How Best to Plan for LED Lighting
Last Post 16 Jun 2012 10:23 AM by ICFHybrid. 50 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
07 May 2009 08:00 AM
Posted By n/a on 05/06/2009 6:23 PM
Cree can accomplish 130 lumens per watt. Do you have a flourescent that puts out more?

130lm/w is measured DC at the substrate, not in an assembly.  The LR6 assembly is 55lumens per a watt (measured at line voltage input.)

They'll eventually get there, it's close to parity with compact fluorescent  efficiencies now, but still way behind T5 linears (even with fixture losses.)
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
07 May 2009 09:24 AM
Jelly: Center ceiling fixtures suck, eh? And that's independent of the technology- whereever you are, you're casting a shadow on the work. Low CRI high color-temp crappy inefficient T12 fluorescents are what gave the technology the bad rep- reballasting for T8s and using 3000K 80+CRI tubes can fix a world of uglies, but if it's still a center-ceiling blob, it'll always suck. (Please Godzilla, save us from the humming glowing gray-blue blob! :-) )

If you have a foot or more between the cabinet tops and the ceilings, (dimmable or not) high-efficiency T5 linear up-lighting (~110lm/w before fixture losses) and high-reflectivity ceiling paint does a GREAT job at filling in the ambien with ZERO glare- you can see better at lower overall luminosity if you get rid of the glare. Overall luminous efficiency of the uplighting will depend on the paint (and whiether you vaccum off the tubes at least once/year. :-) ) With paint losses it delivers the approximate efficiency of CREE LR6 or CFL recessed lights, but without the cross shadows & glare factors, and there are no dark corners anywhere.

Cove up-lighting in other rooms can also be a better option than a ceiling full o' downlighting cans too, especially on upper floors where you would otherwise be cutting holes in the thermal & pressure boundaries of the building envelope to waste all your heating & AC money on. (In WA only gasketed air-tight recessed lights are allowed these days, but most places don't have that built into codes yet- you have to ask for it. It still cuts into the insulation in attics & cathedral ceiling though.)

Under-cabinet cheap T5 or LED task lightng are roughly equivalent in terms of efficiency in terms of countertop level luminance even though the T5s deliver more lm/w in a wider dispersion. (Better T5 fixtures are demonstrably more efficient though.) The color rendering of most LED under-cabinet lights I've seen have been pretty crummy compared to decent T5s (CRI ~85), and the color temps have been a bit high (blue makes food look less appetizing- stick with 3000K as your upper limit for ANY kitchen or dining lighting), but I'm sure there are better versions coming out every day. With either technology, mount the under cabinet downlighting toward the front of the cabinet, not against the wall facing out. Fully 50% of the light in an LED fixture is typically in the first 40 degrees of angle from the source- if you mount it in the back the lux level at the counter edge where you're actually working will be pretty dim. Photometrics for T5 fixtures are somewhat better, but still not great.

Over the sinks or other places where the task lighting is higher above the source, high efficiency parabolic linear fluorescents will give you 50% better luminous efficiency than the Cree LR6, but if you're sold on sharp-shadows, the LR6 will deliver that in spades. (It means your hands cast high contrast shadows over your work though.) Lot o' peops like the LR6 (or the CFL & incandescent R30 equivalants) over high eat-in counters for the pool of light effect. The LR6 photometrics have a sharper cutoff edge than self-ballast CFL flloods, which can be good if you're trying to eliminate glare when viewed from across the room. But specular alluminum fixture-ballasted pin-base CFLs are higher efficiency than the cheapie edison base cousins (or the LR6) and can be had in a number of photometric profiles. For similar money LR6 you can get very good dimmable pin-base CFL fixtures & dimmers that will be more efficient and dim better than the LR6, but the differences aren't so huge that it's a no-brainer. The longevity of the LR6 may make it the better value in applications where downlight dimming is essential.

