Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

mike <ham789@netzero.net>: Oct 26 07:38PM -0700

On 10/26/2016 5:41 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 3:19:48 PM UTC-7, Ivan Vegvary wrote:
 
>> I thought if I could see all the ignition activity at the same time
 
(or at least 4 at a time) I could look for anomalies and identify a
 
poorly firing spark plug or semi-faulty wire.
> A transformer clip-on probe can trigger your 'scope from cylinder
> 1, which simplifies the analysis if your auto has a single coil for all the
> cylinders.
 
You have to be careful NOT to assume normal conditions when detecting
faults, which by definition, are NOT normal conditions. Stuff happens.
It's best if that stuff doesn't happen when you're probing around
with an expensive digital scope.
 
300V might be a fine number under normal circumstances, but,
if a wire is bad and the plug fires at a much higher coil
secondary voltage, the primary may also show a much bigger spike.
And there's always the temptation to crank up the sensitivity
to see some smaller wiggle on the trace. That may be a bad idea
in this case.
 
A plug either fires or it doesn't. If it fires, the thing you
are interested in is the current. After it arcs, the voltage
will be determined by the plug and wire/coil resistance/inductance.
High current >> fat spark >> good. Of course, that assumes
that the current is all going thru the plug and not arcing
to ground thru a crack in wire insulation.
 
If you have a clip-on current probe of known transient response,
you can clip it on the coil output and look at the relative currents
for all the cylinders. Properly insulated current probe designed
for ignition service should be safe to use on your scope.
If you try to move the probe to different plug wires, you'll probably
see more variation in the coupling than in the actual signal.
 
It's a vintage car. If it runs, drive it proudly.
If it runs like it has ignition problems, change the plugs. If that
doesn't fix it, work your way back toward the battery.
Run it in the dark and poke around the wires with a grounded
probe to look for insulation faults. You can learn some
interesting things by pulsing the coil with the engine off
and listening to the coil. But, you can smoke the coil if you're not
careful.
 
Rule number one...
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it using your expensive scope.
Rule number two...
If it IS broke, don't try to fix it using your expensive scope,
except as a last resort.
"tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>: Oct 28 07:47PM -0400

"Ivan Vegvary" <ivanvegvary@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0ebbe5-3ac9-4984-a366-4b350e9a7bb9@googlegroups.com...
> Of course the only electronics in a 1948 auto is the ignition system.
> Would love to look at 4 cylinders (8 total) at a time with the Rigol.
> I do have inductive pickups that I can salvage from timing lights.
 
For working around car ignition systems, I would look for one of the older
tube type Tektronix models. Try 535, 545 for the large ones or a 453 with
the nuvistor tubes in the vertical front end.
 
These would survive better than a usual fet input amp.
 
Just my 2 cents.
Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Oct 27 10:58AM -0400

In article <nuskhl$4m5$1@remote5bge0.ripco.com>, bje@ripco.com says...
> a good set of ears and eyes will.
 
> -bruce
> bje@ripco.com
 
I agree that unless there is some odd problem, just replace everything
for a few dollars insted of maybe messing up a scope that is a thousand
or so dollars.
 
If there is an odd problem, maybe you could find someone that has one of
the old Sun scopes.
 
For the old cars just see if you can find a timming light and dwell
meter.
Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Oct 27 02:28PM -0400

In article <98054939-face-498f-8e94-20dcb3f3e9c3@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com says...
 
While I greatly prefer 1960s and 1970s cars it is still a good thing to
keep that old beast running.
 
> I drove a 1950 Chevy once, it was almost like work. People don't know how good they got it now. They have no idea what it means to double clutch, and they have no idea how undeveloped the steering and suspension was back then. Driving those old cars is almost like driving a semi truck, but the new ones aren't even that hard.
 
> Well OK, it isn't really all that difficult but I bet you don't take that thing to work every day...
 
 
My dad had a 1950 Chevy when I had my learners permit. Not too bad to
drive. Even my mother drove that car. It even had the modern push
button on the dash to start it. You did not need the key if you left
the switch in just the off position.
Ralph Mowery <rmowery28146@earthlink.net>: Oct 29 01:58PM -0400

In article <nv1ukv$mvn$1@remote5bge0.ripco.com>, bje@ripco.com says...
 
> Point is, it would be money more well spent just replacing all that compared
> to doing whatever he wanted to do with the scope, which probably isn't going
> to tell him anything.
 
I have not had a car with points in it in many years so may be way off
on the following.
 
Wasn't the usual thing to change out the points, condenser, plugs and a
few other things about every 10,000 miles or so back then ?
 
Seems to me that the 3 or 4 cars I owned with the old nonelectronics in
them needed to be worked on all most all the time.
I remember replacing a lot of plugs and some points, distributer caps
and wires. None of those had over 100,000 miles on them. Now lots of
cars go 100,000 without anything but oil changes and tires.
Peter Easthope <petereasthope@gmail.com>: Nov 02 03:11AM -0700

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 3:02:15 PM UTC-7, Andy Burns wrote:
> It's perfectly normal to have a 3 pin plug on a 2 core flex to a lamp
> ... unless the lamp has any metalwork, in which case it must be a 3 core
> flex to earth that.
 
OK, thanks.
 
A Luxo L-1 lamp in Britain would have a three conductor flex. All such lamps I've seen in North America have flat two conductor lamp
cord. The width fits closely in the square Luxo tubes. A L-1 in Britain has a round flex; correct?
 
Thanks again, ... Peter E.
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 02 04:05AM -0700

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 6:02:15 PM UTC-4, Andy Burns wrote:
 
> It's perfectly normal to have a 3 pin plug on a 2 core flex to a lamp
> ... unless the lamp has any metalwork, in which case it must be a 3 core
> flex to earth that.
 
Try that in the US, and you would never pass UL (or CA in Canada). Betcha you would not get past Euro CE either.
 
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>: Nov 02 11:07AM

Peter Easthope wrote:
 
> A Luxo L-1 lamp in Britain would have a three conductor flex. All
> such lamps I've seen in North America have flat two conductor lamp
> cord. The width fits closely in the square Luxo tubes.
 
Don't know, I've hankered after one, but don't own one.
 
> A L-1 in Britain has a round flex; correct?
 
I notice the manual shows the double-insulated symbol, so 2-core flex
could be used which would normally be flat, though you /can/ get round
2-core flex.
 
While most UK plugs and sockets are BS-1363 square 3-pin, the older
BS-546 round 3-pin plugs and sockets are still acceptable and available
brand new.
 
The even older BS-372 round 2-pin are marginally smaller and belong in
museums, the same smaller spacing is used in BS-4573 plugs which are
typically only seen in moulded-on versions, and exclusively used on shavers.
 
Other than that, there are proprietary round 2 and 3-pin inline
connectors not intended for plugging into wall sockets, which conform to
the general BS-5733 safety standard, I use them on all my power tools,
annoyingly these are similar but not mateable between manufacturers, e.g.
 
<https://www.mkelectric.com/en-ar/Products/WD/PortablePower/duraplug/Leadconnectors/Pages/LCP102.aspx>
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 02 11:45AM

On 01/11/2016 21:07, Peter Easthope wrote:
 
> Does installation of a BS 1363 plug, with a ground pin, on a two conductor cord of a table lamp, violate wiring regulations? I don't imagine an unconnected ground pin posing a hazard.
 
