LED wattage explain

[Let'sgoflying!]

When they describe lamps as having 72 watts each, are they talking about what the supply wire will experience? Or is this 'lighting output equivalent watts' and the LEDs actually draw some amperage much less than what a 72 watt device would?

 

[Dan Thomas]

When they describe lamps as having 72 watts each, are they talking about what the supply wire will experience? Or is this 'lighting output equivalent watts' and the LEDs actually draw some amperage much less than what a 72 watt device would?

Lighting output equivalent means that it will produce the same light intensity as an incandescent bulb of that wattage. The LED will draw maybe a tenth of that.

 

[sarangan]

When they describe lamps as having 72 watts each, are they talking about what the supply wire will experience? Or is this 'lighting output equivalent watts' and the LEDs actually draw some amperage much less than what a 72 watt device would?

Based 100 lumens/watt stated in the spec, my guess is this is direct LED watts, not the equivalent of an incandescent lamp.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

That is the question.
Are they talking about electric watts or the stupid 'equivalent lighting wattage' that came out when the CF bulbs were forced upon us and no one could tell how bright they were going to be.
(btw, NONE of my electric bills dropped since switching to the "earth-saving CFs, LEDs" - as an aside)

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

That is the question.
Are they talking about electric watts or the stupid 'equivalent lighting wattage' that came out when the CF bulbs were forced upon us and no one could tell how bright they were going to be.
(btw, NONE of my electric bills dropped since switching to the "earth-saving CFs, LEDs" - as an aside)

You must not have been burning too many bulbs, then, as the LEDs use less than a quarter of the electricity of an incandescent.

These bulbs, if the specs are true, should be as bright as a dozen 55 watt sealed high beam headlights. Without requiring 660 watts to light them.

However, the beam will not be focused like a headlight.

SPECIFICATIONS:
- Working Voltage: DC 9-32V(DC 12V stable)
- Lumens: 14,400 Lm
- LED Power: 144W/Pair
- Power: 48Pcs OSRAM LEDs
- Beam Angle: 120° Flood Beam
- Color Temperature:6,000K

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

How about this one, then.
It claims to be a Spot/Flood combo.

SPECIFICATIONS (presumably) per lamp:
- Working Voltage: DC 9-32V
- Lumens: 8400Lm
- "Power: 84W"
- Beam Angle: 150°/30° (not great. PAR36 is <20°)
- Color Temperature: 6000K

I think they are saying it requires 84W input ie @12V, 7amps per lamp.
Have to wonder how far they will light things up. Got to be better than the 2200Lm I have right now.
Heck a 4509 only has 1440Lm.
Then there is the whole "Lumens vs Effective Lumens".

 

[Spring Ford]

There is a reasonable article here that includes a conversion table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)

The European Union has recently mandated that " lighting equipment must be labelled primarily in terms of luminous flux (lm), instead of electric power (W)". Hopefully this will, after a warm up period, reduce the present confusion. This labeling requirement will likely leak into other jurisdictions some of which may follow suit or indeed may have got there already.

144 watts of LED will be quite a lot of light - lovely.

 

[chemgeek]

For equivalent lumens in a typical A19 residential package, CFLs use about 1/4 the power and LEDs about 1/7 the power. That's a huge increase in lighting efficiency. I put 9W pots in my kitchen an they are so bright we put a dimmer on them.

 

[Spring Ford]

However, the beam will not be focused like a headlight.

I think that this will be a problem for say driving because a lot of the light will fall on the road near to the driver. This will cause the far distance to appear relatively dim. It will I guess be shockingly bad in falling snow/rain/fog.

Headlights are quite fancy. Not at all simple.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Anyone think any of the options I listed would be great/suck at a landing light? (exp)

 

[champdriver]

To OP: They are 20 bucks and about as bright as a 60 watt light bulb. You're not actually thinking about putting them on an airplane are you?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

about as bright as a 60 watt light bulb.

Great, someone who actually has one. Glad for first hand info, as you really can't tell from the descriptions/specs/reviews.
Hey, how did you get the luminosity to be equal to a 60W light bulb?
I've been trying to apply some science to this problem and here's what I get:

Your 60W light bulb is about 800 lumens, according to the USDOE - well, if you can believe them.

The last LED lamp I posted above, the AutoPowerPlus LED, is spec'd at 8400 lumens.
(Neither site suggests if we are talking about 'effective lumens' or 'raw lumens', but even considering the worst case scenario - the LED has a lot more luminosity.
Granted, I have no way to tell if an ebay seller, one in which a brick and mortar US company cannot be identified, is lying about the lamp.)

It has to be better than what I landed with a few nights ago; it was a Bulbrite bulb of 1050 lumens that came with the airplane. It was not an ugly last-minute play for the runway or anything, but I would like to do better. (I will give it to the Bulbrite, the 641175 is less than 2" diameter, has a temp of only 2900K -but with its 16° beam width I was able to get it done.)
And, as noted previously, the typical PAR36 4509 bulb only lists 1440 lumens. (It's a 12° beam width; in its favor)

So, I'm thinking I will be better off with the one I posted. I'd love to know how much throw it has. (if it's more flood than spot, it will only be great when for my runway excursions!)

To OP: They are 20 bucks

I don't follow your thoughts on this Champ...less $ could be better in my book; many times I have found that paying more does not guarantee higher quality or function, but certainly you have to watch that both ways.
Thanks!