Philips Master LED light bulb set for US release in July
By Nilay Patel 
posted Mar 9th 2009 9:03PM
posted Mar 9th 2009 9:03PM
[Via Core77]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
If it spits out pure white light, I'll take it. If not, I'll be sticking with my incandescents.
Stealing lightbulbs =P
For $50-70, I'll wait for the dozens of Chinese brands selling them for $2
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.2849
here you go
OOS btw.
For home use I think most people prefer the warmth of incandescents (color temp, not actual temp). Pure white with optional gels would be pretty cool, though.
This thing looks incredibly over-engineered.
I think I speak for everyone in the world when I say "Finally!"
RoboDan,
Chances are, Phillips will be making them in China.
It better be "pure light".
Basically....
70 dollar lightbulb is 70 dollars.
I assume you haven't seen the cool white CFLs which is pretty close to pure white?
If you run the math assuming a standard bulb costs about a buck the LEDs cost about the same per hour and assuming you can get CFL's for about $3 there by far the best bargain for the money. I am not sure how they expect people to pay that much money.
LEDs use FAR less electricity.
Source: http://www.mrbeams.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=2 (The first result in google)
LEDs use far less electricity, turn on instantly, are dimmable, can project any color shade, last many times longer, don't project UV rays, and don't contain mercury.
They are superior in every way. In a few years the price will come down enough that people will stop buying Compact fluorecents and stop missing incandescents.
These are clearly not superior in every way when I need three of them to give the same light as one of the incandescents I use now.
yes they use less energy and stuff, but matt's saying at this price it's not worth it over cfl's.
The fins are a heat sink. LCDs generate most of their heat at the base.
@Darren:
LEDs do dim, but most LED bulbs do not. I reckon this has to do with the many low-powered LEDs in a bulb requiring a in-bulb transformer in order to not totally zap the LEDs. You can't feed 230V AC straight into LEDs (not if you don't happen to have like 64 of them, each at 3.6V).
http://www.lck-led.com/p435/Aluminum-E27-5-x-1W-Power-LEDs-Bulbs/product_info.html
There, go buy one for $30 and decide if you like it better than the Phillips one.
Oh, and these DO dim.
The reason CFLs are cheap is because they're subsidized.
LEDs use less electricity than incandescents sure - but last I heard they were still less efficient than CFLs.
Anyhow, CFLs are absolutely fine most places (get a 'warm' one if you want them to look like incandescents, or a 'daylight' one if you want bright white)... but there are two cases where you might really want LED-based lighting:
1) you turn the light on and off very frequently (this reduces the lifespan of CFLs) eg bathroom light
2) you really insist on a dimmer switch
I'd be in the market for one (just one) LED bulb. $70? Sure, fine. 40W equiv? Not good enough.
So, nice to see the product and all, but let's hope the technology keeps improving.
eh, it may not be hideous but it still looks like a jet turbine. not that that matters when its sitting in a highhat. or is it not intended for that?
It's a jet-powered lightbulb! Now *that's* high-tech!
I am going to use 12 to backlight-mod my lcd monitor....
incandescents mostly have a warm color to it..not pure white..
This is great though! They need to push for more advances in LED tech
is it the 20's again?
Seriously why do these things burn out, don't LED's kind of last like forever? (o yea cause you can't make money like that) I know they start to dim after a long time but what the hell would make these things burn out; they don't have filaments like a normal light bulb that breaks after so long.
It's not that simple and you should do some research before making a blanket statement like that. High output LEDs run at very high temperatures which degrade the silicon substrate over time. That is why there is a huge heat sink on the bulb. High output LEDs do dim over time and eventually burn out due to the heat.
Not silicon. White LEDs are manufactured on wide bandgap semiconductors such as InGaN alloys. The ultraviolet radiation produced by these LEDs is converted to light in the longer wavelength region of the visible spectrum by a phosphor.
And the InGaN is grown on man-made Sapphire wafers.
Amen, I paid almost a $100.00 bucks for one of these
http://www.enluxled.com/products/
because I thought it was cool.
It lasted about 2000 hours before it quit.
