LED outdoor security floodlights high failure rate

[JohnW2]

"par38 led bulbs" seem to use "proven" technology, and are sealed within an "envelope". Other "outdoor" LEDs seem to use devices more "open to the elements".

Agreed, for some brands. Unlike incandescent PAR38s, they're usually not glass, and some brands have the front 'cover'/'lens'/whatever as a bit of plastic which is just 'clipped on' (and can be pulled off) so not necessarily all that convincingly protected from the elements.

If you have had success with el-cheapo par 38 LED bulbs - good luck. I tend to lean on the side of caution when investing in "new technology".

As I often observe, and for what it's worth, my personal experience in relation to 'new technology' (over decades) has been that, contrary to what one might expect, 'reputable big brand' and 'expensive' are no guarantee of anything, so (after investing plenty in expensive products over the years) tend to be a major user of 'el-cheapo products' these days!!

Indeed, I doubt there are many situations in which an expensive one which costs N times more than a cheap one will last N times longer, so the cheaper ones tend to 'win' (financially) anyway, even if they don't last very long.

Furthermore, in terms of some of the 'very technological' things (computers, phones etc. etc.) paying a lot for (something perceived as) a very long-lasting product can be a waste of money, since it will probably become ';obsolete', and hence need replacing, before the end of the 'very long life' for which one has paid a premium!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As I often observe, and for what it's worth, my personal experience in relation to 'new technology' (over decades) has been that, contrary to what one might expect, 'reputable big brand' and 'expensive' are no guarantee of anything, so (after investing plenty in expensive products over the years) tend to be a major user of 'el-cheapo products' these days!!

One way to look at it, is that you are paying the extra, for a better guarantee period - which covers the manufacturer's cost in replacing those which do fail and have to be replaced.

 

[JohnW2]

One way to look at it, is that you are paying the extra, for a better guarantee period - which covers the manufacturer's cost in replacing those which do fail and have to be replaced.

Maybe - but, in practice, how many of us bother to attempt to get 'little things', like bulbs, replaced under warranty if they fail fairly early?

If the two things (true cost of the product, and 'an insurance premium'), were separate, with the 'insurance' being an option (at a price) that one didn't have to buy, I wonder how many people would bother to pay for that 'insurance'?

In any event, as I implied, the bottom line seems to be that if I could get, say, 5 cheap replacements for the additional cost of an expensive one, I reckon that I would usually end up 'in pocket' by going for the cheapies1

Kind Regards, John

 

[robinbanks]

'average' (median)

Average is 'mean', btw, not 'median'.. Unless you're saying that manufacturers say "average" when they actually intend "median"?

Now, about those Dubai lamps...

 

[securespark]

I fitted shedloads of Thorn lighting in the 80s, 90s and Noughties.
Especially the Sunflood, Beta 5 SOX fittings and various Thorn fluorescents, usually Pop Pack.

I have a customer I used to work for who has 1970s Sunfloods round his house which are still going.

The installation is wired in MICC. It's beautiful, a real work of art. Proper sparkies porn!

Thorn gear, especially the older stuff, is indestructible.

 

[JohnW2]

Average is 'mean', btw, not 'median'.. Unless you're saying that manufacturers say "average" when they actually intend "median"?

"Average" is a 'colloquial' term encompassing many things, which Statisticians formally refer to as "measures of central tendency". The most common are the (arithmetic) mean, median and mode (particularly the first two), but there are countless others.

As I've said, and for reasons I have partially explained. medians are a very commonly used, and for many purposes are the most useful, 'average' used in relation to 'survival' or 'life expectancies', whether of human beings, other animals or inanimate objects (including most manufactured products).

One of the advantages of medians I haven't mentioned, is that one can potentially estimate it much more quickly than one can estimate a mean. To estimate median, one only has to continue one's testing/observation until half of the products have failed - say 15,000 hours, if that is the median survival. To properly calculate a mean, one has continue the testing until the very last one has failed - which could, in some situations, be 100,000 hours or more.

The further one gets from a situation in which the figures are symmetrically distributed around a central figure, the greater the potential for arithmetic means to give misleading impressions. In context, just a small proportion of LEDs lasting 'for a very long time' can pull up the mean to a very over-optimistic figure.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Maybe - but, in practice, how many of us bother to attempt to get 'little things', like bulbs, replaced under warranty if they fail fairly early?

