Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

LED lamps vs Fluorescent Lamps

Status
Not open for further replies.

eem2am

Banned
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,179
Helped
37
Reputation
74
Reaction score
24
Trophy points
1,318
Activity points
0
Hello,

I have been working on Domestic Mains White LED Lighting (for sale to the cheap-end, mass market) for a while.

I have been working at the 15W level as this is equivalent luminous output to a 60W incandescent.

However, there are multiple problems with LED lights here, and in fact fluorescents are far better when all is accounted for.

Fluorescent bulbs driven by a high-frequency electronic ballast have a significantly greater efficiency (110 Lumens per Watt) than LED Lamps (55 Lumens per Watt for affordable LEDs).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only significant disadvantages of Fluorescent Lamps, compared to LED Lamps is that…….

1) None of the fluorescent lamp components (ferrites, connectors, enclosure, ) can be re-cycled since the fluorescent lamp contains mercury.

2) Also, as stated, Fluorescent Lamps contain mercury and ploughing several hundred million used-up fluorescent bulbs into our landfill sites, year after year, may or may not cause a pollution problem.

-This shouldn’t be under-estimated as a potential fluorescent lamp show-stopper, since newly introduced RoHS regulations have banned mercury from any electronic devices, and here we are introducing billions of CFL’s, -each one containing ~4mg of Mercury, as a replacement for incandescent bulbs.
http://www.intertek.com/rohs/services/RoHS_product_certification/

3) In theory, fluorescent bulbs have other problems, such as dim cold-start, poor repeated on/off ability etc, but these can be quite cheaply mitigated with cheap additional circuitry.

4) The extrusion of a fluorescent lamp’s glass bulb is a high energy process, and so production energy usage is higher for Fluorescents Lamps than LED Lamps.
–LED Lamps still use up significant energy in manufacture, since the metal LED heatsink needs to be made. –however, this component is re-cycle-able.

4) IN THEORY, fluorescent lamps don’t last as long as LED lamps.
-However, the fact is that in truth the life-time of cheap LED Lamps and Cheap Fluorescent Lamps is actually determined by the life-time of the electrolytic capacitors that such cheap lamps end up needing to contain.
In other words. Cheap Fluorescent Lamps and Cheap LED lamps have the SAME life-expectancy. –The life-expectancy of their electrolytics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is point (4) that is the “deciding” factor that says that LED lamps just cannot compete with fluorescents…………
LED lamps have a greater need of electrolytics than fluorescent lamps.
Cheap LED lamps produce generally more ripple current in their electrolytics than cheap fluorescent lamps.

Take apart a 15W fluorescent CFL…..

You’ll see that it only needs one small electrolytic capacitor (A 3.3uF 400V Electrolytic with high ripple and temperature rating )

-This cap occurs after the mains diode bridge.
-It does NOT give good Voltage smoothing of the post diode bridge waveform, since this would just mean poorer power factor…..in fact, in UK, the DC Bus ripples from some 200 to 330V in a typical 15W CFL.

Now try and make a CHEAP mains LED Lamp with this small amount of electrolytic capacitance !

I guarantee that you will not manage.

It can be done, -but the solution becomes too expensive for the mass domestic lighting market. Even if you take away the (great) cost of the LEDs……..the electronics (SMPS) is more expensive for a cheap LED Lamp than a cheap fluorescent lamp.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain design constraints which must be imposed on a cheap 15W mains LED lamp…………..

a) Only 1 offline SMPS to be used (not two stages in cascade as its too expensive)
b) DC Bus voltage (post mains diode bridge) cannot be flat, it must have 100Hz voltage ripple on it of magnitude at least 100V (like in the CFL)

-This is because a flat DC Bus would mean too poor power factor, and even though 15W is below the statutory PFC level, there will be several 100 million of these lamps in each country, so an improved power factor is needed in reality.

c) Secondary must be isolated and must have a max voltage of no more than 42V. –Any more than 42V and it would be dangerous.

-Isolation on the secondary is essential, since the LEDs will have to be heatsink mounted, and parts of this heatsink will have to be exposed to free air on the outside of this cheap LED lamp, where human fingers can touch it.

…like the LED lamp heatsinks you can see here:-

**broken link removed**

d) LED current cannot be very rippley.
-If it is, then the average LED current will be down, and a further LED or two will have to be added to make up the power.
Since power LEDs are very expensive, adding another LED in to the lamp is just not an option.


The need to conform to the above constraints, as well as the fact that it must be cheap…………….points the designer to pretty much just ONE viable SMPS topology for a Cheap Mains LED Lamp…………….

