If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it.
                                                               Government product regulation is not one of them

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

The L Prize:
Official Version of the Testing Procedure

As previously covered, the Philips LED Prize bulb, its quality issues, and how Philips won the US Government prize for it:
The lobbying, the evading of rules, the poor quality of the bulb on testing - as referenced with competition rules, patents, lobbying finance records, the prize committee's own lab test document, etc...

Standing against that information,
the US Dept of Energy official site (lightingprize.org) - has a lot more about the evaluation procedure - including their video about the bulb testing:

The just released (April 2012) stress test report follows below.
Alternative link to this PDF document.

As seen, the lab involved was the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, as also covered in the mentioned complete post and test committee review therein.


Anonymous said...

This report was just published in April 2012, so can not be an original report on the stress testing that had been available in August 2011 when the RIGGED L-Prize "win" was announced. Publishing this report now amounts to a white wash. Also, this report does not incorporate any analysis of failures in the field testing or even acknowledge that such failures did occur-again this is a white wash. Stating "Possibilities for additional analysis of the existing data set are limited due to the lack of Philips L Prize entry failures" is very misleading.

We know from the independent lab report from Southern California Edison that 1 out of a test set of 16 bulbs failed by turning red. In total 1300 bulbs were field tested. See link on web page http://www.etcc-ca.com/component/content/article/48-Commercial/3044-l-prize-lab-evaluation which has link to report. It is highly likely that if one 1 of 16 failed in the California testing, more of 1300 also failed.

A real, honest DoE report would have integrated analysis of failures that occured in the field testing. This report is a flak.

Anonymous said...

Also expensive for what is offered.
It should not be forgotten that supposed cheaper Philips L Bulbs via rebates and subsidies are funded by people's taxes so they pay a lot for them, whatever way they do it.

Tom Ridgeway

Lighthouse said...

Agreed Tom...
and that's how Philips get some of all their lobby money back from politicians, noting the lobby finance as covered in earlier posts!