FIRST Fundraiser: Selling LED "Lightbulbs"

[OZ_341]

The bulbs themselves are a great idea. But having your kids try to sell them may not be such a great idea. Most consumers won't make this very large, short term, investment for a long term gain, regardless of the accuracy of the calculations. The vast majority of consumers are not going to think about this like engineers. It is just the nature of the consumer beast.

The bottom line is that you are asking teenagers to sell $25 lightbulbs to their grandmothers. That is who is going to buy most of these bulbs. There are just better things to sell, like Hexbugs.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

While Brandon might provide a better answer to this, the fluorescent tube lights are different than the squiggly lights one puts in a residential light fixture, in that they have an external ballast to pump the voltage up to around 600V. Any drop in replacement bulb would therefore have to run at 600V, which presents a major challenge. Removing the ballast and wiring the tube fixture directly to 120 or 240 VAC would probably make it easier to make LED tube lights, but would eliminate the possibility of putting a fluorescent tube back in.

You got most of it covered here Art.

Running an LED bulb off the same ballast as a flourescent is almost out of the question, so some rework of a fixture must be done to switch it to LED.

Also, those flourescent bulbs are pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# bright! Some people take those simple flourescent tubes for granted, but they are able to light very large spaces relatively cheaply thanks to the massive adoption of consumers.


Good job on the cost breakdown Art, I was going to attempt something similar, but simply didn't have the time to.

The numbers can be quibbled over and massaged to everyones liking, but there is a real cost savings potential in LED technology, this is a fact. Art is smart to point out an example like plasma TVs. When flat screens first came out people were paying through the nose for the new technology. Now, you can pick up a new ~37" plasma screen on black friday for less than 300 bucks.

The real cost savings will come from widespread adoption of the technology. It may take a while yet, which is why I do not blame people for being skeptical. However, you cannot ignore the changing of the tide that will surely come in the next few years as incandescents will have to face very strict efficiency ratings.

-Brando

[RoboMom]

Is this the project funded by the Google grant? Jump starting student fundraising?
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/conte...1&terms=google

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

The numbers can be quibbled over and massaged to everyones liking, but there is a real cost savings potential in LED technology, this is a fact.

A couple of thoughts Brandon:

Refining a design or an analysis is not "quibbling". It is an essential part of the iterative engineering process.

None of the posts in this thread have taken issue with the "potential" for savings. Everyone seems to agree on that.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Ether

Nobody is "quibbling" about the "potential" for savings. Everyone agrees on that.

I'm glad we're in agreement on that point then.

[Sunshine]

Asking high school students to sell $25 light bulbs is almost the dumbest thing FIRST has ever done.

My team will not be participating and I will guess most other teams will not either.
You want to math problems. Figure out what it would cost you if you replaced yogurt entire house with these.

[skimoose]

There have been some great posts here and there have been a lot of less than informed posts as well.

First, I've seen several posts reporting a price of $25/bulb when FIRST's suggested retail price is $19.99/bulb. The "wholesale" price to teams is about $6/bulb. I see nothing forcing teams to sell at $20/bulb. A team appears to be free to set the price as they see fit. I believe teams are free to offer extra savings for quantity orders. If I can sell a case of bulbs at $10/bulb to a single customer, I'm still realizing $120 profit/case. FIRST was clear that they were not expecting teams to sell door to door to residential customers. A team's best strategy would be to approach commercial customers and offer a bulk discount on quantity orders. Think of all those restaurants that have pendant (hanging fixtures) lights over booths or dining tables. There are still a large number running incandescent bulbs, and even if using CFLs there is still 10-20% energy savings switching to LEDs. The penetration of LED technology into the lighting arena is almost barely measurable at this point so there is a lot of room for sales.

There has been a lot of bad information on fluorescent lighting here. Even conventional fluorescent tubes have seen major improvements in efficiency. The old standard T12 is being replaced by T8 and now T5 high efficiency models. Someone asked about replacing fluorescent tubes with LED technology. It does exist, but is still prohibitively expensive. The retro fit kit requires the fluorescent tubes and ballast be removed, a LED driver be installed and then wired into LED arrays that are mount where the tubes used to be. The old tube sockets are not used at all, they are abandon in place. A two element LED retro fit kit for a standard 2'x4' T8 or T5 troffer fixture (the 2'x4' fixtures used in drop ceilings) cost about $150-250 currently. Also, since the technology is still in its infancy, there are no standards yet. Installing one of these retro fit kits or replacing a fluorescent fixture with a LED unit means you need to go back to that manufacturer for replacements when they're needed. No telling if they'll still be in business when you need replacements. I'd wait to replace or retro fit standard tube fluorescent lights until there are some industry standards.

CFLs are a different issue altogether. They are and always have been a stop gap solution until LED technology matured. They are almost exclusively manufactured overseas and in locations that don't have a good handle on QC. Art04 mentioned that newer CFLs are manufactured with less mercury than earlier models, but I'd take that with a grain of salt based on those QC issues. My utility offers fluorescent disposal to our customers because of the issues with mercury. We've also seen some nasty failures with CFLs from customers. Several near fires due to failures of the ballast on a CFL. If you're paying $2 for a CFL, you're getting what you paid for. A good quality CFL should still be around $5/bulb.