That Topology is a Current-Mode, 1 Transistor Forward Converter with opto isolation.

Schematic of practical SMPS for cheap mains LED lamp:-

1ep1mr.jpg


-The current regulation, has to be done by a current sense resistor in the secondary rectifier loop, -put it any other place and you loose bandwidth and your LED current gets too rippley.

The current sense resistor voltage has to be put into a compensated op-amp error amplifier, whose other input is a reference voltage.
The output of this error amplifier feeds the opto-coupler diode. The opto-coupler transistor acts on the PWM comparator to control the main primary FET.

The use of a forward converter means you need less secondary electrolytic capacitance because of the secondary inductor.

-Even so, a fairly significant amount of electrolytic capacitance is still needed because of the need to de-rate it so that it lasts a long time, whilst it hangs up there on the ceiling, -the hottest place in the house –also alongside those hot power LEDs.

Try to use just a 3.3uF, 400V Electrolytic following the mains diode bridge (like in the 15W CFL) and you run into instant problems.
–your primary ripple current is way too much in such a forward converter……….

-You can’t solve this problem by derating the input capacitance, since then you end up with a too_poor conduction angle on the mains diode bridge diodes, and a poor power factor.

-Your only option is then to use a passive “Valley Fill” Power Factor Corrector, which ups your component count but does allow you to sufficiently derate the input capacitance.

-Unfortunately, the “snap-off” (every 10ms) of the centre diode in the “Valley Filler” suddenly breaks the current in the inductance (ESL) of the “Valley Fill” electrolytics and causes a voltage spike and a worsening of Common-Mode-Noise……which you have to mitigate by keeping the capacitor charge current down with a resistor in series with the “Valley Fill ” electrolytics….this makes your efficiency worse.

-----------------------------------------
-Sounds bad, but Flybacks (CCM or DCM) are even more hopeless in this situation.

Flybacks need much more secondary electrolytic capacitance than forwards, which has to be well derated to keep the life-time of the LED lamp relatively high….which means using even more electrolytic capacitance………..and thus the size and expense of the SMPS becomes impractical.
------------------------------------------

Another unfortunate point about Power LEDs, is that even though they can be made with an illumination angle of 180 degrees…….-that is, sufficient angle of illumination to light-up an entire room………………the luminous intensity cannot be made to be equal over every ste-radian……………..and the LED’s illumination intensity falls to
about half the axial intensity at an angle of some 60 degrees from the axis.

-eg see page 18 of this white power LED datasheet…

http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS60.pdf

This means that if your power LEDs point directly downwards from the ceiling, your room will not be evenly illuminated, and if you have just enough brightness in the axis, then it will be too dim on the periphery.

-You can get round this by having complicated, angled , mounting fixtures, but these will add significantly to the expense of the LED lamp.

-You can also get round this by having a diffuser, but then you need higher power LEDs to get the same luminous intensity, and your costs increase too much.
-----------------------------------------------

I believe the above shows that for the mass, domestic, white lighting market, Fluorescent Lamps are clear winners over LED lamps.

-----------------------------------------------

However, Professor Colin Humphreys, of Cambridge University, UK, claims to be able to provide us all with cheap White, GaN, Power LEDs of some 250+ Lumens Per Watt in about 2014.

-This would mean LED Lamps win over Fluorescents.
This kind of efficiency improvement would be too significant to ignore.

Until that hopeful day, Fluorescents come first…….At least for the Cheap, Mass Market, Domestic Mains White Lighting World.

Do readers know information to the contrary ?
 

led vs fluorescent efficiency

There are already rumblings afoot in the enviroterrorist community about mercury in Fluorescent lamps (the same group that is currently pushng them). You will see it boil over into the mainstream in the next few years followed by legislation outlawing their manufacture/sale, followd by draconian legislation controlling their removal/disposal. Read up on the history of asbestos in the USA if you want to see the future of fluorescent lamps. There are some lawyers and some cleanup specialists that will get VERY rich in a decade from what you are producing today!

To answer your question about LED vs fluorescent, you are looking at all the wrong things. What will dictate the direction in the long term is hysteria and special interest groups, not the solid engineering analysis that you are using.
 