With these things, generally the power electronics is the weak link. The LEDs themselves will keep putting out light for 50K hours. However, light output declines over that lifetime, as LEDs are generally specified for a junction temperature of 20C and it's nearly impossible to achieve that in practice without active cooling. In addition, the phosphor that converts the UV light starts wearing out. That said, I would be much more inclined to buy LED lights from Philips or Cree versus the Chinese made ones, because they have no doubt taken lifetime issues into account. If 50K hours is really achievable, then total cost of ownership favors LEDs over incandescent bulbs, since 40W * 50K hours * 10 cents per KWh is something like $200 when the LED bulb will have used about $50 in electricity. Even if the incandescent bulbs were free, they still would be more expensive!
It depends. Used as indicators, LEDs will generally last a very long time, several hundred thousand hours, but they do deteriorate over time, becoming gradually dimmer. White LEDs are made by applying a red-orange broadband emitting phosphor over a blue emitting chip to create something resembling white light, unfortunately phosphors deteriorate with use, causing the output to dim further and shift towards blue. Higher power LEDs for general illumination are much more highly stressed than those used for indicators, and in these applications they tend to be pushed to the ragged edge in order to compete with other light sources in luminous efficacy. On top of that, they are susceptible to damage from electrical spikes, particularly blue emitters, if you look under a magnifier of a damaged LED you will see dark areas in the emitter. In order to keep the cost within the realm of affordability, the power supplies are very simple (cheap) consisting often of strings of LEDs in series with a capacitor to limit current and little or nothing in the way of protection to clean up the power and block spikes and surges from damaging the LEDs.
In a nutshell, no, they don't last forever, and while it is not very exciting, it has nothing to do with conspiracy to get people to buy more. My concern is quite the opposite, the current crop of mains powered LED products often fall so short of claimed lifespan and offer such lackluster performance that people will get turned off to the whole concept and will be unreceptive even down the road when the technology improves sufficiently which I believe it will.
The problem is that while it may be cheaper over it's full lifespan versus an incandescent bulb, the high cost for the bulb itself makes stuff like a defective bulb that burns out early a huge hit. Nobody cares if their 25 cent light bulb burns out early, but if your $70 bulb dies early (say, after only a year) you're out $70.
And while regular bulbs might cost quite a bit of money over their lifetime, sparingly used bulbs can last years and years before that lifetime is up. With a lower up-front cost you have more money to buy other stuff with in the interim, or put it in a bank account to earn interest or something.
Installing these in places where the bulbs are going to be on for a lot of hours each day makes sense, but I have a hard time believing that regular people will put these bulbs everywhere at this price. Especially since the up-front costs would run into the thousands if you wanted to replace every lightbulb in your house at once. And who cares if your closet light bulb lasts 45000 hours or not?
Holy crap that's expensive considering LEDs where quite a bit less than a buck each last I checked...
I'm sure the prices will come down as these become commonplace. So any bets as to how long it will be before low-voltage DC outlets are common in the home?
I've been saying for years that we need a standard for a 12v DC outlet for the home. Most home electronics run on 12v or less DC internally. Adding solid state DC lighting to the common uses of direct current makes having a dedicated source for it all the more attractive.
@Acceptable Risk
I wholeheartedly agree. And probably so do the guys who call the shots.
BUT, just imagine the confusion. Take the DTV transition confusing and multiply that by 100,000.
DC killed people all the time in NYC when electricity first hit the scene. That's how we ended up with AC in the first place.
It isn't the voltage that will kill you. It's the current.
hehe same here Acceptable Risk, I remember playing with LEDs as a kid and wondering why we didn't have 5V outlets. A quarter century later we still don't have them :P
@Erb
It couldn't be too confusing if they made some kind of hybrid outlet that both 110AC and 12V devices could plug into. Or even intelligent sockets that switch power type based on the device plugged in.
@keane
Hmm, I believe the reason AC won back then was there was no legitimate way of distributing DC current over long distances. DC is actually a much safer form of current than AC. You are right about current killing you of course. Technology has changed significantly (duh) in the last 90 years and DC is now a far more viable alternative. However, retrofitting houses and buildings to use it would be largely prohibitively expensive, to say nothing of the changes needed in distribution systems.
