Slashdot Mirror


LED Lighting As Cheap As CFLs Invented

mcgrew writes "New Scientist reports that a British team has overcome the obstacles to cheap LED lighting, and that LED lamps as cheap as CFLs will be on the market in five years. Quoting: 'Gallium nitride cannot be grown on silicon like other solid-state electronic components because it shrinks at twice the rate of silicon as it cools. Crystals of GaN must be grown at 1000C, so by the time a new LED made on silicon has cooled, it has already cracked, rendering the devices unusable. One solution is to grow the LEDs on sapphire, which shrinks and cools at much the same rate as GaN. But the expense is too great to be commercially competitive. Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem. They included layers of aluminium gallium nitride in their LED design... These LEDs can be grown on silicon as so many other electronics components are. ... A 15-centimetre silicon wafer costs just $15 and can accommodate 150,000 LEDs making the cost per unit tiny.'"

99 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by 1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now Colin Humphreys's team at the University of Cambridge has discovered a simple solution to the shrinkage problem.

    Excellent news! Wait, what's this story about?

  2. My first experience with LED lighting... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...

    A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.

    I was so hopeful.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've heard similar reviews from a co-worker who was very motivated to 'go green'. The '40-watt equivalent' turned out to be an over-sized night-light (per her review - I haven't seen it).

      Still, this could be good news. I switched about half-way to CFLs largely to save $$ on electricity, but they're neither as efficient nor as 'green' as LED lights. I priced LED lights but, at the time, they were so damned expensive that it would take ~40 years for the investment to pay itself off. Even if I have to over-rate everything to get the same level of light, it should be better all the way around compared to the current alternatives.

      Still, even though this sounds solid, the ominous 'This should be available in 5 years' always makes me a little cautious.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't lose hope yet. For one thing, a 40 watt incandescant (you didn't specify if what you were replacing was incandescant or CFL) is damned dim to start with. When I used incandescants, the lowest watt bulb I used was usually a 100 watt (60s in closets and in the basement where there's one every fifteen feet), and used 3 way 250 watt bulbs for reading.

      A 40 watt CFL would be damned bright, I don't know if I've ever seen one. Most of my lamps have 27 watt twirley tubes. They vary in intensity, in color, in startup time, and some grow brighter the longer they're on. The one on the front porch won't light if the temperature gets below 0F, the back porch light has lit every time. It's also dimmer and bluer.

      I'm looking forward to these, but when I finally buy one, I'm not going to pick one that says "equivalent to a sixty watt incandescant", I'm going to get one that says it's equivalent to 100 watts, just to be sure.

    3. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by DFJA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .....and your data source for this claim is where exactly???

      --
      43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
    4. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      Combined pollution from making em + using em + disposing them is order of magnitude worse than conventional lightbulbs.

      ...If you just throw them in a landfill.

      If you properly "dispose" of them (aka "recycle"), you can reuse just about every part of them except the small PCB in the base, and even that you can strip for the metals.

      So yeah, they have a tiny blob of mercury in them - Of which, when properly recycled, 99.999% should end up in a new bulb.

    5. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Informative

      I switched about half-way to CFLs largely to save $$ on electricity, but they're neither as efficient nor as 'green' as LED lights.

      How so? Recently, in my local walmart, GE started selling Par20 LED bulbs that were supposed to be 40-50 watt equivalent but for 7 watts produced 200 lumens. That's 28.5 lumens per watt.

      My Feit Electric (Costco) 13w CFLs (60 watt equivalent) produce about 800 lumens. That's 61 lumens per watt.

      A 60w incandescent makes around 700-850, depending on brand. Using the 800 as a comparison, thats 13.3 watts per lumen.

      LEDs may have the potential to be more efficient than CFLs, but it doesnt look like they automatically are. Or am I missing something?

    6. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      'A 40W incandescent is an excellent light source - brighter than a pretty big fire or the largest candle known to man.'

      In home lighting isn't rated against candles or big fires (unless you are looking for mood lighting) its compared to daylight.

      'a typical domestic living room is nicely illuminated by 3-4 35W tungsten halogen lamps'

      Yeah, I'm sure 110w of HALOGEN would be reasonably bright. But we were referring to indoor lighting. The gas in the bulb would be argon.

    7. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      + disposing them is order of magnitude worse than conventional lightbulbs.

      Any home depot accepts any and all CFLs. In fact, it's easier and cheaper to dispose of CFLs properly than it is of Fluorescents.

      Oh, and if your electricity is generated from coal, you are helping put mercury in the air as well.

    8. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by stonefry · · Score: 5, Funny

      And who exactly wants to live in something that resembles a hospital?

      Your friendly neighbourhood CDO neat-freak???

      Fixed it for you. The letters are now in alphabetical order. LIKE THEY SHOULD BE!

    9. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      I believe you're thinking of the "inverse square law" and it applies to all light sources.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "you would need active cooling for a 300 watt halogen."

      I'm calling bullshit. I've got a 300w halogen floodlamp. I don't see any fans on it. It's a shell, two ceramic sockets, a reflector, and a cord. I don't see ACTIVE ANYTHING in here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by fizzup · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 40-watt CFL is about like a 150-watt incandescent. Here's a link to a really bright "compact" fluorescent. It's over a foot long.

    12. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't trust lumens either. The lumen output of CFL lighting halves every foot or so from the light source.

      It's worse than that, mate. Every time you double the distance, the brightess goes down by a factor of four! So, two feet away, the bulb is a quarter as bright as it was a foot away.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:My first experience with LED lighting... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the mercury from the standard incandescent lights is not concentrated in my living room.

      It can be. Just take any cans of tuna you have from your kitchen and put them in your living room.