> Does a lamp in Britain ever have a cord with a ground conductor?
 
> Thanks, ... Peter E.
 
It depends on whether the handleable part of the lamp is metal or
metal-finish, then must be grounded and whether there is a gooseneck or
other movement containing the flex and therefore chaffing possibility .
All quite sensible really
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>: Nov 02 12:12PM


> Try that in the US, and you would never pass UL (or CA in Canada).
> Betcha you would not get past Euro CE either.
 
I don't claim much knowledge of US power regulations, given you have
separate NEMA 1-15P and NEMA 5-15P connectors, it probably makes sense
to mandate that the former must use two conductor cables, and the latter
must use three conductor cables.
 
In the UK it's not as though the IET are lax on electrical standards,
the fact is the only available 2-pin plugs nowadays are dedicated for
shavers. For everything else there's no harm in having an unused earth
pin, but (as Martin mentioned) a few devices use a plastic not-earth
pin, which is necessary to open the shutters protecting live/neutral pins.
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 28 08:23AM +0100

On 27/10/2016 18:15, Jon Elson wrote:
 
> Anyway, the pump bearings (water lubricated) are massively worn, and the
> rotor eventually wore through the plastic housing.
 
> Jon
 
So like a smaller version of a central heating circulation pump,
magneticc oupling through a membrane. At least washing m/c get used
through the summer , so nver a chance to seize up
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Oct 29 03:16PM -0500


> Thanks for the motor update. I have been thinking about that motor and
> why they would use it and it must be because shaded pole motors are so
> inefficient.
Right, it has to be fairly efficient as there is no fan. Since the rotor is
in a sealed plastic housing, there is no external shaft to connect a fan to.
That's probably why they cycle the pump on and off during drain/spin cycles.
 
I guess the permanent magnet rotor is way more efficient than an induction
rotor, too. The only tricky part is assuring the motor starts every time
you apply power.
 
Jon
Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>: Oct 27 12:15PM -0500

There was a discussion a LONG time ago about a washing machine pump motor.
I have a Kenmore Oasis washing machine that I've had to do some repairs on.
The drain pump has gotten clogged a few times (coins, nylons) and I've been
able to remove the clog and get it going again. I posted a partial
description of the motor, because I couldn't quite understand it.
Now that the pump has finally gone to complete failure, I was able to
investigate further.
 
So, it has a stator quite similar to a "phonograph motor" although there are
no shaded poles, as I had expected. The rotor is a 2-pole ceramic magnet.
The rotor runs in water, so there are really no seals required in the pump.
 
When digging in deeper, I found there is a slip coupling between the motor
rotor and the pump impeller, that allows the rotor to make almost one
complete rotation before it grabs the impeller. I suspect this is to allow
the rotor to vibrate wildly until it gets into sync with the mains
frequency. AHH, and the pump is clearly designed to run in either
direction! Now, it is all starting to make sense. The pump does make a
rattling noise before it starts. Kind of ingenious design, probably had to
make a BUNCH of prototypes before they got it to reliably start spinning.
 
Anyway, the pump bearings (water lubricated) are massively worn, and the
rotor eventually wore through the plastic housing.
 
Jon
Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll>: Oct 27 11:57PM +0200

On 27.10.16 16:18, N_Cook wrote:
> external emitter R,or is it just referring to doubling-up ?
> datasheet
> http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/38213/SANKEN/SAP15/+2732WUOYLI.OcU.utw+/datasheet.pdf
 
"alldatasheet.com currently unavailable" GRRRRRR
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 27 03:18PM +0100

With the built in temp comp diodes, 1 silicon in the N type and 5
Schotky in the P and mirror-reversed pinning .
Owner put a short across one speaker line, magic smoke but other channel
is normal. Internal emitter resistor .22R of the p type is now not .22R.
I intend removing both , of the failed channel , to check out of
circuit, but anyone jumpered in an external .2R in these circumstances
and no further problems from cracked die etc as this R is part of the die?
The datasheet I think , in fractured English, says the thermal safe
operating over-current zone, for the built in .22R is deliberately
lower than the Darlington itself. Anyone ever disentangled the "English"
referring to deliberately? destroying the internal R so as to use an
external emitter R,or is it just referring to doubling-up ?
datasheet
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/38213/SANKEN/SAP15/+2732WUOYLI.OcU.utw+/datasheet.pdf
"J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com>: Nov 02 06:22AM -0400

On 11/01/2016 06:01 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Never had a Roomba but I'd'a hoped they had some way of like fencing rooms
>> off with temporary guide slats.
 
> If somebody came out with a "DeerBa" I'd pay at least a grand for it....
 
Hello, or maybe a mobile device that permanently dispatches other folks
dogs that take a dump on your nice manicured lawn and the mess left by
their onlooking owners. Sincerely,
 
--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Nov 02 04:08AM -0700

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 6:01:37 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> bumped on the shins by something hard would not be one of them.
> --
> Pete Cresswell
 
There is a device that does what you want, only it is movement operated. It sprays water (at as high a pressure as you can feed it) at anything that moves within 20 feet of it.
https://jet.com/product/detail/86c7ca25b20a4721929026254c8d0fc2?jcmp=pla:ggl:gen_home_garden_a2:household_supplies_a2_other:na:PLA_348543420_24223148220_pla-161716964940:na:na:na:2&code=PLA15&ds_c=gen_home_garden_a2&ds_cid=&ds_ag=household_supplies_a2_other&product_id=86c7ca25b20a4721929026254c8d0fc2&product_partition_id=161716964940&gclid=CjwKEAjwnebABRCjpvr13dHL8DsSJABB-ILJCsvwhKGKbay20ZSeZwmLYc01dPB3w2cWJe0I8O9JRhoCcpTw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
 
One of many options.
 
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Bill Moinihan <moi@example.com>: Nov 02 05:01AM

Meanie wrote:
 
> The lamps you have look like T12. That means, according to the LED info,
> your LEDs will not reach the 50,000 hours because you are using T12
> ballasts.
 
You are correct.
 
All 16 of the 4-foot fluorescent bulbs said they were 40 watts, rapid start,
average life 12,000 hours.
https://s18.postimg.org/llp51oemh/01_all_bulbs_appear_to_be_40w_t12_bulbs.jpg
 
Of the four ceiling mounted units, three worked fine either with four
T12/40W fluorescent bulbs or with four T8 LED bulbs.
https://s22.postimg.org/8hx6ech7l/03_4_t8_led_bulbs_work_just_fine.jpg
 
The one ceiling unit that was humming badly had two ballasts inside when I
removed the center covering steel plate:
https://s13.postimg.org/kekhhvot3/04_two_T40_ballasts.jpg
 
Both ballasts were of the same type, with a sticker on each saying
Universal Therm-o-matic rapid start ballast
For two F40W T12/RS lamps, high power factor
Cat No 446-LR-TC-P, 120V, 60Hertz, 0.8Amp line
Universal Mfg. Corp, Paterson NJ, Made in USA
Class P Automatic resetting thermal protected
https://s11.postimg.org/orqbysecj/02_the_ballast_is_40_W_T12.jpg
 
Even though only one ballast is humming badly, I found the oddest situation
when I put in either just one known-good fluorescent bulb or just 1 of the
new LED bulbs.
 
