# LED bulb lifespan



## Waleem (Nov 1, 2006)

Hi All
A year ago, I bought four blue/white LED bulbs off eBay to put in my bathroom lights in the Dethleffs. (Standard car bulb type, two each side of the mirror.) Last weekend, we noticed that one had started flickering quite badly so I opened the light up to change it. I was surprised to discover that half the LEDS on that bulb had failed and when I checked the other three, it was the same story. Is a year lifespan for an LED bulb average ?


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

>> Is a year lifespan for an LED bulb average ?

No way. 100,000 hours.

They will reduce in brightness by 50,000 hours, but you'll probably not notice.

Looks like the on board regulator has popped and fried the LEDS.


----------



## mangothemadmonk (Aug 6, 2006)

Like hilldweller has said they should last 100,000hrs.

See here

Johnny F


----------



## Waleem (Nov 1, 2006)

So I'm clearly a victim of cheap bulbs then as all 4 are failing. Great... :roll:


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

100,000 Hours is 11 years. 

Although an ordinary LED used as an indicator on a panel say has a life far exceeding that, LEDs used to give lighting are driven far harder. Although these 'power' LEDs are always improving, ones readily available even 5 years ago weren't as good.

It only became economical to use them on Buoys once the life went over 5 years and that only happened around 8-9 years ago.

I have tested Buoy lanterns from around that period that drew more power and were likely to last not much longer than the tungsten lit equivalent! They still were better because they don't have filaments to break during rough seas/handling.


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

Lifespan of LED bulbs is very variable. I recently reviewed some corkers from a major UK LED light supplier but the downside was that the guaranteed life expectancy was no more than an incandesent quartz lamp.
But The lifespan of the low voltage flourescent lamps is much better and their lighting efficiency similar to LEDs.

If you want lots of light then using a small inverter to power low voltage mains lighting works very well. Brilliant for an evenings outside entertainment.

C.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Waleem said:


> I was surprised to discover that half the LEDS on that bulb had failed and when I checked the other three, it was the same story.


Hi,

normally LEDs are very unlikely to fail, as long as they are operated under proper conditions.

They rather gradually loose intensity. The lifespan of a LED is therefore defined as the timespan in which the luminous efficacy drops to 50% of the original value.

So if in your LED "bulbs" a considerable number of individual LEDs has failed, then I am sorry to say that this is clearly a low-quality product.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

The problem Gerhard is that lighting manufacturers push the individual LED elements to their limits so that mortality is more commonplace. Plus as the individual LEDs are connected in series in groups each with a current defining component then if one LED fails the whole group go out.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

CliveMott said:


> The problem Gerhard is that lighting manufacturers push the individual LED elements to their limits so that mortality is more commonplace. Plus as the individual LEDs are connected in series in groups each with a current defining component then if one LED fails the whole group go out.


Both would be exactly what I would call low-quality.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 107558 (Oct 10, 2007)

Boff said:


> Both would be exactly what I would call low-quality.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Gerhard


Succinct. I like that.


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

CliveMott said:


> Plus as the individual LEDs are connected in series in groups each with a current defining component then if one LED fails the whole group go out.


I have fitted LED's in the habitation area. One of the 12 element units had two of its elements go out, but the rest are ok. The units are only a month old, at £9 each, not such a good buy maybe.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

I take it no one is falling into the trap of buying those not intended for automative use.


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

Hi all,

I replaced 11 halogens with LED's from >>Here<<, having taken advice from Frank and Johnny (above), some time ago. They are excellent replacements, as was the service.

Today, I have spoken to the supplier about replacing the 12v flourescent tubes in the MH with LED's, however, it would mean replacing the complete lighting units due to the tube replacements alone, not being available.

Jock.


----------



## davesport (Nov 12, 2006)

Another thumbs up for Ultraleds. No breakdowns yet. 

D.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

JockandRita said:


> Today, I have spoken to the supplier about replacing the 12v flourescent tubes in the MH with LED's...


