Comments by "GunFun ZS" (@GunFunZS) on "Technology Connections" channel.

  1. 53
  2. 34
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. I've never had a gripe against them I like them for work lights and I like some LEDs for that purpose. Both are less inclined to be damaged by shock than an incandescent. Generally speaking they put out more brightness per wattage and per heat which is nice. My perception and I'm not sure this is correct is the LEDs are safer around volatile fumes. But perhaps the little transformation pack that converts the electrical signal is a spark hazard... My complaint is actually the new formats of the double prong locking light fixtures which are used in many apartments. The design is to force you to not use incorrect bulbs. So far so good. The problem is they're based around this stupid wattage equivalence theory. Like each of these things is supposedly equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent. And they aren't. but worse they are forcing you to use something that isn't as good as the Volvo you didn't want to use because it wasn't good enough in the first place. I don't want to replace a 60 watt or 40 watt bulb to be the one of two light bulbs in my bedroom or living room. I want something that's approximately equivalent to 160 watt incandescent bulb in actual light output. So to make a standard based on forcing me to use a 14 watt CFL or a 14 watt LED to replace a 40 watt bulb that should have been 160 watt bulb is madness. They wanted me to use more efficient lighting, great. I want that too. I just happened to want brighter nice color temperature more efficient lighting. That is well within our technology. I don't want a 14 watt LED I want approximately a 40 watt LED.
    2
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1