megavolt512

While the test might operate in a similar way, the needs for general lighting are somewhat different than signage applications - and this should probably be kept in mind while such a project progresses. Lumen maintenance is far more important when you are lighting offices than channel letters or exposed outlines. Few people will complain if channel letters slowly dim to 25-30 percent over a few years. They may not even notice. But everyone will notice even a 15% drop in light output in an office or dwelling. This is one reason the lowly florescent tube is likely here to stay for a while. Inexpensive tubes can be changed out and recycled after several thousand hours, with the lumen level maintaining less than a 5% drop. This is the norm people will ultimately expect from general lighting products. Coves, or other applications were the lighting is more of a decorative factor are another story But for general lighting, LED's and cold cathode likely fall short here with existing technology. Both likely drop below an acceptable level long before a ROI.

Your site quotes a similar "120 lumens/watt" for both products. In the tests here on this site, none of your modules are producing anywhere close to 50 percent less power consumption and 20% more output than even the old 6500 snow white. And a hot cathode T8 will generally outperform the cold cathode setups used here on this site. Not saying your claim this product is performing twice as well as your others is not true... It's just that such a bold claim begs for further explanation when it falls so far outside the performance of similar products from the same chip mfg. With all the problems identified with retrofit claims from many products, anyone but the most uninformed consumer will want data, not testimonials.

All good and impressive. But the claims appear to be generalization (ie: 20% brighter). Was a measurement actually taken that showed the room illuminated 20% brighter with 50% of the power used? Again, if true this is phenomenal - and if you post some harder data I'm sure sales would skyrocket. But the claims seem out of line with the actual performance your products are delivering in the tests here on this site.

Most of us who have been in the biz a while sell to the largest sign co's. Claims (whether true or false) definitely sell product. Has been this way since the beginning of time. You said "We are 20% brighter and 50% lower power." But there are no details provided, such as your comparison product, and whether you are measuring power consumption at the power supply, or taking the theoretical efficacy from the Nichia chip datasheet. If you are indeed 20% brighter and 50% lower power than what I am using now, I am ready to place a large order today.

Claims not convincing. We are 20% brighter and 50% lower power. Really???? Tests here in the cabinets do not support these numbers - either running at 0hrs or 26K hours. Please elaborate and share your calculations for "20% brighter and 50% lower power"

Dave, ideally the frames are custom-made to the neon. I use 1/8 x 1/2 inch hot rolled flat stock. Mig weld it together into whatever shape you need. I find it best to position the cross slats about 1/4 of the way down from the top, and the same from the bottom. That way, you can rotate a tube support to grab at the top of the unit if needed, or rotate down in case something is in the way. I even made a simple, single-purpose brake out of a barn hinge. You insert the end of a 1/8 x 1/4 flat into it, and it stops at 3 inches. Rotate the hinge up, and you have a perfect right angle. McMaster-Carr call sells the vinyl end-caps for this size stock - for a finishing touch. Don't forget to put on tabs for transformer mounting. These are a bit more labor than plastic - but plastic prices have now gone up so much, I almost consider it a wash. These frames look great and last forever. I use regular spray paint (usually semi-gloss black). Oh yes, I use a mig welder to stick these together. These too are very inexpensive these days. If you don't have one, the cheap Chicom's from Harbor Freight, Northern tool, or such will get the job done.

You guys seem to be comparing switching LED supplies with large Magnetic neon transformers. The cost of electronic (switching) neon supplies is pretty close to the LED supplies you guys are quoting. And of course, there are the "cheap" neon electronic supplies as well that are in the $25 range. But a quality neon switcher is pretty comparable to a quality LED switcher - especially when you consider the lumens delivered per dollar (or per watt for that matter). I'd also argue with the statement that LED's are a "change" in technology. They are a "different" technology, not an evolution or improvement upon cold cathode. Neon, cold-cathode, and LED's are all continuing their march towards improvement. The rare-earth whites, blues, and greens now widely available and used are superior to the staples of 10-15 years ago. Like LED's, cold cathode has evolved and upped the bar along with every other change in either light source.