That would not yet make sense anyway: Even the latest LEDs just about catch up with fluorescent tubes when it comes to luminous efficacy. So I would stick with the tubes for another year or so, then probably better LEDs are available that make a replacement worth-wile.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

Boff said:


> That would not yet make sense anyway: Even the latest LEDs just about catch up with fluorescent tubes when it comes to luminous efficacy. So I would stick with the tubes for another year or so, then probably better LEDs are available that make a replacement worth-wile.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Gerhard


Hi Gerhard,

Yes, I was thinking along those line my self. I am led (no pun intended :wink: ) to believe that once a flourescent tube is on, it is very economical. Apparently, it's the starting that uses the most power.

Jock.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Sorry urban myth starting uses slightly more than running but the idea that it uses ess electricity to leave them on than turn them off and on is incorrect.


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

sallytrafic said:


> Sorry urban myth starting uses slightly more than running but the idea that it uses ess electricity to leave them on than turn them off and on is incorrect.


Hi Frank,

Are you saying that fluorescent tubes are not as efficient as we are led to believe?

Jock.


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

NO, just that it is an urban myth that due to high starting current it is better to leave them on all the time rather than keep switching them on and off.

The start-up current is not so high and is very brief anyway so the best thing IS to switch them off and NOT to leave them on all the time.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

yes, it is true that fluorescent tubes use _slightly_ more power when starting up than while in continuous operation. So do ordinary light bulbs and halogen lamps, too.

But usually this effect is totally overestimated: Starting a fluorescent tube uses about as much energy as 20 seconds of continuous operation. Given the slightly increase in wear&tear, the "breakeven" between switching off and letting on is reached after about 30 seconds. So if you leave your fluorescent tube alone for more than 30 secs, switch it off.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## JockandRita (Jun 1, 2005)

pippin said:


> NO, just that it is an urban myth that due to high starting current it is better to leave them on all the time rather than keep switching them on and off.
> 
> The start-up current is not so high and is very brief anyway so the best thing IS to switch them off and NOT to leave them on all the time.


Hi Pippin,

Thanks for the clarification to Franks reply. It looks like I've been "myth'ed then. :wink:

Thanks too Gerhard

Jock.


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

and another thumbs up for " ultraleds", no problems and an excellent service, I now have all halogens replaced and the batteries last so much longer, its brilliant!!!


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Boff said:


> Hi,
> 
> yes, it is true that fluorescent tubes use _slightly_ more power when starting up than while in continuous operation. So do ordinary light bulbs and halogen lamps, too.
> 
> ...


Thats interesting, no, really, because, we were filming a really pox advert near Canary Warf, and the night drew in, it got darker, and the office tower blocks, ( some of them 30 stories) all had their florri lights on, all of them, gazillions of lights in empty offices. Someone told me about the new "energy efficient tubes, best to leave on than turn off" which I thought was....bull wrong. nice to be right for a change.


----------



## johnandcharlie (May 2, 2007)

JockandRita said:


> Today, I have spoken to the supplier about replacing the 12v flourescent tubes in the MH with LED's, however, it would mean replacing the complete lighting units due to the tube replacements alone, not being available.


I ripped the guts out of one of my fluorescent fittings, Araldited a £3 G4 lamp holder I bought at Newbury show inside, plus a new 25p slide switch. I don't think it's as bright as the original, but it's fine over the kitchen worktop.


----------



## TR5 (Jun 6, 2007)

I had one part-failure in 12 led's from ultraleds - they replaced it with two at no cost - can't argue with that.

I did have two out of four led festoon bulb's fail from another supplier, and a third go dim. Again, they replaced all, and they are now fine (and all brighter than the originals, which I think were probably a poor batch).


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

Twas Ultraleds data that said the guarantee for the latest chip leds they supplied was the same as a quartz lamps!

But there is no reason to replace low voltage flouresents with leds. They have similar efficiency.


----------

