Slashdot Mirror


Hong Kong Company Develops Solar-Powered Lightbulb

hussain_mkj writes "A Hong Kong-based company, Nokero, has introduced what it claims is the world's first solar powered lightbulb. Nokero is trying to replace traditional kerosene lamps in developing countries with its solar-powered N100 LED lightbulbs. The bulb is about the same size as normal incandescent bulbs, and will shine for two hours when charged for a day. The company claims that the new bulb is five times as bright as a kerosene lamp and uses 1/200th the energy. It will cost $15 for one and $480 for 48."

47 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously how many light bulbs to you have where there is sunlight hittinng the top of the bulb regularly?

    1. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seriously how many light bulbs to you have where there is sunlight hittinng the top of the bulb regularly?

      I found some information on a phenomenon that will ... illuminate you.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because during the day typically they're working trying to eek out enough to survive. And in the evening when it's too dark to work it's a great time to try and learn something. You know better oneself.

    3. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hence that four angled panels on the top to catch some sun at any time of day.
      This is not new and probably not even cheaper than the hand assembled devices being used now. What is new is being able to get it already assembled and in bulk.

    4. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by SudoGhost · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Solar powered lightbulbs" Shit, growing up we just called those mirrors.

    5. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you bothered to RTFA you'd see that it has a hook to hang like a lantern. Thinking is to hang it from a branch or something.

      Obviously if you're in a house you probably already have electric power or some other more reliable source of lighting

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by Garridan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you referring to the four corner day? I'm happy to see the wisdom of the world's wisest human being put to good use. Thank you.

      http://www.timecube.com/

    7. Re:Solar Panels on the top of the bulb by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Funny

      Solar powered lightbulbs...

      Tackling education and overpopulation problems at the same time.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  2. Cool by pieisgood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can get the 48 light deal and setup a grid of lights to provide night time lighting for six hours and you won't have to pay the electricity bill.

    But will anyone in the developing countries know or care about this?

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Cool by new+death+barbie · · Score: 3, Funny

      People in developing countries aren't afraid of the dark.

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    2. Re:Cool by keeboo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But will anyone in the developing countries know or care about this?

      The problem is what does mean a "developing country"?
      Really, people apply that term from places with reasonable life quality (but considered "developing" for some reason) to places lacking a funcional government and where famine is widespread.

      In the not-so "developing countries" people won't care since - unless it's a desolate area - even the poorest houses are connected to the power grid.

    3. Re:Cool by skine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My great uncle drove down to Brazil about thirty years back, and most central American rural natives would drive without headlights at night. They felt that it actually improved their ability to see.

    4. Re:Cool by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Developing countries are way ahead of the "green" curve because:
      1) Electricity is expensive
      2) Electricity isn't that reliable.

      On my recent trip to India I was quite surprised, especially out in Sikkim. Even though the area is very 'poor' (by American standards) almost everyone had florescent lights. We stayed on Yangsum Farm. The guy had a solar array. WWII sub batteries for backup. He was in process of building an entire passive 'off the grid' building.

      Every single hotel room I stayed in had a slot for the key. You walked in, put the key in the slot and the power came on to the room. If you took the key, you lost power. It was annoying trying to charge stuff, but how many times to people leave their rooms in the USA and leave a TV on, some lights, etc?

      So yes, developing countries know about this and they'll most likely make use of it long before anyone in the USA even cares.

    5. Re:Cool by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Informative

      It does, they found that requiring daytime running lights increased fuel consumption by something like 5%, not a lot but when you're counting pennies.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    6. Re:Cool by rockNme2349 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe something like this would be cheaper?

      I would hardly say this is the world's first.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    7. Re:Cool by Umuri · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll bite the karma bullet on this, you're being relatively shortsighted and blind in your insinuation they are stupid.

      It actually does improve your vision.
      I'll give you a simple experiment. Go outside at night, shine a bright flashlight(halogen makes this work better) at the ground. stare at that flashlight for a good 5 minutes.
      Now turn the stupid thing off, and wait 5 minutes.
      Once your eyes adjust suddenly you

      The light forces your eyes to restrict the light comming in, killing your darkvision. Yes it lets you see the small patch it illuminates, but seeing anything to either side or beyond that is much harder.
      Compare that to the normal nightvision a person has on a decent night with a moon, and you can see a mile easy.

