Vu1 Corporation sees bright future for ESL light bulbs
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 17th 2009 4:44PM
posted Sep 17th 2009 4:44PM
Rivalries. Controversy. Government intervention. The life of a light bulb isn't easy these days, and it looks like things are about to get even more complicated. While CFLs and LEDs may now be fighting it out to replace traditional incandescent light bulbs, Seattle-based Vu1 Corporation says it has developed a new type of bulb that's better than either of 'em, and could hit the market by mid-2010. Making use of ESL technology (or electron stimulated luminescence), the new bulbs seem to be the cure-all many folks have been looking for, with them promising to provide a more natural light than CFLs or LEDs, turn on as quickly as an incandescent bulb, and eliminate some of the pesky problems associated with CFLs (like their use of mercury). According to the company, they'll also be about as efficient as CFLs, although they will cost about $20 a pop to begin with, which Vu1 says is comparable to a dimmable CFL reflector bulb. Some bold claims to be sure -- claims made even bolder by the must-see "documentary" after the break.
Do you reckon the invented said: "I have an idea!"
My first thought when I saw this was "I don't need my lightbulb to speak any language at all, let alone English as a second language."
aye
This is just little research in other direction for a new, but not so perfect bulb.
All current fuel/energy corporations and especially manufacturers - DO NOT WANT to make real energy efficient and forever working bulbs.
They want your money and they want you to change your bulbs at least every year. Current eco and energy efficient bla-bla - is just a trend - kind of fashion in the start of 21st century.
If they wanted real efficient and not changeable bulbs - we would have had them already.
I hope they can pull this off soon, I can't stand CFLs.
I'm so turned on right now..
The video didn't say anything about the lifespan of an ESL bulb. Since that is one of the advantages of CFL over incandescents, I assume they don't do so well in that regard. If that is the case, I don't see anyone buying these - after all, that is the main reason most people switch from incandescents to CFL: the promise that, over the lifespan of the product, the higher initial outlay for the CFL is more than made up for in energy savings (well, some also switch to be "green", but most of us just want to save some "green" :-)
personally I cannot stand the light that CFL's produce and will not use them.
Tom, according to their website, the lifespan of a Vu1 bulb is about 6,000 hours, approximately as long as a CFL, but they don't grow duller as time passes, like CFLs and LEDs. Their starting price is believed to be around $20, but prices should drop once manufacturing increases.
CFL bulbs suck! I will never buy another. They are supposed to last a long time but they don't. Half of the ones I purchased broke after months of usage. And the mercury is terrible for the environment.
I have purchased some LED bulbs as replacements but they really are not bright enough unless you get high powered ones that get really hot and are very directional.
I am pleased to see this solution and hope to see them for sale soon!
@ ginchinchili
See, now that would have been good information to include in the video!
The manufacturers homepage says 6000 hours - slightly less than that of a CFL... But definitely a price worth paying for a more more pleasant light than CFL
I love how they fail to mention the lifespan...
http://www.vu1.com/faq/faq.htm
"What is the products rated life (how many hours will it operate)?
Vu1 bulbs are targeting to last 6,000 hours - about the same as many CFLs."
English as a Second Language bulbs?
Damn you stole my joke!!!!!
I was going to say the same thing too! Dang!
this is just an mini version of an CRT monitor. Nice idea but comes with the same problems as a crt
I like the idea of a round mini-CRT with selectable colors. Whatever happened to Field Emission Displays? Those might make good lighting too.
Not a thing about the longevity of the bulbs. That to me is very important when paying $20 to $40 per bulb.
Also ESL to me seems like old CRT technology with a shotgun approach, rather than a scanning electron beam.
I think that I will buy a bunch of incandescent bulbs and stockpile them so that I have a supply of them long after they are no longer made. Something to tide me over until better technology comes along cheaper...
I think that LED's will get better over time and will probably win out, I just don't think that the full spectrum of available LED colors is being used in bulb production, the current manufacturers seem to be using the Blue/Yellow filtered "White" LED's and they do get more blue over time because the yellow filter breaks down. Why not take the RGB approach and add in the other colors that are required to make a truer white, because every LED bulb that I have ever seen uses an array of LED's... Even throw in some IR and UV LED's to complete the sun like spectrum...