Graham, those are not the "less-than-a-buck" LEDs you know..... Those are special high-power LEDs that cost waaaaay more (and need heatsinking)
It's AC which is more deadly:
Edison carried out a campaign to discourage the use of alternating current, including spreading information on fatal AC accidents, publicly killing animals, and lobbying against the use of AC in state legislatures. Edison directed his technicians, primarily Arthur Kennelly and Harold P. Brown, to preside over several AC-driven executions of animals, primarily stray cats and dogs but also unwanted cattle and horses. Acting on these directives, they were to demonstrate to the press that alternating current was more dangerous than Edison's system of direct current. Edison's series of animal executions peaked with the filmed electrocution of Topsy, a Coney Island circus elephant. He also tried to popularize the term for being electrocuted as being "Westinghoused".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents#Edison.27s_publicity_campaign
AC won the "War of Currents" because it was easier to distribute long distances.
Having a standardized DC circuit in houses would be a great idea (especially for lighting circuits).
There's a bit of a difference between a Radio Shack LED that can maybe light up the palm of your hand, and an LED that can light up a room :p
I won't jump on any new bulb till they make brighter bulbs and get a lot cheaper.
Please, dont!
I have some nice, old lightbulbs right here that you can jump on. Even some CFL, if bulbs can't satisfy you.
The price will come down, CFLs where very expensive when they first came out forever ago, so everyone calm down. LED's have tons of benefits over CFLs, instant full brightness when turned on (CFLs take a few minutes), lower power, longer life, no flicker, and much better dimming capabilities.
While original CFL prices if you adjust for inflation to today, was around (but still lower) than this LED alternative, it had the advantage of consuming about 1/4 of the power so they would pay for themselves over time w/ lower energy bill based on the only alternative at the time which was incandescent bulbs.
You can get CFLs today that produce 40W worth of light that consume 7W of power. So the low power alternative exists. The life is ~4x as long, but the cost is ~12-20x so the only thing you get is the ability to set a color. Sorry, but this is not going to get the market focus at this price delta when there's a very good alternative on the table. I've been using CFL's since the 80's and my father still has some of the original bulbs we installed in his bathroom back in 1987. The blink a couple times and and hum a bit, but they did pay for themselves between a combination of reduced power consumption and 22yrs of not replacing a bulb (If I recall correctly he spent $12 per bulb - equivalent lume ones today cost about $3 per bulb and are even more efficient.) At 2hrs/day for 22yrs and these being 40W lume w/ 10W consumption at $0.10/KW average over that period of time. That's ~$150 savings (and yes that's 16Khrs and still going)
TAZ427
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led#Life_time_and_failure
With the the development of high power LEDs the devices are subjected to higher junction temperatures and higher current densities than traditional devices. This causes stress on the material and may cause early light output degradation. To quantitatively classify lifetime in a standardized manner it has been suggested to use the terms L75 and L50 which is the time it will take a given LED to reach 75% and 50% light output respectively.
Nice thing about these is that they will work with a dimmer switch. CFLs will not.
OH WOZ YOU ARE TEARING IT UP OUT THERE!!!
Do i get a tax rebate?
just bought 2 in prague , cz this friday. they run 1000 crowns here which equals to $50. Very soft while light. they get pretty hot , and di thought led's are supposed to get hot at all.
First...
These are much better for the environment than CFLs, since CFLs have mercury in them, which is technically hazardous waste. Therefore, I have never bought a CFL, and WILL NEVER buy a CFL.
Second...
A bulb costs twice as much, but lasts 4 times as long, and you won't buy it... WTF? It uses 1/10th the power of the CFL, and costs twice as much, and you won't buy it... WTF? I will be retrofitting my house as soon as I can, and am actually looking at the CCrane company which has similar bulbs for a little less in price.
TEG
I think its because most people would spend 12 bucks for 4 CFL''s than 50 bucks for 1 Master LED
The amount of mercury put in landfills by CFL bulbs is significantly less than your local coal power plant will emit to produce the bulbs over a bulb's lifetime. Just buy the damn bulbs and enjoy your lower power bill.
"WTF? It uses 1/10th the power of the CFL, and costs twice as much, and you won't buy it... "
Who told you that? This uses 7 watts... It produces far, far less light than a 70 watt CFL... Heck, far less light than a 70 watt incandescent.
