Look,
LED light bulbs are fanciful, great for Ma Earth and a fine addition to any home, barber shop or underground fight club. But let's be honest -- even the guy that bikes through blizzards to get to work and wears garb that he grew in his basement isn't apt to shell out
$120 a pop to have what's likely the most efficient light bulb American dollars can buy. Enter Chunlei Guo from the University of Rochester, who has helped discover a process which could morph a traditional incandescent
light bulb into a beacon of burning light without using nearly as much energy as before. In fact, his usage of the femtosecond laser pulse -- which creates a "unique array of nano- and micro-scale structures on the surface of a regular tungsten filament" -- could enable a bulb to increase output efficiency in order to emit 100-watts worth of light while sucking down less than 60-watts of power. Per usual, there's no telling when this new hotness is likely to hit the commercial realm, but one's thing for sure: we bet
GE's paying attention.
[Via
Physorg]
posted May 31st 2009 4:26PM
Each laser pulse only "corrects" one tiny spot on the filament? And there's no indication as to how quickly it wears off?
Sounds dumb.
I wonder how much energy it will take to alter each filament in the first place. And what do these extra structures on the filament do to it's lifespan?
he looks like jackie chan!!
uh no, is malcom in the middle.
LOL +1
All the Chinese look the same for me!
leave me alooone!
... its emitting a 100 watts of light while sucking 60 from the outlet. so if you put a very efficient solarpanel hooked to a battery and the bulb itself in front of it you would have free power. i'll take thousand!
Don't you fucking dare; this will make the universe implode; or at least wait until I've ticked "participating in a chocolate orgy with Dutch prostitutes" off my to-do list.
I think you just misinterpreted that part. What they meant is that a light bulb that uses their new technology will put only use 60 watts yet make as much light as a standard 100 watt incandescent bulb makes.
That's all good and dandy, but compact fluorescents are already a lot more efficient than that. A 23 watt CFL puts out as much light as a 100 watt incandescent lightbulb.
the light quality CFLs gives off is garbage (most of the ones that people can afford to put in their homes to replace the 50cent-1dollar incandescent, even if they can afford more.. these are the bulbs that are used in most homes through ignorance or whatever).
CFL light is NOT garbage. It's actually cleaner than regular light bulbs. And with the newer CFLs, which are pretty cheap already, I bet you couldn't tell the difference when a lamp shade is covering the bulb. CFLs already best this laser process. Unless they can do dimmer switches better, these are pointless compared to CFLs.
It's actually cleaner than regular light bulbs?
That's one of the most idiotic things I've heard on the web in weeks. Fluorescents put out shitty light, that is then filtered by coatings on the glass. That isn't opinion or speculation, it's fact and quite measurable using meters.
Second point; a 23 watt CFL doesn't put out nearly 100 watts of light. The multiple is claimed to be slightly less than 4x, but due to the twists in CFL, the reality is that it's more like 3x. Still respectable, but still about 3x.
It could just be a more collimated beam and hence wont disperse as much as a normal light bulb (according to the inverse square law). This is the same way a laser beam travels further as the light is not dissipated and is convergent rather than divergent.
Just my guess.
Light bulb goes pew pew.
lazors go pew pew
I wonder it changes the spectral output range of the filament...
use a million watt per hour laser to correct a 60W light bulb....... where do I sign up to go into space and never return?
It uses a million watts per hour but you only turn it on for a femtosecond...that's 10 to the -15th power. Or as wikipedia puts it, a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to 32 million years.
So it would likely still save a lot of electricity since saving 40 watts over a year easily outweighs blasting a million watts for a femtosecond.
They still pale in comparison to some other light bulb technologies.
desu desu desu desu
baka baka baka baka
damnit 4chan, get out of here.
How many robots would it take to change one of these?
In before some idiot goes on about how great CFL bulbs are... "why would we need LEDs or better incandescents?" :/
It'll be interesting to see how far they can push the efficiency of incandescent bulbs, and I'll be happy to partake. I already use GE Edison Halogens... a 60W Edison emits far more light my standard 60W bulbs used to... I can run 2 bulbs instead of 3, turn down the dimmer a bit, or even use a lower wattage. They also last far longer than standard bulbs. Less waste, more efficient, no mercury, and the light is absolutely beautiful. They're a bit more expensive than regular bulbs, but worth it overall for the energy and replacement savings.