      Yes, lights help when there's no moon, but if you have a moon, lighting destroys your night vision.

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    8. Re:Cool by PBoyUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are being stupid, and your ridiculously obvious "experiment" does nothing to prove otherwise. It goes without saying that if you have no artificial light available that waiting until your eyes adjust to the darkness gives you better vision. The point is that it's better vision only in comparison to what you would have if you had no light at all. How you've managed to take this answer and extrapolate it to night-vision being superior to a source of light in the darkness is stupefying. If you truly believed this wasn't stupid, tell me, do you drive at night without your headlights on? No? Thought not. As to the argument of counting the pennies saved on petrol - that works right up until the first time you hit a tree because you couldn't see properly. The only short-sighted thing here is these morons driving so dangerously and your leap to defend them from deserved criticism.

      What other absurd superstitious beliefs of technologically backwards societies do you feel compelled to defend out of some political correctness gone awry? Voodoo? Condoms being responsible for AIDS? AIDS drugs being a plot of the "white man" to test out dangerous substances and keep their society down?

      Romanticising and defending these cultures as somehow more "natural" than our own, is ridiculous, and I feel inclined to remind anyone bent to do so that the second they need their modern society for something, they'll jump straight back into it, romanticism be damned.

    9. Re:Cool by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every single hotel room I stayed in had a slot for the key. You walked in, put the key in the slot and the power came on to the room. If you took the key, you lost power. It was annoying trying to charge stuff, but how many times to people leave their rooms in the USA and leave a TV on, some lights, etc?

      You know you can put a business card/membership card/whatever in there and it works?

      Most hotels in the UK have this as well now, even those costing USD 500 a night for the cheapest room...

    10. Re:Cool by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you, with normal headlights on, see a pedestrian a kilometer away?

      On a night of full moon, I can see them pretty well with lights off. I may not spot the difference between a slick of oil and a pothole a meter away, but I can pretty well see the curve of the road, the bigger obstacles, very far buildings and so on. The moment I switch headlights on my vision is limited to ~100m. And the moment a car with headlights on approaches from behind a hill/bump (or the asshole doesn't switch to passing beam) my view range is pretty much zero, for the duration of the encounter and about 10s afterwards.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Cool by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      stare at that flashlight for a good 5 minutes.
      Now turn the stupid thing off, and wait 5 minutes. [...] Yes, lights help when there's no moon, but if you have a moon, lighting destroys your night vision.

      The trick is to leave the lights on. Then you don't need night vision.

      And your missing the other function of the lights - to be seen by other drivers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Cool by smart_ass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With regards to the key slot for power ... fairly true of Europe as well.
      It is (sadly) us North Americans who are free and loose with power because it is still relatively cheap here.

      --
      Ouch ... did I just say that.
    13. Re:Cool by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "And your missing the other function of the lights - to be seen by other drivers."

      Umm, hi, we have these things called marker lights.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Cool by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems pretty common in hotels all over the world actually. Stayed in the Shangri-La in Hong Kong a few weeks back and they had the same setup.

    15. Re:Cool by wazza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And an additional useful side effect: the other cars on the road, which are far more dangerous than the pedestrians and animals that might be out there, will also know you're there, from a *very long* way away.

      Which is quite useful, really.

    16. Re:Cool by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Informative

      DRL power consumption varies widely depending on the implementation. Traditional low beam headlights consume up to 180 W - with headlamps and all parking, tail, and marker lights on the overall power consumption for lights is in the range of 150 W to 200 W. Traditional dedicated DRL systems use low-power, high-efficacy light bulbs in the range of 5 W to 21 W - that is 10 W to 42 W for both lights. Current production DRL systems based on LED lights consume 6 to 15 watts.

      0.2 litres per 100 km... Average american car achieves, what, 22.5 mpg? Thats excluding the light trucks a large proportion of people drive... so that's just over 10.4 Litres/100km - i.e. little less than 2% increase in load... With LEDs (as many firms are starting to fit them in Europe now) it can be a small fraction of 1%.

      My conclusions are drawn.

    17. Re:Cool by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It goes without saying that if you have no artificial light available that waiting until your eyes adjust to the darkness gives you better vision.