  3. Sweet by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except I've already switched most of my house to bulbs that last longer than incandescents. Maybe the flourescents will start burning out by the time I can get some good cheap LED bulbs.

  4. If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

    most people want to be able to use dimmers and every customer I have wants to use lighting automation.

    They need to work on that second right after figuring out how to get the lumens up to that of CFL lamps.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've not used the commercial LED light bulbs, but standard LEDs dim just fine (at least to a point). I see no obstacle that would stop the bulbs from dimming too.

      In fact, a very quick check on the bulbs available at Amazon indicates that they do dim. Is there a dimming problem that you're aware of that's not made clear in the Amazon reviews?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Honestly we NEED a led light bulb that will DIM acceptably for people.

      most people want to be able to use dimmers and every customer I have wants to use lighting automation.

      They need to work on that second right after figuring out how to get the lumens up to that of CFL lamps.

      As long as your dimmers are the electronic PWM based kind, LEDs will work with them. (CFL's have issues when they're only given part of the sinewave). If you use the crappy rheostat dimmers LEDs won't work with them.

      The only thing I question about LEDs is... will they give us headaches from the flicker? It's my current annoyance with LED christmas lights - they can flicker quite horribly. CFLs not so much, and neither the standard flourescent lamps (flicker at 120Hz, plus smoothed out by phosphors).

      I forsee cheap LED lamps not using a full bridge rectifier (= 120Hz flickering), and just hooking them straight up in series, so they're off half the time.

      It's also one of my concerns with OLED displays - they have these really fast refresh times, but if you don't refresh them fast enough, flicker! (I've seen it on cheap MP3 players, annoying. I've also seen it on the Sony OLED TV... Sony sales guy blamed it on the 1080p24 source, but I'm not sure.)

    3. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you should be able to use a standard dimmer switch on these things. Unless someone is doing something I've never seen before, there's no logic in them, just the diode and a resistor. Maybe a capacitor if they were really ambitious.

      I'd expect control with an LED to be much better than an incandescent, because the fact that the 'light emitting' voltage stays relatively constant between the on state and off state, so you should get better effective rangability and control.

      Yes, I'm a control systems geek. :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
    4. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by Sj0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know about a SINGLE component in the system.

      First, LEDs are definitely variable in a non-binary sense. Anyone who has ever used an LED in pretty much any application ever can tell you that light output can be changed by altering the current.

      Second, a dimmer isn't a variable resistor. It cuts the AC waveform, reducing the current available to an incandescent light bulb.

      Pulse width modulation is definitely NOT the only way to vary the light output of an LED.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    5. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by zenyu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, you should be able to use a standard dimmer switch on these things. Unless someone is doing something I've never seen before, there's no logic in them, just the diode and a resistor. Maybe a capacitor if they were really ambitious.

      Nope. LED fixtures on an Edison base incorporate ballasts, just like CFLs, and incandescent dimmers do not work well with any ballast. You are probably making the incorrect assumption that an incandescent dimmer just takes a sine wave with a ~ 170 V peak and outputs a sine wave with a lower peak. It would indeed be easy to create a dimmable ballast if that were the case. But instead these things just cut out portions of the wave creating all kinds of nasties on the house current. This is because it is cheaper to do, and all you need to do to dim an incandescent is to reduce it's average current consumption.

      There are a number of solutions to this problem. The one that's most likely to happen is that a new type of dimmer will be created which does something sane for ballasts like reduce the peak voltage, and labeling will be created for both such dimmers and the CFL and LED light bulbs with compatible ballasts. Another solution would be to simply put the dimming entirely within the ballast itself, then the switch would just send a message to the bulb via radio or another out-of-band channel to the bulb circuitry to dim. But while this would be more efficient, this is not going to happen in today's fragmented home automation market without a government mandate, or at least the threat of a government mandate, to standardize.

      PS There already are dimmable CFLs and CFL compatible dimmers, I have some in my house. They are not perfect, and both cost 2x as much as conventional CFLs and incandescent only dimmers; and there is no branding to tell the consumer they are compatible. This means you need to do a lot of frustrating web research before you buy the things. I also bought one bright LED Edison base lightbulb to satisfy my curiosity and it was both very expensive and non-dimmable.

      PS2 My biggest frustration with buying lighting on the web is that no one shows you a spectral diagram of the light output of the bulbs. If there are any lighting web retailers reading this, please do this and you will win some early adopter business and appear expert in the eyes of even those who don't know what they are looking at. Use, trademark and reasonably license compatibility marks and you will make a killing.

    6. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'If you use the crappy rheostat dimmers LEDs won't work with them'

      Why not? Adjusting resistance dims and brightens LED's just fine on a breadboard.

    7. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Modern", meaning "at least 30 years old". We were using triacs in a dorm-made theater-light-board back then. And before triacs, it was big-ass variable transformers. I cannot imagine regulating dozens of kilowatts resistively; that would be one heck of a hair-dryer.

    8. Re:If they are still not dimmable they still suck by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

      PWM works fine as long as the oscillating frequency is above what the visual system can respond to (IAAVN ... I am a visual neuroscientist). The maximum frequency that the visual system responds to depends greatly on a large number of parameters, including contrast levels, and individual sensitivities, but, generally, the upper limit is about 150 Hz.

      If your intention is to draw attention, then 5-to-10 Hz is excellent for this.

      If your intention is to make even illumuniation, then oscillating at or above 200 Hz is certain to not appear to flicker.

      These days, fewer and fewer people recall the horror of using a CRT computer monitor at 60 Hz refresh. It is painful. Seizure-inducing. But increase the refresh rate on a CRT to 85 Hz and most people don't see the flickering anymore. Increase it to 160 Hz, and it is nearly undetectable even in a laboratory setting. That's for a light that essentially goes full-on to full-off.