Carefull what you say -- The CFL equivelant uses 8 watts. Not a huge savings. Not 10 times.
Plus -- at 45,000 hours, the light output will be seriously reduced (that's what happens to LED). How long would you be willing to live with the output equivelant of a 25-30 watt bulb?
LED is not ready for prime time. Don't buy into the hype.
I'm not spending $50 for a damn light bulb.
I bet it doesn't even play MP3s.
Are those... heatfins? Coming out of a heatsink? On a lightbulb?
Heh.
I am waiting for the LED light bulb that is a 60W or higher equivalent
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/150-led-bulb-uses-9w-costs-65/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/earthled-evolux-r-led-light-bulb-lets-you-choose-your-lumens/
...well then I am waiting for a cheap 60-100W LED bulb
A math lesson
For CFLs 7500 hours = 2000 hours real world. Any CFL that does manage to last 7500 hours will be a half brightness or less, flickering, buzzing, or smoking.
LEDs? 45K hours = 15K hours?
Where did you take Math?
In the real world, apparently.
I've been disappointed by name brand (GE) CFLs that didn't hold up well over time. As in, it lasted maybe a year. As in, it was easily outlasted by regular bulbs that cost a tenth as much, and didn't require special disposal.
As an aside, when your CFLs crap out early, you can drop them off at Home Depot, which has a recycling bin for them by the entrance to the store.
I have quite a few CFLs last beyond the rated lifespan, which is defined as the point at which 50% of an arbitrary number of samples survive or light output drops to 60% of initial. The key is that they're used in dusk till dawn applications where they are started once per day and run for hours before shutoff. They are also mostly in exterior fixtures where the temperature is relatively low. I've had a few decent name brand CFLs last a very long time in the house, some that I bought nearly 10 years ago when prices first became reasonable are still operating.
That said, I have had quite a few that didn't make the grade and failed early. I've repaired some of them as well, not that it makes economic sense to do so, but it's kinda fun. Cracked solder joints are common, as well as most designs have a mylar capacitor which is wired between the two cathodes on the tube to allow preheating of the cathodes prior to ignition, usually it's around 2.2nF and when it shorts, the lamp won't start.
How many LEDs are in this anyway?
It looks very nice, but my electrical system is too iffy for a $60 lightbulb.
Halogen gives a true white light. LED is traditionally very blue. Regardless of the power savings I still can't understand how so many people have CFL's in their house. Orange skin and yellow teeth. The colour cast is absolutely horrific. Halogen is the only way to reveal true colour which is why every jewelry store, art gallery, and fine car dealership use them to wow. Look at a swarovski display with the tiny halogen lights they use in them. They make everything look amazing.
GE makes very nice full spectrum (daylight) CFLs. You should try them out.
Not a true white, though they are closer to white relative to standard incandescent bulbs. I surely prefer halogens to any other type. I'm glad they were not outlawed by our government.
Pure white light would look pretty harsh to our eyes.
Halogen is about 3000K color temperature, still much warmer than 5000-6500K daylight.
CRI of halogen (which is also incandescent) is 100 though, as standard incandescent and sunlight. Incandescent is the only artificial source I know of that can reach the perfect 100 CRI, which accounts for things looking nice under it, but some sources come close. If you look in a lot of higher end retail stores these days you'll see ceramic metal halide starting to really catch on. It's available in 3000K and 4100K color temp, looking slightly pinkish or slightly bluish respectively, with CRI in the high 80s for 3000K and low-mid 90s for 4100K. Philips has data for their Mastercolor line, and GE has the very similar ConstantColor.
Better quality CFLs with CRI in the mid to high 80s look pretty good, I certainly find them to be acceptable in my home. It's pretty hard for them to exceed 80s though, the fluorogermanate phosphor used to get a true saturated red can't take the beating it would get in high power density (compact) fluorescent lamps. Linear lamps up into the 90s can be had though, Chroma 50 is a nice 5000K 90+ CRI fluorescent, the efficiency is lower, but still much better than incandescent.
*reads fine print* Guess what? It says here that you pay $40 less if you buy it without the LEDs!