      Here's another experiment for you. Select a night of that's close to full moon. Obtain a million candle-power flood.

      Wait until full night, then go looking around a forest. Then turn that flood on. You can see what the flood illuminates real good, right?

      Now look at somewhere other than what the flood is lighting. Can't see a thing, can you?

      Headlights are like that flood - except they're fixed directly ahead. Less useful on a winding road.

      With headlights:
      =====

      Your vision is good, but only for a short distance straight in front of you.

      Without headlights, night-vision adjusted
      ---
      -----
      --------
      -----
      ---

      I may not see close quite as well, but I'm actually able to see further and wider without my lights on because I'm depending on ambient, not the hugely bright lights that only cover a few hundred meters in front of me, if that.

      If you truly believed this wasn't stupid, tell me, do you drive at night without your headlights on? No?

      In my case the difference is that I drive in the USA, which has stupid amounts of lighting at night. Which presumably isn't the case here.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:Cool by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Informative

      Test that again.

      Try to see a reflective sash or shirt one kilometer away in headlights.

      The main lights give you up to 300m range of visibility. Reflective objects may be visible at twice that distance. At 1km away - not a even a shade of chance, especially that you are dazzled by your own headlights reflected from nearby objects.

      Note brightness of a light source drops off with square of the distance from it. And in case of reflective surfaces, the distance counts twice - from light source to the surface and back.

      Of course far strong light sources will be quite visible. Unless you're blinded by nearby strong light sources.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    19. Re:Cool by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same here - I think hotels in the UK are now required to put these systems in when refitting / building, as they seem to be in >75% of hotels i stay in nowadays.

  3. Not a first, I think... by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, considering that these: http://www.siliconsolar.com/solar-garden-lights.html, have been around for many years, I think 'first' is a bit of a stretch. They may have made them CHEAPER, and longer lasting, or more useful, but certainly not FIRST.

    1. Re:Not a first, I think... by besalope · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my International Management course we learned about an initiative to work with 3rd world countries to help provide 1 Watt Solar Panels, rechargeable batteries, and LED arrays as kerosene replacements. The systems only cost about $100 at the time (2 years or so ago) and it paid itself off in about 5 months due to the price of kerosene.

  4. Re:Bulbs don't consume a lot of power ? by sadness203 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It already exist, in another form.
    SODIS

  5. What they're really afraid of. by The+Altruist · · Score: 5, Funny

    But they are afraid of Chuck Norris. So is the dark.

  6. One day of charging = two hours of light by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I have had some experience with kerosene.

    But this lamp seems least useful where it would be most needed - where days are short, nights are long, and the weather uncooperative.

  7. Re:New? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except those LED lights ($3.99 at Walmart) tend to shine for six hours or more, not a paltry 2 hours. I have a couple single LED lights among the set in my yard that will often still be lit when I leave for work in the morning.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  8. Bogolights are also good ... by jrifkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have owned a couple of Boglights for a few years now and they've been solidly reliable. They can last up to 6 hours on a days charge, they work as both a flashlight and an area light, they give 6 levels of light, and are designed for developing countries. However, they cost twice as much, $30 a light. This page has a lot of technical information about them, http://www.bogolight.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BOGO-BUYONESN2&Show=TechSpecs

    1. Re:Bogolights are also good ... by gninnor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They look better thought out than the light bulb shaped N100 LED bulbs. The solar panels on the N100 are pointed in such a way that only half of them could be put even approximately facing the sun and are pointed down at a steep angle if hung up to charge. I would rather be able to aim the solar panel. Over all it looks like the N100 looks like it was designed by marketing, those Boglights seem a bit better thought out.

  9. Portable lamp by LongearedBat · · Score: 2, Informative

    During the day you hang it from the metal clip on a branch (with no foliage) or a string (like a washing line). Or, simply place it on a safe surface somewhere that catches the sun.

    At night you either hang it from the metal clip or screw it in. By the picture, it looks like there is a black "on" button at the top that may work such that screwing it in further switches it on (would have to remove the clip though).

  10. Ikea buy one give one by xzvf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ikea was selling a $19.99 solar reading lamp that if you bought one, one was sent to Africa. Even if they didn't make a profit, that means the light cost significantly less than $15 dollars individually. Plus the LED is bright and lasts six hours easily.