      For light sources that are modulating at less extreme levels (like most LCD monitors, where each pixel is essentially constant in light output as long as the image does not change) a much lower refresh rate is necessary. 60 Hz is just fine.

      The most recent laptops that have LED illumination are, unfortunately, modulating brightness with a typically 60 Hz PWM driver. This makes it much more like a CRT because the light source is pulsing on and off. I can see my laptop flicker easily, but it's only milding annoying (120 Hz, and it would not have been an issue -- and the thing is, a 120 Hz PWM driver isn't any harder to design than a 60 Hz one).

      For a bike light, where you are using the illumination to see where you are going, I would recommend at least 100 Hz, if not 200 Hz. Do you have a choice in PWM drivers, or are you designing you own?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  5. Clap on? by Pentomino · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a Clapper that I've been unable to use with CFL bulbs. I'd like to know whether these new LED lights work with the Clapper and other remote-switching appliances.

    1. Re:Clap on? by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They won't work with the clapper.

      Cheap automated switching devices like the clapper and some timers include the bulb as a resistance element in the switching circuit. They count on the bulb acting almost like a short when the light is off. This works with incandescent bulbs, since the resistance of the filament is very low when it is cold. CFL and LED bulbs act exactly the opposite way. They are almost an open circuit when off. With no current flow, the automated switch is unpowered.

      There are switches that will work with these types of bulbs, but they generally cost more.

    2. Re:Clap on? by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you. The image of a crack addled addict struggling in a vain attempt to clap some life into a dead CFL bulb is one that I am sure will stick with me the rest of the day.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Whoopie for cold light! by arugulatarsus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These are going to be awesome in an office environment. Especially since the ceilings are so high and nobody likes changing the lights. But I have yet to find truly warm non-tungsten/halogen/mercury/fire/quartz/evil light for home use. I could not picture LEDs (which are basically antennas radiating a frequency that we happen to see) overtaking the other lights (heat sources that coincidentally give off visible light) in terms of color richness.

    1. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they can cluster LEDs in a way that simulates natural light (ie, a few at one frequency, a few at another frequency, etc) then I don't see how it's impossible... impossible for a single diode, perhaps..

    2. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      LEDs have almost nothing to do with antennas, aside from the fact that both emit EM radiation. Specifically, there is no oscillator in the LED. The photons are a direct result of the diode band gap -- each electron-hole pair combining emits one photon with energy equal to the electron charge times the forward voltage (ie a 3V forward voltage LED emits photons with 3eV of energy, aka blue visible light). The Wikipedia page has a fuller explanation.

      The reason LEDs produce weird light is that their spectrum is a sharp band, as opposed to the broad hump of a black body. This can be fixed (somewhat) by using a phophor to shift some of that frequency (most white LEDs), but the usual techniques for that leave a gap between the LED emission and the phosphor emission. Better, though more expensive, is combining enough different color LEDs that the narrow individual bands blend together to simulate the blackbody output. Eventually, that will get cheap enough to be common, and then you'll see LEDs in common usage as lighting.

    3. Re:Whoopie for cold light! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I have yet to find truly warm non-tungsten/halogen/mercury/fire/quartz/evil light for home use.

      I thought the same for the first week after we started migrating our home to CFLs. I've since come to understand that "warm" is a synonym for "ugly yellow".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  7. British invention by EdZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    And it all came about because it's hard to achieve 1000C in a shed.

  8. Cheap by what measure? by ChilyWily · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?
    If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

    1. Re:Cheap by what measure? by rift321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what is the energy consumed during production for one of these LED lights?
      If we're just using more energy per unit during manufacture, then what is the energy payoff balanced vs. the number of hours these will remain in service?

      Just by quick examination, it's an enormous energy payoff - think about how incandescent bulbs are produced, or even CFLs, then imagine a boatload of Si/Ga wafers being produced (uses a bit of energy), and then 150,000 LEDs coming from each wafer. Then each low-wattage LED running for about 70,000 hours.... each LED bulb that replaces 70 incandescent bulbs, or 7 CFLs (approximately). LEDs use far less energy than either of those. It's not like manufacturers love using tons of energy to produce a silicon wafer.... they make the process as quick and efficient as possible - the cost of production ($15) is directly proportional to how much energy is consumed in the process.

      Let's do a quick estimate, shall we? $15 per wafer, with a wafer yielding 150000 LEDs, 25 of which are needed for an array for a bulb = $0.0025 per bulb (just leds). I'd say the energy savings will be on the plus side after manufacturing.

  9. Gallium by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't we already in short supply of gallium? Do we really want demand for this rare metal that already has so many uses? We have plenty of ways to generate light, let's use one that doesn't require one of our rarest and most useful materials.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  10. Oblig seinfeld reference by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lightbulbs getting out of a pool I guess.

  11. What about the production? by Erioll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm all for getting away from CFLs, as their production alone is NOT environmentally friendly (most of the mercury in the world is mined in China, where HALF of it is "lost" to the environment during production, which means "polluted"), not to mention the ratio thrown out.

    But what about the LEDs? How toxic (or not) are the materials they're talking about? And what about the production of such? And heck, back on the pollution thing, WHERE they are produced makes a big difference, since if it's in China, forget any environmental disposal of chemicals used, whereas if it's in a developed country, it'll probably be OK.

    Not insurmountable problems, but I do want to know how those things will work out.

    1. Re:What about the production? by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you only replace them at 1/10th or 1/1000th the rate then its unlikely it could be bad for the environment....

