It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Incandescent Light-bulb gets an upgrade

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
GE has just announced that new advancements that is set to improve the 125 year old technology and is setting up a major "format war" in the lighting sector. GE claims:


Source Link

The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps.


Here are the benefits of these lights as I see it:
Instant On
Color is more "traditional"
Lower manufacturing costs
Manufactured Domestically
Mercury Eliminated
Less heat, more light

This looks to be a good stepping stone towards OLEDs.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-3-2007 by sardion2000]




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I really hope the incandescent bans that happen make exceptions for this technology as that would be a huge oversight as incandescent light bulbs can be greener then CFLs.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Australia is going to totally eliminate all incandescent bulbs in the next 3 years. Apparently, it will mean that we will cut 4 million tonnes of CO2 from being released each year.
The average fluorescent bulb - the replacement for the flailent ones - will use about a 5th of the energy. But the thing is, I hate the colour of fluorescent bulbs. I think it's horrible. If we could optionally adopt this 'HEI' technolgoy as an alternative if you wanted it, I think that would be great.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Well, I've found that the Full Spectrum Instant On CFLs to be the best, though they are kinda tough to find and are slightly more expensive. I've found that they've had the side benefit of curing the winter blues as it's very similar to the light you receive outside on the cloudless day. WIth that said, I do agree that an exception should be made for these due to the reasons I layed out above.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
sardion,

You find the "coolest" stuff, get it? coolest...LOL

This is interesting, and I hope these can slide by whatever enviromental rules come into play., and that the makers of CFL's do not have great lobbyists.

Seems manufacturing costs would be less as well.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Well considering that a huge portion of the incandescents used in the US are manufactured domestically, it could become a HUGE selling point to the political types on this side of the ocean.

Oh and please, if you like this thread please Flag it so more people can get to see it.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Wow, what a bright idea!
(I couln't resist!)

Anything htat lowers my bills, AND my carbon footprint is good in my book. Lets have it!



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Im all for saving energy. However if the light put out by the new bulbs is not the same as the old one, many people might find them annoying. And full spectrum bulbs may cure the winter blues, they will also sun burn.
But the next time I buy bulbs it will be the more efficient ones.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
You're thinking of Sunlamps. They have the capability to burn and tan. FSCFLs do not as their intensity falls far short of that required to burn skin.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by sardion2000]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
nice find !

goes to show that ideologically motivated legislature, not matter how intended falls short of its alledged goals (australian incandescent ban). i'm a bit disappointed, though, because the technology is scheduled for 2010. who knows how good affordable LEDs will be by then.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
You're thinking of Sunlamps. They have the capability to burn and tan. FSCFLs do not as their intensity falls far short of that required to burn skin.



Thanks for the info. I was not sure how much intnsity would be required for a sun burn.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
If this were a set of high speed chips or a hybrid car, we wouldn't think twice of pushing the limits of innovation.

What about manufacturing LED lamps? The return on the investment overall for the economy could be tremendous. The Government could offer manufacturers of incandescents money to offset their losses of converting to that manufacture process.

Unless this is too much big government for a good cause...

I hate to pull politics into this, but sometimes the government does offer chance to move ahead faster and more efficiently than market forces alone would allow.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Trying to take a baby step, even if to appease manufacturers and to sustain workforce viability in this industry, could mean dragging out the argument for decades.

Let's take the example that an LED fixture will pay for itself in approx. 6 months as opposed to an incandescent which will (when viewed over the course of years and when considered in overall usage) provide a virtual flat line performance comparatively.

The flip side of course is the obsolescence of the delivery technology as opposed to the application (the light).

Guys, looking squarely at the technology of the light bulb, remember that our parents helped invent the computer. The least they can do is offer us a hand at making LED's work too.

Right? Or am I just asking for too much?

Maybe HEI's are just...a better fit for the hand? Better transmission across a wider spectrum of light? Multi-purpose, ever-pleasing?

What are we going for anyway? Save the planet or make more money?

I'm confused



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I light my bedroom with LED's. I'm in robotics, so you get alot of the damn things left over, and lying everywhere. Because I already have a +12v bus running around my room, plus ground line so that I can run my experiments anywhere, I decided to put them to good use.

Essentially what I've ended up with is almost absolute ambient light. You'd be hard pressed to find a shadow in my room, I can find anything at any time... and I've got them linked to a series of shift registers (also left over), so that I can increase and decrease the lighting in the room to any level I want.

It's not the traditional way to use a lighting source, but in the end, I'm still soaking up less power than the light bulb in my bedside lamp.

LED's are still the way to go, you can get so much light out of them for so little power. And, if you don't like the color, thats ok, there are hundreds of colors of LED's out there, make a minor change by replacing one of the LED's in the cluster to change the color by a tiny amount.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Got to be another thread on here for that.

BTW - Here's an ATS member bet for anyone to take:

In five years, if the consumer market is not over 50% LED home lighting product, I will personally come to your home and groom your dog.

I'm a Michaelangelo with shears. You'll have to shampoo 'em first, though....



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Naw, that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

They last too long. Very little repeat business. Unless manufactures can convince the public they need to put in a frail "control" circuit board that happens to have a high failure rate.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
In five years, if the consumer market is not over 50% LED home lighting product, I will personally come to your home and groom your dog.




Don't mind me...carry on.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
Naw, that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

They last too long. Very little repeat business. Unless manufactures can convince the public they need to put in a frail "control" circuit board that happens to have a high failure rate.


Are you pulling my light switch? If you develop lights that come with elements that virtually never die out, then you can sell even MORE expensive lighting fixtures, tie in a more expensive design for decor, add more colors, more textures. People would redesign their homes. Builders would even design spaces around the new fixtures. Commercial applications would want to retrofit their existing fixtures for the savings. Please.

LED's would open up far more potential for consumer market profit with their ability to draw the Green Consciousness and the middle and upper-middle class buying power in your Home Depot and your Lowe stores.

No, an LED fixture is like Mark MacGwire stepping up to the plate in San Fransisco and hitting the ball to Detroit.

But that's a thread about steroids...and I digress.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Are you laughing at the notion or the fact I added humor to grab attention?

Either way, I'm not worthy of your super-moderator post. Neil Diamond rocks, by the way, and I know that's who that is in your avatar.

You can tell with moderators. They always choose the classic performers.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hlesterjerome
Naw, that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

They last too long. Very little repeat business. Unless manufactures can convince the public they need to put in a frail "control" circuit board that happens to have a high failure rate.


Sad to say it, but I believe this is true. Consumers won't buy if the initial cost is too high, and it would need to be to offset the lack of replacement business.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join