Slashdot Mirror
Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-Efficient
guruevi writes with news that a process using an ultra-powerful laser can crank up the efficiency of everyday incandescent light bulbs. Using the same laser process covered several years ago, the tungsten filament has an array of nano- and micro-scale structures formed on the surface making the resulting light as bright as a 100-watt bulb while consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb and remaining much cheaper to produce. "The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second. To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years. During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point. That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form nanostructures and microstructures that dramatically alter how efficiently light can radiate from the filament."
Of only white LEDs were this efficient as well...oh wait...never mind.
Ezekiel 23:20
The technique has been used to make extremely efficient light-absorbing surfaces; but hadn't been applied to light-emitting surfaces until now. Since those are two sides of the same coin, I'd have expected somebody to try it much sooner(though, I'll admit, I didn't think of it).
On the plus side, greater efficiency in incandescents is always good(though I'd be quite interested to know how cheap laser treating filaments can possibly be). I predict that this thread will probably be infested by the "CCFLs are Evil!" brigade soon enough...
... and remaining much cheaper to produce.
... Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
What?
Whale
Why not set an efficiency factor on a bulb(like cafe standards) instead of banning the different technologies?
Something I never understood.
Too late: Compact fluorescent lamps require about 20W for the same light output as a 100W incadescent.
And live longer too.
Yes, their light used to look shitty, but these times are over now as well - if you don't buy the cheapest
there are, the light out of fluorescent bulbs is perfectly fine. And LED "bulbs" may soon be there too.
But long does the lamp last? It's easy to make an incandescent lamp more efficient. You just crank up the filament temp, but then your lifetime goes to pot. Lamps last 1000 hours because that's how frequently consumers are willing to unscrew and rescrew their bulbs.
Watch for sales of incandescent bulbs to triple in 2013.
Well, the ideal solution so far seems to be widespread LED lighting, combined with widespread nuclear power. With nuclear power, we could use incandescent bulbs without polluting the environment until LED bulbs sufficiently come down in price to be viable for use in every home.
I consider myself a true environmentalist, like Hank Hill; I believe in finding pragmatic solutions to keep our environmental treasures available for the next generations, by reducing unnecessary waste. Most modern ecomentalists are really just anti-industrialists and anti-technologists, fighting scientific progress. This is why they're opposed to nuclear power -- because it would allow our increasingly technological lifestyle to continue growing without killing the planet.
Sorry if this seems like a bit of a rant. It's not against you, it's just a beef I have. :)
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Conservation is a red herring: population growth will outstrip any resulting savings. Instead, we should focus on generating energy sustainably. We can do that today with a combination of wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.
Conservation almost always reduces our quality of life. Why should we do that when we have the technology to not only save the environment, but improve our lives as well? We should be encouraging people to use more energy when that power makes life easier. By all rights, electricity should be cheap and plentiful.
I can't help but wonder whether conservation advocates feel guilt over civilization itself. I certainly don't. There's no shame in using technology to make our lives better.
Coal power plants, not light bulbs, are the problem.
We need a sustainable electric grid, and the best way to create one right now is to tax coal and subsidize alternative power sources.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Work on that plan while at the same time working on the CFL plan. Eventually, LEDs will replace CFLs (probably - or something even better). In the meantime, we can offset the tons of waste spewed out by the coal plants which includes mercury along with a whole host of other nasties. Switching to CFLs will actually make it EASIER to eventually replace conventional power plants, as your new technology won't have to support the same peak load.
So embrace CFLs, knowing that they aren't perfect but they are feasible.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Out of genuine curiosity what would you do with the nuclear waste?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The same thing that the Japanese and the Europeans do--reprocess it into the smallest possible quantities, and securely bury what's left. The volume of waste that this requires you to bury is inconsequentially small compared to the amount of solid waste (ash) you have to dispose of when you burn coal.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
If the figures in TFA are correct, these slightly more efficient incandescents are about half as efficient as a CFL.
You only need 23W in CFL to make the equivalent of a 100W incandescent bulb. TFA says these new bulbs can do it with 60W. 60W is still 2.6 times as much power as 23W.
With nuclear power, we could use incandescent bulbs without polluting the environment until LED bulbs sufficiently come down in price to be viable for use in every home.
I consider myself a true environmentalist, like Hank Hill; I believe in finding pragmatic solutions to keep our environmental treasures available for the next generations, by reducing unnecessary waste.
Okay, pragmatically speaking, how long do you think it will be until enough of our power is produced by nuclear and not by coal for this argument to work? And remember, we're talking pragmatics, so you can't calculate how long from now assuming the entire nation agrees that this is what we should do. Even if we could, we'd be talking decades, but we can't, so it'll be even longer. By the time it happens, I'm betting we'll already be switching to LEDs anyway.
CFLs are a fantastically pragmatic solution for today. They immediately give an efficiency and pollution improvement in most common situations in America. They work in existing outlets. They work today and are only getting better (more efficient, better light, less mercury). If in the future, as in a couple decades from now, we transition to something newer and better, then what's the problem?
The enemies of Democracy are
Nuclear works DECADES ago.
Hydroelectric works DECADES ago.
Solar works DECADES ago.
Wind works DECADES ago.