Only one lane worked with just one bulb, which was this lane, which I'll
call lane 2 since it's the second one from the outside:
https://s15.postimg.org/4gu6scm0r/a_lane2_is_working.jpg
 
But when I put the single bulb in any other lane (leaving the rest of the
lanes empty) the bulb didn't light up (whether it was fluorescent or LED).
 
Is there any way to tell which two of the four lanes *each* ballast
controls?
 
Does the one good ballast control the two inside lanes?
https://s17.postimg.org/tk1zfwckv/two_inside_lanes.jpg
 
Or does one ballast control the two lanes next to each other?
https://s16.postimg.org/uycmzw2wl/two_lanes_next_to_each_other.jpg
 
Or does the one ballast control every other lane?
https://s12.postimg.org/vqlyluwa5/every_other_lane.jpg
Meanie <meanie@gmail.com>: Nov 02 06:34AM -0400

On 11/2/2016 1:01 AM, Bill Moinihan wrote:
> https://s16.postimg.org/uycmzw2wl/two_lanes_next_to_each_other.jpg
 
> Or does the one ballast control every other lane?
> https://s12.postimg.org/vqlyluwa5/every_other_lane.jpg
 
A four lamp fixture with two ballasts will operate two lamps each. One
will control the outer lamps and the other will control the inner lamps.
To determine what ballast controls what lamps, you need to follow a wire
to the tombstone (pin) connection of the lamp. For example, follow the
yellow wire to one of the connectors. If it's the inner lamp, then that
ballast controls those two lamps and the other will control the outer two.
John Doe <always.look@message.header>: Nov 02 01:59AM

They only explode when they are poorly specked carelessly manufactured
cheap shit made by slave labor in your communist country.
 
--
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet gmail.com> wrote in news:nqchu2$l2t$1 dont-email.me:
 
Shadow <Sh@dow.br>: Nov 02 06:17AM -0200

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:59:35 +0000 (UTC),
 
>I can't believe how naive folks can be thinking that you can store
>ANY energy and NOT have the possibility of an explosion.
 
How right. And my wife's stink. Yesterday ... no I'll avoid talking
about it.
 
>Reagan
 
Sorry to hear about that
 
> BioStrategist
 
Yeah, right.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>: Nov 02 10:14AM +0100

On 11/02/2016 09:17 AM, Shadow wrote:
>> ANY energy and NOT have the possibility of an explosion.
 
> How right. And my wife's stink. Yesterday ... no I'll avoid talking
> about it.
 
Well, some people acumulating energy in form of beans really explode..
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 01 07:36PM -0700

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:45:47 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:
 
>Indeed, easier to simply put a chain saw on a drone (really ducking!).
>John :-#)#
 
Done:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Viwwetf0gU>
 
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 02 08:18AM

On 01/11/2016 23:45, John Robertson wrote:
 
>> I think the hassles getting aerospace clearance would make it uneconomic.
 
> Indeed, easier to simply put a chain saw on a drone (really ducking!).
 
> John :-#)#
 
I would use a drone to loop a fishing line nylon, up around the tree at
required height, and down . Use that to run a rope around the same path
. Bang a good ground anchor in the ground and winch the top of the tree
over. Then make some sort of running guide to fix a chain saw to a rope
and pull that up the rope while it is running, while I'm standing well
away of course. Require some extra ropery to get the angles and cutting
progress though
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Nov 01 07:29PM -0700

Nucase Kook wrote:
 
> thermometer was the 2 fuses, so something big presumably taking the
> power. That with about .2 amp mains current draw, 5V ac over secondaries
> and +/-1.8V on the DC rails
 
** Bet you have revered the positions of the PNP and NPN Darlingtons - causing the internal C-E diodes to conduct soon a power is applied.
 
 
 
.... Phil
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 3 topics

Meanie <meanie@gmail.com>: Nov 01 11:23AM -0400

On 11/1/2016 10:59 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
> They are activated when it gets dark.
> So, they're on at least 12 hours a day, every day.
> Construct some statistics out of that.
 
That is the reason they last so long. What people don't realize is the
life of fluorescent, whether tubes or CFL, is shortened when they are
subject to constant on and off. They are not made for constant on/off
action unless the fixture contains a "program start" ballast. Due to the
cost of that ballast, they will not be within the common hardware store
fixture. When fluorescent lamps remain on all day, chances are you can
see 10 years on them. The average home will not see that life cycle
since it's not common to leave them on all day everyday.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 03:20PM

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:59:44 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
 
 
>> Notice the package says "1.4 year life".
>> https://s18.postimg.org/602tefda1/ge_bulb_burned_out.jpg
 
> Do you honestly think that proves anything?
 
I understand your point, which is that I can say it lasted 10,000 years.
If I could prove it completely, and if it was worth the effort, I would,
just like Jeff *proved* that WiFi reception in routers was NOT what the
manufacturers claimed.
 
But you are like those people who say "prove it" to everything, which is
fine, but *you* have to provide some semblance of a reason to go to the
effort to prove things that we just have to accept on faith.
 
I was backing up your unproven claim that Jeff was not being balanced, in
effect, when I know, from the last decade on s.e.r and a.i.w that Jeff "is"
well balanced, and he proves what is worth proving.
 
> They are activated when it gets dark.
> So, they're on at least 12 hours a day, every day.
> Construct some statistics out of that.
 
You entirely and completely missed the point.
Did you buy too many arguments this week?
 
All I was saying is that your claim against Jeff's veracity are completely
unfounded. You're entitled to your opinion, but if I asked you to prove that
you had sex with your wife five times this week, do I really expect you to
prove that?
 
What I'm saying is simply that your criticism of Jeff was unfounded, if you
look at the entire record. And, I'm saying that 11 cents per kilowatt hour
is a magical number entirely unachievable by me, in California.
 
If you claim otherwise, I'm only asking you to attempt to back up your very
own claims with fact, as I did with Jeff, and as I did with the price of
electricity in California.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 03:54PM

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:23:09 -0400, Meanie wrote:
 
> When fluorescent lamps remain on all day, chances are you can
> see 10 years on them. The average home will not see that life cycle
> since it's not common to leave them on all day everyday.
 
I don't run statistics, but I appreciate what you wrote because my
fluorescent lamps don't last more than a year or two, it seems.
 
I used to mark the bulbs with a Sharpie, but I stopped doing that long ago.
I don't think I *ever* got anywhere near the claimed life.
 
But we turn them on and off a few times each day.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 03:54PM

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:18:11 -0400, Meanie wrote:
 
> I understand your skepticism as a general consumer, but I've been
> experiencing the products first hand.
 
This is good to know because the whole point of this thread is to nail down
the actual life of the lamps.
 
Of course, you can't expect me to NOT buy at Lowes or Ace or Home Depot, for
quantities such as we buy for a home as replacements, so the word 'quality
lamps' is to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
But at least it's good to know that you *understand* that an LED is never as
bright as it was on its first day, and that cycles, and heat, and vibration
exacerbate the existing cracks between crystals, such that LEDs drop off
exponentially in light output over time.
 
As stated in the standards that Jeff kindly referenced early on in this
thread, the diminished light output is very difficult to detect, since it
happens over time, and since there may be other bulbs compensating for the
lack of output, such that an LED bulb that has actually reached it's L70
lifetime may not be easily observed by you.
 
