Future of lighting looks bright with new invention

[Zachstar]

http://www.dailytech.com/New+NearProduction+Super+Lightbulb+Lasts+60+Years+ Costs+285/article14094.htm

The race towards better, more affordable solid state lighting is heating up quickly. The U.S. government has sponsored a $20M USD prize (http://www.dailytech.com/US+DoE+Offers+20M+USD+L+Prize+for+SolidState+Light ing/article11944.htm) for the first team of researchers to come up with solid state lighting that meets a strict set of standards. New research has finally helped to eliminate the LED droop (http://www.dailytech.com/Smarter+Brighter+LED+Lighting+Eliminates+Droop/article13937.htm) typically associated with the higher currents needed to provide greater efficiencies.

Now a team at Cambridge University may be close to having a winning design (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1131183/Scientists-invent-2-bulb-60-years--theyre-greener-eco-bulbs.html) on their hands, perhaps for the L Prize, if they're eligible, and for the consumer market. The university has produced a new design which costs a mere $2.85 USD and despite being the size of a penny, produces similar light to a fluorescent bulb while lasting over four times as long with a lifetime of 60 years.

The new design triples fluorescent bulb efficiency and is 12 times more efficient than incandescent designs. Also, it’s capable of instantaneous illumination, so the light lag associated with fluorescent bulbs may soon be a thing of the past.


Talk about bang for the buck! This could really help ease the strain on the power grid!

[SteamWake]

They sure are tiney.

Thanks for posting. I have a personal interest in the topic :salute:

[em2nought]

Looking forward to it. Liking the CFLs so far, except for the one that seldom got used and only lasted one year as opposed to the five years claimed. Hope the rest of these CFLs last as long as they're claimed to last.

[FIREWALL]

I'm betting we'll never see it in the market place.


If history tells us anything.

[Christopher Snow]

So...we see just one new bright invention...out of those "thousand points of light?".

Hey! I'm desperate these days...so I'll take it!

Honestly: It sounds GOOD!

Moreover, the LED seems to be encapsulated in a small, physical package (T-1? T-1 3/4?"), and if it packs the punch they say it does, it'll be a huge breakthrough indeed.

[Thanks for the links.]


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Followup to previous post: Ask yourself. Wouldn't it be a good idea to funnel just a tiny proportion of the "US Govt Stimulus Package" into "fast-tracking" this new invention/discovery so that we realize the practical benefits from it during THIS year (instead of two or three years hence)?

So let's gamble. Throw some REAL money in. More than we propose to toss in for the benefit of the "arts."

50-100 million or so. But get it DONE.

It should be IMMEDIATELY obvious if it actually works (or not).

If not, then it's a measly "few million" wasted.

But if it DOES work, then the potential to save billions...or even trillions of dollars NOW (and we need to) might well be at hand.

On a mere cost basis alone, it seems to me this sort of "Immediate US Government Research Investment" might realize (for all of us here) huge dividends.

So....I'll throw in my dollar...<clink!>.

Much more willingly, too, than I'll throw in my support behind the rest of this huge "Pork"...aka "Stimulus" <cough!>...package.


CS

[bookworm_020]

I would buy them if they last longer and use less energy than anything else on the market.

[Zachstar]

It is hard to get anything on the market within a year. From what I am reading this is different from usual LED production methods. Also I do not want fed money going into designs for a LED factory in china.

But yes they ought to get some money but regardless this wont be widespread for a few years.

However if this and others hit the market at the same time it would reduce pressure on people's wallets and thus make them a tad looser with the spending. Good for the economy.