> Also ESL to me seems like old CRT technology with a shotgun approach, rather than a scanning electron beam.
That's exactly what I thought. It's a monochrome CRT with a random spray. I suppose they could make them any color depending on the phosphors they use on the surface. They must dim over time as the phosphors wear out just like CRT raster burn.
That's not how LEDs work.
A LED only has one specifc light frequency. White LEDs actually use 3 different LEDs internally so that it produces red, green and blue in balanced amounts, so that you get a white light in the end. You get white because your eyes fool you into believing it's white. But actually, should you send your white LED light through a prism, you'd end up with only 3 stripes of color, one red, one green and one blue.
Do it with natural sun light or incandescent bulbs, and you end up with a rainbow because in that case most of the visible light frequencies are there.
So, the issue with the LEDs changing color over time comes from the fact that the components for the red, green and blue emitters don't have the same lifespans; LEDs lose emitting power over time, but the blue one is the most sturdy one, so after time red and green diminish compared to the blue one, and that's what gives the blue tint.
I didn't think of that before, but it seems to me it's a huge drawback.
If you look on their website, it looks like the lifespan is on par with CFLs. So other than price, it seems these things have it all.
But does it dim? No one ever talks about *dimming*. Every light in my house has a dimmer and I use them!
You should watch the video. They show it dimming there.
Yes, it dims too. http://www.vu1.com/faq/faq.htm
Thank goodness. This is what really pisses me off about other bulbs. I have dimmer switches on almost every single light switch in my house. If a bulb doesn't dim, it's worth fuck-all to me.
Not really. A CRT has a bunch of complicated electronics to interpret a video signal and drive a narrow electron beam precisely across the screen. This bulb just blasts the screen with a spray of electrons. So there are a lot less things to fail.
That was a reply to Sebu. Damn.
Reply to sebu fail.
they rely on the same principles for generating light. id call i similar, not to a tv or monitor specifically, just the concept.
"Electron stimulated luminescence"? Wouldn't that term basically apply to any light bulb powered by electricity?
Or any other light source?
Re: Aren't all electric lights ESL
Incandescents are not an "electron stimulated luminescent" light source. Strictly speaking, neither are LEDs (although white LEDs usually have phosphors these days, making them so). Incandescent lights take advantage of the fact that a very hot substance will emit electromagnetic energy (look up "blackbody radiation"). If it is hot enough, some of the energy will be in the form of visible light. Unfortunately, much of the energy will be in the form of infrared (heat).
I think this is a great product, if for no other reason than to keep LED and CFL manufacturers on their toes.
ok it is no real monitor
but still a simple cathode ray tube
with the toxic phosphor and soft x-ray emission
maybe implosion wan't be an issue with these small guys
Sebu, there are no toxic materials used in these bulbs. I suppose you could eat it, but I wouldn't recommend that. They won't explode either.
i thought x-ray emission was only a problem in color monitors. im also pretty damn sure they fixed that a looong time ago. unless you want to hold your face up to it for days on end.
I'm not sure it's that similar to CRTs. From some images on the production process, it doesn't seem there's vacuum in those bulbs. I mean, it makes sense given the vacuum in CRTs is there only so that the beam keeps focused, so that you don't get a fuzzy picture.
In that case, it's better to diffuse the electronic beam, as it gives a more uniform light.
In might even be the gas inside the bulb that lights up, not some phosphorous compound on the internal surface of the bulb. That'd be consistent with the fact they're looking into making those in other formats.
OMG, there is video on the home page about them to get a little more detail. I have tried CFLs (not dimmable, so worthless to me), I've tried LED (tried 4 different bulbs) the worse light I have ever seen. These sound like the best of both worlds, good color, good life, good power usage.
I want these now !!!!
Holy shit! I am from the Czech Republic, how come I haven't known about this tech. prior to seeing this post?! o_O
I'm really looking forward to these bulbs actually :) Now even more so! :D
6000-hour life? At $20? I'll pass.
Panasonic's $40 LED joint looks more appealing at just over $2/year (less if average, non-continuous use is considered). But really, who in hell wants a 2-decade bulb anyway? Wouldn't new advancements would make it obsolete after about 8 yrs or so?