Preferences in balance vary, but if 50% or more of your luminosity is uplighting it lowers the glare considerably even when downlighting is used, making the overall effect more comfortable than most. But even high reflectivty ceiling paints can cut the glare noticably in all-downlighting configurations (let your lighting designer duke it out with your interior decorator over paint selection, but let the lighting designer win, eh? ;-) )
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
07 May 2009 10:56 AM
A pretty-good lighting design primer is available online from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute here:

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/lightingTransformation/residentialLighting/buildersguide/introduction.asp

Lighting design is very useful for getting the best efficacy & efficiency out of whatever technology you light it up with. While lumens per watt is important, it's not everything. Controlling glare is HUGE, and necessary when using LEDs,& halogens, which have greater inherent glare characteristics than fluorescents, but all technologies must be controlled to optimize efficacy.

RPI has a whole bunch of other lighting design & efficiency stuff available online as well, including stuff about daylight harvesting, daylighting & solar glare etc. surf around:

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/daylighting/daylightingresources.asp
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
07 May 2009 11:17 AM

This morning I brought along the digital lumen meter out of cuiousity.   So I know there are a lot of variables, but I measured initial lumen output at 1 foot away from the light source for the Cree LR6, the Halo LED, and the Juno LED.  I have all three in my showroom so I’m really able to see the light output of each in person one after the other.  The LR6 measured  275 initial lumens, the Juno measured 200, the halo measured a whopping 370 lumens, and the TCP 18 watt fluorescent retro fit measured 154 lumens.  I also measured a 75 watt par 30 flood which came in at 750 lumens.  The halo is very bright, but it’s also VERY glary.  I’d recommend to anyone be sure you see this one in person before buying it, it would be like living on a starship to have these in your home.  The LR6 on the other hand gives off practically no glare and a beam pattern similar to that of a “R bulb”.  I recommend to everyone in this forum with questions of efficacy and light patterns visit their local lighting showroom to see the light for themselves.  You can look at numbers all day but when it really comes down to it glare and brightness are subjective, and nothing can beat the real thing.

Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
07 May 2009 01:24 PM
Posted By northwestNate on 05/07/2009 11:17 AM

This morning I brought along the digital lumen meter out of cuiousity.   So I know there are a lot of variables, but I measured initial lumen output at 1 foot away from the light source for the Cree LR6, the Halo LED, and the Juno LED.  I have all three in my showroom so I’m really able to see the light output of each in person one after the other.  The LR6 measured  275 initial lumens, the Juno measured 200, the halo measured a whopping 370 lumens, and the TCP 18 watt fluorescent retro fit measured 154 lumens.  I also measured a 75 watt par 30 flood which came in at 750 lumens.  The halo is very bright, but it’s also VERY glary.  I’d recommend to anyone be sure you see this one in person before buying it, it would be like living on a starship to have these in your home.  The LR6 on the other hand gives off practically no glare and a beam pattern similar to that of a “R bulb”.  I recommend to everyone in this forum with questions of efficacy and light patterns visit their local lighting showroom to see the light for themselves.  You can look at numbers all day but when it really comes down to it glare and brightness are subjective, and nothing can beat the real thing.


Uhh... dude...

...lumens is measure of total luminous output- you were surely measuring lux (local light intensity)...

...at one location (lemme guess it was center-beam ;-) )...

...at an irrelevant distance for an R30 (try 4-6', not 1')...

...without comparing intensities 45 or 60 degrees off the center axis...

...and you're measuring the power with with??? (what- the ink on the label?)...

...and glare is measured by ??? ( your highly-calibrated eyeball staring into the thing?

You don't give a model # for the TCP 18 watter, but most self-ballasted CFL flood hit the 45-60lm/w range.  TCPs that I've used have a signficant warmup period too- even 2 minutes isn't enough to achieve steady-state. (The OTHER complaint about self-ballasted CFLs.)

I agree the Cree LR6 looks very good, and it is the LED industry efficiency-leader (at 55lm/w it clocks the Halo's 46.5 lm/w and Juno's miserable 43lm/w soundly, with noticably better color-rendering to boot.  It wouldn't surprise me if that 18W TCP was only ~45lm/w either.)

But it still has a at least bit to go before it'll beat the efficiency an ordinary cheap 13W 4pin quad CFL @ ~70lm/watt (call it 60-65lm/watt with fixture losses in a no-glare specular aluminum R30-sized CFL downlighting fixture) and is only roughly equivalent to the efficiencies to the better self-ballasted CFL R30 retrofits (for far less money.)

