Modern lighting for the home, or back to incandescent bulbs
This article appeared as a result of understanding the project on the production of LED spotlights www.deglight.com , which we are investing.
In our country, the main breakthrough in household electric lighting is associated with the name of V.I. Lenin. Edison's light bulb, which we call the Ilyich Light Bulb, still serves regularly in our apartments. Changing the torch in the village, or the gas horn in the city with a light bulb, no one thought about the harm, or the benefits of this innovation for the human body and economic benefits.
"Not to fat, to be in the light"
But electricity is a resource that constantly rises in price. If the problem of saving electricity in production has been around for a long time, then in everyday life this trend has appeared recently.
Only now (the last 5 years) has the process of actively replacing conventional incandescent bulbs with energy-saving bulbs and then LED lighting.
The economic gain: saving energy, increasing the service life of the lighting device, reducing the cost of ownership - is obvious.
Is obvious?
Back in the 70s, it turned out that when switching to gas-discharge lamps, the gain in electricity consumption was accompanied by a loss of labor productivity.
The flickering of gas-discharge lamps with a mains frequency (50 - 60 Hz) was not noticeable at first glance, but had a strong effect on the human body. Labor productivity fell, according to various estimates, by 10–20%. Of course, energy savings paid off the headaches of employees and a number of unexplored health problems. And who cares about these problems. Fortunately, at that time there was no intensified campaigning for the introduction of gas-discharge lamps in everyday life, and they did not take root in households. Moreover, no one has studied other harmful factors affecting such coverage on humans.
Are you sure that the child's friend, who often has an acute respiratory disease, just grabs microbes at school? Or maybe his mother, when it just passed by a broken fluorescent lamp, and received a portion of mercury vapor from it?
The throttles of gas-discharge lamps are “fonted”, i.e., they emit not a small number of electromagnetic waves. Remember how actively discussed harm from mob. phones? But it was milliwatts, however, at a gigahertz frequency. Look at the ceiling of your office. Several dozen luminaires emit not milliwatts, across the entire frequency spectrum, starting with the main harmonic - 50 Hz, and further along the entire spectrum. Including on the nth harmonic - milliwatts in megahertz.
Attempting to take into account all these problems and translate them into the language of economics does not make sense. All the same, in the framework of production, the economic effect of energy saving will outweigh all other problems.
But what do you personally have about this economic effect? You can't take it instead of a pill.
')
Economical lamps that have recently come into use are not very different from the usual fluorescent tubes. In fact, these are the same discharge tubes, only rolled up into a tight spiral, or another shape.
After defeating one problem (flickering with the frequency of the network), the designers got another. These lamps emit stronger and in a higher frequency range. If the old choke operated at a frequency of 50 Hz, then in the new ones, for the sake of efficiency and miniaturization, the frequency of the converter from 400 Hz and higher, the emission spectrum shifted to a higher frequency range. The reliability of these light sources leaves much to be desired (due to the presence of electronics). The price, though regularly reduced, continues to amaze consumers. (I'm not talking about the cheap crafts of the Chinese proletariat, where the flaws of the lamps are increased in proportion to the deterioration).
Now LEDs have joined the battle for economical lighting. But here everything is not easy.
The price of an ICE luminaire replacing an economical lamp is high. Efficiency of all percent is 15 - 20 higher. The lifetime of an LED lamp and the solution of an environmental problem with mercury vapor somehow justify its price. But, electromagnetic pollution does not become less. Power supplies for LEDs are the same pulse converters as in modern economical lamps.
With the introduction of LED lamps, a new problem appears. White light LEDs are made from InGaN (crystal emits blue color) and phosphor, which emits in a wide range of the spectrum with a sharp maximum of the yellow part of the spectrum. The human eye perceives this type of combination as white. This is currently the easiest and cheapest way to get white light.
The International Commission on Illumination - (CIE Internationale De L'Eclairage) - makes recommendations on the risks of the danger of "blue" radiation and heat damage to the retina. I have seen several studies on this topic of a number of fixtures tested for use in critical areas of activity (aviation, railway transport) But no one checks household fixtures for compliance with these standards.
In addition, ICE can be considered as a source of monochrome light. The sun, our natural source of illumination, to which the human body is accustomed to emit light in the entire range of visible and invisible light. Incandescent bulb is close in these parameters to the sun. (By the way, krypton, halogen and xenon lamps lose a lot in this regard). The discharge lamp is also bad in this parameter, since its emission spectrum is determined by the phosphor coating of the flask and the properties of the gas. LEDs, in this respect, are very bad - they give monochrome radiation, which is very useful in certain areas of science and production, but it affects the human body in an unknown way. By the way, this explains the apparent higher contrast contours in LED light with less overall illumination (difference in illumination, to be exact).
Do not rush to throw "bulbs Ilyich"
The cost-effectiveness of ICE illumination is not at all obvious with the high cost of the diodes themselves, but taking into account the constant price reduction, maintenance costs, utilization, etc. there is a place to be.
But the real economic efficiency of new sources of illumination, in view of their, yet unexplored, impact on man and nature remains an open question.
Keep your health and eyes. Use modern sources of light where there is an additional supply of sunlight, or combine them with ordinary incandescent bulbs.
Do not stint in the living areas where you are constantly (living room, bedroom, study) return the old incandescent lamps, creating from them the main light background. For accent lighting - use LEDs. The energy that goes into heat, at least in winter, is not lost to the wind. She will go to heat your home. Health is more expensive than saving a few kilowatts.
PS Here is such an ecological one. I am not a Green Party. On the contrary, realizing the benefits of this movement for others, I treat it with a prejudice, as a limited opinion that does not take into account all the factors of the surrounding world.
