Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the never-underestimate-ingenuity dept.

finfife writes to tell us that GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology that promises to increase the efficiency of lightbulbs to put them on par with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). "The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI(TM)) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40- to 100-Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps."The California legislature may want to revisit the wording of their proposed ban on incandescents (AB 722). How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?"

8 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. Could be quite useful... by SECProto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now, people may get another option in lighting. CFLs cause an annoying flashing in the corners of mine, and other peoples, eyes. Not to mention, some people like the "warm" yellow colour of common incandescents. Could be an intriguing development of lighting technologies.

  2. Curious timing by oskay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how long they've been sitting on this!

  3. Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... by cloudance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good god I hope California does put in a minimum efficiency rather than just outlawing Incandescants....

    I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.

    1. Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... by vought · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are supposed to look like that since their color temperature is typically 6500K which approximates the color temperature of the sun

      Not to be pedantic, but I do need to crrect a misperception.

      Actual daylight is anywhere from 4400-5600k. Daylight-balanced incandescents like SoLux bulbs are at 4700k and are similar to mid-morning light. Note that the color of "daylight" on a reflective white surface is highly subjective depending on atmospheric interference, latitude, and of course, time of day.

      6500k is a normally-used tristimulus daylight benchmark - accurate for transmissive media like RGB computer monitors, but not for bulbs. A computer monitor calibrated to a D65 at 2.2 gamma will show the aforementioned white board photographed in the sun accurately, but it not, strictly speaking, daylight-balanced - merely tuned to reproduce daylight using three component colors. Hence, the higher color temperature than "real" daylight.

      I prefer to measure in mireds!

  4. Why close plants then? by Iamwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this is so wonderful, why is GE closing one the two remaining Incandescent light plants in the US? http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories. nsf/story/8D30EC3A4F735E358625728C000EE86C?OpenDoc ument

  5. They Use Tungsten Vapourware Technology by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course there should be skepticism, because it sounds like GE pulled some amazing innovation of out their subsidiaryhole just in time to fend off legislation.

    Of course any legislation that talks journey rather than destination is misguided -- it is efficiency and other measurable metrics (e.g. amount of waste per unit, for instance) that matters, not how you get there. Putting specifics into the wording sounds more like some lobbyists got their money's worth.

    Having said all of that, anyone who walks into a store and buys an incandescent is either a) stupid, b) very stupid, or c) they live in an apartment with unmetered electricity. I have a house full of CFs, and have had them for half a decade now, and not only is the colour pleasing with the modern ones, and there is zero flicker or start-up lag, but in the entire time I've owned CFs I've changed two whole bulbs, one being used outside in -25C temperature when it was only rated for indoor use.

  6. Re:I don't believe it... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They might be using tungsten photonic lattice technology. Note that this is an article from 2002, and claims a similar efficiency. IIRC this was discussed on /. at the time:

    Now a microscopic tungsten lattice -- in effect, a tungsten filament fabricated with an internal crystalline pattern -- developed at Sandia has been shown to have the potential to transmute the majority of this wasted infrared energy (commonly called heat) into the frequencies of visible light.

    This would raise the efficiency of an incandescent electric bulb from five percent to greater than 60 percent and greatly reduce the world's most vexing power problem -- excess electrical generating capacity and costs to homeowners caused by inefficient lighting.


    Five years to market doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.
  7. Re: CFs fine if you don't need a true red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Recent, name-brand CFLs have mostly acceptable color rendition. Where you will notice their shortcomings is with deep red objects, like red velvet. These usually appear as brown or magenta under triphosphor CFLs, because there is simply no real red in the spectrum.

    Now, there are halophosphate and mixed halophosphate/triphosphor lamps which achieve > 90 CRI, but they trade off brightness. Chroma 50 tubes come to mind.

    People like to mention LEDs as a solution. They're great for low-intensity lighting, but if you want something truly bright, you'll find you have problems with heat dissipation.

    For those who like truly ugly AND wasteful (but retro!) lighting, try an uncoated, self-ballasted mercury vapor lamp. 160 watts and slightly less efficient than a standard incandescent.

    TANSTAAFL