Nonetheless, if the driver failed, which I think can be the weakest point
(that premise needs to be explored), you'd know that. But you might not know
when any particular bulb has reached its L70 point without isolating the
bulb and actually measuring the output (since the gradual decline in output
isn't going to be suddenly noticeable, according to that report Jeff
referenced).
 
My point is that things failed, perhaps, and you don't realize it.
But that needs to be explored since you'd know of some failures (but not
all, unless the bulbs are isolated, and if you have a keen eye for such
things).
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 01 09:02AM -0700

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 02:38:46 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan
 
>You would bring up *more* complex LED-lifetime terms to figure out!
 
I should have guessed it was you. I like to explain how things work,
without offering a judgment or opinion. This type of question really
belongs in Candlepower Forums.
 
>And, you would also find MARKETING BULLSHIT in the mix!
 
It happens. I have some marketeering experience somewhere on my
resume. Speaking of bullshit:
"How LED Lighting May Compromise Your Health"
<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/23/near-infrared-led-lighting.aspx>
 
>L90 = time to degrade to 90% of its original lumens
>Reported TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + optimistic magic math
>Calculated TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + more optimistic magic math
 
Nice summary. Sounds about right. I believe there are a few other
standards that I missed. Standards are a good thing. Every company
should have one.
 
>Seems to me that the "LED lifetime" figure everyone is quoting in this
>thread and in other threads is total bullshit, so far...
 
Nope, because it's all we have to work with. Like I ranted, nobody
does 30,000 hr life tests. Therefore, nobody knows the "real world"
lifetime of an LED light. The best we can do is parametric testing,
accelerated life tests, and the usual guesswork. The first two are
quite valid and result in numbers that usually come fairly close to
reality. The guesswork, you can guess what I think.
 
It's much like MTBF (mean time between failure) which attempts to
estimate the life of a device based on historical tests and operating
conditions. These component estimates are conglomerated into a figure
for the device. However, the intent is not to estimate the lifetime,
but rather the number of expected failures in a population of LED's.
"What Every LED Engineer Needs to Know About MTBF"
<https://www.fairchildsemi.com.cn/Assets/zSystem/documents/collateral/whitepapers/LED-Lighting-MTBF-White-Paper.pdf>
(Note: I haven't read through this yet)
 
>fluorescent bulbs, so I bought the LED light fixture from Costco just to get
>rid of the non-standard wacko shaped bulbs that kept burning out anyway.
>http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/non-integrated-compact-fluorescent-lamps/4075597/
 
600lumens / 9watts = 67 lumens/watt. Barf.
Philips claims 200 lumens/watt and Cree claims 300 lumens/watt:
<http://www.philips.com/consumerfiles/newscenter/main/design/resources/pdf/Inside-Innovation-Backgrounder-Lumens-per-Watt.pdf>
<http://www.cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases/2014/March/300LPW-LED-barrier>
You may not see that at Costco for a while, but maybe if Philips and
others get back into the LED biz.
<http://www.memoori.com/samsung-joins-philips-siemens-in-led-lighting-exodus/>
It's not too obvious, but both claims assume that the LED is cooled to
approximately room temperature.
 
>What irks me is that they seem to never have run into someone who doesn't
>accept that bs as an "answer" to the question of how long the light fixture
>is expected to last.
 
For good reason. From the point of view of the manufacturer and
vendor, the ideal product blows up 1 day after the warranty expires.
I've ranted on the topic before, where simulation and modeling tools
are used to insure that multiple parts all fail just after some preset
time limit. My favorite example are GE(?) water heaters with 6, 9,
and 12 year warrantees, and roughly proportional pricing, but where
the only difference is the type and size of the anode rod. Details if
anyone wants them.
 
>I'm guessing the LED light fixture I bought lasts no longer than a couple
>sets of incandescent bulbs would have.
 
Talk to me in 30,000 hrs and we'll compare notes.
 
>Time will tell.
 
You have a talking clock?
 
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Nov 01 04:06PM

>> experiencing the products first hand.
 
>This is good to know because the whole point of this thread is to nail down
>the actual life of the lamps.
 
Which is impossible to do based on unreliable anecdotal evidence in
an usenet newsgroup read by perhaps a hundred people.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 01 09:08AM -0700

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 09:02:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
 
>>L90 = time to degrade to 90% of its original lumens
>>Reported TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + optimistic magic math
>>Calculated TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + more optimistic magic math
 
One more. ARL:
<http://www.bulbs.com/learning/arl.aspx>
"Average Rated Life (ARL) is how long it takes for half
the light bulbs in a test batch to fail"
I seem to recall others, but I'm too lazy to Google.
 
 
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Nov 01 04:10PM


>Dan,
>You come across as challenging the facts, but, you provide few facts on your
>own. It's easy to challenge, but it takes effort to back up your challenge.
 
How does the cost of a Kwh contribute to the rated lifetime
of an LED-based illumination device? I smell a red-herring.
Costs of electricity vary widely nationwide. Yes, California
has more expensive electricity (specifically to encourage conservation)
than other parts of the country, but that is not a factor in
rated lifetime.
 
Tj and cycles (on/off) would seem to be the two major controlling
factors, just as they are for incandescents.
 
Tj = Junction Temperature.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Nov 01 09:33AM -0700

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:14:43 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:
 
>Actually, 3 years wouldn't be useful for anything but the decidedly
>"not realworld" test case of continuous use.
 
Well, you're entitled to invent a new testing standard, along with yet
another collection of artificial test conditions, that will satisfy
your vision of a "real world" test. I've only had three LED light
failures. All were in the bathroom, all were failures of the driver
electronics, two were mounted inverted (base up), and all were
retrofitted into incandescent fixtures with miserable ventilation.
Therefore, I propose a bathroom LED test, which includes heat,
condensing and non-condensing humidity, on-off cycle time, over
voltage, erratic power glitches by PG&E, limited ventilation, and dust
accumulation. Such a test will clearly define what might be expected
from "typical" bathroom LED service. The EU micro managers have specs
and tests for almost everything and will surely appreciate your
efforts on their behalf.
 
>It would take considerably more than 3 years to test the common
>on at night, off during the day test case.
 
I think you need a major dose of testing reality. Instead of LED's,
let's try drug testing. In order to release a new drug, one of the
tests that a pharmaceutical company must survive is a cancer test.
This is usually done with mice or rats. However, they're not ordinary
mice or rats. If such a cancer test were performed on the common and
ordinary breeds of mice and rats, the number of tumors found would be
very small and therefore statistically useless. In order to get
statistically significant numbers, mice and rats that are genetically
predisposed to developing cancerous tumors are used.
 
For LED testing, much the same trick is used. If you don't have a
sufficient number of failures during the test period, and you can't
extend the test period, you do whatever it takes to produce those
failures. The easiest is to elevate the temperature. For
incandescent lamps, raising the filament voltage also works. By
plotting a trend line of different temperatures or voltages, one can
extrapolate the graph to obtain a fairly good approximation of the
expected lifetime at more sane temperatures and voltages. That's how
one avoids multi-year tests.
<http://www.powerelectronictips.com/seeing-light/>
 
>> produces the necessary inflated figures:
 
>You could have left the word "inflated" out of that sentence.
>It's an insult to the rather clever testing that you described.
 
