Searching \ for '[EE:] 100 Lumen songle LEDs coming' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=leds
Search entire site for: '100 Lumen songle LEDs coming'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE:] 100 Lumen songle LEDs coming'
2004\08\26@234718 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Single LEDs targeted for vehicle lighting, including headlights.

Do you know the way to San Jose?
The 101 is going to be a very bright place in a few years time

       http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=29116700

Single LEDs projected to reach 100 lumen output and replace all exterior
automotive lighting.
1st all LED lit vehicle expected within 5 years.

Link from Ken Mardle.
_______________________________________________________

The key to such success is the availability of brighter LEDs. At least two
suppliers - Lumileds Lighting (San Jose, Calif.) and Osram Opto
Semiconductors, Inc. (San Jose) - are working on 100-lumen designs that
could be employed in production vehicles as soon as the 2007 model year. The
brighter designs are said to be 10 to 20 times more powerful than existing
products, which typically range from 1 to 5 lumens in the smallest devices.
Lumileds executives said their company already markets 30-, 42- and 50-lumen
products as the Luxeon line.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

2004\08\27@002324 by Engineering Info

picon face
Reminds me of the hand held flashlights on Star Trek.  Lots of light
without having to carry around large batteries.  Could probally carry
around something the size of the old lantern battery flashlights that
could put out 5 times more light that would last 5 times longer.  Power
that off of a small methane fuel cell and I think Russell would be very
happy.

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@011236 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
Um...watch Lumileds at this year's Lightfair. I believe it's in March.

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 Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:25:24 +1200, Russell McMahon
<.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@040114 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Reminds me of the hand held flashlights on Star Trek.  Lots of light
> without having to carry around large batteries.  Could probally carry
> around something the size of the old lantern battery flashlights that
> could put out 5 times more light that would last 5 times longer.  Power
> that off of a small methane fuel cell and I think Russell would be very
> happy.

What I'm REALLY looking forward to is the PersonalPowerPack(tm)s that
contain between a microgram and a gram of anti-matter and are good for 1kW
to 100 KW of continuous output, depending on model. Available energy is
about 1E14 Joule/gram (! :-) )

Cost breaks even with chemical energy at about $10 billion per gram.

The 1 microgram / 1 kW model will run 24/7 for about 12 years. Handy pocket
warmer.

The 1 gram / 100 kW model will maintain a manned craft in powered flight
24/7 for about forever.




       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@042230 by Nigel Orr

flavicon
face
pic microcontroller discussion list <> wrote:
> Reminds me of the hand held flashlights on Star Trek.  Lots of light
> without having to carry around large batteries.  Could probally carry

Except these are lots of light but you need large batteries too!

AFAIK, there have not been great strides in LED efficiency, just the amount
of power that individual devices can take.  Is that still correct, I last
looked into it about 2 years ago?  If not, does anyone have some pointers
comparing LED and bulb light output efficiency (ie lumens per Watt, not
candelas per Watt)?

I use an white LED in my headtorch instead of a bulb, it appears to last
longer, but that is only because the light is whiter until the batteries
absolutely die, with a bulb, it becomes unusably orange and quickly
finished the batteries off.  It's _efficiency_ is really not much different
to a bulb.

BTW Russell, I like the word 'songle', so I haven't corrected the Subject
spelling :-)

Nigel
--
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it ("E-mail") is intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information.  If you are not the addressee(s), any
disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution or other use of the
E-mail is prohibited.  If you have received this E-mail in error,
please delete it and notify the sender immediately via our switchboard
or return e-mail.

Neither the company nor any individual sending this E-mail accepts any
liability in respect of the content (including errors and omissions)
and timeliness of the E-mail which arise as a result of transmission.
If verification is required, please request a hard copy version

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email EraseMElistservspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@080621 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
Actually, the lumens per watt is going up. Lumileds says that for a
given power, you're getting about twice the light ever 18-24 months.
Sort of the LED Moore's law. Check out the Lumileds website, I'm sure
they'll have the info you seek.