Finally an LED light bulb that can be used in an Easy-bake oven.
50-70 bucks for a light bulb! F*ck that. I think Philips forgot the world is in a recession...either that or their smokin their crack and snortin their weed.
Consider that you will probably save $60-120 a year in electrical costs, you should be saying it's a bargain!
Also consider that this bulb lasts for 45,000 hours compared to an incandesent which lasts 750. At $1 each, if you bought 50 incandecsent bulbs to match the life of one LED, it would immidieatly pay for it's self. Which brings me to the second point, since this bulb is something you will probably buy just once per lifetime, it's easy to see why they may charge more for it: To stay in business and not go out like those bulb makers in 1900 who made bulbs that still burn to this day. There is a firehouse in Chicago that has a bulb that has burned continuously for more than 100+ years and the company that made the bulb went out of business about 90 years ago.
How much more energy and material does it take to manufacture this thing? Is the overall environmental impact that much less than the alternatives?
And seriously -- 40W equivalent? Either I populate my entire room with these things at enormous cost, or go blind trying to actually live -- much less read or work -- in that sort of light. Not to mention that 'white' LED light is actually a very harsh, narrow-band, gouge-your-eyeballs-out bluish color.
the first sec i saw this, i thought this is gonna be portable with rechargeable batteries or sth...
the last wally world i was in in Boone, NC had tons of LED bulbs, in 1.5w, 3w, 4w, and 5w varieties.
The initial cost of 60 regular light bulbs are still cheaper than the Phillips Mater LED. Then again, we are not talking about the material cost but the electricity bill over 45,000 hrs.
Earth LED sells similar bulbs that are available now: http://www.earthled.com/
The design of this bulb is really sexy, but price... 70USD for a lamp?!
http://technewsjapan.com
Light bulbs are a scam!
Behold, the enabler of interruptible power supplies for entire houses.
uninterruptible*
..heh, tricky firefox spellcheck.
ah ha! your weakness has been shown, i will wreak havoc while interrupting your power supplies with idle conversation.
Lots of question unanswered.
Could Engadget Provide a table comparing.
Power LED brightness Vs CFL
Power Vs CFL
asking engadget for useful specs? you must be new here.
I think Mr. Philips should go in the Garage and Gas Himself. :P
At least give him an A for effort in trying to bring a nicely designed product to market.
The life on these things is questionable. Unlike an incandescent bulb, LEDs grow dimmer over time rather than just blowing out.
Sure, I think that we would all love a bulb that uses far less energy...especially one that does so by not dissipating as much heat in the summer...but I for one am holding out until there is an alternative that provides a rich spectrum of light in a wide frequency range. i.e., a "warm" light. CFLs give off a narrow range of light that I dislike...and their won't be one in my home until that problem is worked...and I doubt this LED-based bulb is it.
WOW 50+ for one.... Since when did LED's become so expensive. I used to buy them in bulk for 30 bucks per 100 or so Hipowers. Now you engineer it to cost 50 for a few. They are only dimmable on a dimable variable resistance AC circuit. so they may not dim at all. i have LEDs now and they are not dimmable For 50 big ones they better light up the radius of the equivalent bulb. Otherwise its a waste. And judging by how they worded it on one page "Downward Facing" means they are more like spot lights. Oh well I will wait and see.
LEDs aren't that expensive now. Phillips is trying to mark 'em up according to expected lifespan. And maybe they have a color edge.
If they did some R&D to invent a proper spectrum LED for indoor lighting, I can see 'em working hard to recoup their investments, sell the units as premium bulbs and charge a lot for them.
Right now, LED clusters in an Edison connector costs around 5 bucks each.
Halogen is not white light - it is just more white than incandescent light. Actually, ugly CFLs are closer to white light (with a greenish tint), that is why they make things look harsh. The sun changes color temperature all day traveling thru the sky. Bright noon daylight also makes everything look harsh. Finally, light bulb manufacturers are learning that people care what their lightbulbs look like in their house and are starting to include the color temperature on bulbs! Learn your kelvin temperatures! Most light bulbs (including LEDs and CFLs) may come in different temperatures!