There are quite a few products that suffer from inflated
specifications. Battery capacity (in particular 18650 cells),
flashlight output in lumens, wi-fi range/speed, laptop battery life,
laser printer toner cartridge pages, inkjet cartridge pages, etc. All
of these are characterized by inflated claims contrived to make the
numbers bigger. I can explain any of these in detail if you want to
know how it works. The reasons are competitive pressure and product
differentiation. Every manufacturer and vendor are trying to sell on
the basis of everything except price. So, they push service,
warranties, packaging, bonus junk, etc. Eventually, they run out of
these fringes, and start inflating the specifications on the
assumption that the typical customer doesn't understand the specs. I
think this thread demonstrates that this is true. Instead of
inflated, perhaps "grossly exaggerated" might be more accurate.
 
>... snipped test description.
 
Sniff...
 
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 01 03:53PM

Thats enough of this malarkey for today.
About 10% mains for 20 seconds or so , the only thing warming up on IR
thermometer was the 2 fuses, so something big presumably taking the
power. That with about .2 amp mains current draw, 5V ac over secondaries
and +/-1.8V on the DC rails
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 31 08:35PM


> Any thoughts will be most appreciated!
> Best,
> ED
 
From cold , heat the ps electros, what happens to functions?
let cool down
When warmed up normally blast electros , in turn, what happens to functions
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Oct 31 08:37PM

On 31/10/2016 20:35, N_Cook wrote:
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Oct 31 04:58PM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:08:58 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
 
> How long do LED shop/ceiling lights really last at full output anyway?
 
Doing some due diligence, I find that there *are* rules in place.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc-lighting-facts-label-questions-answers-manufacturers
 
The Lighting Facts label contains:
1. a bulb's brightness,
2. energy cost,
3. life,
4. light appearance,
5. and wattage
 
Specifically:
1. The brightness in average *initial* lumens rounded to the nearest 5
2. Annual *initial* energy cost at a low 3h/day at an unrealistic 11¢/kWH
3. Life in years, rounded to 1/10th based on a low usage of only 3h/day
4. Color in Kelvin ranging from 2,600K on the left to 6,600K on the right
5. Wattage in average *initial* wattage
 
Note that, for LEDs, the "initial" specs are almost certainly going to be
vastly different than the actual specs over time, so, already, the label has
to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Also note the highly unrealistic 11¢/kWH (which is essentially unattainable,
where I live).
 
But at least we know what the LEDs are supposed to deliver, initially.
 
So now we need to figure out what typically happens to these LED light bulbs
over time, mostly in terms of light output & when the lifetime brightness
cutoff point has been reached.
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: Oct 31 01:16PM -0400

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Oct 31 06:08PM

>On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:08:58 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
 
>> How long do LED shop/ceiling lights really last at full output anyway?
 
http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2012/feb/understanding-the-cause-of-fading-in-high-brightness-leds
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Oct 31 06:26PM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:16:53 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
 
> Put one in, and leave it on so it runs up the hours, and see when light
> diminishes.
 
That's effectively what most of you have done, since many of you have LED
lights (I only have one, which I bought from Costco about two months ago, to
replace a non-standard bulb ceiling fixture).
http://cafecocina.com/whome/2015/11/02/costco-led-ceiling-lamps/
 
I have the box in my hands.
Here's what it says on the box:
 
Light Output: 1,495 lumens (remember, that's only the *initial* output!)
Watts: 21Watts (remember, that's only the initial watts)
Lumens per watt: 71.19 (why is this even there?)
Color Accuracy: 82 CRI color rendering index (whatever that means)
Light Color = 3000K "Bright White" (which isn't white on the scale)
 
They do reference more information:
Web: http://www.lightingfacts.com
Telephone: 800-787-1021x4
 
Going to that web site and typing in the model number of "AL-3151" was a
wasted effort as they have just the label that is already on the package.
 
Calling that number was also a waste of time, because the customer support
guy said "it lasts more than 5 years because that's the warranty if the
driver fails", which is also a stupid answer (they can give me a warranty of
500 years and it still doesn't answer the question).
 
I pressed for a real answer, and the guy said "50,000 to 60,000 hours", to
which I was incredulous. So I simply asked where he got that figure, and he
said that's what he says for all questions.
 
Obviously he was blowing smoke at me, so I asked for someone who actually
wasn't gonna just make this stuff up, so he transferred me to his "technical
support" guy, whose email is apparently gmijangos at jimway.com so I left
him a message to let me know what the *tested* lifetime of the lamp is.
 
Disgusted, I called the Costco Wholesale number on the package,
800-774-2678, x3, product information, x1 product information and they took
down my information and said they'd get back to me on the L70 lifetime.
 
One thing the operator had handy, which is more smoke blown in our faces,
but which she kindly stated it was all she had, which was "LED *chips* last
50,000 hours, 34 years@4 hours/day).
 
That's not what we're asking, since we know two things:
a. The LED chip output diminishes from day 1
b. The driver is the weakest link with respect to lifetime
 
> Most of us haven't had LED bulbs long enough to have any feel for their
> lives.
 
The problem with *everything* on the planet where there is a choice, is that
the MARKETING people only talk about the good stuff (e.g., FWD slides
straight in the snow, for a hilarious example), but they don't talk about
the BAD STUFF (e.g., weight ratios and working in the engine bay are
atrocious for most FWD cars).
 
So, the problem that I see with the LED marketing is that people are only
talking about the good stuff, which is all fine and dandy.
 
But I'm looking for information on the bad stuff too.
 
Like the fact that the output decreases the moment you plug it in,
 
> I'd also point out that if you read the fine print on the LED bulb
> packages, the number of years they last is based on a limited number of
> hours every day.
 
Apparently, it's based on 4 hours per day, based on what I wrote above.
 
> actual hours may be okay, if somewhat low. I leave the ceiling light on
> all day, that will diminish the numver of years the bulb lasts if I look
> at the stated "number of years".
 
I'm not sure why the total number of hours would be different if you use the
light for 4 hours a day or for 24 hours a day, but apparently it is.

> going to lower regular prices. And I'm using something like 19Watts (I
> think actually less) compared to the 100W of an incandescent bulb, so
> power usage is down.
 
On the bulbs you just bought, what's the L70 time period?
"jfeng@my-deja.com" <jfeng@my-deja.com>: Oct 31 11:32AM -0700

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:09:03 AM UTC-7, Algeria Horan wrote:
> How long do LED shop/ceiling lights really last at full output anyway?
 
One of the failure mechanisms is insufficient heat sinking, so the electronics (probably the electrolytics in the SMPS) get cooked and die earlier. Cheap bulbs may be OK when mounted base down, but have reduced lifetimes in other orientations. The more expensive ones may have better heat sinking and better tolerate being mounted base up. Feel how hot the bulb gets at the neck.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Oct 31 07:08PM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:08:23 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
 
>>> How long do LED shop/ceiling lights really last at full output anyway?
 
> http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2012/feb/understanding-the-cause-of-fading-in-high-brightness-leds
 
Thanks for that url.
Here's a relevant set of snippets from:
 
Understanding the Cause of Fading in High-Brightness LEDs
By Steven Keeping
Contributed By Electronic Products, 2012-02-21
 
LED failure" is most likely to be the result of light output falling below
an acceptable threshold (typically 70 percent of the initial output.
 
