Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numbers to me.
The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since before most of us were born. Honestly I don't understand this criticism at all. Certainly LED lighting is available in many form factors other than a 60W bulb...
My condo's living room doesn't have a ceiling mounted light fixture, or a place to install one at. I'm sure the job could be done, but it'd be a major pain.
> The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since before most of us were born. Honestly I don't understand this criticism at all. Certainly LED lighting is available in many form factors other than a 60W bulb...
Thus I'm stuck using a stupid stand lamp, which right now is only 1 bulb. (My previous 3 bulb stand started smoking when I put in a 150W equivalent CFL, heh)
Sure 60W has been standard, but for what purpose? Just one of them is useless, and heck 3 of them isn't much better. 3 75s is actually useful, and a couple of 100s is preferred.
Granted, I tend to prefer darker rooms anyways and I'm quite happy to have candle light in the evenings (about 100 - 200 lumens).
It never occurred to you just to buy a second lamp?
I'd love to. 750sqft Condo, I have one outlet that is hooked to a switch, other outlets are either in some horrid location or already used up with a power strip attached.
Not everyone has large open areas that they can just throw stuff in.
What I need to do is get a better quality standing lamp that can take a slew of light bulbs! But even then, I am not going to be going for 60W, why should I when I can go farther with fewer bulbs of a slightly higher wattage? (Or wattage equivalent in the case of LED and CFLs)
I was surprised how bright the 100W-equivalent LED unit from Philips is. It is rated at 1780 lumens vs 1600 for an incandescent 100W.
LED lighting is costly and complex enough that directional LED bulbs are more or less at cost parity with omnidirectional LED bulbs. In fact, true omnis are often more expensive just because LEDs are inherently directional. This is the first time in the history of lighting where omni wasn't significantly less expensive than directional.
Truth is, there are very few scenarios where a high-output omnidirectional lamp actually makes sense. We're used to omnis because they were much cheaper to purchase than their more efficient, directional brethren and because it's convenient to just slap a bright bulb in a socket and say "eh - good enough."
Since most people buy LED bulbs for the gains in efficiency, doesn't it make more sense to buy the lower-power directional lamps which are more fit for their application? How many fixtures do you have in your home that require a true omni-directional lamp? How many of those fixtures need a high-output omni? Now, how many fixtures do you have that could make good use of a directional bulb (either narrow or wide-beam)?
tl;dr: Talking about incandescent watt equivalency only benefits marketing people and confuses consumers - take a look at directional lamps and you'll be less disappointed.
There was that awesome Kickstarter awhile back for a nice omnidirectional LED bulb, I'm looking forward to its delivery!
> Truth is, there are very few scenarios where a high-output omnidirectional lamp actually makes sense. We're used to omnis because they were much cheaper to purchase than their more efficient, directional brethren and because it's convenient to just slap a bright bulb in a socket and say "eh - good enough."
With this I disagree. Open spaces such as a living room are perfect for omnidirectional lighting.
Indeed when I have lived in places with track lighting the annoying part was always trying to spread the light out enough to make it seem omnidirectional without having a bunch of bright hot spots around the room.
When I am cooking or something, sure, light up my working surfaces, but for general ambiance when I am at home I want the entire bloody room I am in lit up!
Now just do that while saving power. :)
Indeed, if you look at how recessed lighting is installed (and I'll be the first to point out that recessed lighting is generally stupid), there are a ton of cans installed in a grid throughout the ceiling to provide what is essentially uniform brightness in a room.
First I'm not a lighting designer, I just used to work next to a few of them so I'm probably (definitely) overconfident in my opinions in this area. That said, I personally go back and forth on what you're saying.
Let me qualify: when I say "directional," I mean uniform 180° or narrower. The real difference is in the optic: flood vs spot. You can get a surface mount 180° flood fixture (ceiling mount) or a well fit recessed fixture with something like a BR40 (good wide-angle disbursement) to do exactly what you're talking about. If you want wide-area lighting, stay away from PARs, MR16s, GU10s, etc. Are omnis in a stood-off fixture easier? You betcha. Is paying to light your ceiling necessary? Nope.
All of that said, I hope they get dirt cheap but efficient omnis out there too. Forcing the general consumer to think about stuff like this is a barrier to entry, and broad swaths of people being more efficient is a Good Thing indeed.
Here you go: http://store.earthled.com/products/switch-switch100-led-ligh... , though note that the upfront cost is high. Scroll down to see the performance specs.
The real challenge is to propose an affordable LED bulb that can provide at least 1300 lumens.
60W was enough for me a decade ago. Now for fine work I need 100W. I can still see with 60W, but what was enough for fine work a decade ago is not enough now. I understand this will get worse as I get older. I don't have any particular visual conditions; I'm just aging.
Indeed I have no trouble with low light (yet!), but just because I can read a book with a single 60W bulb in a living room doesn't mean I want to.