1700k match flame (yellow)
1850k candle (soft yellow)
2800k incandescent (yellowish)
3000k LED warm (nice white - not too harsh)
3400k studio lamps, halogen ("pretty light" - ideal balance between yellow and white)
5000k normal daylight (pretty white with tinge of blue)
6500k bright daylight (very white with blue, no yellow - harsh)
6500k LED cool (anything advertised as bright white - usually not considered "pretty light")
9300k analog TV screen
Wow, debating color temperature? Shouldn't you all be worried about, uh, the actual brightness of these bulbs? Which by the way is terrible - topping out at 250 Lumens.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/global/image_global/masterled/image_table_popup700.jpg
When they make decent floodlights like that, I'll replace all 108 of mine.
CFLs take forever to warm up, don't they? Or am I thinking of a different bulb...anyway, if these are instantly bright, they'd be much nicer.
So, am I the only one who actually likes the slightly-cool white light that high-power LEDs give off?
I ditched my old "normal bulbs" system a while ago, and installed LEDs in a couple rooms.. It's really nice. I just LOVE how everything looks cleaner than it really is (hehe :-P), and when you get used to it, it ends up the other way around: The yellowish tone of warm CFLs and incandescents is annoying
I used Cree XR-E Q5-WDs (very slightly bluish) and Q5-WGs (very slightly greenish).... Those do slightly more than 100lm/W. With good heatsinking and high-precision current regulators they do last more than 50k hours
And by the way, this despite being rated as a 40W equivalent, it's enough to read and all... Have in mind that incandescents send light to the ceiling too, and that never reaches the places where you actually use it. LEDs are directional, yes it's equivalent to 40W, but those 40W are where you need them, not in the ceiling.
You're referring to the color temperature. Most white LEDs are in the 6500K-10,000K range, which is quite blue, and they shift further towards blue as the phosphor ages. In contrast a conventional incandescent lamp is about 2700K. Triphosphor fluorescent lamps are commonly available in 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4100K, 6500K, and there are a few oddballs in between the latter two. If you want cool bluish light from a fluorescent, look for 6500K lamps, often called "daylight", I use them in a few places where the light is nice.
The other thing you want to look at is CRI, the color rendering index. Incandescent and sunlight are 100, old halophosphate fluorescents are in the 50-60 range, accounting for the dull look things tend to take on under them. Triphosphor lamps are mostly in the 70s and 80s, with most CFLs being in the latter region. You can get special fluorescent lamps with CRI in the 90s, they are less efficient, but colors look fantastic under them.
But will it dim?
"just slightly more than a CFL's 10,000 or a standard bulb's 750 hours"
Uhm.. Then why do I have to replace CFL's much more than my standard bulbs.. As long as the prices of the LED's are waay to high, and regular bulb's are still being sold, I'll by the regulars.. 750 Hours? don't know what kind of junk they buy but mine (which mostly are philips btw) are holding it together for much MUCH more than that...
And look at the bottom of the LEDbulb, it's a big Coolingfin, so the LED's run very hot...
In a best-case-scenario for both the incandescent and Master LED light bulb, the Master LED will work for 60 times as long.
However, a generic 40-watt incandescent light bulb costs roughly 25 cents whereas the Master LED costs, best-case-scenario, 50 dollars.
So, after 45,000 hours, you spend
- $15 for 60 incandescent bulbs
- $50 for 1 Master LED
Also keep in mind:
- LEDs fade in brightness over their life - incandescents burn at the same intensity
And what you really need to ask yourself:
- How many light bulbs do you REALLY replace in one year to justify a huge up-front cost.
You could try to argue the "energy savings over time" but you need to factor in the time-cost of money. Your bulb may still be running in 10 years but the $50 you spend now will be worth more in the future.
This is just another product to feed into the "green" fallacy so that people can spend money to feel good about themselves.
Do yourself a favor: start stock-piling incandescent lights while they're cheap. Once the idiots in Washington outlaw the manufacture of more bulbs these babies will be worth millions.
As good as this thing looks, Philips should really bundle it with a lamp that will complement it. Something without the conventional shade, which this doesn't need.
Plus, $60-80 for a slick lamp with a superbulb is a lot easier to accept than $50-70 for the bulb alone.