It's close enough though-  even though a quad CFL is slightly more efficient, a dimmable-ballasted quad-CFL fixture is expensive enough that the LR6 probably wins on value when dimming is required.  If dimming isn't required, plopping in a cheap Edison base fixture and installing a much  cheaper CFL is as-efficient.  By the time it burns out, retrofit LEDs will have truly come of age on the efficiency, beating even special fixture quad CFLs on efficiency. 

The Cree LR6 is quite a technical achievement, and a harbinger of much better things to come- (it's the first LED downlight that I would consider installing in my own place.)  I have GREAT expectations for LED downlighting- in 3-5 years they should be beating all CFL technologies in luminous efficiency, and the competition in that market will be exploding, driving prices through the floor.  The color-rendering on the LR6 is better than all cheap CFLs, on par with the very best.  Let's hope the competition catches up with them on that front too, eh?

The LR6 still has the a very LED-style conical photometric profile (6dB down @ 40 degrees off-axis), which too isn't dissimilar from PAR halogen optics (more PAR-like than R-like, but let's not quibble TOO much :-) ), a bit different from a halogen flood (maybe more like an R30 halogen spot.) Wouldn't spec it as the replacement for most floods without knowing more particulars about exactly where/how it's being used.

But for ambient lighting it's still quite a LONG way from 55 or 70lm/watt downlighting  to the current ordinary (non-state-of-art) 100lm/w of T5 linear fluorescent (or even ~90lm/w T8). And those get incrementally better every year too.  OLEDs may eventually eat their lunch, but I'm not holding my breath.  And for your typical ambience-lamp mood-lighting LEDs don't cut it on either photometrics or luminous efficacy- a $2 self-ballasted twisty does just fine on both @ ~60lm/w, or a $4 "fits anywhere" T2-twisty @ ~65-70lm/w (and climbing).

BTW:  That 3 year old 130lm/w Cree proto you referenced had a CCT of  6028K (damn-near sky-blue to most viewers when placed next to a 2700-3000K source) and no specified CRI.  It's probably the same technology behind the LR6, but a little phosphor here, a little optics there, pretty soon your overall luminous efficiency takes a dive.  (Not to mention the binning in production of good/better/best effciency LEDs off the same line have quite a variance.)  I'm positive the LR6 looks a heluva lot better than that 6028K bare-naked proto on the test-bench ever did.  IIRC since then several vendors including CREE have tested protos over 150lm/w-DC, naked-on-bench.
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
07 May 2009 03:39 PM

This si a residential lighting thread, the lighting industry does not use lux, the unit of measure is more accurately called lumens/ sq. foot or footcandles.

Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
08 May 2009 04:13 AM
Posted By Jelly on 05/07/2009 7:01 AM
Nate, what would you spec in a kitchen, where normally there would be one giant fluorescent fixture (which floods the room in a flickering eerie grey light)?

Sorry I didn't notice your question earlier due to a couple other bloated replies. 
Jelly,bBudget and kitchen layout among other variables determine lighting layout.  My most common layout is undercabinet lighting(necessity), quality recessed lighting along the countertop front edge where wall cabinets are present or directly over head where they are not, and pendants over an island if there is one or over the sink if it's possible.  A decorative fixture in the center of the room can be nice, commonly a semi flush fixture if ceiling height allows, and I'd specify heavy halogen A19 bulbs to go in the decorative fixture along with a Lutron Dimmer. DO NOT use R bulbs or flourescent in the recessed for your kitchen.  If the budget can't make the LR6 I would only specify halogen.  MR16 preferably or a PAR bulb otherwise.  Once again to anyone visiting this thread halogens on a dimmer are not appreciated enough.  Visit Lutron's site for more information.
Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
08 May 2009 04:16 AM
Go with LED or Xenon undercabinet lights for superior lamp life and colro rendering
Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
08 May 2009 04:20 AM
Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
northwestNateUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:7

--
08 May 2009 04:28 AM
Posted By Dana1 on 05/07/2009 1:24 PM

The LR6 still has the a very LED-style conical photometric profile (6dB down @ 40 degrees off-axis), which too isn't dissimilar from PAR halogen optics (more PAR-like than R-like, but let's not quibble TOO much :-) ),
Sorry your just wrong. 
Visit your local lighting showroom.<br>Buy local, or Bye Bye local!
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
12 May 2009 01:29 PM
If I'm wrong, I can accept that, but my source on that was the photometric beam plot & chart in the LR6 spec that you referred to. I'll look at it again...