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 Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:23:04 +0100, Nigel Orr
<nigelspamspam_OUTaxoninstruments.co.uk> wrote:
> AFAIK, there have not been great strides in LED efficiency, just the amount
> of power that individual devices can take.  Is that still correct, I last
> looked into it about 2 years ago?  If not, does anyone have some pointers
> comparing LED and bulb light output efficiency (ie lumens per Watt, not
> candelas per Watt)?

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email @spam@listservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@095158 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Actually, the lumens per watt is going up. Lumileds says that for a
> given power, you're getting about twice the light ever 18-24 months.
> Sort of the LED Moore's law. Check out the Lumileds website, I'm sure
> they'll have the info you seek.

I'd love that to be true. But I suspect that it's not so. Last time I
checked a top class LED is more efficient than many incandescent bulbs but
not as good as the top tungsten halogens. That was probably 6 months ago. If
the efficiency were exponentiatiing we would be abreast the best practice
THs now and expect double that by end 2005. I think efficiency is around 6%.

Googles ...

1986 - Tungsten halogen 40 watt = 20 lumens/watt = 800 lumens
Even at that level a 100 lumen LED (as per original reference) = 5 watts of
Tungsten halogen power.

Same year - low pressure sodium = 200 lumens per watt or 0.5 watt per 100
lumens.
Better than best LEDs now or as proposed in that article.

Edison's first bub was 1.4 lumens/watt

_______________

Target - > 50 l/w by 2006 for most non-domestic building lights
Triphosphor -> Halo phosphate


http://www.mtprog.com/approvedbriefingnotes/ModellingEnergySavingsfromMinimumStandardsforCommerciallampefficiency.aspx?kintUniqueID=87

______________

     Type lm/W %
     light-emitting diode 0.04-20 [6] 0.005%-2.9%
     40W tungsten incandescent 12.6 [7] 1.9%
     60W tungsten incandescent 14.5 [7] 2.1%
     100W tungsten incandescent 17.5 [7] 2.6%
     glass halogen 16 2.3%
     quartz halogen 24 3.5%
     tungsten-halogen 18-25 [6] 2.6%-3.6%
     13W twin-tube fluorescent 56.3 [1] 8.2%
     compact fluorescent 45-60 [4] 15%-32% [3]
     xenon arc lamp 30-150 [5] 4.4%-22%
     mercury-xenon arc lamp 50-55 [5] 7.3%-8%
     high-temperature incandescent 35 [2] 5.14%
     ideal blackbody radiator 95 [2] 14% [7]
     ideal white light source 242.5 [2] 36%
     monochromatic 556nm source 680 [7] 100%



http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/l/li/light_bulb.html

_______________________________

Sulphur lamps.
150 lumens /watt
Not yer average bulb.

   http://www.thekrib.com/Lights/sulphur.html

Better technical comment.
Good pictures.
135,000 lumen from a golfball sized bulb - (and 1400 watts of RF to drive
it)
(= 96 l/W)

   http://www.sulfurlamp.com/tech.htm


Note - for the period that you heat your home there is no point in having
energy saving light sources unless capital cost is lower than alternatives.

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email KILLspamlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

2004\08\27@182845 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 27, 2004, at 6:51 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

>  Last time I checked a top class LED is more efficient than many
> incandescent bulbs but not as good as the top tungsten halogens.

> 1986 - Tungsten halogen 40 watt = 20 lumens/watt = 800 lumens
>
From Don Klipstein's site (loads of interesting lighting info):

{Quote hidden}

Unlike incandescents, efficiency can go UP at lower output (lower
curretn) on the same device...

So LEDs are pretty close to good tungsten lamps these days in
efficiency, and have other significant advantages...

I'm not seeing the "steadily increasing" so much, though.  Or not at
the high power levels:

> UPDATE 4/28/2002 - Lumileds is now claiming 30 lumens for their 1.2
> watt Luxeons and 120 lumens in their 5 watt Luxeons (approx. 25
> lumens/watt) in this April 14 2002 Press Release.

Note that for non-headlight applications, an LEDs monochromacity is a
big advantage.  You're not producing ~10L/W of "white" light and
throwing most of it away in a red  or amber filter; you're producing
30+L/W of actual red or amber light...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...