"The light output of the AxiomLED retrofit systems are designed to be comparable light levels to metal halide lamps used in conventional “Shoe Box” type fixtures" Do you have any LM79-type testing on this retrofit? A $15 400-watt metal-halide delivers 32,000 lumens. A $9 250-watt model 20,000. Plugging your retrofit wattage figures in here (62 and 125 watts), and figuring a likely "shoebox" fixture efficiency of 65% - this would put your retrofit at 167-209 lumens/watt - well above Nichia's data under ideal laboratory conditions on a test bench. And this is considering a 100% fixture efficiency with the retrofit (which it likely is most certainly not). Granted, LED's probably offer better CRI and "instant on" (not really a needed feature in parking lot lighting). But without third-party testing I'd be suspicious the light output is far below the bulb being replaced?

To the subject of fact-checking articles... When I was involved with Sign Business many years ago, we had an "Electric Sign Advisory Board", and we were all sent articles for vetting before publication if they involved electric signs. It worked extremely well, and I really felt it improved the quality of articles published. Really cut down on erroneous information. Keep in mind neon suppliers were never really big spenders on advertising in the trade rags. Why? They didn't really have to. The medium and the suppliers were all well established. But trade rags at the time (including SOT) seemed to put much more information into quality how-to articles based on independent journalism. Things have really changed now. I've gotten where I immediately look up the author of an article first before I waste time reading it. Often, he/she seems to be financially connected to the products being pumped up in the story. And a particular product now almost always seems to be "featured" in every single article. This misinformation trend isn't confined to signage magazines either. Google "video news release" - that's commercial content disguised as news, and increasingly your local news station is pumping it out with their other news casts... and often without disclosure.

At least here in Texas, your employer can monitor ANYTHING you do on a company computer or terminal. Even read email. Use your smart-phone if you need to be private. Assume everything you do at work is being monitored. Even if nobody is watching you "live", they probably keep logs indefinitely.

Neon fires have dropped dramatically in my neck of the woods since the phase-in of SGFP transformers. They don't protect all arcing of course.. but hearing about a neon fire down here is pretty rare these days. Usually involves an old installation or improper removal like Gary mentioned.

One important thing to note is the document from the USPO is a "patent application", not an issued patent. They generally won't patent perpetual motion type things... but even issuing a patent is no guarantee the device actually works. The patent database is full of non-working devices and ideas.

Agreed. Another perpetual motion machine. Sounds to me like a way to pump up a stock price ahead of an IPO before the "inventors" cash out. Appears to be a pretty common business model these days.

Thanks! I built a bender much like the "Pro" model in Markos 2nd link nearly 20 years ago. I bought a replacement rod-style element, then just had a sheet metal shop bend some 16 gauge galvanized into the shape (basically a flat sheet with a 1" x 1" recess in the center. One caveat about bending plastic if you haven't done so already: Like glass plastic will have cooling stresses after heating/bending. Rapid or uneven cooling will create cracking problems... often months later. Pressing cold metal jigs and guides against just-bent acrylic is a bad idea. We use wood as it doesn't conduct heat away from the bend, and there are felt strips on all guides, jigs, and the bender itself so the plastic doesn't contact them directly. We also throw a small blanket over the fresh bend to slow cooling. This was worked great and completely eliminated cooling-stress problems.

Agree with almost everything you said Marco. Good post. However I'd clarify the PCB **is** the heat sink (or at least part of it). So is whatever you secure it down to. A 3.5 in square clad PCB is 12.25 square inches. If my calculations are correct, you are dissipating about 1 watt per chip at 285ma. 9 watts. A cooler board would almost certainly provide more lumen-maintenance (and more flexibility) but yes it sounds like as you've tested it things are below the max junction temp. Not a place I'd want to hang too close too for too long. (I don't think you were saying you were running the Nichia chips with NO heatsink (no pcb, nothing) at 350ma and staying well below max junction temp?) Agree the drive components are additional heat sources. Yet more heat-sinking needed. This has been a great thread - I wish there was more like it. I'll go back into my usual listen-mode now. I'm glad to see we're all passionate about our products and industry.