OK I just did- make that ~6db down at 45 degrees, not 40 degrees mea culpa!) While narrower beam PAR bulbs exist, 40 degree PARs are the ones most commonly used in residential recessed-can apps. Call me crazy, but the 45 degree LR6 profile seems pretty similar to a 40 degree PAR profile to me...

Don't confuse marketing hype with real data. Without naming the "comparable fluorescent" claims of "less than half the energy of..." can and should be taken with a pound (not just a grain) of salt. I can't think of a single self-ballasted R30 CFL on the market today that puts out less than 35 lumens/watt, let alone less than 27.5 lumens/watt (which would be half the efficiency of the LR6). Find me one.

The lowest efficiency R30 fluorescent-technology bulbs these days are low-intensity 8W R30 cold-cathodes at around 38lm/w. The ubiquitous cheapo-vanilla 15W R30 CFL floods from most vendors run about 750 lumens, for a luminous efficiency of ~50lm/watt, barely 9% less efficient than the LR6, and well ahead of the rest LED R30 pack. (Yes, they will drop to ~600lm or 40lm/w by the end of service life, but LEDs lose intensity with age too- the 60-100,000 hour ratings are based on their luminance loss curve, and IIRC most specs allow a very GENEROUS loss to not just 75-80% of initial luminance the way most CFLs are rated, but more like 60% at EOL.)

So, "...half the energy of...", is almost as weird as some of the claims made by radiant-barrier insulation vendors...

So you were measuring footcandles, not lux? (It means you WERE mesuaring lux: 1 footcandle=10.76 lux). Footcandles it point intensity, not total luminousity, and the same issue applies: The relative total luminosity of a non-isotropic source cannot be determined from a single point & distance measurement. In the extreme case, a laser diode can have very low total luminance, yet an extremely high single-point intensity. Photometrics count. Center beam intensities are of interest in spotlighting apps, but total luminance is more important in ambient lighting. Comparing the center beam intensities of a R-flood vs. a PAR or R-spot isn't a particularly useful exercise.

LEDs have already taken over in many apps where color rendering is of less importance. LED backlighting for everything from TVs to dashboard instrumentation is now running something close to 100lm/w and therefore (unlike the ambient lighting assemblies) truly IS twice as efficient as the cold-cathode fluorescent technology it replaces, not to mention more ruggedized to mechanical shock. LEDs are a bit more sensitive to heat than fluorescent technology, but that's not a huge issue for most interior household applications (except can-lights that exend into hot roofs & ceilings.) LEDs are a lot LESS sensitive to cold, making them a decent option for outdoor apps in cold climates. I'd take a crappy bluish instant-on 100lm/w LED for a security light (if they made 'em bright enough) over a crappy bluish slo-start cheap 75lm/watt mercury-arc HID for security lighting f'rinstance. But for general outdoor lighting there are some pretty good 80-100lm/w HIDs out there with very good color rendering that will continue to hold that market for a few more years.
Bruce FreyUser is Offline
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:429

--
20 Jun 2009 04:41 AM
I thought you might be interested in the dialog between two lighting consultants that we use on our commercial projects about the life of LED lighing.  I have tried to differentiate their comments with different fonts. 

Bruce
discussion follows:

There are several issues below that affect the life of LED luminaires:

 

LED operating temperature

LED manufacturers should provide performance data compared to junction temperature.  The hotter the LEDs, the shorter the life.  What we are finding is that  LED’s are being installed in luminaires that do not have the correct amount of heat sinking.  One safeguard around this is to insist on IESNA LM-79 independent test results.

 

One needs to specify lighting products that come from respected manufacturers who are doing due diligence with regard to heat dissipation.  Ultimately the warranty that the end fabricator/seller is responsible for, is the element that pressures them to be most careful with regard to heat.  If they cut corners at the beginning it can cost them dearly at the end and that could be a big hit on their finances and reputation.

 

There are manufacturers who are shoe horning LED's in existing enclosures in the race to have product out there in the explosion of LED fixtures.  This has happened time and time again, with quartz sources cooking the transformers and sockets and the compact fluorescent being jammed into an incandescent downlight where no light came out.

