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.

 

New Light Source Lasts 15 Years Without a Recharge

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Apologies if this has been posted before-I ran a search under "new light source" and nothing came up...This technology is pretty fantastic looking IMO!


ecoble.com...




How about a glowing light source that lasts for 15 years instead of the typical 15 minutes of a glowstick? GlowPaint’s newest product does just that and is also non-toxic and inexpensive and doesn’t require a recharge via solar or electrical sources for its entire lifespan. According to the company, “This has potential to save billions in energy costs world-wide. Litroenergy™ surpasses all known available lighting options for cost/durability/reliability and safety.” Their products are expected to be used to replace other forms of safety, emergency and novelty lighting duties normally performed by glow sticks, LEDs and other light sources.




[edit on 20-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Long lasting light is nothing new. Thomas Edisons original light bulb still works to this day. The light bulb companies make their products expire so that they will sell more. Think about it, if each light bulb never burned out then the light bulb company would go out of business eventually. More products are "made to be broken" than you realize. And this includes your car.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Mad Hatter maybe you should READ the article before you start rambling about something that has no relevance to the OP.

I like how they use tritium to power the light. And they say its not dangerous radiation as it can't penetrate your skin. Just don't eat it.
Would be cool to paint bicycles with it.

I want some..



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Link is dead?

Sounds cool.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Ok. Who gives a crap about a glowstick that lasts 15 years when you could have a light bulb that lasts 15 years. Maybe the efforts of humanity should be focused on something more important.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
Long lasting light is nothing new. Thomas Edisons original light bulb still works to this day. The light bulb companies make their products expire so that they will sell more. Think about it, if each light bulb never burned out then the light bulb company would go out of business eventually. More products are "made to be broken" than you realize. And this includes your car.


I've got some training in industrial manufacturing engineering, so I'm gonna have to call this one.

That's not entirely the case. Edison's original light bulbs were horribly dim and energy inefficient by today's INCANDESCENT BULB standards. You'd be laughed at by customers if you tried to sell them to people today. Furthermore, the results were rather inconsistent. I'd venture to guess that the majority of his lightbulbs burned out quicker than modern cheapo 60w incandescent bulbs. I know of just one case where one of those light bulb has lasted to the present day, and part of that is because they never turn it off. Apparently turning on and off reduces the lifetime of bulbs.

Basically, most people would rather have a bulb that needs to be replaced every couple hundred hours than one that's about as bright as an oil lamp, and puts out a sickening yellow light. Otherwise, people would light their homes with high pressure sodium bulbs, as a compromise. Nowadays, though, compact fluorescents are just as cheap as incandescent bulbs (around here anyway), because of government subsidies. I'd certainly rather have a 24w compact florescent that lasts a few thousand hours than a thick filament incandescent that puts out a fraction of the light, using more electricity, but lasts longer. It's cheaper to use the fluorescents, even though you have to buy new ones. electricity isn't free.

I would laugh so hard if this Litroenergy thing turns out to be encapsulated tritium and phosphors. Those last 15 years, and do what glow sticks do.

EDIT: I looked it up. It is, haha. They just have a cool way of doing it, encapsulating the radioactive gas in tiny glass spheres that they put in paint or molded plastic. Somehow, I doubt this will sell well. Not too many people are fine with wearing radioactive products.


And planned obsolescence in cars ended just after the introduction of the catalytic converter and tighter emissions standards. Planned obsolescence worked through the 1960s because cars were simpler machines that didn't require expensive components. Companies could sell them for a small fraction of a person's yearly income, with the expectation that they would have to buy another one in three years or less, because it would break. Nowadays, Several expensive components are required by law, they have to be made to a certain level of quality and reliability to compete in the market. There are expectations of options like power windows and power doors and air conditioning and a radio and 100+ horsepower engine that still meets emission standards.

The result is that costs more *before profits* than a person can realistically be expected to keep buying every year or three. After profits, the cost is even more ridiculous. Cars today are built as a compromise between quality and cheapness of manufacture. You'll notice that if you *actually take care of them*, a car will easily last 100000+ miles before it becomes economically infeasible to maintain. Certainly, cars today are the most reliable than at any point in history. Hell, you can even get a few dozen thousand miles from one even if you *never change the oil, EVER*. After which, of course, the engine will seize irreparably.

They're made to *crumple like a wet paper bag in an accident* sure, but that's a different matter. Most people buy cars with a desire to survive possible accidents, not with the intention of playing GTA in real life. I think it goes without saying that running your vehicle into things kind of voids how long you should expect it to last.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
Ok. Who gives a crap about a glowstick that lasts 15 years when you could have a light bulb that lasts 15 years. Maybe the efforts of humanity should be focused on something more important.


Will the glowstick use more energy, or will your light bulb? I think the point here, and in response to your last sentence above...

...doesn’t require a recharge via solar or electrical sources for its entire lifespan.


... you didn't even have to click the link to the article for that important note. Any further comments warranted at this point will simply get my post censored or deleted.

