341°
EXPIRED
5 Pack LED Lamp GLS Non Dimmable 10W (60W Equivalent) BC 810lm A+ ONLY £7.98 @ Toolstation
5 Pack LED Lamp GLS Non Dimmable 10W (60W Equivalent) BC 810lm A+ ONLY £7.98 @ Toolstation

5 Pack LED Lamp GLS Non Dimmable 10W (60W Equivalent) BC 810lm A+ ONLY £7.98 @ Toolstation

Buy forBuy forBuy for£7.98
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
These are the Bayonet type. The Edison Screw ones are the same price.
http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Lighting/d220/LED+GLS+Lamps/sd3382/LED+GLS+Non+Dimmable+Lamp/p37727

Thanks Batista. There are no stupid questions. Thanks.

Great deal for 5 x 60 W equivalent lamps.
Description

• Average life 25000 hours
• 180° beam angle
• Equivalent to 60W
• Warm white 3000K
• Non dimmable
• Energy class A+

Top comments

It's easy to compare efficency. The more Lumens per Watt the better. This is 810 Lumens, and is 10W, 81 Lm per W. Checked Amazon, the first two Edison best selling bulbs are 88 Lm/W, and 100lm/W. However they're £4.50 and £5.00 a bulb respectively. That is about the same light of 800lm in an 9W bulb, and a 8W bulb. A 1W difference left on 24/7, costs about a £1.00 a year. Or for 6 hours a day 25p a year. Would take 15 years to pay the difference in efficency alone. The comment above complaining about efficency is not something to take seriously. I would worry more about spectrum coverage, build quality and colour temperature.
14 Comments

Thx OP
ordered and heat

Hi does anyone know what the difference between 10W ES 810lm

http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Lighting/d220/LED+GLS+Lamps/sd3382/LED+GLS+Non+Dimmable+Lamp/p37727

and

10W BC 810lm

toolstation.com/sho…839

Original Poster

One is Edison Screw and the other is Bayonet

ES Edison screw
BC Bayonet

Edited by: "getmeone" 16th May

getmeone

One is Edison Screw and the other is BayonetES Edison screwBC Bayonet


thank you

Good find.

As well as looking really ugly, these are 20%+ less efficient than the least efficient filament LED bulbs. It pays to do the arithmetic, the lifetime cost is dominated by electricity charges and some filament LEDs are claimed to be 60% more efficient!

And just in case - really ugly

anonymoose1

As well as looking really ugly, these are 20%+ less efficient than the … As well as looking really ugly, these are 20%+ less efficient than the least efficient filament LED bulbs. It pays to do the arithmetic, the lifetime cost is dominated by electricity charges and some filament LEDs are claimed to be 60% more efficient!And just in case - really ugly:)


May I know how can you tell these are at least 20% less efficient? Many thanks.
Edited by: "hotdealseeker" 17th May

It's easy to compare efficency. The more Lumens per Watt the better. This is 810 Lumens, and is 10W, 81 Lm per W. Checked Amazon, the first two Edison best selling bulbs are 88 Lm/W, and 100lm/W. However they're £4.50 and £5.00 a bulb respectively. That is about the same light of 800lm in an 9W bulb, and a 8W bulb. A 1W difference left on 24/7, costs about a £1.00 a year. Or for 6 hours a day 25p a year. Would take 15 years to pay the difference in efficency alone. The comment above complaining about efficency is not something to take seriously. I would worry more about spectrum coverage, build quality and colour temperature.

Original Poster

batista

thank you



You are welcome. Added a credit for you in the title. No stupid questions, just stupid answers.

How do these compare to screwfix ones?

darren93

It's easy to compare efficency. The more Lumens per Watt the better. This … It's easy to compare efficency. The more Lumens per Watt the better. This is 810 Lumens, and is 10W, 81 Lm per W. Checked Amazon, the first two Edison best selling bulbs are 88 Lm/W, and 100lm/W. However they're £4.50 and £5.00 a bulb respectively. That is about the same light of 800lm in an 9W bulb, and a 8W bulb. A 1W difference left on 24/7, costs about a £1.00 a year. Or for 6 hours a day 25p a year. Would take 15 years to pay the difference in efficency alone. The comment above complaining about efficency is not something to take seriously. I would worry more about spectrum coverage, build quality and colour temperature.


Thanks darren93. Given your figures.
81Lm/W v 88Lm/W or 100Lm/W would equate 8% less and 19% less efficient respectifively.
However anonymoose1 suggests they are at least 20% less efficient, so would you be using a different methodology?

Would these be as good as the Phillips master led bulbs?

What's the diff between these and the normal energy saver ones which are about 8 or 9w and they give an equivalent 60w yet cost much less to buy?
Also the pound store has leds for a pound each they r 3 w and give off 25w

Original Poster

Nicolas

What's the diff between these and the normal energy saver ones which are … What's the diff between these and the normal energy saver ones which are about 8 or 9w and they give an equivalent 60w yet cost much less to buy?Also the pound store has leds for a pound each they r 3 w and give off 25w


By energy saver I think you are referring to "Fluorescent" tube type ones. Not sure if you noticed how long they take to get to full brightness, but I find it incredibly annoying. Your point about the pound shop ones is that they are 3w. 25/30W equivalent in a bedroom might be OK for you but in the lounge or kitchen I prefer to see what I am doing. There may also be a difference in the electronic controls for those other 3W lamps. Some of the cheaper ones have been reported to give off high levels of interference due to the poor circuitry. Not saying that is the case for the PS ones, but could be.
Edited by: "getmeone" 19th May
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text