 

LED operating current

The higher the operating current, the shorter the life.  LED’s operating around 350ma will last very long.  As it increases to 750 ma, the life dramatically shortens.  Manufacturer’s will want to operate the equipment at the higher milliamps so the LED’s put out a lot of light (over driving the LED’s), but the life is compromised.

 

Overdriving would be an issue and once again the quality manufactures are fully aware of this.  Once again the warranty that the end fabricator/seller is responsible for, is the element that pressures them to most careful in this regard.

 

LED driver incompatibility

LED drivers are the weakest link in the system.  Very few manufacturers will warranty the drivers, and many of them will not tell you which drivers are compatible with the LED’s.  We are asking manufacturers to warranty everything … hopefully for 5 years.

 

In all the products that we have specified the manufacturer warranties the drivers as part of their product warranty.  The old game of the car dealer telling you your new cars battery is made by someone else and you need to call him directly could happen but I have not seen it.  We did have one job where some drivers failed because of a faulty thermal cut off and the manufacturer replaced them and covered the cost of the install.

 

LED installation

Carefully follow LED manufacturer guidelines for installation.  If the luminaires are in tight spaces, or there is very little air circulation, they will overheat and fry.

 

I would agree that one needs to follow good practices with this regard and the major manufactures as very helpful and specific with this regard.  They will go out of business if they just sell them to you and walk away. 

 

Other issues

Color consistency between LED’s in one product, or between products: This can be solved by binning, but you may want to get from a manufacturer the guarantee of color consistency (+ or – 200K) and that if you order replacement product, they will match

 

Yes most fixture manufacturers are sourcing their LED's from another vendor and color consistency is an important issue.  Sorting and batching is the process they use to fine tune groups of LED's to a close tolerance.  This is common even in halogen and PLC manufacturing facilities.  Being able to match existing with new is not uncommon even with linear fluorescent or HID sources.  This is an item one would need to watch and all the more reason why one specifies and buys from quality responsible manufacturers.

 

High quality LED’s are available from the major manufacturers.  Since the binning process is tight and very few LED’s make it through, there are a lot of waste product.  These poor quality LEDs end up somewhere … shoes?  Flashlights?  Hopefully not your luminaires

 

I am sure they end up somewhere and I suspect traffic lights would be the number one buyer.

 

Since LED luminaires are so new to the market, there are a lot of things to watch.  We have learned the hard way with 300% failure on one high end project alone.  Our specs are getting tighter, we are insisting on only quality manufacturers who will back their products including the drivers, and still learning from mistakes on every single job.

 

Yes, this is a new technology and there are plenty of snake oil salesmen out there.  One should be very cautious of accepting an alternate manufacturer with LED's as one could end up buying all of the problems described.  I would consider every VE option before looking at LED substitute and if really pressed consider deleting the LED rather than consider a lesser product.

 

Color Kinetics are one of the major players in the color changing LED systems and their company and product line was founded and developed by a group of guys out of MIT so they really know what the technical issues are and put a tremendous amount of money into R&D to protect themselves and the end user from the problems that could occur.

 

LED's are the hottest item out there, everyone wants to use them everyone thinks they are green, eco friendly, some of this is true some of it not.  There are appropriate uses for this source where it is very successful and there are others that are not.  They are currently promoting street lighting fixtures with LED sources and we do not think the technology is anywhere close for this application.

Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
22 Jun 2009 12:52 PM
Posted By Bruce Frey on 06/20/2009 4:41 AM
I thought you might be interested in the dialog between two lighting consultants that we use on our commercial projects about the life of LED lighing.  I have tried to differentiate their comments with different fonts. 

Bruce
discussion follows:
 
[edited by Dana1 for brevity]

 

LED's are the hottest item out there, everyone wants to use them everyone thinks they are green, eco friendly, some of this is true some of it not.  There are appropriate uses for this source where it is very successful and there are others that are not.  They are currently promoting street lighting fixtures with LED sources and we do not think the technology is anywhere close for this application.


This is my point in a nutshell!  (Thanks, Bruce!)  The perception has gotten pretty far ahead of reality where LED technology is concerned, and the hype has precipitated some poor decisions by well-intentioned people. 