If the two things (true cost of the product, and 'an insurance premium'), were separate, with the 'insurance' being an option (at a price) that one didn't have to buy, I wonder how many people would bother to pay for that 'insurance'?

They are called extended warranties, offered on most domestic appliances, and enough take them on/they are profitable enough, to make it worthwhile the salesmen pushing them hard.

In any event, as I implied, the bottom line seems to be that if I could get, say, 5 cheap replacements for the additional cost of an expensive one, I reckon that I would usually end up 'in pocket' by going for the cheapies1

As would I - I am not minor risk averse.

 

[JohnW2]

They are called extended warranties, offered on most domestic appliances, and enough take them on/they are profitable enough, to make it worthwhile the salesmen pushing them hard.

Exactly - and, by definition (since the providers are making profits), they are 'on average' not cost-effective. However, some people may prefer to pay extra for a 'known cost', rather than risk higher 'unknown' ones. Exactly the same is true of any insurance - if one has the resources/reserves to enable one to pay oneself for 'whatever happens' then, 'on average' one will end up better off than one would if also paying for an insurer's profits.

Of course, sometimes one has little choice - for example, very few of us have the resources which would enable us to rebuild our house in the 9extremely low probability) event of it 'burning down'.

As would I - I am not minor risk averse.

As I've said, and as above, I do not think that what I was talking about was anything to do with not being 'risk averse'. I was suggesting that if the cheap products are very much cheaper than the expensive ones (but, when working, are both acceptable), then it is in one's financial interests (i.e. no 'risk') to go for the cheap ones, and replace (with other cheap ones) if/when necessary.

Kind Regards, John

 

[FrodoOne]

As I often observe, and for what it's worth, my personal experience in relation to 'new technology' (over decades) has been that, contrary to what one might expect, 'reputable big brand' and 'expensive' are no guarantee of anything, so (after investing plenty in expensive products over the years) tend to be a major user of 'el-cheapo products' these days!!

While I did not write concerning "expensive" or "higher priced", I did mention reputable brands.
As you will know, most of these "Brands" now have their products made in countries other than that of their "home base".
Hence, it is not surprising that many remarkedly "similar" products appear on the market under other "names" - at a somewhat or much lower price !
(However, I have not found that [in most cases] any "premium" for a "Brand Name" product has been much over the price for the [rather obvious] "copy".)


This is akin to the automotive industry, where many of the "original" parts are actually sourced from many other manufactures.
If a part fails, one is "encouraged" to replace with only an "original" part - at a price of the "manufacturers" choosing !

My thought has been that the "original" part HAS failed.
Hence, I might as well replace it with an item from "another" manufacturer - who may actually have made the "original" part - and any "improvements" may well have been incorporated into the replacement product!

 

[JohnW2]

While I did not write concerning "expensive" or "higher priced", I did mention reputable brands.

True, but the two nearly always go hand-in-hand.

As you will know, most of these "Brands" now have their products made in countries other than that of their "home base". Hence, it is not surprising that many remarkedly "similar" products appear on the market under other "names" - at a somewhat or much lower price ! (However, I have not found that [in most cases] any "premium" for a "Brand Name" product has been much over the price for the [rather obvious] "copy".)

Quite so, although in my experience, the 'brand name' can have a big impact on price.

I actually suspect that, in a good few cases, the cheap 'unbranded' (or 'different branded') product is not just similar but is identical, having come from the same production line. I recently bought a battery for a Lenovo laptop at a price which was not much more than half the price for which Lenovo sell them. When I pulled off the stickers that had been applied by the 'supplier', I found Lenovo branding (complete with correct Lenovo part number), and the same information as to where, and by whom, it had been manufactured.

I accept that it's possible that what I got was some sort of 'second' but, for what it's worth, the limited testing I have been able to do reveals nothing wrong with the product.

So, particularly if it is not in some way a 'second', the only difference is that, in one case, the 'middle man' (the company who put 'reputable brand' markings on the product) is making a vast profit!

It's certainly not restricted to this field. A family member of mine works in the food production industry. He tells many stories of situations in which they manufacture (and sell for similar prices) the identical, or nearly identical, products for both 'reputable brands' and much cheaper 'supermarket own-brands' - the retail prices often being very different.

Kind Regards, John