Arf May 18, 2011 11:38 AM Cool design, but I\'d like to know how many watts this uses bobby.riquelme May 18, 2011 11:45 AM 100 watts equivalent ,ok. What about real watts? Paul Anthony May 18, 2011 12:33 PM I want one! No I want 20, unfortunately I am not willing to shell out $500 hard earned dollars to get them. DaveWesely May 18, 2011 12:39 PM I don\'t get it. All this hoohah about 72 lumens per watt? At $20 per bulb? Regular old electronic ballast fluorescent tubes get 80-100 lumens per watt. Yes that\'s better than 17 l/w from an incandescent, but that\'s not hard to beat. LEDs are good for harsh environments or confined spaces, but not for regular old building lights. BeWalt May 18, 2011 01:56 PM Gee Gizmag!! I love u guyz but... what is THAT? Aren\'t ya missing something here? Anybody can build an LED-based bulb that can replace a 100 watt incandescent, the trick is to build one that uses so little power that it is actually worth doing it. Looking at the company website: for their 60 watt replacement bulb they state \"16 watts\" of power needed to obtain the 60-watt-equivalent light output. Lumens per watt for that product are 75. If the 100-watt-equivalent bulb has a comparable performance, it would consume 21.3 watt to get to that 100-watt-equivalent light output. That is good, but not outstanding. There are conventional compact fluorescents (mercury containing, an thus not very nice) with a comparable efficiency available, and have been for over a decade. LEDs already on the market exist with a light output of 100 lumens per watt, albeit not in the most desirable wave lengths that people want to light up their living rooms with. Laboratory records have recently gone up to near 200 lumens per watt, but are far from production. For the time being, people will still buy compact fluorescents if they want to save energy without draining their wallet. Only if they also want to be nice to the earth and not poison their children\'s drinking water supply, they will shell out the four, five, or eight times higher cost to get one of these new LED products. I hope to see some of these relevant numbers in future Gizmag articles about LED lighting. And yes, I still dearly love you, Mag. My sweet Giz. James Van Damme May 18, 2011 03:34 PM You put that isotropic pattern LED in a conventional lamp, and the shade attenuates half the light. I want a lamp that incorporates an LED array effectively, so that I get the light where I want it, without glare or shadows. Mark Burgunder May 18, 2011 05:20 PM Guys, this is hardly a first. Have a look at the EarthLED EvoLux (http://www.earthled.com/evolux-led-light-bulb.html). For 13 watt you got 100 watt equivalent lighting. We\'ve got a number of these over a year ago and couldn\'t be happier with them. donwine May 18, 2011 07:01 PM The picture is so bright I had to put on my sunglasses to look at it! We have come along way sense burning whale oil but there is along way to go. The first goal should be price and then the product. If you could only combine photo illuminating chemicals, florescent and LED at an affordable cost then you will have my full attention. Mr Stiffy May 18, 2011 10:28 PM I made my own LED lamp that runs off 240V. Just string together enough 3.5V very high brightness LED\'s, to run them at about 80% maximum input voltage - bingo = very bright and an interesting project. christopher May 18, 2011 11:29 PM Am I the only one here who absolutely HATES the \"light\" these wretched things produce?