<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LED By the Nose</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:06:13 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Read</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5250</link>
		<dc:creator>David Read</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5250</guid>
		<description>Phil,
I stumbled across this thread after a Google search for &#039;problems with LED lighting&#039;. I see that these postings are over a year old but I&#039;m wondering if you or anyone reading this might be able to help me.
I bought a couple of those outrageously expensive LED indoor lights (PAR 30 floodlight). When I installed them, they immediately began to glow - a bit of a surprise since the switch was off. I thought I might have a faulty switch, so I tried another circuit - same thing. I started checking and it seems that, even though the switches are off, the circuits still carry a small amount of voltage (1v - 1.5v). My house is relatively new (8 years old). Was I the recipient of a bad batch of switches? Or is there something else going on here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phil,<br />
I stumbled across this thread after a Google search for &#8216;problems with LED lighting&#8217;. I see that these postings are over a year old but I&#8217;m wondering if you or anyone reading this might be able to help me.<br />
I bought a couple of those outrageously expensive LED indoor lights (PAR 30 floodlight). When I installed them, they immediately began to glow &#8211; a bit of a surprise since the switch was off. I thought I might have a faulty switch, so I tried another circuit &#8211; same thing. I started checking and it seems that, even though the switches are off, the circuits still carry a small amount of voltage (1v &#8211; 1.5v). My house is relatively new (8 years old). Was I the recipient of a bad batch of switches? Or is there something else going on here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Corey Geving</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5249</link>
		<dc:creator>Corey Geving</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5249</guid>
		<description>The other massive advantage of LED lighting is that their light spans a very narrow arc and is directional.  This would help reduce light pollution immensely, in that streetlights and floodlights built with modern white LED tech would focus much more of their light downward, where it is needed, and very little (only whatever gets reflected back from the ground) would be &quot;leaked&quot; back into space.  Which would make a lot of backyard astronomers very happy, since light pollution is the bane of their existence.  Moths and baby sea turtles would also be less likely to be confounded by it.  More light, better spectra, less energy, and better control over where the light goes.  And I&#039;m not even an LED salesman ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The other massive advantage of LED lighting is that their light spans a very narrow arc and is directional.  This would help reduce light pollution immensely, in that streetlights and floodlights built with modern white LED tech would focus much more of their light downward, where it is needed, and very little (only whatever gets reflected back from the ground) would be &#8220;leaked&#8221; back into space.  Which would make a lot of backyard astronomers very happy, since light pollution is the bane of their existence.  Moths and baby sea turtles would also be less likely to be confounded by it.  More light, better spectra, less energy, and better control over where the light goes.  And I&#8217;m not even an LED salesman &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Niehof</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5248</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Niehof</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5248</guid>
		<description>&lt;!-- spamk    : Comment text: &#039;Phil, you might want to try some full-spectrum CF&#039;s:
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm

They&#039;re a bit more expensive but pretty nice. They&#039;ll also still look a bit blue to you; incandescent lighting is very low-temperature compared to daylight.&#039; matched HTTP: --&gt;




Phil, you might want to try some full-spectrum CF&#039;s:
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm

