowest
dimmer setting appears to leave the lamps OFF or on at almost
half intensity!  (those that are OFF will lite when the dimmer
setting moves some small epsilon above "lowest setting")

By contrast, the incandescent lamps (BR30's and R20's) that we
use heavily, emit just the right amount of light at "lowest setting"
to serve as "area nightlights" for houseguests who would be
unfamiliar with our floor plan and the hazzards it poses to
navigate "in the dark" if they arise at night -- and want to
avoid the bright light of even a single of the "dimmable" CFL's.

> I even bought an LED recessed lamp that said it worked with specific
> models of dimmers and bought one of those.  It didn't work correctly,
> staying off until half the control range then coming on more than
> gradually.  They also had an irregularity in lighting at dim levels,
> almost flickering a bit.  Unfortunately this dimmer has a neon bulb in
> the switch to find it in the dark which is *more* than enough current to
> turn the LED into a night light. lol

Hmmm... I hadn't considered that!  Most of our light switches
are "three ways" (SPDT) with built-in illuminators.

I bought some "early" LED lamps (the sorts that are enormous
heat sinks) and was unhappy with the light output and its
color.  (I recognize both of these issues have probably
changed in the years since)

However, given the lousy experience with CFL's (even those that
we don't dim -- but burn out regularly!), I wasn't eager to
try yet another "marketing experiment".

> I even wrote to both companies about the discrepancy and received
> nothing but recommendations for other units.
>

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:49:07 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>On 9/18/2014 7:59 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 9/18/2014 8:30 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>> "John Larkin"
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> ** The terms "dimmable" and "non-dimmable" are applied by marketing
>>> pukes to CFL lamps and packaging. What they refer to is using a
>>> regular triac dimmer intended for incandescent lamps to dim the CFL.
>>>
>>> If you use a trailing edge IGBT dimmer, most CFLs work fine.
>>>
>>> Every CFL I have ever seen will dim nicely if you use a Variac.
>>
>> I haven't tried using different dimmer types with different bulbs, but=
 I
>> have tried multiple devices of both types labeled "works with most
>> dimmers" or "works with most CFL/LED dimmable bulbs".  None worked
>> properly.
>
>We've tried "dimmable CFL floodlamps" (e.g., BR30's).   The lowest
>dimmer setting appears to leave the lamps OFF or on at almost
>half intensity!  (those that are OFF will lite when the dimmer
>setting moves some small epsilon above "lowest setting")
>
>By contrast, the incandescent lamps (BR30's and R20's) that we
>use heavily, emit just the right amount of light at "lowest setting"
>to serve as "area nightlights" for houseguests who would be
>unfamiliar with our floor plan and the hazzards it poses to
>navigate "in the dark" if they arise at night -- and want to
>avoid the bright light of even a single of the "dimmable" CFL's.
>
>> I even bought an LED recessed lamp that said it worked with specific
>> models of dimmers and bought one of those.  It didn't work correctly,
>> staying off until half the control range then coming on more than
>> gradually.  They also had an irregularity in lighting at dim levels,
>> almost flickering a bit.  Unfortunately this dimmer has a neon bulb in
>> the switch to find it in the dark which is *more* than enough current =
to
>> turn the LED into a night light. lol
>
>Hmmm... I hadn't considered that!  Most of our light switches
>are "three ways" (SPDT) with built-in illuminators.
>
>I bought some "early" LED lamps (the sorts that are enormous
>heat sinks) and was unhappy with the light output and its
>color.  (I recognize both of these issues have probably
>changed in the years since)
>
>However, given the lousy experience with CFL's (even those that
>we don't dim -- but burn out regularly!), I wasn't eager to
>try yet another "marketing experiment".
>
>> I even wrote to both companies about the discrepancy and received
>> nothing but recommendations for other units.
>>
Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a =
kid
the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
yet.

?-)
=20

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 00:36:10 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[snip]

>>>
>Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a kid
>the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
>dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
>either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
>yet.
>

Sure they do... check out chip iW3617
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142     Skype: skypeanalog  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:

> Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a kid
> the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
> dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
> either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
> yet.