The primary cause of that fading (or "lumen failure") is triggered (for the
most part) by the minute threading dislocations introduced to the chip
during wafer manufacture.
 
Threading dislocations are a major problem...where threading dislocations
are vertical micro-cracks caused by strain generated by the mismatch in
InGaN and Sapphire or SiC crystal lattices .. and where ... things get worse
over time, as the rate of degradation is directly related to the initial
density of threading dislocations and the heat to which the LED is subjected
... all of which gets worse ... due to heating during operation, thermal
expansion and shrinkage when the LED is turned on and off, and mechanical
stress such as vibration.
 
Worse yet ... as the chip ages, it will run hotter and hotter ... due to an
increased number of phonons, accelerating the formation of dislocations and
the device's eventual demise.
 
-------------------
So now we know what kills LEDs to the 70% level (which is the formal
definition of dead), which is that inherent cracks between crystals form
over time, just as mud cracks as it dries at the bottom of a pond.
 
The fundamental problem is cracks between crystals only gets worse.
b. Heat makes things worse even faster
c. On/off cycles makes things worse even faster
d. Vibration makes things worse even faster
 
So, given they don't heat/vibrate/cycle the LEDS (other than the 4 hours per
day), you'll likely never get the advertised L70 lifetime in the real world.
 
But what do you get for a 70%-illumination lifetime in the real world?
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Oct 31 07:38PM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
 
 
> So, given they don't heat/vibrate/cycle the LEDS (other than the 4 hours per
> day), you'll likely never get the advertised L70 lifetime in the real world.
 
> But what do you get for a 70%-illumination lifetime in the real world?
 
I forgot to mention that none of what kills the LED over time discusses the
frail electronics, which also fail.
 
So, we need to know how long the "LED drivers" last too.
 
The life of the fixture is the shorter of the two failure modes:
a. Inherent cracks between crystals get exponentially worse over time
b. The drivers suddenly fail at any time
 
So, we still don't have any decent grasp on how long LED fixtures last, in
the real world.
Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>: Oct 31 03:54PM -0500

Algeria Horan wrote:
 
 
> TESTS: The F.T.C. found the bulbs produced only 74 lumens of light
 
> CLAIM: The LED bulbs in question would last 30,000 hours
> TESTS: They lost 80 percent of their light output after only 1,000 hours
 
YIKES!
 
I built my own LED light replacement for 48" tubes in our kitchen. They
have been running about 2 years, now. If they have lost some output, it is
not real obvious to me.
 
I'm getting something like 2000 lumens from a 20-LED string, running on 21 W
measured from the mains supply.
 
I can't reply to commercially produced retrofits, some of them are
apparently quite awful.
 
Jon
"pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Oct 31 01:53PM -0700

High end LED devices (Cree/RAB/GE) will last many thousands of hours and if they last the first 200 hours, will do so pretty much without further ado.
 
In a previous life, I managed retail shopping centers, wherein we replaced lot lighting with LED devices (RAB) in the 2700K spectrum. Where we were replacing lamps on-average once per year throughout the center, it has been three (3) years now without a single failure at one location, and two years without a single failure at another location. And this is 60 heads at one location and 22 at another.
 
As to residential LED lamps - if you buy crap, expect crap in return. As previously noted, heat-sinking is critical, assembly quality is critical, and the actual LED emitters are critical. I have done two offices in CREE devices, with one (1) failure in three years. And that was within the first 200 hours - replaced by CREE including shipping both ways without a murmur.
 
They were not cheap, but, they worked and still are working. And the power savings are dead-on per the package statements.
 
Guys and gals, this is not rocket science. We were early adopters of the technology, true, and perhaps paid for that earliness in first-cost. But, even at that price, the paybacks have been as-represented. And I have learned over the years the perils of being price-driven for any new/cutting edge technology at all, and especially for one where the price disparities are significant.
 
As far as "due diligence" is concerned, about any manufacturer can paper their way to an impressive review, and the FTC has this touching habit of believing what they are told until beaten down with the clue-stick-otherwise. Ask a USER. Several users. And if a manufacturer/supplier cannot give you as many users as you wish, RUN, don't walk away. Or, if the technology is so new as there are, legitimately, few users, ask about paying out of the promised savings. I have had excellent success on that basis. The REPUTABLE Manufacturer wins by gaining a sale, and a referral, you win by 'seeing' the savings right up front.
 
We are gradually shifting to CREE devices at home - as our 8+ year old CFL devices gradually die.
 
One last note: Habitat for Humanity was selling 19-watt LED Devices for $1 a few weeks ago, from China, of course. I invested $3 to check them out. One (1) device in our Kitchen lights stepped on every radio/tuner AM or FM in the entire house (4,800 square feet, three stories) including brands and devices from Zenith (9S262) to Revox (A720). About the only things that did not seem to be affected were our WiFi router and cell phones. We have a dozen CREE lamps, and no issue from them.
 
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Oct 31 03:13PM -0700

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan
 
>But what do you get for a 70%-illumination lifetime in the real world?
 
Dunno. Your real world LED application is not the same as my real
world LED application and the science fiction world of marketing tech
products.
 
Perhaps you might be interested in "lumen depreciation", L90, L80,
L70, TM-21, LM-80, LM-40, etc.
<http://www.p-2.com/blog/lighting-basics-lifespan-lumen-depreciation-l70-tm-21-lm-80-lm-40-and-other-confusing-yet-useful-terms/>
There are some interesting methods of calculating LED life such as:
"Reported TM-21 values have an upper limit of 6-times the number
of LM-80 test hours. So if an LED chip is tested for 6,000 hours,
its max reported TM-21 lifetime would be 36,000 hours. If the
chip was tested for 10,000 hours, its max reported TM-21 would
be 60,000 hours."
Magic is a reallly nice way to produce bigger numbers.
 
One can also be devious:
"It's worth noting that there are two different types of
TM-21 ratings, "reported" and "calculated" ratings."
Sigh...
 
Few run 30,000 hr tests. At 8,760 hrs/year, it would take over three
years to run the test, by which time the product is obsolete and
replaced by something new and improved. Instead, they run a HALT
(Highly Accelerated Life Test), which is faster, and presumably
produces the necessary inflated figures:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=led+accelerated+life+testing>
The basic idea is to test the LED at various elevated temperatures,
connect the dots on a graph, and extrapolate to how long it might last
at some specified operating temperature. At 25C it will last nearly
forever, which assumes that the LED has some form of cooling system.
One can generate amazingly large and impressive numbers this way.
Despite my derisive comments, it does work quite well when performed
honestly and where the test parameters are sane.
 
For example, IEC 62717 and IEC 62722 LED life testing standards both
demand 6,000 hrs of test time, with total output in lumens recorded
every 1,000 hrs. Measuring lumens accurately requires an integrating
sphere:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=integrating+sphere&tbm=isch>
which might explain why they don't just use a common light meter and
why there are so few measurement points. Some detail on how Luxo
specifies its lifetimes:
<http://glamox.com/gsx/led-lifetime-and-the-factors-that-affect-it>
I doubt if we will ever see detailed life test results from Costco
LED's as you might from higher priced LED luminaires.
 
