Post by thread:[EE]:: GE announces new incandescent lighting tech

Here's GE making an Australian politician look really silly (some would say that wasn't hard) and showing why you should (usually) tell solutions providers what you want and not how to do something. GE announce new Incandescent bulb lighting technology that they say will double incandescent efficiency and be on the market by 2010 and which they say will ultimately quadruple current incandescent efficiency to rival that of CFL. As incandescent bulbs are fundamentally cheaper than CFL's and require no electronics, such a development would be liable to greatly reduce CFLs market share unless it in turn could find some miracle to work. http://tinyurl.com/2epys2 As halogen bulbs are already doing much of what this new "breakthrough" does but at increased cost and with some disadvantages (eg much easier done at low voltage) it will be interesting to see what comes of GE's claims. Russell Masochists link: Blame Matthew :-) http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?epi_menuItemID=989a6827590d7dda9cdf6023a0908a0c&epi_menuID=c791260db682611740b28e347a808a0c&epi_baseMenuID=384979e8cc48c441ef0130f5c6908a0c&ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&div=946895406&newsId=20070223005120 Ref : Matthew McMahon

On 2/26/07, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote: > GE announce new Incandescent bulb lighting technology that they say > will double incandescent efficiency and be on the market by 2010 and > which they say will ultimately quadruple current incandescent > efficiency to rival that of CFL. As incandescent bulbs are > fundamentally cheaper than CFL's and require no electronics, such a > development would be liable to greatly reduce CFLs market share unless > it in turn could find some miracle to work. > > http://tinyurl.com/2epys2 I can't find any mention of this on GE's site or any other real industry site. Does anyone have any information about what they're doing? Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

On Feb 27, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Josh Koffman wrote: >> http://tinyurl.com/2epys2 > > I can't find any mention of this on GE's site or any other real > industry site. Does anyone have any information about what they're > doing? > Really. Incandecants are black body emmitters. I find it hard to believe that they've found a material that reaches the same temperature with 1/4 the power (finer filaments? That would be one way to get 4x efficiency boost.) Wikipedia claims here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy that even an ideal BB emitter only emits 95lm/W (14% efficient), so even achieving the full 4x boost only gets efficiency up to where fluorescents are now. (although CFLs aren't so good.) BillW

> On 2/26/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> GE announce new Incandescent bulb lighting technology that they say >> will double incandescent efficiency and be on the market by 2010 and >> which they say will ultimately quadruple current incandescent >> efficiency to rival that of CFL. As incandescent bulbs are >> fundamentally cheaper than CFL's and require no electronics, such a >> development would be liable to greatly reduce CFLs market share unless >> it in turn could find some miracle to work. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2epys2 > > > I can't find any mention of this on GE's site or any other real > industry site. Does anyone have any information about what they're > doing? > > Josh > I don't know if this is what they're doing, but I did read about a nanotech filament structure a while back that was supposed to limit the radiation to visible light, reducing the IR radiation. This allowed the filament to stay hot with less power input (since less power was being radiated in IR, but same power being radiated in visible). Again, I don't know if this is what they're doing, but reduction of IR from incandescent lamps certainly seems like it would give a substantial efficiency improvement. I wonder if the bulb envelope could be made of something that reflects IR back to the filament but passes visible light. Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising opportunities available!

On 2/28/07, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.PearceKILLspamrl.ac.uk> wrote: > Hmm, halogen lamps do the opposite to allow the heat to go out the back > while sending the visible light out the front ... Aren't you talking about dichroic "cold mirrors"? The halogen cycle doesn't really have anything to do with where the heat goes, just that there is enough to allow the filament to redeposit on itself. At least that's what I recall. Help? Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

Hi: I called GE and asked about the press release on their web page at: www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/new_products/HE_lamps_07.htm The answer was that it's a response to the proposed banning of incandescent lamps by a few political districts. I.e. "they're working on it". By coincidence the current email from Electronic Design has a comment on CFL lamps. www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15026&pg=1 And that's the disposal problem, since they have about 5 mg of Mercury per bulb. Yet RoHS allows the Mercury in fluorescent lamps, both the type in laptop backlights and the home lighting type. Also note that most manufacturers of CLF will not take them back and they must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Fluorescent lamps use a Mercury arc to generate UV which in turn excites the phosphors. http://www.lamprecycle.org/ Note that many years ago the battery manufacturers had to remove Mercury from batteries and today there are no longer any Mercury based batteries and the Alkaline battery has had it's Mercury removed. The couple of dozen patent numbers on a package of Energizer Alkaline batteries are mostly about how they eliminated Mercury and still made the battery work. Have Fun, Brooke Clarke -- w/Java http://www.PRC68.com w/o Java www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml http://www.precisionclock.com

I hope that instead of banning incandescents, they put efficiency standards on the lamps. Of course, the efficiency of a normal incandescent can be improved quite a bit by running it hotter (at a higher voltage). But then the life of the lamp is quite a bit shorter. So, you get your choice: efficiency or waste... Harold {Quote hidden}> Hi: > > I called GE and asked about the press release on their web page at: > www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/new_products/HE_lamps_07.htm > The answer was that it's a response to the proposed banning of > incandescent lamps by a few political districts. I.e. "they're working > on it". > > By coincidence the current email from Electronic Design has a comment on > CFL lamps. > www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15026&pg=1 > And that's the disposal problem, since they have about 5 mg of Mercury > per bulb. Yet RoHS allows the Mercury in fluorescent lamps, both the > type in laptop backlights and the home lighting type. Also note that > most manufacturers of CLF will not take them back and they must be > disposed of as hazardous waste. Fluorescent lamps use a Mercury arc to > generate UV which in turn excites the phosphors. > http://www.lamprecycle.org/ > > Note that many years ago the battery manufacturers had to remove Mercury > from batteries and today there are no longer any Mercury based batteries > and the Alkaline battery has had it's Mercury removed. The couple of > dozen patent numbers on a package of Energizer Alkaline batteries are > mostly about how they eliminated Mercury and still made the battery work. > > Have Fun, > > Brooke Clarke > > -- > w/Java http://www.PRC68.com > w/o Java www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml > http://www.precisionclock.com > > -

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:43:59AM -0800, Harold Hallikainen wrote: > I hope that instead of banning incandescents, they put efficiency > standards on the lamps. Of course, the efficiency of a normal incandescent > can be improved quite a bit by running it hotter (at a higher voltage). > But then the life of the lamp is quite a bit shorter. So, you get your > choice: efficiency or waste... Or they could simply... tax coal burning electricity. But that'd be too easy... -- http://www.petertodd.ca

The simplest technology I can think of to achieve this is the one used in incandescent UV lamps. A low power filament in Hydrogen atmosphere will excite a non-self-sustaining discharge in the hydrogen (powered by the potential difference in the filament), thus emitting UV. In a normal lamp this would illuminate a fluorescent instrument panel or lure insects into a charged grid. If the lamp would be coated with phosphors then it would emit visible light instead, likely with an efficiency approaching that of a discharge lamp. Peter P.

Josh Koffman <joshybear <at> gmail.com> writes: > > On 2/28/07, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.Pearce <at> rl.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hmm, halogen lamps do the opposite to allow the heat to go out the back > > while sending the visible light out the front ... > > Aren't you talking about dichroic "cold mirrors"? The halogen cycle > doesn't really have anything to do with where the heat goes, just that > there is enough to allow the filament to redeposit on itself. At least > that's what I recall. Help? Yes that's it. The glass must be hot or the halogen cycle won't work. The non-dichroic mirror then produces a second focal point for the hot glass. This can destroy casings and optics so the dichroic mirror had to be invented. Peter P.