    2. Re:What about the production? by lagfest · · Score: 5, Funny

      All in all, a win all around, although - as someone has mentioned here - LEDs are not that 'bright' compared to traditional lighting.

      I take it you've never seen a high power LED. All I can say is: don't look into high power LEDs with remaining eye.

    3. Re:What about the production? by danep · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please stop spreading the FUD about the amount of mercury in CFLs, which is negligible. The mercury in CFLs constitutes 0.1% of what we dump into the environment annually, and CFLs contribute far less mercury to the environment than incandescent bulbs. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

    4. Re:What about the production? by NormalVisual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, the blue/red LED light bars becoming increasingly popular with public safety agencies are sometimes so bright as to be actually painful to look at, especially at night. Also, my LED flashlights are extremely bright, although the light is admittedly being focused into a tight beam.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:What about the production? by bahwi · · Score: 4, Informative

      More mercury from coal plants used to power incandescent bulbs, 100% of it lost to the environment. Look at whole life, not just one part.

    6. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quit buying crap CFL and just rig your place with T5HO linear fluorescent.

      One 54 watt bulb is all I need to light my living room or my kitchen, and it's 5,000 lumens INSTANTLY, no warm-up.

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:What about the production? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, that looks awesome... but I'm just not prepared to spend $70 for a flashlight.

      Don't need to. Go to target or walmart, they will have lights in the $15-$30 range that do 120 lumens too.
      The bare emitter is only a buck or two, so even "cheaper" flashlights are starting to use them.

      Unfortunately, even the brightest emitters can't do much more than 800 lumens and still cost in the $10-$15 range, so real incandescent replacements for the home are still either underpowered (a 90 watt incadescent can do roughly 1800 lumens) or prohibitively expensive.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Informative
      The problem with CFLs is not the mercury spread into the environment during production, is the spot concentrations of mercury 1. in your home, when you break a bulb, and 2. in the landfill, when people toss them out like regular bulbs, not understanding that these are hazardous waste and need to be disposed of in the proper facilities.

      When you break a lamp, the state of Maine says "The next time you replace a lamp, consider putting a drop cloth on the floor so that any accidental breakage can be easily cleaned up. If consumers remain concerned regarding safety, they may consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situations where they could easily be broken. Consumers may also consider avoiding CFL usage in bedrooms or carpeted areas frequented by infants, small children, or pregnant women. "

      Here's what the EPA says to do if a CFL bulb breaks in your home:

      Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

      • Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
      • Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
      • Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

      Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

      • Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
      • Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
      • Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
      • Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

      Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

      • Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
      • Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
      • If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
      • Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

      Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

      • If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
      • You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
      • If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

      Disposal of Clean-up Materials

      • Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
      • Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
      • Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:What about the production? by thegameiam · · Score: 4, Funny

      And they grow GREAT sweet basil and catnip and peppers.

      Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    10. Re:What about the production? by caladine · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yet, we have enough people that have posted to the CFL discussions with evidence that even with this, you're releasing less mercury into the environment overall. This is mostly due to the fact that a huge amount of electric power is generated with coal, which releases a fair amount of mercury.

      (Yes, this is a [citation needed] moment, I apologize.)

    11. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know you're joking, but that's what I actually grow with T5HO.

      Pot only gets cloned and starting veg under fluorescent, then it's HID all the way.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:What about the production? by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The mercury in CFLs happens to be in an organic form meaning its already bonded with Carbon. That is the best form to enter the waterways and the food chain. Its on the order of more than trillions of times more likely to enter the food chain than elemental mercury.

    13. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suggest you look up their recommendations for cleaning up a standard incandescent bulb for comparison.

      I looked and didn't find anything. Care to provide a link?

      As far as land fill problems, putting them in the land fill puts less mercury in the enviroment then using an incandescent bulb. Assuming your power come from coal, and not a clean alternative like nuclear.

      The concern here is spot concentration -- what goes into the landfills tends quickly to go into the groundwater. If you've got a coal plant 150 miles away, you're not going to be getting much of it. Here's a link that says mercury in landfills is a bigger problem than mercury in the air.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    14. Re:What about the production? by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm calling bullshit.

      The largest T5HO bulb only uses 54w of power, two of those would be 108, plus ballast which in reality should be far, FAR more efficient than that, should use no more than 125w of power.

      My 4-lamp T5HO system uses 230w according to Kill-A-Watt, that's 216w in light bulbs plus 14w energy conversion loss in the ballast. I toss out 20,000 lumens.

      Your 100w incandescent only at most pumps 12-1800 lumens.

      So either you bought some bullshit lighting or you're talking out of your ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:What about the production? by Peepsalot · · Score: 4, Informative

      LEDs appear very bright when viewed directly for two reasons:

      1) They are nearly a perfect point light source.
      2) They light output is typically very directional.

      But when you try to illuminate a room with one, you have to spread out this concentrated beam so much that it's not nearly as bright as your first impressions might make you think.

    16. Re:What about the production? by John+Straffin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since you don't appear to be using it, can I have your pinball machine?

      --
      My contempt for the behavior and beliefs of the two major political parties cannot be adequately expressed in 120 chara
    17. Re:What about the production? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all about the tight beam. LED lighting is much dimmer overall than CFL, but if you only shine light in a 12 degree arc it will be 100 times as bright as the same light in a 120 degree arc. If you *want* a narrow beam, LEDs are a clear winner. If you want to light a room, not so much.

      In any case, gallium is scarce and there's not an easy way to increase production (there's no such thing as a gallium mine, we get gallium as a byproduct of aluminum production). If there suddenly a spike in gallium demand there will be a huge spike in gallium price. Any LED or solar technology that needs gallium or indium will be quite expensive if it becomes popular.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:What about the production? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      Your intelligence fails. What retard thinks they need more than one CFL to replace one incandescent bulb?