 
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello): Oct 31 05:16PM -0600


> Also note the highly unrealistic 11「/kWH (which is essentially unattainable,
> where I live).
 
They were probably using the US Total All Sectors figure from this page:
 
<https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a>
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 02:38AM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:16:09 -0600, Neill Massello wrote:
 
>> where I live).
 
> They were probably using the US Total All Sectors figure from this page:
 
> <https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a>
 
Thanks for finding that.
 
Oh, to live in Louisiana, at less than 10¢/kWH.
 
California is listed at double that, at 19¢/kWH, but even that must be some
kind of wacko average as we pay a tiered system, where, in practice, the
first tier is used up in the first week of the month, the second tier by the
third week, and the next tier for the end of the month.
 
It goes up precipitously with each tier, and the tiers are the same for
everyone, so they do NOT take into account anything specific like the number
of bedrooms or bathrooms or square feet or even the number of people.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 02:38AM

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:13:01 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
 
> Perhaps you might be interested in "lumen depreciation", L90, L80,
> L70, TM-21, LM-80, LM-40, etc.
> <http://www.p-2.com/blog/lighting-basics-lifespan-lumen-depreciation-l70-tm-21-lm-80-lm-40-and-other-confusing-yet-useful-terms/>
 
Yikes Jeff!
 
You would bring up *more* complex LED-lifetime terms to figure out!
 
And, you would also find MARKETING BULLSHIT in the mix!
 
LM-80 = a standard for measuring LED lumen maintenance & depreciation
LM-40 = time for 50% of the lamps in a large group to burn out
L70 = time to degrade to 70% of its original lumens
L80 = time to degrade to 80% of its original lumens
L90 = time to degrade to 90% of its original lumens
Reported TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + optimistic magic math
Calculated TM-21 = predicts lifetime using LM80 + more optimistic magic math
 
> Few run 30,000 hr tests.
 
Hence the "magic math" on the lifetime figures...
 
> One can generate amazingly large and impressive numbers this way.
> Despite my derisive comments, it does work quite well when performed
> honestly and where the test parameters are sane.
 
Seems to me that the "LED lifetime" figure everyone is quoting in this
thread and in other threads is total bullshit, so far...
 
> I doubt if we will ever see detailed life test results from Costco
> LED's as you might from higher priced LED luminaires.
 
Well, I was sick of replacing very expensive non-standard Philips
fluorescent bulbs, so I bought the LED light fixture from Costco just to get
rid of the non-standard wacko shaped bulbs that kept burning out anyway.
http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/non-integrated-compact-fluorescent-lamps/4075597/
 
I asked Costco and the manufacturer to provide the information on the
lifetime of the LED light that I did buy.
 
I didn't get anything more than "hey, the warranty is 5 years so that's how
long it lasts".
 
What irks me is that they seem to never have run into someone who doesn't
accept that bs as an "answer" to the question of how long the light fixture
is expected to last.
 
I'm guessing the LED light fixture I bought lasts no longer than a couple
sets of incandescent bulbs would have.
 
Time will tell.
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 31 07:46PM -0700

Algeria Horan wrote:
 
> How long do LED shop/ceiling lights really last at full output anyway?
 
** The last until they fail or fade badly.
 
 
> In another thread, the topic came up that LED lights may not last as long
> nor as bright as claimed on the package:
 
** The lighting industry is full of crooks, has been for decades.
 
Performance claims are simply made up by marketing pukes, not engineers.
 
Products are mainly made in China to the lowest possible cost and samples are rarely tested by anyone other than consumers.
 
Failing to live up to the claims made on the box is a LEGAL issue, not an electronics problem.
 
 
> Lights of America exaggerated LED light bulb performance
> http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/news/246355581.html
> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/federal-agency-sues-led-bulb-maker/
 
 
** Maybe that will shake a few of them up a bit.
 
Meanwhile you are just pissing in the wind.
 

 
.... Phil
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Nov 01 12:14AM -0400


> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:08:08 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan
> <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net> wrote:
 
>>But what do you get for a 70%-illumination lifetime in the real world?
 
root,
 
Believe it or not, the tests are designed to reflect real world usage.
 
You keep implying that there is something wrong with all advertised
LED bulb lifetimes. Then you tell us you need to Google search to
find out if that's true.
 
> Dunno. Your real world LED application is not the same as my real
> world LED application and the science fiction world of marketing tech
> products.
...
> Few run 30,000 hr tests. At 8,760 hrs/year, it would take over three
> years to run the test, by which time the product is obsolete and
> replaced by something new and improved.
 
Jeff,
 
Actually, 3 years wouldn't be useful for anything but the decidedly
"not realworld" test case of continuous use.
 
It would take considerably more than 3 years to test the common
on at night, off during the day test case.
 
> Instead, they run a HALT
> (Highly Accelerated Life Test), which is faster, and presumably
> produces the necessary inflated figures:
 
You could have left the word "inflated" out of that sentence.
It's an insult to the rather clever testing that you described.
 
... snipped test description.
 
--
Dan Espen
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Nov 01 12:27AM -0400


> It goes up precipitously with each tier, and the tiers are the same for
> everyone, so they do NOT take into account anything specific like the number
> of bedrooms or bathrooms or square feet or even the number of people.
 
Read the full report Appendix C.
Then come back and tell us how unrealistic their numbers are.
 
--
Dan Espen
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Oct 31 09:42PM -0700

Algeria Horan wrote:
 
 
> Well, I was sick of replacing very expensive non-standard Philips
> fluorescent bulbs, so I bought the LED light fixture from Costco just to get
> rid of the non-standard wacko shaped bulbs that kept burning out anyway.
 
http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/non-integrated-compact-fluorescent-lamps/4075597/
 
 
** Those fluoro lamps are for *commercial use* where they are either left on permanently or cycled once a day. The main wear out mechanism is to the filaments when starting.
 
Had one in your bathroom did you ?
 
 
.... Phil
Colin Horsley <horsley-spam@westnet.com.au>: Nov 01 05:03PM +1100

On 1/11/2016 13:46, Phil Allison wrote:
 
>> In another thread, the topic came up that LED lights may not last as long
>> nor as bright as claimed on the package:
 
> ** The lighting industry is full of crooks, has been for decades.
 
Have you seen this?
 
http://conspiracy.wikia.com/wiki/Light_bulb_conspiracy
 
or
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg
 
Colin
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 02:11PM

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:14:43 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
 
> Believe it or not, the tests are designed to reflect real world usage.
 
Real world seems to *always* be less than advertised lifetime.
At least for me they seem to be.
 
I'd be pleasantly surprised if LED bulbs last 5 years.
 
What fails?
a. The electronics!
b. The bulbs.
 
> You keep implying that there is something wrong with all advertised
> LED bulb lifetimes. Then you tell us you need to Google search to
> find out if that's true.
 
We know the manufacturers lie, or, more accurately, the MARKETING people,
who make the labels, say only what they want you to think.
 
For example, they'll tell you an LED itself lasts 50,000 hours, but they
won't tell you the "driver" lasts anywhere from zero to a couple of years.
 
> You could have left the word "inflated" out of that sentence.
> It's an insult to the rather clever testing that you described.
 