They&#039;re a bit more expensive but pretty nice. They&#039;ll also still look a bit blue to you; incandescent lighting is very low-temperature compared to daylight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- spamk    : Comment text: 'Phil, you might want to try some full-spectrum CF's:<br />
<a href="http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm</p>
<p>They&#8217;re a bit more expensive but pretty nice. They&#8217;ll also still look a bit blue to you; incandescent lighting is very low-temperature compared to daylight.&#8217; matched HTTP: &#8211;></p>
<p>Phil, you might want to try some full-spectrum CF&#8217;s:<br />
<a href="http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/compact_fluorescent_32_ctg.htm</a></p>
<p>They&#8217;re a bit more expensive but pretty nice. They&#8217;ll also still look a bit blue to you; incandescent lighting is very low-temperature compared to daylight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Bad Astronomer</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5247</link>
		<dc:creator>The Bad Astronomer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5247</guid>
		<description>I use many CFs in the house. My only complaint is that the ones we bought give off a somewhat harsh white light. We&#039;re used to softer tones, I suppose, but if a CF is out there with bettercolor, I&#039;d like to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use many CFs in the house. My only complaint is that the ones we bought give off a somewhat harsh white light. We&#8217;re used to softer tones, I suppose, but if a CF is out there with bettercolor, I&#8217;d like to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LarrySDonald</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5246</link>
		<dc:creator>LarrySDonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5246</guid>
		<description>Really, it&#039;s entirely possible to make better incandescent  bulbs in terms of durabillity. Usually, they are simply drawn thread of wolfram (tungsten if you&#039;re all US) housed in an atmosphere of Argon to keep it from being oxidized. A theoretically perfect filament would be burning long after you&#039;d dirtnap and couldn&#039;t verify. Even very well made filaments would last much longer then the 750-1000 hours most are rated at (which is taking into account the high restistance and damage with the &quot;cold starts&quot; before reaching normal operating temperature). Optimizing this is mostly economics; as filaments get more refined the price difference is by no means linear. Making a filament that will burn 10% longer doesn&#039;t just cost 10% more but increases faster as percitions go up. Hence, you will hit a limit where it&#039;s cheaper to just make a fresh bulb to replace it rather then go through the trouble of making the first one last. This is further complicated by the market, plenty of people would cheerfully buy an 80 cent bulb that would burn out in less then half the time of a $1.60 or even $1 bulb. This is one of the zillions of paradoxes of humans in general and one of the banes of LEDs and CFs. You can, right now at your local walmart (or other convenience store), buy a CF rated at 20k+ hours for $6  or so, way less then 1/20th of a 1k hour bulb (a typical 1khour bulb should at that rate cost $6/20=30 cent. They&#039;re more then that). Yet, people mostly don&#039;t. If one were to go ahead and install CF tubes instead of regular lightbulb sockets, this would plunge the price/lux/hour even further even including the new equipment and considering the energy cost, well, you guessed it, even further still (hint: It&#039;s not a conincience that most corporations have all CFs in their buildings). It&#039;s really quite insane, most Cfs will break even vs bulbs in less than four months counting investment, lasting power and energy and that&#039;s even without counting the more human &quot;The ammount your wife will bug you to change it will be reduced by 95%&quot;. Do it man, get CFs and be a happier human.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really, it&#8217;s entirely possible to make better incandescent  bulbs in terms of durabillity. Usually, they are simply drawn thread of wolfram (tungsten if you&#8217;re all US) housed in an atmosphere of Argon to keep it from being oxidized. A theoretically perfect filament would be burning long after you&#8217;d dirtnap and couldn&#8217;t verify. Even very well made filaments would last much longer then the 750-1000 hours most are rated at (which is taking into account the high restistance and damage with the &#8220;cold starts&#8221; before reaching normal operating temperature). Optimizing this is mostly economics; as filaments get more refined the price difference is by no means linear. Making a filament that will burn 10% longer doesn&#8217;t just cost 10% more but increases faster as percitions go up. Hence, you will hit a limit where it&#8217;s cheaper to just make a fresh bulb to replace it rather then go through the trouble of making the first one last. This is further complicated by the market, plenty of people would cheerfully buy an 80 cent bulb that would burn out in less then half the time of a $1.60 or even $1 bulb. This is one of the zillions of paradoxes of humans in general and one of the banes of LEDs and CFs. You can, right now at your local walmart (or other convenience store), buy a CF rated at 20k+ hours for $6  or so, way less then 1/20th of a 1k hour bulb (a typical 1khour bulb should at that rate cost $6/20=30 cent. They&#8217;re more then that). Yet, people mostly don&#8217;t. If one were to go ahead and install CF tubes instead of regular lightbulb sockets, this would plunge the price/lux/hour even further even including the new equipment and considering the energy cost, well, you guessed it, even further still (hint: It&#8217;s not a conincience that most corporations have all CFs in their buildings). It&#8217;s really quite insane, most Cfs will break even vs bulbs in less than four months counting investment, lasting power and energy and that&#8217;s even without counting the more human &#8220;The ammount your wife will bug you to change it will be reduced by 95%&#8221;. Do it man, get CFs and be a happier human.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: um3k</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5245</link>
		<dc:creator>um3k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5245</guid>
		<description>Marek, you must take into consideration that LEDs have only been around since the 60&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marek, you must take into consideration that LEDs have only been around since the 60&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marek</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/comment-page-1/#comment-5216</link>
		<dc:creator>Marek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/06/21/led-by-the-nose/#comment-5216</guid>
		<description>LEDs might be great but the longest burning lightbulb in history is still a traditional one:

http://www.snopes.com/science/lightbulb.asp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LEDs might be great but the longest burning lightbulb in history is still a traditional one:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/science/lightbulb.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/science/lightbulb.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