The LED is the heat source here, the water need not be heated. These LED's can operate at 105C. Without a heatsink the junction (and case temps) will soar above this, and ultimately ruin the chip. In other words, you still have to cool it to keep it at 105. You can't operate a 350ma LED with no heatsink at all (at least not for an extended period). 105C is more than enough to boil water all on it's own. To regulate the temp at a certain level, they need only restrict/increase the flow of water. Almost certainly, most of the GWH entrants are dropping off lumens faster than their chip datasheets because the thermal management is less than provided on the test bench during evaluation.

They do not use water cooled heat sinks for their testing. Most of the time the heat sink is minimal or non-existent, actually, and is generally a PCB with the recommended copper design for thermal transfer away from the mounting pads. Yes they do. From the KiwiLED site posted that began this thread, on their home page where it says "Our Lifetime Data (LM80)" - http://www.kiwiled.com/docs/LM80Data-AoTuroaLED.pdf "LM80 Test Data Description of LED light sources Part Number: NS3L183-H3 Part Name: Nichia Chip Type Warm White LED Description of auxiliary equipment Active cooling life test system Consisting of small enclosed boxes for devices under test and water-cooled heat sinks to control device temperature." It should be no surprise the chips deliver stellar lumen-maintenance in a setup like this? Especially running only 6000 hours. Quite a far cry from the T8 retrofit described, where high power chips are put on a narrow strip and enclosed in a plastic tube with no forced-air cooling? Certainly you guys don't expect this type of test data to transfer to the finished product? Once the light output has dropped to 70 percent, the product life for an illumination product is over, and it needs to be replaced. Folks are going to look much further down the road than 6000 hours for a retrofit that costs 10x the fluorescent lamps it replaces.

no appologies necessary! I love talking about LED-fluorescent performance, design, and efficacy. I'll eagerly await your LM79 and LM80 reports.

68% is actually the typical T8 luminare efficiency. What is the luminare efficiency with your T8 retrofit? (please don't say 100 percent). If you've done an LM79 test sequence (which tests the entire luminare, not just the chip), you already know electrical characteristics, light output, luminous intensity distribution, and color characteristics. So what are they?? Just saying "higher output than a T8" doesn't mean much. 36K Hour T8 has 90+ percent lumen-maint at end of life. Cost to relamp: $3.50 ($2.50 for the bulb, $1.00 to completely recycle it) Data for your T8 LED product here? What about lumen-maintenance? A relamping of your retrofit product will cost 10x that of a fluorescent relamping, and it is critical to know when your product is expected to reach 70% output, and require replacement. Will the product show a similar lumen-degradation to your signage product in the GWH project? You've shown some LM80 lumen testing data on your web site, but it appears to be Nichia's own test data for the chips themselves, not your completed product. These chips were mounted on a test bench with water-cooled heatsinks if I read it correctly? Sorry to sound skeptical Manual, but other T8 LED products have not measured up to the claimed performance in ANY category. The one's operating off the existing ballasts are particularly bad, with ballast losses even higher than when a florescent tube was used. You've announced a product here that claims to have solved ALL these problems, and actually performs twice as well than the fluorescent lamp it replaces. Great!!! However, it should be no surprise folks will ask to see more data with such a bold claim. And btw, I'm not disputing your performance, I'd just like to see your data. Preferably from a 3rd party, but if you don't have that... how about posting the LM79 report that you have done? That would be a great start. You also said the Caliper program is "closely aligned with CREE." Please explain that. The program tests completed LED luminares, purchased through normal distribution channels. Individual chip mfgs are not identified. Are you saying the really good products that perform 2x... 3x better are being excluded to promote a specific mfg.. CREE? If this is true, than by all means let's sink the credibility of this DOE program. You'd have lots of support here. I never said the DOE Caliper program was flawless, but it's the largest independent testing program in the world for SSL luminares right now. If you know of better one, please post it here. I wish my industry (cold cathode... neon) had such a taxpayer-funded advocacy group testing and rating our products for performance. If I made LED luminares I thought far-outperformed the competition, I'd embrace the Caliper program.