High Pressure Sodium has more efficacy than normal fluroscent. But a comperative study is found here.
https://sites.google.com/site/kalyanprodhan2/LEDvsHPS.pdf
with pictures here.
https://sites.google.com/site/kalyanprodhan2/ledprojectsatbesu

I Think the main problem in Cheap LED Lamp is it's Controller. Wait a few year, and you can get complete LED Lamp in a half doller. China is master piece in that ballast catagory, as I see 23 watt CFL (Lamp+Ballast) 2 nos in a doller. Think over the ballast cost, marketting overhead, Transportation overhead. I Think, Transistorised LED SMPSs are far superior than IC Based when compaired from the point of reliability and Device reliability/Operation Cycle.

Compare A Good Fluroscent Lamp Ballast assembly with good LED+Controller assembly only.


Another input, Supercapacitors in the market and very soon can help in simplest circuitory.

3rd input, 1watt Power LED costs Rs70 without heatsink and 0.25watt 8mm LED costs Ra6 in Kolkata and does not require Heatsink (Its widened TAB works fine.)
 

Has anyone every looked at the reality behind the claimed "power savings" that results from replacing incandescents with CFLs? To my surprise during the calibration of the pf measurement box I found that CFLs do not have power factor correction!

While measuring the power factor of a common 15W CFL that we bought new at the "home ____ store" I measured .5269 PF with a real power of 15.062 W. Remember that incandescents have perfect power factor .99999. To calculate the actual power being delivered by the power company for CFLs:

Actual_Power_CFL = Power_Real/PF:
= 15.062W/.5269;
= 28.58 Watts

15W CFL is supposed to equal a 60W incandescent.

So carbon foot print might be improved by ~50% but at a cost of additional losses in the power lines due to the combined high peak current losses resulting from gillions of these things being installed... hmmm while writing that last sentence I suddenly realized that if you wanted to be forced to replace all of the power lines in the country with new more efficient power lines then you would deploy a strategy like mandating the use of low power factor lights. I can't believe that anyone would do that so maybe it was just an oversight.

LEDs surely will have some sort of power factor correction... right?

**broken link removed**
 

    V

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
There are power level government regulation on requirement for power factor correction. It varies by country but generally less then 75 watts don't need PFC.

I agree that fluorescent bulbs beat LED in present total system lumens per watt. The off-on cycles are the 'secret' degradation to CFL lifetime. I don't agree with absolute requirement on inclusion of electrolytic caps on LED drivers, especially if power factor correction is not required.

The power company probably would actually be happy with some capacitive reactance load as there is plenty of inductive loads out there that more then swamp out the minor capacitive that loading LED lights presents. You don't want the short period peak currents found in present CFL's. LED capacitive ballast can have near sinewave current loading, be it capacitive.
 

Re: led vs fluorescent efficiency

Comparing mercury in CFLs to asbestos is completely absurd though. I've never seen any evidence that the risk of CFLs is even close to the hazards from asbestos. It's possible that people will still panic and push against CFLs, but unless it's suddenly discovered that they're much more dangerous than presently thought, I highly doubt it. But 20pilot is still right that the outcome won't have to do with engineering analysis. It will be determined by cost and convenience by consumers.

And I don't think solid state lighting will become common in household lights for at least a decade. People aren't going to want to replace all their sockets, or rewire their houses to carry DC or something. And there's no way it's going to be cost efficient to cram converters into each LED lamp and ballast. Lighting in businesses is another story though, and I've seen many stores switch to LEDs for display lighting.
 

Since LED neon-like tubes have started to be popular, I designed a special power supply for the standard lengths like 60cm and 120cm.

Its main advantages:

(1) It could cost (in China if mass produced) about a half US dollar.
(2) Its efficiency is comparable to those of the costly supplies.
(3) Its regulation keeps the LEDs within their nominal limits.
(3) It could be guaranteed to work properly for 5 years in the least.
(4) Its Power Factor is practically close to 1.
(5) It has a very low EMF emissions.

But unfortunately, it has 2 serious drawbacks:

It can be imitated easily.
It could be made to work in Europe or USA only but not both.

Kerim
 

Actual_Power_CFL = Power_Real/PF:
= 15.062W/.5269;
= 28.58 Watts

15W CFL is supposed to equal a 60W incandescent.

So carbon foot print might be improved by ~50% but at a cost of additional losses in the power lines due to the combined high peak current losses resulting from gillions of these things being installed...
Sort of a nitpick, but 50% is a pretty big exagerration. Your CFL will really require 25% as much power. Yes the poorer power factor will cause transmission losses to be higher (they will about double), but that shouldn't have a big impact on overall efficiency, unless the transmission lines are extraordinarily long. So I'd imagine the total source power needed would decline by around 70%. And when increased transmission losses become an issue, people are trying to develop distributed generation and conditioning systems to mitigate that.
 

among halogen light bulbs, cfl light bulbs, our LED light bulbs are more energy efficient. the save about 50 % of power bills over others plus got higher ratings light than others. so LED is the future...!!!!
 

