Searching \ for '[EE]:: GE announces new incandescent lighting tech' 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/index.htm?key=announces+new+incandescent
Search entire site for: ': GE announces new incandescent lighting tech'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: GE announces new incandescent lighting tech'
2007\02\26@233838 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
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

2007\02\27@172304 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On 2/26/07, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.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

2007\02\28@031100 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

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

2007\02\28@115051 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> On 2/26/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam@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!

2007\02\28@130610 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I wonder if the bulb envelope could be made of something that
>reflects IR back to the filament but passes visible light.

Hmm, halogen lamps do the opposite to allow the heat to go out the back
while sending the visible light out the front ...

2007\02\28@135951 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On 2/28/07, Alan B. Pearce <A.B.PearcespamKILLspamrl.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

2007\02\28@140926 by Brooke Clarke

flavicon
face
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

2007\02\28@144408 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
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}

> -

2007\02\28@144942 by Peter Todd

picon face
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


'[EE]:: GE announces new incandescent lighting tech'
2007\03\01@035401 by Peter P.
picon face
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.


2007\03\01@062422 by Peter P.

picon face
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.


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...