[edit on 5/20/2008 by RabbitChaser]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Durring WW2 the gauges of US airplanes were coated with a glowing phospherescent paint, which still glows to this day.

The problem is that it was mildly radioactive, and hence never released to the public.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Choronzon
Durring WW2 the gauges of US airplanes were coated with a glowing phospherescent paint, which still glows to this day.

The problem is that it was mildly radioactive, and hence never released to the public.


That's what this is, only the radioactive tritium and phosphors are apparently inside tiny glass spheres, which apparently contain the radiation.

Also: it wasn't *never* released to the public; they used to make watches with radioactive glowing paint on the hands and such. It's since been banned in america, but in england, you can buy little glow stick type things that are filled with radioactive gas and glow for decades, like a larger scale version of this.

Note that it'll last for far longer than 15 years, 15 years is just the point where it will be only half as bright. After 30 years, it'll be 1/4th as bright, etc.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I think that this is a really cool product. Imagine you could paint curbs on sidewalks and/or the crosswalks so that they'd glow.

I like the paint on the bike in the pictures. I think that there are lots of safety applications where you could have the glow paint even if there had been a power failure.

Make sexual predators wear glow paint clothes so they can't hide in dark places (that's humor for those who might reply to that).

Paint the outside of phone booths so you could find them in the dark.

Think for a little bit and I'm pretty sure you could come up with a list of uses that would be relatively safe and fun.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that this is a really cool product. Imagine you could paint curbs on sidewalks and/or the crosswalks so that they'd glow.

I like the paint on the bike in the pictures. I think that there are lots of safety applications where you could have the glow paint even if there had been a power failure.

Make sexual predators wear glow paint clothes so they can't hide in dark places (that's humor for those who might reply to that).

Paint the outside of phone booths so you could find them in the dark.

Think for a little bit and I'm pretty sure you could come up with a list of uses that would be relatively safe and fun.


I just don't think you could do that without protest. Safe as it is (or at least, ostensibly is), it's a radioactive product. Environmentalist groups would be all up in your grill, so to speak.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Mad Hatter, you just joined my ignore list for that lame U2U.. No reason to act like that, just cos you are to lazy to read the post before you start acting like a smart*ss that think he knows everything :-/

And a good day to you too...



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican

I've got some training in industrial manufacturing engineering, so I'm gonna have to call this one.

That's not entirely the case. Edison's original light bulbs were horribly dim and energy inefficient by today's INCANDESCENT BULB standards. You'd be laughed at by customers if you tried to sell them to people today. Furthermore, the results were rather inconsistent. I'd venture to guess that the majority of his lightbulbs burned out quicker than modern cheapo 60w incandescent bulbs. I know of just one case where one of those light bulb has lasted to the present day, and part of that is because they never turn it off. Apparently turning on and off reduces the lifetime of bulbs.

Basically, most people would rather have a bulb that needs to be replaced every couple hundred hours than one that's about as bright as an oil lamp, and puts out a sickening yellow light. Otherwise, people would light their homes with high pressure sodium bulbs, as a compromise. Nowadays, though, compact fluorescents are just as cheap as incandescent bulbs (around here anyway), because of government subsidies. I'd certainly rather have a 24w compact florescent that lasts a few thousand hours than a thick filament incandescent that puts out a fraction of the light, using more electricity, but lasts longer. It's cheaper to use the fluorescents, even though you have to buy new ones. electricity isn't free.

I would laugh so hard if this Litroenergy thing turns out to be encapsulated tritium and phosphors. Those last 15 years, and do what glow sticks do.

EDIT: I looked it up. It is, haha. They just have a cool way of doing it, encapsulating the radioactive gas in tiny glass spheres that they put in paint or molded plastic. Somehow, I doubt this will sell well. Not too many people are fine with wearing radioactive products.


And planned obsolescence in cars ended just after the introduction of the catalytic converter and tighter emissions standards. Planned obsolescence worked through the 1960s because cars were simpler machines that didn't require expensive components. Companies could sell them for a small fraction of a person's yearly income, with the expectation that they would have to buy another one in three years or less, because it would break. Nowadays, Several expensive components are required by law, they have to be made to a certain level of quality and reliability to compete in the market. There are expectations of options like power windows and power doors and air conditioning and a radio and 100+ horsepower engine that still meets emission standards.

The result is that costs more *before profits* than a person can realistically be expected to keep buying every year or three. After profits, the cost is even more ridiculous. Cars today are built as a compromise between quality and cheapness of manufacture. You'll notice that if you *actually take care of them*, a car will easily last 100000+ miles before it becomes economically infeasible to maintain. Certainly, cars today are the most reliable than at any point in history. Hell, you can even get a few dozen thousand miles from one even if you *never change the oil, EVER*. After which, of course, the engine will seize irreparably.