    19. Re:What about the production? by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      The concern here is spot concentration -- what goes into the landfills tends quickly to go into the groundwater. If you've got a coal plant 150 miles away

      My coal plant is 5 miles away, you ignorant clod.

    20. Re:What about the production? by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get my power from HYDRO!!!!

      Are you hooked up to the grid or do you have a micro hydro system?

      Tell that to the environmentalists who won't let us build dams, water wheels, nuclear power plants, or anything that actually makes sense.

      Dams are not environmentally clean, neither are nuclear power plants.

      Falcon

    21. Re:What about the production? by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      The wikipedia article on mercury poisoning says that "Quicksilver (liquid metallic mercury) is poorly absorbed by ingestion and skin contact. It is hazardous due to its potential to release mercury vapour." Perhaps that's why it's not immediately dangerous to play with the block from a broken thermometer.

      So it looks like the real mercury is from mercury vapor and from mercury that's already in the food chain.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    22. Re:What about the production? by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see it a different way.

      If gallium becomes scarce and expensive, then aluminum prices will drop. This will bring us cheaper, stronger, lighter, and less bio-degradable cars.

      I, for one, welcome our gallium-based LED lighting overlords.

    23. Re:What about the production? by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      BULL-fucking-SHIT. The ~3 MILLIgrams of Hg in a CFL are in an entirely inorganic metal amalgam form. Stop pulling wacky pseudoscience scare tactic shit out of your ass and claiming it as truth.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    24. Re:What about the production? by clodney · · Score: 2, Informative

      Manufacturers are moving from CCFLs to LEDs for laptops primarily because of power issues - lower power consumption == better battery life.

    25. Re:What about the production? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "While not considered toxic, the data about gallium are inconclusive. Some sources suggest that it may cause dermatitis from prolonged exposure; other tests have not caused a positive reaction."
      -wikipedia

      You must be thinking of a different metal.

    26. Re:What about the production? by Entropy2016 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Inorganic mercury in the environment (wether it's by burning coal at power plants or from light bulbs) eventually reaches soils, which get wet with water, and as most of the water on land eventually does, washes into aquatic systems (water cycle).

      Microorganisms in the aquatic environment then convert it to methylmercury (what he was talking about).

      After that, it's the same old story you already know: Aquatic system is contaminated so the mercury (actually methylmercury) bioaccumulates its way up the food chain until it gets to the humans who eat the fish. The higher up the food chain the carnivore is, the more toxic their exposure is. This should be of personal concern to you if you are a whale, shark, big fish (like tuna) or human.

      It really doesn't matter what type of mercury is in those bulbs.

      All forms of it that get into the environment do eventually turn into the very type that hurts us most.

  12. Big advancement by rift321 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure everyone is completely aware of how big an advance this is. I'm going to buy Philips' stock as soon as I can. I'm sorry people have been screwed by some misleading marketing, but LEDs are the future of lighting... and the big green movement.

    And yes, they're really easy to dim, either by converting to DC and modulating current, or by using a PWM - I'm not sure which is more efficient/cheaper.

    I can't wait for CFLs to go away. Eventually you'll see commercially available, color-selectable LED bulbs.

    Anyone know if the process was patented/sold to a specific company? Pretty obvious why...

    1. Re:Big advancement by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately the peak inverse voltage of some LEDs isn't much higher than the forward voltage drop. So if you put them in series with a dropping resistor it doesn't take much of a spike on the reverse cycle to blow your expensive light bulb. Also, its' more friendly to the power company to conduct on both halves of the cycle. I'd use a full wave bridge, capacitor and a MOV or zener.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  13. Ahh, 5 years... by PowerVegetable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The good ole' 5-year technology promise. Close enough to be exciting and get attention, but far enough away that you'll forget about their claim before they miss their deadline.

    1. Re:Ahh, 5 years... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

      The good ole' 5-year technology promise. Close enough to be exciting and get attention, but far enough away that you'll forget about their claim before they miss their deadline.

      I just updated the "desktop" image on my OLED t-shirt to read "PowerVegetable is right on!"

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  14. you sir are incorrect by Chirs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Light Emitting Diodes are binary - either all the way on or all the way off"

    You're smoking crack. LEDs can be dimmed just fine, by varying the current going through them. How do you think they control the brightness in LED-backlit LCD displays.

    1. Re:you sir are incorrect by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    2. Re:you sir are incorrect by nwf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're smoking crack. LEDs can be dimmed just fine, by varying the current going through them. How do you think they control the brightness in LED-backlit LCD displays.

      While you can dim them that way, they are very picky and inefficient. PWM is much, much more efficient and allows for nearly 1-100% dimming range easily. Getting such accuracy with current is very hard, since it's nonlinear. Most LCD backlighting is done via PWM, there are tons of tiny chips to do this efficiently, for phones too. It's just too easy and cheap not to use PWM these days.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    3. Re:you sir are incorrect by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PWM is one possible dimming method, but you have to use a resistor to limit the current. The LED/resistor combination acts as a low-pass filter, which means that the LED only 'sees' the DC level of the AC waveform you're feeding it. This, therefore, has the same effect as varying the voltage across the resistor/LED pair.

      Um, no. A filter would require inductance and/or capacitance, which a PWM driver circuit is notably lacking in. PWM dimming works by running the LED at its rated current for the on-cycle, and turning it completely off during the off-cycle, so the LED does flicker. IIRC, the reason you don't typically do the dimming by current limiting is that the LEDs are a lot more efficient at the designed current levels, so dimming by current limiting is inefficient and it's hard to get a linear change in brightness.