I think there's just too much in that "technology" that has been derived
*for* incandescent application.  I.e., flourescent lamps have been around
for a LONG time.  Yet, I can't conceive of how one could dim such a lamp
to emit as little light as our "floodlights" do on the lowest dimmer
setting!  E.g., even with eyes acclimated to that low light level,
you'd be hard pressed to read or do much more than count the laces on
your shoes in it!  They mainly let you see outlines of items in the
house, highlight the "sunken" nature of the living room, etc.

We use CFL's in the kitchen for *most* of the overhead lights -- all but
two (which are incandescent for the express purpose of being able to
dim them to the same "nightlight" level that we use elsewhere in the
house.  The CFL's are acceptable in that other application (full intensity)
though we haven't been happy with their longevity (i.e., they are only
economical with gummit or some other "subsidy" that makes them "free")

We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
itself is too bright!

On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:
>
>> Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a
>> kid
>> the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
>> dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
>> either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
>> yet.
>
> I think there's just too much in that "technology" that has been derived
> *for* incandescent application.  I.e., flourescent lamps have been around
> for a LONG time.  Yet, I can't conceive of how one could dim such a lamp
> to emit as little light as our "floodlights" do on the lowest dimmer
> setting!  E.g., even with eyes acclimated to that low light level,
> you'd be hard pressed to read or do much more than count the laces on
> your shoes in it!  They mainly let you see outlines of items in the
> house, highlight the "sunken" nature of the living room, etc.
>
> We use CFL's in the kitchen for *most* of the overhead lights -- all but
> two (which are incandescent for the express purpose of being able to
> dim them to the same "nightlight" level that we use elsewhere in the
> house.  The CFL's are acceptable in that other application (full intensity)
> though we haven't been happy with their longevity (i.e., they are only
> economical with gummit or some other "subsidy" that makes them "free")

I still have CFL's because they last a long time.  I think I have two 
that suffered infant mortality.  But at this point I am not buying any 
new ones.  It will be LEDs from here on out.  However, if they say 
"dimmable" and don't work with my dimmers, they go back to the store. 
If enough people do this they will get the message and they will be 
designed to work in the existing sockets.


> We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
> the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
> case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
> it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
> for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
> the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
> disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
> itself is too bright!

At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as 
well.  I was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with 
one in the bathroom that is about right and only uses some small 
fraction of a watt.  I think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what 
would be the point?  The energy savings would likely be less than the 
cost of the circuitry.

-- 

Rick

On 9/20/2014 1:11 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:
>>
>>> Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a
>>> kid
>>> the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
>>> dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
>>> either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
>>> yet.
>>
>> I think there's just too much in that "technology" that has been derived
>> *for* incandescent application.  I.e., flourescent lamps have been around
>> for a LONG time.  Yet, I can't conceive of how one could dim such a lamp
>> to emit as little light as our "floodlights" do on the lowest dimmer
>> setting!  E.g., even with eyes acclimated to that low light level,
>> you'd be hard pressed to read or do much more than count the laces on
>> your shoes in it!  They mainly let you see outlines of items in the
>> house, highlight the "sunken" nature of the living room, etc.
>>
>> We use CFL's in the kitchen for *most* of the overhead lights -- all but
>> two (which are incandescent for the express purpose of being able to
>> dim them to the same "nightlight" level that we use elsewhere in the
>> house.  The CFL's are acceptable in that other application (full intensity)
>> though we haven't been happy with their longevity (i.e., they are only
>> economical with gummit or some other "subsidy" that makes them "free")
>
> I still have CFL's because they last a long time.  I think I have two that
> suffered infant mortality.  But at this point I am not buying any new ones.  It
> will be LEDs from here on out.  However, if they say "dimmable" and don't work
> with my dimmers, they go back to the store. If enough people do this they will
> get the message and they will be designed to work in the existing sockets.

We've had a LOT of CFL failures (OTOH, we had a lot of CFL lamps installed!).
Most of ours are installed "base-up" -- which tends to be a no-no.  But,
if your lighting is all in that configuration, then... <shrug>

>> We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
>> the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
>> case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
>> it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
>> for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
>> the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
>> disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
>> itself is too bright!
>
> At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as well.  I
> was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with one in the
> bathroom that is about right and only uses some small fraction of a watt.  I
> think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what would be the point?  The energy
> savings would likely be less than the cost of the circuitry.