The $40 LED bulb doesn't put out anywhere NEAR the light of the ESL bulb.
Your best alternative is the LLF assembly they show in the video (with the fins around the edge). Those run $100+
http://www.vu1.com/faq/faq.htm
energy is 65-70% of an incandescent
life is 6,000 hours.
This doesn't seem like a breakthrough compared to CFL or LED. Seems like CFL will reign until LEDs are cheaper.
actually that would be 65-70% LESS, not OF. this is comparable to a CFL, not quite as good, but pretty close. give it time, and pricing might even make this worth it. not sure that its worth it at $20/bulb
Nope. CFL's aren't going to dominate shit until they dim.
"Wouldn't new advancements would make it obsolete after about 8 yrs or so."
Not necessarily. Took 100 years to challenge the reigning king, incandescent.
Yea, but a few things are different in the current age:
- the pace of tech advancements are much faster today
- rampant capitalism is more of a dynamic driving these changes
- the 'global warming' issue was not a factor for much of the hundred yrs in question
@ eric:
Yep! More marketing and interest in their bottom line than genuine concern for the state of things.
I have a CFL, the light quality is perfect; perfect daylight.
I also have an LED flashlight which produces very good light.
This ESL whatever is over hyped. Do you know your average incandescent light bulb is about 4% efficient. ESL would be 16% while LEDs your looking at up to 30% and 50% for OLEDs. ESL is inferior in both efficient and price; what a waste of time. LEDs and OLEDs have no mercury either. These technology have relatively speaking just started to emerge; no wonder not all the associated issues are resolved them such as light quality. The long term solution is both LEDs and OLEDs. This pathetic ESL is nothing but a marketing scam. LED deserves much more respect. And that stupid non sense about heat dissipation in regards to LEDs is completely exaggerated at a 10:1 ratio. You don't need the amount of dissipation that they are showing for LED flood lights; of course you do if you use 1st generation LEDs. What a bunch of scammers!
Agreed. I read the LEDs magazine and they are going after the home light bulb market with a vengeance. LED street lighting, store lighting, outdoor lighting, all are being driven by dozens of high profile companies. This one manufacturer does not stand a chance against these big boys over time.
Subsidize is the key. We'll buy whatever the city power provider or gov will sub. If you want to win us over, get some sorta deal with them.
O.K people listen to what they are actually saying. These people are not idiots. They know new tech is expensive when it first comes out. Both the CFL and especially the LED did not start at their current prices they started very much higher than $20 dollars in their ealier years on the market. So what does company do when they know that they are at a price disadvantage at the start? They target specific areas in the market that they can be competitive. The price you saw was for a Flood light. CFLs suck as a Flood lamp replacement. Also natural color accuracy is very important in the commercial field. Light affects mood of people, how objects appear on the show floor. So, with this in mind, lets go back to what the video said...
Vu1 is targeting the "Commercial" and Resident Floodlight market first and currently working on home screw-in replacement bulbs next. Color accurate, dimming, commericial, CFL floodlights are still expensive and these new bulbs are priced right for the type of bulb they are selling. CFLs started around the $40-$60 range and were no where near as bright as these ESL bulbs. This ESL bulb is starting at a fantastic price for a first time to market bulb, and in Five years, we should see this bulb priced easily in a consumer price range. I know of several people who refuse to buy CFLs and still use incandescence bulbs because of the light and flickering - so there is a very health market in Residential as well. I don't like the light CFLs produce as well so I pay more than most people for the Natural light CFLs (yes they do exist). The new generation LEDs are currently coming into the $50 to $60 range now. That is still a chunk of change when having to buy them in large quantities commercially and the cost savings won't be felt instantly. I could spend $20 per bulb on ESL and get instant savings over LED and bet that the prices will go down for ESL more quickly than LED bulbs or i could just suck up the Long term cost of and ESL Bulb by justify the fact that I have a Flicker free very dimmable natural light bulb....
and cool new tech... ; )
I think these folks are on to something. I look at it like this. They aren't even out of the gate yet and they've already got a serious contender that doesn't have the pitfalls of CFLs or LEDs, and both CFLs and LEDs have had years of development behind them. If they live up to their hype, these Vu1 bulbs should prove to be a very disruptive technology that will only get better with time. I'll buy one as soon as they're available.