  15. Solar panels too? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't some solar panels made with GaN as well? Will this help them too?

    1. Re:Solar panels too? by giafly · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aren't some solar panels made with GaN as well? Will this help them too?

      Looks likely. Cambridge are researching that too, e.g. both fields are covered by the following grant application.

      The other approach to solar cells we will pursue is high-efficiency inorganic multilayer solar cells. The basic idea is that by stacking layers in the order of their bandgap, with the layer with the largest bandgap at the top, light is converted into electricity in the most efficient way. We propose to build an innovative multi-layer solar cell based on GaN/InGaN/Si. The GaN layer will absorb the UV part of the solar spectrum, the InGaN layer the blue and green parts and the Si layer the yellow, red and near-IR parts. The theoretical efficiency is above 60%. Such a cell would be too expensive for large-area applications, but would be designed to be used at the focus of mirrors that concentrate the solar light, which will make the technology competitive.

      GaN-based white lighting is extremely efficient and if used in our homes and offices it could save 15% of the electricity generated at power stations, 15% of the fuel used, and reduce carbon emissions by 15%. However for GaN-based white lighting to become widely used in homes and offices we have to increase the efficiency still further and reduce the cost. We will research various ways to increase the efficiency. To reduce the cost we will grow GaN-based LED structures on 150mm (six-inch) silicon wafers instead of the current growth on two-inch sapphire wafers. This would reduce the LED cost by a factor of ten. Cambridge will grow such LED structures and UCSB will process them into LED lamps.

      Details of Grant

      --
      Reduce, reuse, cycle
  16. Re:Are they going to be tiny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's just what women SAY to make LEDs feel better, but in the end, they always go home with some huge frosted incandescent with a harsh light. And the day after, they'll be crying to their LED friends about how much energy it wasted the night before, how it kept getting hot and leaving burns on her, and how it burned out after only a few thousand uses. And the LED will listen and be supportive, but you know she'll never give it a shot.

    Not that I'm BITTER or anything...

  17. Good for displays too by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is great news not just for lighting, but also potentially for ILED TVs (basically LED - the "I" stands for inorganic. It would be simpler than even OLED, and the lifetime would be amazing of course.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  18. We need lumens ratings by kherr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real issue is that all light bulbs really do need to have the rating of lumens. Wattage is power use, lumens is light output (obviously). Saying "40-watt equivalent" is empty marketing speak, no wonder they were disappointing. And then there's the whole light temperature issue, which is very difficult for a consumer to determine.

    For my LED experience, I went with these LED bulbs for my chandelier (I was looking for a "25-watt equivalent") and have been very pleased. It may help that it's a cluster of bulbs in my fixture. Considering the lifespan of LED bulbs, I'm willing to pay a lot more per bulb providing the light output falls in the appropriate range.

    1. Re:We need lumens ratings by starfishsystems · · Score: 2, Informative

      And then there's the whole light temperature issue, which is very difficult for a consumer to determine.

      Especially as color temperature doesn't really tell the story where LEDs and fluorescents are concerned. While incandescent lights are thermal emitters with smooth color spectra, the others are composed of several sharp peaks at different wavelengths, a conditition which doesn't reduce to a single color temperature. It's also much of the reason why the light seems somewhat harsh and unnatural.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    2. Re:We need lumens ratings by dr2chase · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not so for LEDs; their peaks are substantially less sharp. I verified this both with a physicist, and with a diffraction grating. I took pictures, too. One problem you get, is that the "highest lumen" LEDs have a spectrum similar to an arc-welder, and it's not so nice. I used some good-quality neutral-white CREE LEDs for kitchen counter lighting, and it is quite nice.

    3. Re:We need lumens ratings by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to the physicist, no. White LEDs (the ones, I buy, certainly) are based on a blue/violet/UV emitter, combined with frequency-halving phosphors. According to physicist, it's the same game as is used in fluorescent lighting, but because the basic LED emitter is not a single frequency, and is instead centered around a frequency, you get a nicer distribution when you do the halving.

      I will verify this experimentally when I get home; I have diffraction gratings, I have "pure" (amber and orange-red) power LEDs available. If you're lucky, I'll get a picture.

  19. Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    (1) LEDs can in fact be dimmed by running less current through them, however their power efficiency drops, which negates the whole purpose of LED lighting. The most efficient way to dim an LED is to strobe it on faster than the human eye can detect By varying with fraction of the on/off cycle that the LED is on, the human eye perceives this as "dimmer". The number of photons averaged over a second is reduced, but for the milliseconds the LED is on it is at full brightness.

    (2) Incandescent bulb dimmers are almost never been rheostats, not since maybe the 1920s. The problem is efficiency again. Imagine a certain current flowing through the light bulb and the rheostat; the power dissipated in each device is then proportional to the resistance. When the rheostat is at equal resistance to the light bulb, it is dissipating as much power as the light bulb is! A 100 watt light bulb at 50% of the normal RMS current dissipates 25 watts, which means your rheostat is getting as hot as a small soldering iron. You'd need a massive heatsink to handle this.

    Therefore for many years, dimmers were not very practical. The best dimmers were actually transformers, but they were extremely bulky. They were mainly used in theaters and fancy restaurants to soften the shock of the prices on the menu by relief at being able to find them at all.

    With the creation of the solid state silicon controlled rectifier (scr), it is possible to do a trick with incandescent bulbs that is rather like the LED strobing trick. What you do is you take the sine wave power and you clip out the parts of the waveform on either side of the peak. So rather than having power delivered to light bulb all the time, the light bulb is only powered for a fraction of the cycle. The difference is that an incandescent filament glows because it is hot; it does not flicker on and off.