They're made to *crumple like a wet paper bag in an accident* sure, but that's a different matter. Most people buy cars with a desire to survive possible accidents, not with the intention of playing GTA in real life. I think it goes without saying that running your

Thanks for clarifying this. I am appreciative. And thanks for not bieng nasty about it.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by scarystuff
Mad Hatter, you just joined my ignore list for that lame U2U.. No reason to act like that, just cos you are to lazy to read the post before you start acting like a smart*ss that think he knows everything :-/

And a good day to you too...


I could care less. Hey, I didn't put you on my ignore list even though you are lame. Yeah, I skimmed this one, your right, but there's no need to act like a nuisance from the jump. Then maybe I wouldn't have let you have it in private. Hmmm?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Tritium is the stuff that British Armed forces' standard rifle sight the SUSAT uses to illuminate the outline of crosshairs, watch hands etc.

As such, tritium chemoluminescence is more of a "glow" than anything else... it would not be enough to light a room. And the green glow it gives off is sickly and would NOT be good for human health and psychology.

That said, these products may be very useful in a survival situation. 15 years is certainly a hell of a long life. A single tritium capsule could light up a bunker for the entire time you may be stuck in there.

The issue also arises of what to do with the product after youve used it? Releasing beta radiation sources would be disastrous. What happens when China tries to undercut and make this product at a lower cost- releasing tritium into the environment?

And above all, what if you want it to stop glowing?!

Ill stick to my 24W energy saving fluorescent bulb thanks



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Tritium is the stuff that British Armed forces' standard rifle sight the SUSAT uses to illuminate the outline of crosshairs, watch hands etc.

As such, tritium chemoluminescence is more of a "glow" than anything else... it would not be enough to light a room. And the green glow it gives off is sickly and would NOT be good for human health and psychology.

That said, these products may be very useful in a survival situation. 15 years is certainly a hell of a long life. A single tritium capsule could light up a bunker for the entire time you may be stuck in there.

The issue also arises of what to do with the product after youve used it? Releasing beta radiation sources would be disastrous. What happens when China tries to undercut and make this product at a lower cost- releasing tritium into the environment?

And above all, what if you want it to stop glowing?!

Ill stick to my 24W energy saving fluorescent bulb thanks


Well to be fair, tritium is a naturally occurring isotope, which can be found in small amounts in water (deuterium is way more common). When they're done with it, they could simply burn it, and release the slightly radioactive water vapor into the ocean, for no discernible result. Or they could just leave it around until it's more or less harmless.

And I guess you could put electrical tape over it if you want it to stop glowing. That's not an elegant solution though. Not like *turning a light off* is.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Long life self-luminous microspheres:

Depending upon the choice of isotope, one may obtain alpha, beta or gamma radiation and it has been found that alpha and gamma radiation are hazardous to health, leaving the beta radiators as the safe type for self-luminescence devices. By definition, the beta radiators emit electrons which are relatively heavy particles and exhibit less velocity.

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Ah yes!? What are they talking about!?

Electrons are not relative heavy particles but have a really small mass compared to other particles.

And Beta radiation is NOT harmless!


Beta radiation can cause both acute and chronic health effects. Acute exposures are uncommon. Contact with a strong beta source from an abandoned industrial instrument is the type of circumstance in which acute exposure could occur. Chronic effects are much more common.

Chronic effects result from fairly low-level exposures over a along period of time. They develop relatively slowly (5 to 30 years for example). The main chronic health effect from radiation is cancer. When taken internally beta emitters can cause tissue damage and increase the risk of cancer. The risk of cancer increases with increasing dose.


www.epa.gov...

Well in their Long life self-luminous microspheres description (first source again) they say they wall the Beta radiation with a Glass wall.
That may help well or less well depending on its thickness but radiation can usually not be completly blocked.

I know one think. I don't want such radiation stuff close in my range and certainly not for 15 years.


[edit on 20-5-2008 by g210b]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
That's what this is, only the radioactive tritium and phosphors are apparently inside tiny glass spheres, which apparently contain the radiation.

Okay, that's not good. What if the spheres break? Radiation exposure doesn't sound like fun to me.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Problem with these tritium keychains is that they are very dim. You can barely see it in darkness. Its meant as a glow source, but so far can't give off any usable light, say like a flashlight would. Its true they don't really sell these keychains in the U.S., but you can still find that they use large tritium vials in the more expensive exit signs, and these are sold in the U.S. Bob Lazars store also sold tritium keychains in the U.S. till they ran out of supply. Dealsextreme site is the only site I know that sells the keychains to the U.S., but they aren't as bright as some other versions. There are individual dealers on cpf forums who sell these for the diy flashlight guys who like to use them for inserts in flashlight casings. I had an idea a while back about getting a crap load of this tritium paint, and a large solar panel and see if it could produce some current. Even if it was low, you still factor in that it would consistently put power out for years.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by Freezer]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
I had an idea a while back about getting a crap load of this tritium paint, and a large solar panel and see if it could produce some current. Even if it was low, you still factor in that it would consistently put power out for years.


Don't know if the light would be sufficient.

But you could think of building a radioactive battery by makeing use of the Beta-radiation:

www.newscientist.com...


[edit on 21-5-2008 by g210b]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join