The one thing about Jeff is that he's shown himself over the past decade to
be a well-balanced person who is not swayed, like most people are, by
exaggerated claims, whether they be any claim by Apple for their WiFi
reception, or a bogus claim by LED manufacturers (such as the ones I
received on the phone yesterday) as to lifetime.
 
He'll deny this though, as he doesn't like accolades, but he is always on
the money, and, he almost always provides *proof*, something which you need
to provide also in order for us to believe your claims (I'm not saying you
didn't or don't provide proof - I'm just saying that Jeff almost always does
- so what he says carries weight).
 
Also, Jeff runs his own *tests* of tons of things, which are tests that most
of us have never run, they're that detailed (ask him about router claims
versus the real world some day!).
 
Jeff is like I am. We prove what we say, and we provide references, and
photos and other reliable statistics. You'd need to do the same to hold
water with us.
 
Anyway, fact is, I have a bulb, in my very hand, incandescent, that failed
in two days.
https://s15.postimg.org/92aoq3xej/burned_out_in_two_days.jpg
 
Notice the package says "1.4 year life".
https://s18.postimg.org/602tefda1/ge_bulb_burned_out.jpg
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Nov 01 10:59AM -0400


> Jeff is like I am. We prove what we say, and we provide references, and
> photos and other reliable statistics. You'd need to do the same to hold
> water with us.
 
See Appendix C as I stated in my other post.
Then tell me how your methods are so superior to those used by
the experts.
 
> https://s15.postimg.org/92aoq3xej/burned_out_in_two_days.jpg
 
> Notice the package says "1.4 year life".
> https://s18.postimg.org/602tefda1/ge_bulb_burned_out.jpg
 
Do you honestly think that proves anything?
 
I have 3 CFLs in a lamp post since 2000.
Just this year, one of them gave up the ghost.
They are activated when it gets dark.
So, they're on at least 12 hours a day, every day.
Construct some statistics out of that.
 
--
Dan Espen
Meanie <meanie@gmail.com>: Nov 01 11:18AM -0400

On 11/1/2016 10:11 AM, Algeria Horan wrote:
 
> What fails?
> a. The electronics!
> b. The bulbs.
 
I can assure you, we replaced incandescent floodlights back in 2010 with
LEDs in one of our buildings. These lights are on 8 to 10 hours a day,
if not longer and we've yet to replace any of them (over 50).
 
 
I understand your skepticism as a general consumer, but I've been
experiencing the products first hand. I've been dealing with LEDs for
many years and I agree, they do diminish in brightness after their
manufactured rating, the quality lamps last up to their claim if not
longer. Of course, we don't purchase the cheap ones you buy at Home Depot.
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 03:20PM

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 00:27:31 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
 
> Read the full report Appendix C.
> Then come back and tell us how unrealistic their numbers are.
 
Dan,
You come across as challenging the facts, but, you provide few facts on your
own. It's easy to challenge, but it takes effort to back up your challenge.
 
I read my electricity bill.
Those are "my" facts.
 
I don't even have to show you my bill.
I'll simply point you to the PG&E Tiered Plan that I'm on:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-options/tiered-base-plan/tiered-base-plan.page
 
Do you see *anything* anywhere near 10 cents?
Anything?
 
Look again:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/local/images/data/en-us/rate-plans/rate-plan-options/how-tiers-work-graph.jpg
 
The first tier (which lasts about a week) is almost double that.
The next tier is almost triple.
And the fourth tier, the one that you use for the second half of the month,
or the last week, if you're frugal, is almost quadruple that.
 
Those are facts.
Do you dispute the facts?
 
What facts do you have for my rate that dispute that?
Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeria.horan.net>: Nov 01 03:20PM

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:59:44 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
 
 
>> Notice the package says "1.4 year life".
>> https://s18.postimg.org/602tefda1/ge_bulb_burned_out.jpg
 
> Do you honestly think that proves anything?
 
I understand your point, which is that I can say it lasted 10,000 years.
If I could prove it completely, and if it was worth the effort, I would,
just like Jeff *proved* that WiFi reception in routers was NOT what the
manufacturers claimed.
 
But you are like those people who say "prove it" to everything, which is
fine, but *you* have to provide some semblance of a reason to go to the
effort to prove things that we just have to accept on faith.
 
I was backing up your unproven claim that Jeff was not being balanced, in
effect, when I know, from the last decade on s.e.r and a.i.w that Jeff "is"
well balanced, and he proves what is worth proving.
 
> They are activated when it gets dark.
> So, they're on at least 12 hours a day, every day.
> Construct some statistics out of that.
 
You entirely and completely missed the point.
Did you buy too many arguments this week?
 
All I was saying is that your claim against Jeff's veracity are completely
unfounded. You're entitled to your opinion, but if I asked you to prove that
you had sex with your wife five times this week, do I really expect you to
prove that?
 
What I'm saying is simply that your criticism of Jeff was unfounded, if you
look at the entire record. And, I'm saying that 11 cents per kilowatt hour
is a magical number entirely unachievable by me, in California.
 
If you claim otherwise, I'm only asking you to attempt to back up your very
own claims with fact, as I did with Jeff, and as I did with the price of
electricity in California.
N_Cook <diverse@tcp.co.uk>: Nov 01 02:56PM

Headscratching time. On first receipt tried the amp out as owner had
been using 1 channel only , after having blown the other by shorting it.
Both LV ac fuses ok but one SAP15 p-type blown.
Had to cross-over power Darlington terminals as mirror footprint from
the usual BCE orientation.
Cleared out and replaced with that fudge for the SAP and other blown
1/8W Rs and tried out at 50% mains.
Variac meter swung right over to the right and both LV fuses blew.
Replaced fuses and tried at 20% mains, half amp or so of mains draw.
Diconnect mains and main +ve and main -ve rail measure 0 ohm to ground
for 10 or 20 seconds and then goes high impedance.
Tried at 10% mains and sometimes +ve rail would be at zero ohms for 20
seconds or so and sometimes -ve rail like that, on repeating this game.
Cannot see anything in the way of a crowbar SCR anywhere or relay and
circuit looks much as the A500 that is out there , including overlay
numberings.
There is conductive brown glue to the main caps but that measured 2 meg
or so minimum, with close DVM probes.
All output devices and my fudge cross-compare DVM-D cold fashion, fine
still.
When I say 0 ohms I do mean that , well 0.1 ohm or less resistance.
Unless anyone has an idea what is going, the next will be to remove my
fudge and power up again.
ephraim.becker@gmail.com: Oct 31 12:43PM -0700

After a period of non-use I pulled my Samsung ML-1610 back into service, and put in a new cartridge (since then I've put in yet another in the thoughts that the problem lies there) and fired her up.
 
When fully cold the printer prints out about half to two-thirds of the test page and then pauses. It then ejects the test page and proceeds to give short bursts of movement (gears turn about a half turn, fuser lights up for the same second or two) lather, rinse, repeat. I've let it run on this way for several minutes and the only variability that I notice is that the brief bursts vary in length from a second to a bit longer, otherwise it is just the same old while the OnLine/Error light flashes its error signal.
 
I've taken off the various covers and checked for stray paper on a sensor, blew some compressed air on anything that might resemble dust, but the problem persists. It feels as though the unit has 'lost its way' but I don't know how to help reset it.
 
Any thoughts will be most appreciated!
Best,
ED
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.