3rd input, 1watt Power LED costs Rs70 without heatsink and 0.25watt 8mm LED costs Ra6 in Kolkata and does not require Heatsink (Its widened TAB works fine.)


i Delhi market i was found , 1 watt Power LED costs INR 27 without heat sink & Heat sink & INR 4.5 ...
 

Thank you for a very enlightening discussion. I was dismayed to read the comments regarding efficiency of CFLs vs LEDs (110 l/w vs 55 l/w) and the capacitor lifetime issue, which may reduce LED lifetime to the same range as CFL. Perhaps with time these problems with LEDs can be reduced, but CFLs do seem to be a better answer for now. However, we must somehow eliminate the use of mercury in them! What is is used for, and are there alternatives?

My immediate problem: I would like a battery backed-up lighting system, since I live in the rural Philippines and there are frequent outages, due to maintenance and lightening strikes. Outages last from minutes to days and are unpredictable. Ironically we use rechargeable LED flashlights during these "brownouts" as they are called. I have been assuming LEDs were the perfect solution, with a parallel lighting system running on say 12-24V battery power like boats and RVs have. But perhaps due to efficiency the CFLs would be better, with an auxiliary 240v supply driven simply by batteries or a generator for longer outages. What are your thoughts?
 

i Delhi market i was found , 1 watt Power LED costs INR 27 without heat sink & Heat sink & INR 4.5 ...
Can you kindly post the name of the shop who sold you the 1watter @ 27Rs? I would like to be his customer too. Seriously...i am not joking..
Cheers
 

Can you kindly post the name of the shop who sold you the 1watter @ 27Rs? I would like to be his customer too. Seriously...i am not joking..
Cheers
its cheep rate ?
are u joking with me? , as before u do with me .
 

Re: led vs fluorescent efficiency

Profoundly correct....





There are already rumblings afoot in the enviroterrorist community about mercury in Fluorescent lamps (the same group that is currently pushng them). You will see it boil over into the mainstream in the next few years followed by legislation outlawing their manufacture/sale, followd by draconian legislation controlling their removal/disposal. Read up on the history of asbestos in the USA if you want to see the future of fluorescent lamps. There are some lawyers and some cleanup specialists that will get VERY rich in a decade from what you are producing today!

To answer your question about LED vs fluorescent, you are looking at all the wrong things. What will dictate the direction in the long term is hysteria and special interest groups, not the solid engineering analysis that you are using.


---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

solid state rectifiers/ regulators are insanely cheap now.... also, never underestimate the religious fervor of the environmentalists
 

its cheep rate ? are u joking with me? , as before u do with me .
No Sahu ji..I am seriously asking the address where you get it. Coz what you got is a very cheap rate. I found it up to 38/-
 

no sahu ji..i am seriously asking the address where you get it. Coz what you got is a very cheap rate. I found it up to 38/-

S.L.COMPONENTS
286,Old Lajpat Rai Market
Delhi - 110006
Ph.:2390-2170

E.M.B. ELECTRONICS
379,Old Lajpat Rai Market
Delhi - 110006
Cell.:9811617432
 
One thing to add about CFL, that CFL loose lumens with aging. Declared lumens are for new CFL, after year two three, lumens can be decreased up to 30%. One of bad factors which make this process faster is heat.

I have one ecological question :

CFL contains mercury!!!! Why this products still in shops ?

This is not huge amount of mercury but if several bulbs are broken this can be dangerous.


Today we know this that CFL emits cancerous gases in room where is used:

“Climate Saving” CFLs Now Found To Emit Deadly Cancer-Causing Vapours
http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/17/...-found-to-emit-deadly-cancer-causing-vapours/

http://www.examiner.com/holistic-sc...t-bulbs-cfls-serious-dangers-and-alternatives

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198



I speak for world best manufacturer CFL bulbs not for Asia CFL, for that use multiplier of 10.
 
Last edited:

LED lighting can last upwards of 60,000 hours before needing to be replaced. Fluorescent lighting, particularly CFL bulbs, can last around 10,000 hours before needing to be replaced.

LED lamps generate less heat than CFLs.

LED light bulbs use about half the wattage of fluorescent lighting, about 6 watts of power versus 14 watts of power for a CFL light bulb.


Low voltage track lighting
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top