I'll second that.... I have several in ceiling lights that I have to use CFL Bulbs to cut down on my energy bill because the bulbs that were originally in there used a lot of power. I'm all for new green tech and the dimmable LED is still way expensive. This just might do the trick.
If ESL is shooting electrons at a coating of phosphor then essentially they will change colors exactly like how LEDs will end up changing colors over time. LEDs also use a phosphor coating to change the light to different colors and that is what degrades over time.
They basically took a bunch of unused CRT technology adapted to another purpose. There is a lot of unused CRT capacity in the world because people wish for flat screens.
This fails on several counts:
They don't mention how they will make the directional CRT-like gun spray in a spherical array.
They don't mention efficiency - the most efficient technology will win, and LED is it.
i hated esl... they kept speaking to me in spanish... im from ukraine... those dumbasses
sorry guys, but this ESL is definitely all marketing and hype.
It is just another fluorescent technology (see the production line footage, that's phosphor coating) - which makes the physical properties of the light the same as White LED (phosphor powder) and CFL (tri-phosphor). I can't believe that are claiming that they have better color rendering (Ra Index) when it is fundamentally all the same. Yes, the physical design of the glass bulb creates a surface that is more efficient that your spiral shaped CFL, and yes, CFL has mercury problems and i don't use it.
However, there is another technology that offers the same benefits BUT with 60,000 hrs lifespan like LED promised (but failed to deliver) - inductive lighting or induction lamps. Yes, you may argue that there are EMI/EMC issues but they've already passed CIPRS15 tests and you will be seeing a lot of them this year - it is the champion over LED street lamps in over 20 states and installations are just happening. At the recent IES show at Philadelphia, a speaker showcased both LED and Induction with Induction the clear winner.
I like the idea of a round mini-CRT with selectable colors. Whatever happened to Field Emission Displays? Those might make good lighting too.
They'll take my incandescent bulbs away from me when they unscrew them from my cold, dead hands!
Thank you for your redneck perspective Karl. It has added so much to this discussion.
Friends, when the volunteer comes to your door seeking donations for the United Humor-Impared Foundation, please give generously, won't you? With your help we can beat this disease, and end senseless tragedies like the one you've just seen.
Thank you.
Pure Spectrum has now patented a CFL buld that is fully dimmable(no flicker or dying out), instant on, cold to the touch, highest power factor(.96), and the energy usage is proportional to the dimming level, the light output is that of an incadescent and the price will be in the $4-$6 range. This is the answer to the NEW CFL!
The have numerous patents and are manufacturing and filling orders now worldwide. Utility companies are buying them up in the droves for their free distribution program. The utility companies love them becasue it costs them less to deliver the power to these bulbs due to the extrememly High Power Factor. ...which means the utility companies charge you less!
The also have a dimmable balast for linear flouresecents(yes, you will be able to dim flourescents), also at a fraction of the cost of normal ballast due to the fewer parts that they use in the balast. This will be huge, imagine a high rise office building in which the flourescent lights dim with the amount of sunlight coming in,....daylight harvesting at a fraction of the cost...HUGE SAVINGS.
Hopefully the bulbs will be on Home Depot and Wal Mart shelves soon.
Seriously? No one noticed this wasn't a documentary but rather an investment pitch?
I've won enough "free prizes" to know when someone is building up to asking me for a distrubing amount of money when I see it.
Revolutionary concept indeed. It's a white CRT tube with a diffused electron gun. I wonder how hot that sucker gets (and if it breaks, just how wickedly high the voltage step up is....) At least the fabrication technique should be easy to figure out - they have only been making them for over a hundred years now.
I would be very interested to see the 4' flourescent tube replacements - ought to be interesting. Esp. if they deliver on the drop in replacement promise.
If you really want efficient white light, check out the emitters produced by Luxim:
http://www.luxim.com/
120 lumens/watt 92% efficient.
30,000 hours to 65% output.
Dimmable
28 volts and 8.9 amps. (DC)
Granted, they are not "instant on" (30 sec to full bright, with a 60 sec. restrike time), but as a source for fibre-optic lights (think yards) this rocks.