    Now with respect LED light bulbs, I'm not sure about what circuitry they contain, but they do contain circuitry. If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz. If you put a full wave rectifier into the circuit, they'd flicker at 120Hz, which might be fast enough you wouldn't notice the flickering. You'd certainly be able to use the a solid state dimmer to dim such as circuit, but flickering might be noticeable.

    There are relatively simple tricks you could use to maybe double the frequency, in which case you probably would not be able to perceive the flicker. On the other hand, there might be fancier circuits that know how to do the right thing. One of the problems with LEDs is that they age, their brightness varies. If the LED bulb achieves its white color by using several different colors, you need a compensating circuit to maintain the original color.

    Of course you could use white LEDs, but most of the bright ones are very harsh; I've seen warm white LEDs advertised, but I've never had one.

    So there you go, the straight facts on dimming that every geek should know.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Now with respect LED light bulbs, I'm not sure about what circuitry they contain, but they do contain circuitry. If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz. If you put a full wave rectifier into the circuit, they'd flicker at 120Hz, which might be fast enough you wouldn't notice the flickering.

      Speaking as someone who designs LED drivers for illumination, and as such, who has spent tens of hours ripping apart competitors' LED lighting systems, I'm amazed and depressed at how many off-line LED systems use only a single diode and cap as rectification. The *nice* ones use full bridges.
      There are good solutions: regulated rectification, current-limited LED drivers. We make them. They cost forty cents more than the full wave rectification design, and fifty cents more than the diode/cap half-wave design.
      Guess which ones are selling like hotcakes and which ones consumers aren't buying?

      Warm LED's look quite nice. A cool white LED with a similarly-rated red LED beside it, looks even nicer.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:Ok, let's get this thread straightened out. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Problem is: any recommendation I make is going to be based on the LED's we have, and most of those are either not for sale yet, or are stupidly expensive. I honestly don't know what commonly available lightbulbs have which LED's, either, because only a few LED's intended for general illumination are easy to recognize. I can tell you that I have great respect for Philips LumiLEDs, Osram Dragons, and most of the stuff Cree makes. I've worked with all those extensively and they're beautiful.
      A white/red combo might look okay. It's good for general illumination but still not particularly great for really good color rendition. The problem is that color rendering is dependent on a *lot* of weird stuff. (For instance, part of the reason a ruby is so red is because it's absorbing shorter-frequency light, and re-emitting it as red light, so even if you have a good red source that's lacking in the short-wavelength area, the ruby will look dead. Fish have lots of fluorescent/iridescent coloration, so a standard color rendering index (CRI) test might not tell you what you want to know: will this light look good with this situation?)

      With the li-ion, they'll burst into flame, so the manufacturers *have* to put in good charge-controller circuitry. LED's are currently like cars in 1910: you can make anything that sort of vaguely works, and someone will buy it. It's no secret that the LED crowd are hoping so many people will buy them just because they're cool, that they'll jump the early adopter chasm before they've realized that they've mostly bought turkeys.

      All the stuff we work with does, essentially, some sort of rectification, then dc-dc conversion, either buck, boost, or SEPIC, and ends up as a constant-current supply for the LED. We (and I'm sure a bunch of other people) have made drivers for really good dimming using standard triacs (ours is just about to hit the market) and they work *amazingly* well. You're limited in part by how well the triac works: a lot of the ones I've worked with have such crappy triggering circuits that the best you could ever get is roughly 60% dimming -- as in, you turn it on, keep coming up, and suddenly the light comes on at 40% brightness. You can then finesse it down to maybe 20%, but it's a pain. Thing is: we can digitize that and do clever stuff in software and come up with something that can essentially accommodate for the crappy triac, learn what it's doing (by sensing how it's chopping the AC) and produce a fabulous dimmer. We have one setup that can dim 10,000:1. If you get 5:1 out of a so-called dimmable compact fluorescent you're lucky. A good dimmer with an incandescent can do something similar: it can start producing heat before there's visible light coming off the filament. But I think only our (and similar) driver can get good performance out of cheap triacs.
      With all that said, a cheap triac dimmer driving a cheap unregulated LED will work, but they're (in my opinion) objectionably flickery. A triac dimmer driving a good switching converter (without any detection stuff to try and decode what the dimmer's trying to send) will still dim because you end up starving the switcher when the power's off, but it's icky-looking. In my experience it's even more non-linear than just the cheap triac: when there's enough power it drives well (but as you say at full current/full brightness), and when there's no power it turns off, and in the between situation it thrashes. Most LED driver chips have dim pins so you can apply an external dim signal derived somehow from the signal if you want to add a bunch of external circuitry. (We're building stuff that integrates all that junk into the chip.)

      >the idea that you're trying to keep the LEDs at the peak of their efficiency, it seems like a no-brainer.

      It is. But very few people will actually *pay* for better circuitry, apparently. So instead we have to add bullet-point functionality to justify more research, and then add in good current regulation and the like as a side-effect of (say) cold-we

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  20. Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

    Plus, they tend to start off dim and take like 5 minutes to get to the brightness that they advertise.

    You're buying the wrong bulbs then. Mine are at full brightness instantaneously.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Wrong bulbs by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've heard this dozens of times, but never seen how to differentiate crappy CFLs from good ones at the store. It's not like they have labels like "Hey, this CFL sucks! You should probably buy something better!" and spending more money is no guarantee of quality.

      Do you have some reliable way to tell good CFLs from bad ones? I'd like to know how to do it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Wrong bulbs by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Go into Walmart. Buy three different CFLs made by different companies. Take them home and test them. Return the ones you don't like. Profit.

