I now know which category the electrician who installed our LED down lights fits into. All the down lights have had the 3pin plugs cut off and are BP connected in loose junction boxes instead of batten sockets!
That will mean a call out to change a light bulb. For other comments in this thread it may be a more common occurrence than we think.
Many of us will not find this out until years after the work was first done. Is there any consumer recourse or way that Choice might be able to influence the industry practice?
State Govt regulators and Standards Australia both have the ability to stipulate electrical work practice. That might be a hard long road as the suppliers and trades have representation on the key advisory panels or committees. The State Consumer Authorities may be able to short circuit this process and jolt it into action.
The poor work practice is something the average consumer would not be expected to be aware of, observe or recognise.
A secondary consideration is the method of installation and retention of LED downlights. These typically come as a one piece unit which once in place generally requires access into the roof space to release the securing spring clips. Again not a job for the faint hearted, unfit or where the access is not safe.
While Choice sensibly will not test LED lighting due to the cost, it would still seem appropriate to have a guide to LED lighting, and related issues that may come to our attention. There may still be an issue with product reliability. We have had two failures from 6 bulbs within the first 30 months of use (less than 3,000hrs). Notably the brand is no longer sold, however the same supplier is reportedly marketing a similar product from the same manufacturer under a different brand. Perhaps it is worth a product reliability survey that looks at LED lighting products for brand reliability and consumer warranty issues if funding and interest is sufficient? šµš¾āāļø
The bulb on the right is approx 18 months old. It came in a Phillips branded blister 3 pack from Bunnings. It is described on the printed packaging as an 8w, 806lm, 6500K cool daylight globe equivalent to 60W.
The bulb on the left is a very recent replacement purchased from Woolies. I looked on line to find a bulb the same as the prior purchase and chose to avoid a long trip into town for a single light bulb. Curiously There is no Phillips 8W LED globe available from Woolies. The nearest is a 9W. I was more amazed that it had the same lumen output as the older 8W. The packaging said, 9W, 806lm, 6500K cool daylight globe equivalent to 50W.
To the eye the newer 9W LED bulb has the same luminosity as an 8W older LED bulb. When compared side by side in two identical light fittings.
They are both labelled with the same light output of 806lm and same colour temperature.
The two bulbs also have identical voltage and current markings. Perhaps the power factor is different with the older LED closer to unity. It all seems a bit difficult to explain without testing amd pulling both apart. Are the newer LEDs less efficient? Both were 15,000hr rated.
The difference between two identical output LEDs with one marketed as equivalent to 60W from 8W and the other as 50W from 9W Iāll take with a grain of salt. LED bulbs tend to throw light visually differently to the older style Fluor and incandescent products. It is still a little concerning given both are Phillips branded.
P.S. curiously many modern cooler running LED bulbs are not rated for enclosed light fittings. Which seems a loss when the old toaster hot filament bulbs were more than happy?
It is the inefficiency of the semiconductors that generate the light which produce heat. The circuitry within the ballast (to drop the voltage) also produces heat. Build up of heat also becomes an issue in hot weather then heat pools at the ceiling. Add in a sealed/enclosed light where the heat canāt dissipate, the extra heat can affect the life of the globes. LED are sensitive to and impacted by heat. Older incandescent bulbs donāt have the same heat sensitivies.
The lament here is that many common household light fittings with luminaries fully enclose the bulb. Hence replacing the bulbs in these with the most commonly available LED bulbs is not recommended. It is something in the fine print or little symbols on the side of the packaging. Not typically added to the info on the LED base.
Although for a similar rated LED from a different brand. Itās a more compact form that should suffer more so. No comment which leaves the user open to wonder which to trust most.
Doubtless many consumers do not realise the limitation or choose to ignore the advice because there is no common alternative. Unless one replaces the entire light fitting with an open bulb version, the required electrician an added cost.
I donāt recall the suitability of a LED light for use in full enclosed luminaries or tightly enclosed recessed fittings being one of the review criteria, or a comment that not all lights are suitable for use with standard LED bulbs. It explains why we have had several failures of our LED globes earlier than expected, and why I now note the change to some product packaging. @ScottOKeefe and team.
If you are referring to the SMD LED semiconductors - yes. They are not perfect converters of electrical energy to light. They generate 90+% of the heat in the globes.
Iām not sure I understand the comment re ballast. There is no ballast device required for an LED globe, as is required for a traditional fluorescent tube, or for compact fluorescent lights. CFLs typically use an integrated electronic ballast. The electronics controlling power to the SMD LEDs is in the base of the globe, similar to where the electronic ballast is located in a CFL. Itās understandable there may be some confusion in terminology, or adopted terminology as detailed knowledge of the inner workings of either is not essential.
Modern LED replacements for standard globes use a high efficiency electronic - IC controlled driver - switch mode based supply. Typically mains powered devices operate in constant current mode with thermal compensation to generate a stable light output, independent of supply voltage variation.
A flourescent tube ballast serves a dual purpose to limit AC current flow in the light emitting phosphor coated tube, and also enables (combined with the starter device) an initial high voltage to strike the arc in the ionised gas filled tube. A ballast is a large inductor, a passive AC component.
In comparison the active components in a LED driver converts the AC supply to a low voltage DC source to drive the LEDs, with a controlled DC current.