There's a 4W incandescent in the master bathroom (CdS sensor).  It throws a
*lot* of light.  I could probably read under it!

The "step light" is probably brighter.  Definitely harsher! (bluer color)
No idea as to power consumption -- can't find any markings on the device,
box, documentation, etc.  I've been rethinking looking for a different
device (e.g., something louvered) just to cut down on the light thrown into
the nearby bedrooms when it is on (or, add a motion sensor?)

In article <lvkn2i$688$1@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
> > On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:
> >
> >> Having played with triac dimmers and magnetic ballast fluorescent as a
> >> kid
> >> the serious non-linear properties are familiar to me.  I never tried to
> >> dim CFLs.  Few LED lamps dim properly with triac conduction angle dimmers
> >> either. Few modern "lamp designers" get it about the required properties
> >> yet.
> >
> > I think there's just too much in that "technology" that has been derived
> > *for* incandescent application.  I.e., flourescent lamps have been around
> > for a LONG time.  Yet, I can't conceive of how one could dim such a lamp
> > to emit as little light as our "floodlights" do on the lowest dimmer
> > setting!  E.g., even with eyes acclimated to that low light level,
> > you'd be hard pressed to read or do much more than count the laces on
> > your shoes in it!  They mainly let you see outlines of items in the
> > house, highlight the "sunken" nature of the living room, etc.
> >
> > We use CFL's in the kitchen for *most* of the overhead lights -- all but
> > two (which are incandescent for the express purpose of being able to
> > dim them to the same "nightlight" level that we use elsewhere in the
> > house.  The CFL's are acceptable in that other application (full intensity)
> > though we haven't been happy with their longevity (i.e., they are only
> > economical with gummit or some other "subsidy" that makes them "free")
> 
> I still have CFL's because they last a long time.  I think I have two 
> that suffered infant mortality.  But at this point I am not buying any 
> new ones.  It will be LEDs from here on out.  However, if they say 
> "dimmable" and don't work with my dimmers, they go back to the store. 
> If enough people do this they will get the message and they will be 
> designed to work in the existing sockets.
> 
> 
> > We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
> > the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
> > case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
> > it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
> > for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
> > the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
> > disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
> > itself is too bright!
> 
> At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as 
> well.  I was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with 
> one in the bathroom that is about right and only uses some small 
> fraction of a watt.  I think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what 
> would be the point?  The energy savings would likely be less than the 
> cost of the circuitry.

The 7 watt bulb is for XMAS lights.  The night light bulbs are 4 watts,
but in the same envelop.  Easy to mix up.

Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:11:43 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:

>> We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
>> the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
>> case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
>> it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
>> for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
>> the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
>> disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
>> itself is too bright!
>
>At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as 
>well.  I was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with 
>one in the bathroom that is about right and only uses some small 
>fraction of a watt.  I think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what 
>would be the point?  The energy savings would likely be less than the 
>cost of the circuitry.

I have installed a night light high on the wall, illuminating only the
ceiling and thus avoid the risk of looking directly into the lamp. The
nameplate claims 0.6 W, but it seems to contain a 5 mm white LED so
most likely it is a 20 mA or about 60 mW LED in it. 

The lamp is covered by a deep red filter, so very little light comes
out of it, but sufficient for a dark adapted eye. Astronomers,
submariners and on the bridge of ships, red night light has been used
for decades, but there are conflicting reports if the colour really
matters, only the level seems to be critical.

I have also seen battery powered down lighters that should be
installed 20-30 cm above the floor or staircase and the batteries last
all winter. By using battery power, you do not have to worry about
wiring issues. 
 