In our country, the main breakthrough in household electric lighting is associated with the name of V.I. Lenin. Edison's light bulb, which we call the Ilyich Light Bulb, still serves regularly in our apartments. Changing the torch in the village, or the gas horn in the city with a light bulb, no one thought about the harm, or the benefits of this innovation for the human body and economic benefits.
"Not to fat, to be in the light"
But electricity is a resource that constantly rises in price. If the problem of saving electricity in production has been around for a long time, then in everyday life this trend has appeared recently.
Only now (the last 5 years) has the process of actively replacing conventional incandescent bulbs with energy-saving bulbs and then LED lighting.
The economic gain: saving energy, increasing the service life of the lighting device, reducing the cost of ownership - is obvious.
Is obvious?
Fluorescent lights
Problem one: - “Headache”
Back in the 70s, it turned out that when switching to gas-discharge lamps, the gain in electricity consumption was accompanied by a loss of labor productivity.
The flickering of gas-discharge lamps with a mains frequency (50 - 60 Hz) was not noticeable at first glance, but had a strong effect on the human body. Labor productivity fell, according to various estimates, by 10–20%. Of course, energy savings paid off the headaches of employees and a number of unexplored health problems. And who cares about these problems. Fortunately, at that time there was no intensified campaigning for the introduction of gas-discharge lamps in everyday life, and they did not take root in households. Moreover, no one has studied other harmful factors affecting such coverage on humans.
Problem two: "Oh, how beautiful is the fragrance of mercury!"
Are you sure that the child's friend, who often has an acute respiratory disease, just grabs microbes at school? Or maybe his mother, when it just passed by a broken fluorescent lamp, and received a portion of mercury vapor from it?
The third problem. “Everything whistles around”
The throttles of gas-discharge lamps are “fonted”, i.e., they emit not a small number of electromagnetic waves. Remember how actively discussed harm from mob. phones? But it was milliwatts, however, at a gigahertz frequency. Look at the ceiling of your office. Several dozen luminaires emit not milliwatts, across the entire frequency spectrum, starting with the main harmonic - 50 Hz, and further along the entire spectrum. Including on the nth harmonic - milliwatts in megahertz.
Attempting to take into account all these problems and translate them into the language of economics does not make sense. All the same, in the framework of production, the economic effect of energy saving will outweigh all other problems.
But what do you personally have about this economic effect? You can't take it instead of a pill.
')
Economical lamps
Economical lamps that have recently come into use are not very different from the usual fluorescent tubes. In fact, these are the same discharge tubes, only rolled up into a tight spiral, or another shape.After defeating one problem (flickering with the frequency of the network), the designers got another. These lamps emit stronger and in a higher frequency range. If the old choke operated at a frequency of 50 Hz, then in the new ones, for the sake of efficiency and miniaturization, the frequency of the converter from 400 Hz and higher, the emission spectrum shifted to a higher frequency range. The reliability of these light sources leaves much to be desired (due to the presence of electronics). The price, though regularly reduced, continues to amaze consumers. (I'm not talking about the cheap crafts of the Chinese proletariat, where the flaws of the lamps are increased in proportion to the deterioration).
LED lamps
Now LEDs have joined the battle for economical lighting. But here everything is not easy.
The price of an ICE luminaire replacing an economical lamp is high. Efficiency of all percent is 15 - 20 higher. The lifetime of an LED lamp and the solution of an environmental problem with mercury vapor somehow justify its price. But, electromagnetic pollution does not become less. Power supplies for LEDs are the same pulse converters as in modern economical lamps.
With the introduction of LED lamps, a new problem appears. White light LEDs are made from InGaN (crystal emits blue color) and phosphor, which emits in a wide range of the spectrum with a sharp maximum of the yellow part of the spectrum. The human eye perceives this type of combination as white. This is currently the easiest and cheapest way to get white light.
The International Commission on Illumination - (CIE Internationale De L'Eclairage) - makes recommendations on the risks of the danger of "blue" radiation and heat damage to the retina. I have seen several studies on this topic of a number of fixtures tested for use in critical areas of activity (aviation, railway transport) But no one checks household fixtures for compliance with these standards.
In addition, ICE can be considered as a source of monochrome light. The sun, our natural source of illumination, to which the human body is accustomed to emit light in the entire range of visible and invisible light. Incandescent bulb is close in these parameters to the sun. (By the way, krypton, halogen and xenon lamps lose a lot in this regard). The discharge lamp is also bad in this parameter, since its emission spectrum is determined by the phosphor coating of the flask and the properties of the gas. LEDs, in this respect, are very bad - they give monochrome radiation, which is very useful in certain areas of science and production, but it affects the human body in an unknown way. By the way, this explains the apparent higher contrast contours in LED light with less overall illumination (difference in illumination, to be exact).
Do not rush to throw "bulbs Ilyich"
The cost-effectiveness of ICE illumination is not at all obvious with the high cost of the diodes themselves, but taking into account the constant price reduction, maintenance costs, utilization, etc. there is a place to be.
But the real economic efficiency of new sources of illumination, in view of their, yet unexplored, impact on man and nature remains an open question.
What to do?
Keep your health and eyes. Use modern sources of light where there is an additional supply of sunlight, or combine them with ordinary incandescent bulbs.
Do not stint in the living areas where you are constantly (living room, bedroom, study) return the old incandescent lamps, creating from them the main light background. For accent lighting - use LEDs. The energy that goes into heat, at least in winter, is not lost to the wind. She will go to heat your home. Health is more expensive than saving a few kilowatts.
PS Here is such an ecological one. I am not a Green Party. On the contrary, realizing the benefits of this movement for others, I treat it with a prejudice, as a limited opinion that does not take into account all the factors of the surrounding world.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/145251/
All Articles