Hi mark_m. Back when we did it, our LED bulb testing had the bulbs in a large open grid of sockets; no light fittings (luminaires) at all. But we did identify that an enclosed light fitting can shorten their life - our buying guide mentions this under āLight fittingsā. āThereās no performance difference between bayonet cap (BC) and Edison screw (ES) mounts on light bulbs. However, the light fittingās size, whether it has an effective reflector dish, the translucence of the glass and so on can make a big difference. Small enclosed light fittings can trap heat even from a CFL or LED light bulb and reduce its life, so a halogen lamp, which is less susceptible to heat, may be the solution in that case. Or, get a new light fitting.ā
There was not much recognition or labelling by light bulb manufacturers then to highlight the problem with enclosed luminaires, so at least their packages are a little clearer now in that respect.
I must have skipped over the section on ālight fittingsā.
Some of our fittings are enclosed due to our rural setting and abundance of night time insects. The most recent purchase of LED upgrades included mini external bracketed lamps with integrated LEDs. Hence they are sealed and with adequate provision for cooling. The ceiling mounted LED down lights are also integrated housings with heat sinks on the back/top, and the batts cut out to clear.
With the long life of LEDs and low power usage, Iāve only the outside par38 floods to replace, (4 of). I suspect it will be more reliable to replace the whole assembly rather than just the bulb, assuming the new lights are ip55 or higher rated. Still to research that one as new fittings are another electricians bill.
I now understand the issues around heat affecting LED light life expectancy. I wonder how many light fittings in the market are really fit for purpose, or in the instance of down lights able to handle our higher summer roof temperatures. Iāve noted many in the past came with a little sticker with the maximum lamp Watts permitted but have yet to see one with a sticker - not suitable for use with LED globes. Perhaps that is now more common, given itās nearly two years since our prior purchases.
P.S.
The LED down lights (14 off) are more than five years old with nil failures hence a great outcome.
There are two basic types of ālight fitting with integrated LEDā
ones rated for places where there is moisture (for example bathrooms, outdoors)
ones not rated for moist places
Is a similar āfit for moist areasā distinction made for the LEDs that go into existing light fittings?
that is, the LEDs that go into bayonet fittings, into Edison screw fittings, and the LED light tubes that go into fittings that previously held fluorescent tubes?
We have replaced CFLs/incandescent bulbs in bathrooms with standard LED and havenāt had any issues. Didnāt know there were risks/issues in high moisture/humidity environments.
We have LEDS in multiple outside locations, most only semi protected. One fully exposed PAR style failed prematurely but another next to it and the other 12 standard style globes have been going for more than 2 years.
I didnāt know this either. Still not sure about it.
But there are building regs (national rules, enforced by state/territory legislation referring to them) about mains powered lights.
I raised the issue because of the comments about the effects of heat in an enclosed type of light fitting with respect to longevity of LEDs versus fluoroescent versus other types of light ābulbsā
For outdoor environments, there are dust and water protection rated LEDās. IP rated to IP45 or better. All those I have been recommended are sealed lights with integral LED units. Heat from the LEDs is managed through the design of the housing with a heat sink design on the rear. Iāve not come across any replaceable LED globes or tube replacements that are IP rated. Only integrated fittings.
If the option is a standard LED replaceable globe in an outdoor sealed light fitting (water and dust rated) the enclosure may cause the LED bulb to over heat, and fail early. Something that has not been well promoted with the change over to LEDs. Many homes will be installing LED replacement bulbs in fittings that they are not suitable for.
Inside houses Australian Standards identifies restricted zones in wet areas, EG bathrooms, laundry, kitchen etc. As any electrical installation work can only be done by a licensed electrician, it is best to leave it to them to assess. For any of the restricted zones, either the light fitting which holds the LED globe or the integrated LED light needs to meet the requirements of the SAA Wiring Rules AS/NZ3000 of that zone. In most common bathroom layouts overhead lighting will use standard fittings and globes.
For the curious and just on bathrooms, as an example.
Thank you to mark_m for clarifying the requirements for lights in bathrooms, laundry, kitchen, outdoors. And how the āsealedā light fittings which incorporate LED solve any issue of heat build-up.
I understand the resources issue and yes, LED globes arenāt very costly per item, but we DO have a lot of them. Also the designs and applications of LED light sources are changing and what applied to e.g a GU10 replacement last year, may no longer apply.
I have seen a recent report that Philips are making a new type of LED lamp for one of the Emirates , Dubai?, under a five year exclusive contract arranged by the Sheikh.
The technology runs the LEDs cooler which should lead to longer life. Given the exceedingly high ceilings and high ambient temperature I can see why it would be attractive to have very long lasting lamps when replacement is problematic.
The labelled life is similar to other LEDs sold by Philips and others, but there appears there could be some potential basis for them being slightly more efficientā¦
The claims are the bulbs produce 200lm/w, about double of any other commercially available led lights. Something doesnāt quite add up with the claims and exclusive licencing. The Sheik and Philips would be on a financial winner and one would expect royalty agreements with other markets to make rivers of gold for both parties. I wonder if the product meets the claims as there doesnāt seem much information available other than what looks like marketing materials/media releases.