Den s=F8ndag den 21. september 2014 06.33.19 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder=
.com:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:11:43 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
>=20
> >> On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >> We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
>=20
> >> the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just i=
n
>=20
> >> case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installi=
ng
>=20
> >> it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
>=20
> >> for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
>=20
> >> the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
>=20
> >> disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
>=20
> >> itself is too bright!
>=20
> >
>=20
> >At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as=20
>=20
> >well.  I was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with=
=20
>=20
> >one in the bathroom that is about right and only uses some small=20
>=20
> >fraction of a watt.  I think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what=
=20
>=20
> >would be the point?  The energy savings would likely be less than the=20
>=20
> >cost of the circuitry.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I have installed a night light high on the wall, illuminating only the
>=20
> ceiling and thus avoid the risk of looking directly into the lamp. The
>=20
> nameplate claims 0.6 W, but it seems to contain a 5 mm white LED so
>=20
> most likely it is a 20 mA or about 60 mW LED in it.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The lamp is covered by a deep red filter, so very little light comes
>=20
> out of it, but sufficient for a dark adapted eye. Astronomers,
>=20
> submariners and on the bridge of ships, red night light has been used
>=20
> for decades, but there are conflicting reports if the colour really
>=20
> matters, only the level seems to be critical.
>=20
=20
http://stlplaces.com/night_vision_red_myth/


-Lasse

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:42:54 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

<Google quotes fixed>

>Den s&#4294967295;ndag den 21. september 2014 06.33.19 UTC+2 skrev upsid...@downunder.com:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:11:43 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On 9/20/2014 3:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> >> On 9/20/2014 12:36 AM, josephkk wrote:

>> >> We'll let the LED market mature for a while longer before we repeat
>> >> the CFL mistake (we've got a boatload of incandescents on hand "just in
>> >> case").  I'd purchased an LED "step light" with the intent of installing
>> >> it as a permanent "night light" in the bedroom hallway (make it easy
>> >> for guests to find their way to the bathroom without having to burn
>> >> the incandescents at that low level).  But, it has proven to be a
>> >> disappointment -- comes on at too bright an ambient light level and
>> >> itself is too bright!
>> 
>> >At one point I had a 7 watt nightlight and it was far too bright as 
>> >well.  I was careful when I bought an LED nightlight and ended up with 
>> >one in the bathroom that is about right and only uses some small 
>> >fraction of a watt.  I think it doesn't even turn off in the day, what 
>> >would be the point?  The energy savings would likely be less than the 
>> >cost of the circuitry.
>> 
>> I have installed a night light high on the wall, illuminating only the
>> ceiling and thus avoid the risk of looking directly into the lamp. The
>> nameplate claims 0.6 W, but it seems to contain a 5 mm white LED so
>> most likely it is a 20 mA or about 60 mW LED in it. 
>> 
>> The lamp is covered by a deep red filter, so very little light comes
>> out of it, but sufficient for a dark adapted eye. Astronomers,
>> submariners and on the bridge of ships, red night light has been used
>> for decades, but there are conflicting reports if the colour really
>> matters, only the level seems to be critical.
> 
>http://stlplaces.com/night_vision_red_myth/

That article mentions several low light level application with
different colour preferences. However, it does not address the
melatonin production.

If your intention is to continue sleeping after your visit to the
bathroom, do not use light sources with strong deep blue or greenish
blue spectral output, since it suppresses melatonin production, making
it hard to fall asleep again.

About the feasibility of battery powered night lights, assume the
following constraints: desired illumination 0.1 lx (moonlight),  floor
area to be illuminated 3  m&#4294967295;,  LED efficiency 100 lm/W,  LED used
during sleep time only 8 h / day, otherwise switched off due to
natural or artificial light,  primary cell capacity (3xAA) at least 3
Ah.

Thus,  total luminous output required 0.3 lm,  LED power 3  mW,
current 1 mA, daily consumption 8 mAh, battery lifetime 1 year.

At higher latitudes in the summer, there is practically no need for
night lights anyway, thus the battery life could be extended or
illumination level and/or area increased. In winter time the burn time
would not be much longer, since other artificial lights would be used
during the evenings and mornings.

Of course NiMh secondary cells would be useless due to the high self
discharge rate.

A battery powered night light with double sided tape fitting would
allow easy installation of down lighters where the light is actually
needed.