Wow, it produces more than 2800 lumens? For 18 watts? That would be an efficacy greater than 155 lumens/watt - nearly 3x anything the DOE Caliper program has measured in a T8 LED retrofit. Have you had any independent testing done that verifies this extraordinary performance? http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/led-t8-flourescent-replacement.pdf http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/GE-LIGHTING-Fluorescent-Lamp-4PL16

Good Lord. This is pretty bad - among the worst I've seen (and I've been in the biz 20 years). I don't even want to know what that penetration into the wood building is. Absolutely terrible neon glass work too.

Not convincing for a variety of reasons. For the sake of simplifying the comparison, I'll assume your retrofit actually delivers the lumens advertised. (I don't think a single T8 retrofit tested in the DOE program to date has delivered the advertised performance.) 1&2 - If my math is correct, using your numbers: 48 watts, 12hrs day, at 0.15c/kwh - the retrofited T8 fixture will cost 31.50/yr to run, A stock T8, 3 lamp (3x 32w) will be $63/yr. These 3 bulbs in a 67% efficient fixture will deliver 6231 lumens. Your retrofit, at 84% will deliver 4620 lumens - (closer to just two T8's, at 4154 lumens) But let's use the numbers assuming it replaces 3x T8's. The retrofit will save $31.50 per year at 0.15c/kwh. It will take 4.76 years to recoup only the initial retrofit cost. Add a bit of labor to install it and it's easily 5-6 years. At 36K hours, there is only 8.2 years of acceptable light output in the LED system to begin with. And this assumes no failures. A single module failing will quickly skew the numbers towards the much less expensive $2.50 replacement fluorescent lamp. This is a low ROI and makes many assumptions (such as 100% LED system performance and low installation costs). 3. Maintenance staff is limited due to budget cuts LED retrofits are not going to produce usable light much beyond the long-life T8's. Look at the lumen-degredation of the LED products (including yours) in the GWH that have operated 16K hours. I'd wager all the LED's will warrant replacment at 36K hours. (Some much sooner) 36K hour T8's are widely avail. 4. Lights are used in manufacturing line and equipment has to be moved to change the lights Are people moving their recessed 4ft fixtures around that much? I'll give you a "partial" here as I'm sure if someone did move the fixture, the florescent tube would be more prone to breakage. But come on... this is lame. 5. Lights are used in application where low dust is required - semiconductor clean room, hospitals, food processing Doesn't make sense. An LED retrofit in the same fixture will produce less "dust"? Why would it? A hermetically sealed glass tube is not a dust-generator. Lame. 6. It benefits the application to be "green" because it raises awareness and increases company traffic, tourism, or market leadership I'd amend to say "appear green", as I'm still unconvinced yanking out T8's and putting in LED strips is in fact "green". 7. Where the absence of fluorescent "spark" prevents fires - high methane applications Explosion proof T8 fixtures are readily available. No fixture with any light source will be certified "EP" with exposed connections (wirenuts, etc.) outside a sealed envelope. Again... lame. I'll use LED's if I operate a coal mine though. 8. Where fluorescent is causing a product lifetime issue - like light strike in wine and olive processing Several vendors make florescent lights specifically for wine and beverage use (Promolux, etc.) that is claimed to minimize light struck. From what I've heard, the "light struck effect" is from exposure to ANY form of light - not just UVB or UVA. Do you have any data that white LED light provides a credible benefit for these applications? LED's are using some of the same phosphors as florescent. 9. Where flickering fluorescent is causing medical issues or perceived "unacceptable cosmetic issues" Hardly an issue with electronic ballasts, which are now almost universal.

The latest Dept of Energy Caliper testing (Round 11) was just released this week. They tested 7 recessed 4ft T8 replacements. None of the LED retrofits have 100% efficiency. The T8 fixture efficiency averaged 67% with florescent, and 84% for the linear LED retrofits. Not trying to criticize your products at all Manual, Axioms have been some of the best performers in the GWH. I'm just questioning the ROI claimed by florescent retrofits in general, including yours. So far, I haven't seen the numbers really add up when you consider product life, cost, etc. A 3100 Lumen T8, 36,000-hr rating, costs about $2.50 each. It costs under a dollar to completely recycle (Hg, glass, aluminum) http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/caliper_round-11_summary.pdf

Current high-quality 4ft 32w T8's = 3100 lumens

How many lumens?