# This LED Tube replacement for Fluorescent Bulbs?



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

Has anyone tried the LED 'Tubes' such as these, which I'm seeing advertised as a replacement for fluorescent bulbs? http://www.earthled.com/flseries.html

Do they seem to be any good and 
Or can anyone suggest how they seem to compare? 

It seems they're not too costly, require minimal wiring and no ballast, provide a decent angle of light, don't require a reflector, and are said to be 46% more efficient than fluorescent bulbs. I particularly like their opportunities for minimal design, that they wouldn't require soldering, and that they're available in natural white instead of just warm or cool white.

I don't know if they might run too warm though if they're enclosed and not fully ventilated. And I've seen other similar tubes which have an aluminium section to the back with a plastic clip-on cover to the front, which might have better cooling capacity but were more costly. 

So can anyone say whether these seem to be any good or how they compare to other LED's and fluorescents?


----------



## jedimasterben (Aug 21, 2011)

Looks like they're using ludicrous amounts of tiny, tiny LEDs to get the job done. The smaller, less powerful LEDs like that are unable to shine light very far down through water. If a 3w Cree/Bridgelux LED can only penetrate 36" through water (not sure of actual numbers, this is a "for instance"), how far do you think a 1/8w (if they're even that powerful, 15w for a 48" tube packed slam full) LED can get?

You'd be much better off with a much smaller amount of 3w LEDs.


----------



## stewardwildcat (Feb 24, 2010)

I disagree, total amount of light is total amount of light.


----------



## jedimasterben (Aug 21, 2011)

stewardwildcat said:


> I disagree, total amount of light is total amount of light.


But if the light can't penetrate very far, then is it worth it?


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

All light penetrates equally well, as far as aquariums are concerned. The problem with the low wattage LEDs is that they just aren't producing much light.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

I concur that light is light, and that basically the same percentage of light from these would reach the bottom of the tank as from any 3 watt LED. (Accepting minor deviations due to different wavelenghts). 

I checked a few comparisons in any case.

Th Earth LED replacement tubes seem to run 93 lumen/watt which is the same as many Cree XPG's. 

And they claim to have a 50,000 hour lifespan @30% lumen depreciation, which so far as I can tell isn't too bad. 

Their colour rendering index is 75 which is comparable. There are some special higher CRI Cree XPG's now in the 80-90 range, between 3200 and 4300K. 

Hardcore light enthusiasts may nevertheless prefer to build their own fixtures, but these seem like a much easier option for many hobbyists which requires much less research and handiwork. 

But these are in any case supposed to be the replacement for fluorescent tubes, so I'd expect they'd have to have at least an equal output to the tubes we already thing of as being standard. 

No doubt products such as these will continue to improve rapidly. I'd just like to see CREE do a similar series as well though.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand how manufacturers of these "replacement for fluorescent tube" LED lights expect them to be used. You sure couldn't put one of them in a fluorescent light fixture without cooking the LEDs. They don't use a fluorescent ballast, so to use them must mean you have to rewire the fluorescent fixture to eliminate the ballast, and have the 120VAC leads go to the right contacts on the "bulbs". I have yet to see an advertisement for these mention that part.


----------



## RandomMan (May 31, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> I'm not sure I understand how manufacturers of these "replacement for fluorescent tube" LED lights expect them to be used. You sure couldn't put one of them in a fluorescent light fixture without cooking the LEDs. They don't use a fluorescent ballast, so to use them must mean you have to rewire the fluorescent fixture to eliminate the ballast, and have the 120VAC leads go to the right contacts on the "bulbs". I have yet to see an advertisement for these mention that part.


From the OP's link:
http://www.earthled.com/DirectLED-FL-UserGuide.pdf


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

RandomMan said:


> From the OP's link:
> http://www.earthled.com/DirectLED-FL-UserGuide.pdf


That's good, but an inviolable principle of design of consumer products is that such a bulb cannot be physically possible to install in a fixture that will fry it or the consumer. This has bothered me since I saw the first one of this type of "bulb" advertised.


----------



## Mxx (Dec 29, 2010)

That user guide wasn't actually all that simple either. They had a youtube video showing how to retrofit a fixture, which was simpler, but which they rushed through a bit as well if you're not too familiar with such things. 

Do these in any case appear to be at least the equivalent of the fluorescent bulbs they'd be replacing in terms of intensity? And I misquoted, it says they're actually 80% more efficient, but they don't fully explain that and state whether that is measured without reflectors. 

If you search for TMC Aquaray Aquabeam type Aquarium lighting LEDs on ebay you will see a kit for building an LED bar which works in slightly a similar way, with a aluminum heatsink backing and plastic cover to go on the front. But that requires fully assembling it.


----------



## Julia_356 (Oct 26, 2015)

I use the fluorescent light bulbs in my house, garage and garden. Now I consume much less energy than before. 

This is a good site for the lamps. https://www.mrosupply.com/search/?q=LED+lights 
I browse them often to compare prices. But as a rule I buy bulbs in my local store. It is more convenient.


----------