  11. Re:Unfortunately... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This isn't meant for third world applications, despite the company propaganda. It is meant for North Americans, for patio lanterns and camping and such. There's no reason that a third world solar powered bulb would be shaped like a North American bulb, complete with screw threads moulded into the plastic on the top. It's meant to be cute. Third world doesn't buy cute, they buy functional. North America buys cute.

    From Nokero's website:

    Coleman lanterns are popular, but the Nokero is like a solar Coleman lantern powered by sunlight rather than gas lantern technology, so it can also be used for recreational purposes. It can provide emergency light during or after natural disasters, it can be an outdoor recreation and camping lantern, or it can be used in and around outdoor patios.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. Replacement term for 3rd world by xzvf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Diplomats adjust terms to keep from offending nations where people have little income and limited freedom. During the cold war there was the 1st world (NATO, neutral western Europe, Japan), 2nd world (Warsaw Pact), and 3rd world (everyone else). Late in the cold war, 3rd world was replaced by developing nations to counter the Soviet goal of creating Communist revolutions, and indicate the new US policy economic development (replacing the anti-Communist strongman policy). After the cold war saw the creating of the emerging economies (BRIC {Brazil, Russia [after deflating the CIA myth of a Soviet economy as large as the US], India, and China}, Asian tigers {primarily South Korea and Singapore} and former purgatory countries {South Africa [Aparthid] and Israel [peace treaty with Egypt]. The former 1st world is now called developed. So now we have Developed, Emerging and Developing. Of course people closer to the academic world will know the newest buzzwords.

    1. Re:Replacement term for 3rd world by grcumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      C'mon, it is exactly in a "developing" country where you will find real freedom.

      If by freedom, you mean freedom from government services, including police, education and health services, then yes, you'd be right.

      I live in a country with a lot of freedom as defined above. Trust me, the malaria, dengue, lack of dentists and occasional outbreaks of mob violence make it a taste that few would willingly acquire, given the choice....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re:Replacement term for 3rd world by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jeremy Clarkson:

      "There are two ways a truly civilised and advanced nation can be defined. One, it has a fleet of nuclear submarines, and two, it does not have the death penalty. That leaves you with France and Britain. And that’s about right. "

  13. Re:New? by Nikkos · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.walmart.com/ip/Westinghouse-Solar-6-Piece-Pinnacle-Garden-Light-Set/13446849

    dunno which 3.99 one's he's talking about, but it's feasible considering the cost of these.

  14. infinite energy! by oddTodd123 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, since these bulbs also give off light, if you use the light from the solar-charged bulb to charge more bulbs, you can then use those bulbs when the first one goes out, and use the second round of bulbs to re-charge the first round, ad infinitum! Suck on that von Mayer!

  15. i like my camp lights to use nuclear fuel by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  16. Tim Hornyak got paid by juventasone · · Score: 3, Informative

    As someone posted in the article's comments, there is already a cheaper, better-designed, and longer-lasting product already in-use in the developing world.

  17. This design sucks :( by tibit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just look at it. The design has abysmal panel coverage. Do note that there seems to be a couple mm of margin around the solar panel within the area covered by the clear plastic meniscus. They could have rather trivially increased the panel coverage by a factor of two, and with a bit more sweat it could have been 3x larger. I'd also like to see how they waterproofed the switch's operator (the black button protruding on top). It's not a trivial task, as not only you get water going straight down onto the switch, but also you get dirt from your fingers that will act to eat away any O-ring-like seal arrangements.

    I'd also like to know what sort of power conditioning electronics do they use to charge the rechargeable cells, and to extract power from them. Designing efficient micropower power converters is quite an undertaking if you don't have an engineer who has done that once or twice (and done it well).

    Having seen the abysmal design of common solar-powered garden lights, I don't really have high hopes. Now if anyone wonders: your typical $3.99 garden light sucks at power conversion efficiency. And by sucks I mean it's underperforming by 60%+. And the cell life is shortened as well: it's hard to maintain cell life without a power converter when all you have for energy source is PV cells.

    Jim Williams should tackle that one and write it up in an app note ;)

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.