    3. Re:Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look for the words "Instant on" on the packaging. I'll post the exact make/model info when I get home later today.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Wrong bulbs by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Philips Marathon Energy Saver Mini Decorative Twister. It is a 900 lumen bulb which is (according to the box) equivalent to a 60 watt soft white incandescent (860 lumens). Part number appears to be 813540. The funny thing is, I don't see anywhere on the box where it says anything about being instant on, but I distinctly remember passing up other bulbs for these because of the instant on feature. Perhaps that was on the display.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Wrong bulbs by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you read the part where I said I had 'floods'? CFL floods replacing halogen floods. The halogens have a 45 degree pattern, and halogen spots are less than 30. The CFL floods have no discernible pattern although sticking a twist CFL in a cone-shaped reflector coaxes most of the light out one end more or less. I dont know what your point is, but Im saying CFL's dont replace incandescents well in *all* applications (cold and high-power directional), and that lawmakers in their lemming-like rush to greenhood dont take real life into account.

      (*tinfoil* as a crude reflector? Gimme an effing break! Have you ever actually installed any outdoor lighting??)

    6. Re:Wrong bulbs by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're a very odd case then, I was listening to NPR this morning and the stat they quoted was 96% of Americans live within 15 miles of a Walmart (something like 84% live within 5 miles). Walmart also carries the pretty good GE Energy Smart line of CFL's which match incandescents fairly well for color spectrum.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  21. Please research before spreading FUD! by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

    The cost of the mercury polluted into the environment from CFLs far outweighs any energy savings they may incur over incandescent lights.

    BZZZT, *WRONG*!!!
    According to Energystar.gov:

    if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans

    How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light
    bulbs?

    Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.5 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 4.0 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.

  22. Oven lights by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Incandescent lights are on their way out in Australia. The only trouble with a complete ban, is that a lot of people hate CFLs, they can't be dimmed, they contain mercury, and they can't be used in extreme environments, like inside kitchen ovens.

    Can LED lights be made to work inside (very hot) kitchen ovens? I know that some semiconductors can be engineered to work while white-hot, and wonder if it's so hard to design an LED light light that'll work inside an oven or kiln.

  23. GaN on Si commercially available by vsny · · Score: 2, Informative

    Commercial GaN on Silicon has been available for a years now. The commercial vendors have overcome this cracking problem due to thermal expansion using an AlGaN buffer since about 2005. One problem growing on Silicon is dislocations which limit lifetime, not cracking.

    Actually sapphire substrates surprisingly are not that expensive.

    I'm not sure why this press release is considered news.

  24. Gallium is NOT in short supply by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Never has been, and probably never will be.

    Indium and Gallium Sustainability â" September 2007 Update

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Lumens per watt is? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Granted this is an as yet unrealized technology, but I really wonder what the lumens per watt will be.

    For reference a standard 48" T8 fluorescent is about 80 lumens per watt,
    Compact fluorescent is around 65 lumens per watt,
    and a 60w A19 bulb (the "normal" light bulb) is about 15 lumens per watt.

    Cree has some Gallium nitride LEDs that (they claim) produce a record breaking 130 lumens per watt,
    but they also have some 100 lumens per watt LEDs and they're also gallium nitride.

    Cost of production isn't totally meaningless, but over it's 20 year life, 5 watts means more than $100.

  26. not everybody's power comes from coal by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are a lot of places where the majority of power comes from nuclear and hydro.

    Yes, and both of those power sources use a lot of energy to build. Then for nuclear there's pollution from mining as well as the waste.

    Also, the real risk of CFLs is caused by the fact that any pollution from it is local and concentrated as a point source

    Over a period of years I replaced almost all of my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. As one burnt out I got a CFL to replace it. A point source of mercury is easier to handle than air born mercury. As for possibly breaking one, I try to use measures to reduce any possibility of breakage.

    Also, consider that the plumes from garbage dumps invading your water supply

    CFLs are supposed to be recycled and not thrown in the trash. Of course some people do throw them away, either because they don't care or because they don't know better. Even so, that's still less mercury in the environment than the amount of mercury that would be emitted to produce the power to light today's incandescent lights.

    Which is why I hope these LEDs, or others, that are good for area lighting come onto the market within a couple of years.

    trace mercury emitted into the atmosphere a hundred miles away from the city....

    Not all power plants are 100 miles away from the city. There's more than one power plant in South Bronx. NYC has 25 plants serving it. The first ones built by Con Edison, used the used steam to heat neighborhood buildings.

    Falcon

  27. CFLs by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.

    I too use CFLs. Like you I have 3 that burned out, however one lasted about 20 years. I don't know how long the others lasted. Also like you, I haven't disposed of them either. I put them in a room nobody uses in the packaging some of the CFLs I bought came in. When I find out where I'll take them in for recycling. I heard Home Depot was starting to accept them for recycling but I haven't seen my local store with a place to put them.

    Falcon

  28. clean alternative like nuclear by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nuclear power isn't clean.

    Falcon

  29. Re:Retina Sear by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Informative

    A pointless tip for anyone:

    Don't you hate it, in the middle of the night you have to have a piss. So you get up and can quite easily make you way to the toilet just by ambient light. You flick the light switch in the WC and do your thing. You finish and then switch the light off. Instantly you are thrown into total darkness. You stumble your way back to bed, hitting your shins and stepping on as many things as possible on your way. What can you do?

    A simple solution is to close one eye before turning on the light. Keep this eye closed tight as long as the light is on. After you switch the light off, open your eye. You can still see quite well in the ambient light again with the eye you had closed as it did not adjust to the brightness of the light.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.