Light output is diminished with decreased ambient temperatures with all fluorescent fixtures. Some improvements have been made, but fluorescent bulbs are slow to reach maximum lumen output in lower temperatures. The biggest problem with fluorescent lights, especially in residential applications, is that life expectancy and light output is measurably reduced by the number of on-off cycles. Fluorescent lights are designed to be turned on and left on for long periods of time (8+ hours). In a home where we are always turning lights on and off fluorescent lights will perform worse than their published specs. Fluorescent lights can not be used with dimmers unless they have dimmable ballasts.

LED lighting technology has two major components that are not readily perceived in these bulb style packages. There is the circuit that transforms and rectifies the AC to DC at a voltage usable by the LED itself. These circuits are becoming known as the LED Driver. Then there is the actual LED or array of LEDs which are becoming known as Light Engines. What tends to fail on LED lighting is the driver circuit and these can be susceptible to lightning damage. Incandescent and to some degree fluorescent bulbs are more robust when it comes to lightning surges. We'll have to see how LED technology handles surges.

LED lighting provides better lumen output over life of the bulb. Incandescent, fluorescent, and HID high intensity discharge (metal halide, sodium, and mercury vapor) lose as much as 50% of their lumen output by 50% of their life expectancy. Tests so far have shown that LEDs tend to maintain 80-90% of their lumen output through about 90% of their life span. The problem with LED light output is that the output tends to be very directional. That explains why some people who have seen these lights displayed by Dean reported them being blinding, but the lumen output is less than a 60W incandescent. The reported lumen output is an average lumen/meter output. Lenses improve the light spread, but there is still work to be done in this area. As a task light these LEDs should be great. For general area lighting they will be a little weaker than the equivalent incandescent or fluorescent bulbs.

Like any electronic component, life span is affected by heat. Good heat sinking is necessary. In a standard Edison Base bulb there isn't a lot of room for the heat sinks. On the high output LED street lights that I've inspected so far, they have several pounds worth of cast aluminum heat sink on the LED driver. A very good LED light can have a life span of up to 50,000 hours so I'm a little disappointed by the e-saver's published life expectancy which is on par with typical CFLs. I'm also disappointed that these are non-dimmable LED bulbs. I'm sure that has to do with how the driver circuit is designed and keeping the price point down. Most LEDs should be dimmable to about 10% lumen output. I'm also not a fan of the warm light color temperature of 2700K. I prefer natural or daylight color temperature which is around 5000K. That's just personal preference, but the higher color temps cost more money too.

Other than these minor issues, I think the bulb offer is competitive for teams. The equivalent price in Home Depot or Lowes is about $23-25/bulb currently. When those prices go down, teams are free to reduce their offering price to stay ahead of the retailers and still make a decent profit margin. Will teams make thousands selling these bulbs, some might if they work hard at it, but I see this as just another source of revenue for teams.

Ether joked (I think) about using incandescent bulbs to augment his heat in the winter. Well those bulbs are inefficient lighting devices and even more inefficient heating devices. I'll stick with my heating plant that is designed to heat my living space, not use light bulbs. I don't like CFLs and have always planned to stop using them as soon as LED technology matured. I think that technology is getting to the point where it makes sense now. I'll be buying these bulbs and I expect that my team will make some money selling bulbs as well.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by skimoose

Ether joked (I think) about using incandescent bulbs to augment his heat in the winter.

Several incandescent bulbs burning in a closed room for an extended period of time do noticeably raise the room temperature. They are like mini radiant space-heaters. And they are quiet :-)

In areas of the country where electricity is cheap and heating fuel is expensive, taking the "waste heat saves heating fuel" phenomenon into account can affect the lifecycle cost analysis of incandescent vs the alternatives. In some rural areas serviced by nuclear power plants, the $/BTU for off-peak electricity is cheaper than $/BTU for heating fuel.

Well those bulbs are inefficient lighting devices and even more inefficient heating devices.

The bulb is actually 100% efficient at turning electrical power into light and heat. I mean, where else is the input power gonna go?

[skimoose]

Well if you're using it as a heater, the wasted input energy is coming off as light. So if you're using more bulbs just to get heat you are wasting energy in the form of unnecessary light. Before I relied on the added heating of incandescent bulbs I'd improve the heat loss efficiency of my building.

Remember that the average human being generates as much heat as a 100W incandescent bulb. So why not just invite the rest of the family into the room for the added heating load, and save some electricity.

Also, unfortunately thanks to deregulation low cost electricity is disappearing. Why should I sell my watts to you for $0.08/kwhr, when I can can reach customers through the grid willing to buy at $0.11/kwhr or more. But that is entirely a different story.