"100-watts worth of light while sucking down less than 60-watts of power."
Sounds like a bad deal to me.
I have been using for a few years now bulbs that consume 18 watts of power to output light equivalent to 100 watts.
Well, I live in Europe, hasn't this hit the States yet ?
It has.
You are using CFL bulbs, and many people don't like the way they output light. It's a matter of preference. I use CFLs in many places, but would never use them over a bathroom mirror or in a workbench lamp.
This story is about taking *incandescent* bulbs and increasing their efficiency without the CFL light quality that many people find unsatisfactory. They'd be, I presume, less likely to notice a difference between these new incandescent bulbs and the old ones than they would between old incandescent bulbs and energy efficient CFLs.
i thought this was something about jackie chan
Engadget - please don't fall for their tricks.
To more precisely measure the efficiency of a bulb, you have to look at the Lumen per watt measurement, not just purely their wattage. Most LED bulbs on the market, when viewed this way, only score about 50 lumen per watt - they are much dimmer and don't create that much light for per consumed amount of energy. Many fluorescents do 100+ lumen per watt.
It is interesting to see improvements in the least efficient form, incandescents - but don't believe that LED (or OLED) lights are the most efficient out there - because they aren't, by a longshot.
cheap CFLs light quality suck, good ones cost a fortune.
Regardless of what is more efficient or cheaper I'm glad someone me tioned LUMENS. light output has NOTHING to do with watts. Watts is a measurment of energy consumption. LUMENS are light output.
The goal of any lightbulb is to get the highest amount of lumens and the least amount of watts.
The fact that this article leaves that out and no one else mentioned that means most people don't realize that importants. Without that understanding you will never haw control of your energy consumption.
Importance. Have.
Sorry. iPhone keyboard.
I didn't know Jackie Chan was involved...
This is brilliant - I would be overjoyed if we could go back to using modified incancesdents. Not only do the CFLs take too long to "warm up", the light emitted is of quite an unnatural flavor - it offends my sense of space!
Are they banned where you live or something? the EU is doing a ban on sales soon.
And so a generation at least must suffer crappy CFL lighting.
I have a new-build flat whereby some of the lights are straight halogen downlighters, which is fine, but the rest are CFDs in receptacles which look like they'd melt if you put an incandescent in :(.
U of R should be using these lasers to help correct the high homocide rate in Rochester instead.
*homicide (ninjas with lasers)
No way. Then what would Rochester have to brag about?
Nothing.
@Samboini
i think i can help you realize that. i'm living in holland! =D
@bartoron
i'm not THAT stupid. by the way, i think LEDs are the way to go. they may be expensive, but are very efficient and durable. too bad its hard to find led bulbs that aren't blue-ish.
fuck engadgets (blogsmith's) comment-system! i meana, seriously, even i can code a better one. *hint hint*
Where are all the studies against CFLs for their refresh rate and mercury usage?!?! Bring back fluorescent-free Fridays!!!
But seriously I'd spend more money even if incandescent just to have the better light quality and not eff up my eyes and brain. Glowing filaments are just so much nicer.
Second that. But over here, the bastards from belgium are slowly cutting off incandescent supplies.
Indeed nothing can match the light quality of a burning candle or filament etc, very expensive alternatives can come close... but they are expensive so no one cares :).
Funny you say that, because in a blind test with multiple people who "don't like CFL's" found their output and quality of light to trump incandescent every time.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html
It's all in your head. CFL's are better in nearly every way, except in warm up time and extreme temperature operation.
A 2700K cfl works fine for me. The warmup time isnt an issue because im not afraid of the monsters under my bed.
Unfortunately this technology is currently useless b/c of stupid politicians. Many countries have already passed legislation that will phase out "incadescent" bulbs (2014 in the US, IIRC). So any technology that improves such bulbs will face legislative hurdles preventing their adoption. As of right now, putting too much money in this type of research would be silly till the laws are changed.
This is why politicians should avoid legislating specific technologies whenever possible. Instead they should legislate standards that all technologies much meet. Laws that regulated lumens per watt would have been much more sensible than the banning incandescents outright.
logic and sense, these are foreign to a politician.
GeekPl is on crack. There are no CFL bulbs that do 100 lumens per watt.
Also, there are LED lights pushing over 100 lumens per watt. check out the website www.ledsmagazine.com