> The only LEDs that are more efficient are either lying to you (they claim the light is more directed so it "counts" as more, and they uprate the bulb), or the

> The only LEDs that are more efficient are either lying to you (they claim the light is more directed so it "counts" as more, and they uprate the bulb), or they have worse color accuracy so you are not comparing equivalent bulbs. Let's exclude lying vendors. Worse color accuracy is annoying for those who care, but as far as total energy output is concerned, it shouldn't matter. A watt is a watt no matter what frequency it is radiated at. > The heat source is not larger - it's in a different location, it's in the bulb part Sure. And the bulb of a typical CFL is hundreds of times larger than the die of an LED. > That doesn't explain why an incandescent that makes 6 times as much heat can manage, but an LED can't. As I mentioned in the great-great-grandparent comment, glass tubes (CFLs) and tungsten wires (incandescent lamps) are much less sensitive to heat than tiny pieces of delicate electronics are. 85'C is child's play to glass and tungsten but deathly to silicon. > incandescents and CFLs make their heat in the form of infrared light that is sent into the room. The "sent into the room" part is definitely correct. LEDs overheat more easily because the heat is generated and trapped in the base. But even if you dangled a bare LED in mid-air, I doubt you could make it as cool as a CFL because the heat source is concentrated in such a small area. I'd also be surprised if those LEDs didn't generate a lot of infrared ratiation.