[1986titans]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

Is this the project funded by the Google grant? Jump starting student fundraising?
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/conte...1&terms=google

Yep, they made quite a few bulbs:

Dean says they've already produced several hundred thousand of the bulbs thanks to a surprise $3 million investment from Google, and plan to have them in the hands of every FIRST kid soon. Keep on fighting the good fight, Dean.

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/28/d...e-led-light-b/

[Ether]

Originally Posted by skimoose

Well if you're using it as a heater,

That wasn't really the point. The point was, the "waste" heat is not wasted. It heats the room.

You can't have it both ways. If you argue that the heating effect is so small that it can be ignored, then this argument can be turned around to say that the energy savings associated with using a technology with less waste heat can be ignored.

the wasted input energy is coming off as light. So if you're using more bulbs just to get heat you are wasting energy in the form of unnecessary light.

What do you think happens to those unnecessary photons when they bounce off the walls a couple of times?

Before I relied on the added heating of incandescent bulbs I'd improve the heat loss efficiency of my building.

So would I, but that has no logical connection to the point being made.

Remember that the average human being generates as much heat as a 100W incandescent bulb. So why not just invite the rest of the family into the room for the added heating load, and save some electricity.

Because then the rest of the house would get colder? :-)

Also, unfortunately thanks to deregulation low cost electricity is disappearing.

So is low-cost heating fuel. It's not the cost of electricity that factors into the analysis, it's the difference in $/BTU for electricity vs $/BTU for whatever heating fuel is available for your home.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Ether

That wasn't really the point. The point was, the "waste" heat is not wasted. It heats the room.

You can't have it both ways. If you argue that the heating effect is so small that it can be ignored, then this argument can be turned around to say that the energy savings associated with using a technology with less waste heat can be ignored.

Very good point here! My mom noticed a difference in our kitchen in that it was much colder when we switched from incandescents to CFL's. I also notice the difference in the winter with the lights on my car being iced over and I would have to clean them every once and a while. So back to incandescents for me!

[MarkoRamius1086]

You know, I have sat by the side for a long time on this thread, but it's to a point I feel like my $0.02 is necessary. I agree completely with Skimoose and thank him for his posts.

I hope many teams see this as an opportunity to fundraise, the whole point of this program. The fact that these bulbs will be cheaper in the future is a badly beaten dead horse. We have a fairly large team this year, so I will calculate this as if I was part of... a twenty person team.

If the team buys one case and sells it:
30 Bulbs @ $20 apiece = $600 Total
$600 - $180($6 fee per bulb) = $420
Meaning that if each person on the team sells one or two bulbs, the team gets $420 Dollars.

If the team buys two cases and sells it:
60 Bulbs @ $20 apiece = $1200 Total
$1200 - $360($6 fee per bulb) = $840
Meaning that if each person on a twenty person team sells three bulbs, the team gets $840

If the team buys three cases and sells it:
90 Bulbs @ $20 apiece = $1800 Total
$1800 - $540($6 fee per bulb) = $1260
Pushing it to the edge of these kids here, but if every kid on a twenty member team sells three or four bulbs, the team end up with $1260.

Personally, this is easy money from FIRST and Cree for us as FRC teams. Yes, after you parents buy one or two to make your life easier, it may take a few days to run into some neighbors and get them to buy a bulb for your Robotics Team. Let’s say... it takes two weeks total for your team to get your members to sign off on these bulbs... but at the end of those two weeks you get a good amount of money. Again tell me if I am being obnoxious here, but I believe that taking the time to do a fundraiser and get the team members involved with team funds is not a waste of time, especially considering the harsh economy and how hard some teams are finding it to keep going.

Again, this is my $0.02 on the matter.

[JesseK]

Come on guys, quit being engineers just long enough to see that the consumer market won't care about nitpicking a few bucks of saving in a year or two or three. If you want to sell the bulbs, take a hint from Apple -- they sell overpriced pinholed technology all the time and make billions! Stay positive when talking about the selling points, deflect all questions about the negative points, and insert subliminal messages that make a buyer think it's the best light bulb invention since the original by Edison (et al) ... and maybe even thrown in some trash-talk about competing technologies! It's probably best to put a tidbit in the sales pitch that says each bulb sold isn't only going to a company's profits but also to the local community's benefit. We know that there are long-term benefits to the bulbs, yet giving the consumers specific numbers in this regards will typically just confuse them. Keep it simple.

As much as I have a love/hate relationship with Ether's incessant pointing out of the minute technicalities that are both correct and (sometimes) irrelevant, I have to admit that in this thread the implications of his points have been dead on in that the benefits aren't necessarily quantified as the obvious observations presumed they would be. is that a run-on sentence? I can't tell...

[TD912]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Very good point here! My mom noticed a difference in our kitchen in that it was much colder when we switched from incandescents to CFL's. I also notice the difference in the winter with the lights on my car being iced over and I would have to clean them every once and a while. So back to incandescents for me!

Interesting you should mention that. Reminded me of another Engadget post about traffic lights retrofitted with LEDs that were covered by snow:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/l...use-accidents/

Still, I do agree with JesseK that this is a great opportunity to raise money for teams.