The claims of some LED vendors are about as divorced from reality as the claims of reflective insulation vendors, and many have been perhaps just a bit TOO enamored of the new.  The days of LED supremacy may be coming, but that day isn't today for most ambient lighting apps.
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
16 Jul 2009 03:00 PM
Standards for labeling are finally starting to gel, to help separate the hype from reality (and the efficiency & CRI winners from the true dogs) on LED retrofit assemblies. See:

http://www.lightingfacts.com/default.aspx?cp=label

http://www.lightingfacts.com/images/LabelAnatomy_LARGE.jpg


http://www.lightingfacts.com/default.aspx?cp=content%2fproducts

There's quite a few labeled LED assemblies out there (and not surprisingly ,some are dreadful, others not-so bad. Definintely not all are created equal!) Hover the cursor over the Model Number to get the specs as they appear on the label.

I'm struck by the efficiency & quality of the 6watt Digital Light PHAROX A-bulb replacement, which is very comparable to 8watt cold cathode A-bulbs on both luminosity & CRI, but uses 25% less power!

This stuff is finally starting to come of age, but choose wisely- most of it still underperforms their cheaper fluorescent-technology equivalents by quite a bit (as you can now tell by the label specs.)

Jesse ThompsonUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:89

--
17 Jul 2009 12:35 PM
Anyone have any recommendations for LED exterior floodlights? Residential application, cold climate. Looking for durability, longevity, no insect attraction even more than efficiency.
Jesse Thompson<br>Kaplan Thompson Architects<br>http://www.kaplanthompson.com/<br>Portland, ME<br><br>Beautiful, Sustainable, Attainable
Dana1User is Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
Send Private Message
Posts:6991

--
17 Jul 2009 03:20 PM
Posted By Jesse Thompson on 07/17/2009 12:35 PM
Anyone have any recommendations for LED exterior floodlights? Residential application, cold climate. Looking for durability, longevity, no insect attraction even more than efficiency.

Have you looked here:

http://www.appalachianlightingsystems.com/products

(Scroll down to the bottom to link to the different options.)

Do you know what total luminosity & photometric distribution/disbursion angles you need?

This sucker should be bright enough for lots of residential outdoor apps:

http://www.appalachianlightingsystems.com/media/products/parking_lot_light.pdf

It's pretty blue (4000K, 5000K, 6000K)- rather mercury vapor HID-like but probably better color rendering.  Not sure what that means in terms of insect attraction

You'd probably have to call them to get a min/max operating temp specs (if they have them), or test one yourself in an environmental chamber to see if they're still good at -50F or whatever you need.  (Most silicon FET semiconductors work fine at colder temps, not sure what blue LEDs tend to do.)  The low-temp limits might come from the LED drive components used.

sarahwilsonUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4

--
30 May 2011 06:18 AM
LED lamps can be used for both general and special-purpose like spot lighting.Nowadays, LED s are available in  multiple colors also. So dude, use and enjoy. I have used it in my apartment.
<a href="http://ledceilinglights.org"> Led Ceiling Lights</a>
sarahwilsonUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:4

--
04 Jun 2011 04:01 AM
I think you have already started your project. As you may know, LED s are available in multi colors.Try to be little creative with them. That will be more contemporary.
<a href="http://ledceilinglights.org"> Led Ceiling Lights</a>
ICFconstructionUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:1323
Avatar

--
11 Jun 2011 07:54 PM
I am putting outlets in my ceiling and plan to use cheap LED Christmas lights for mood lighting. Not sure how it will pan out.
Brad Kvanbek - ICFconstruction.net
anernUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:5

--
16 Jun 2011 10:54 PM
Professional LED lights suppliers website.
A new way to lights up your life for led lights.

http://www.ledlightsliving.com/l...5.html

More and more professional led lights tech information on the http://www.topledsupplier.com website.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


Active Forums 4.1
Membership Membership: Latest New User Latest: janvin New Today New Today: 0 New Yesterday New Yesterday: 0 User Count Overall: 34705
People Online People Online: Visitors Visitors: 97 Members Members: 1 Total Total: 98
Copyright 2011 by BuildCentral, Inc.   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement