Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Conquer "LED Droop"

sciencehabit writes "Tiny and efficient, light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are supposed to be the bright future of illumination. But they perform best at only low power, enough for a flashlight or the screen of your cellphone. If you increase the current enough for them to light a room like an old-fashioned incandescent bulb, their vaunted efficiency nosedives. It's called LED droop, and it's a real drag on the industry. Now, researchers have found a way to build more efficient LEDs that get more kick from the same amount of current—especially in the hard-to-manufacture green and blue parts of the spectrum."

13 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Let me guess by busyqth · · Score: 5, Funny

    The solution is called "LED Viagra"?

    1. Re:Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Contact a doctor if you LED lasts more than 100000 hours.

  2. Ahhh that explainsPhilips' LED bulb by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess that's why their new LED burns-up 26 watts but only created the equivalent of a 100 watt bulb. They are losing efficiency because the LEDs are being driven to high powers. (Lower power 25W or 40W bulbs only use 3 and 6 watts.)

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:Ahhh that explainsPhilips' LED bulb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's daft. With LEDs if you want more light, you simply use more LEDs. They are not bulbs, they're bloody diodes! Overdriving LEDs results in earth deaths, this has been known for 40+ years, keeping them within tolerances will ensure they'll last forever, or as near it in human terms.

    2. Re:Ahhh that explainsPhilips' LED bulb by ThePeices · · Score: 5, Funny

      " They are not bulbs, they're bloody diodes!"

      Nobody uses bloody diodes for lighting. Not only is it un-hygenic, the loss of efficiency due to transmitting the light through blood is unacceptable, not to mention the red tinge to the light itself.

      Everybody uses clean diodes.

    3. Re:Ahhh that explainsPhilips' LED bulb by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now add that uplights provide the best quality illumination by reflecting light off ceilings. So rather than typical ceiling cornices, run strip leds around the perimeter of a room, with switching control to allow various switching patterns for dimming ie all on, 1 in 2 on, 1 in 3 on etc. Of course no goofy light fittings like chandeliers or fake oil lamps etc. just quality energy efficient controllable lighting example http://www.leyton-lighting.co.uk/led-tape.asp.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Dumb question by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why must a single LED provide all the light? Couldn't an array of, say, four LEDs, each equivalent to a 25W incandescent and using mirrors and/or lenses to even out the light distribution, get the same efficiency and substitute for a 100W bulb? Am I missing something obvious?

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    1. Re:Dumb question by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd prefer a led slab. Rather than individual 'bulbs' on the roof illuminating a room, whats wrong with making the roof its self a big led panel.
      Very even lighting, the individual leds would be very low current and relatively dim and it would look cool.

      Mind you making that much sillicon substrate probably wouldn't be cheap, but you could perhaps cheat a little and use a layer like a screen's backlight has so you have less actual illumination points and it spreads it evenly across the roof.

    2. Re:Dumb question by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's impossible. Lights have to be in a bulb shape, because that's how they've always been, and people don't like change. Look how well circular fluorescent bulbs went over: like a lead balloon. Fluorescent bulbs in general only started taking off in residential applications when they made them so they'd fit in existing fixtures, which themselves aren't significantly changed in 100 years. Even worse, lamps aren't much different from the days when they were powered by gas: anyone who's built their own lamp (the kind that sits on a table, like a reading lamp) knows this: all the "electrical" parts are actually brass rods and fittings that were originally designed for gas, and were repurposed for wires, even though running lamp cord through them (particularly the joints) is a giant PITA and really doesn't make any sense.

      Offices can do different things, like use 2x4 fluorescent fixtures, because they're more worried about efficiency (part of operational costs) and because they don't have dimwit cheap-ass home "builders" building them.

    3. Re:Dumb question by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Informative
      You joke, but actually, each light array has a small 6x6 inch panel that your could mount either outside or hang in a window (the power cord from panel to battery pack is 16 ft. long). They provide enough energy to store in the enclosed small battery packs to last about 12 hours a charge. It's really not a bad solution to the problem.

      In any case, energy is energy, whether it's generated at a coal plant and then distributed or directly to a battery pack for later use.

      My point was really that, while they're currentlly not the most attractive lighting, that won't always be the case - they can be made fashionable as well as usable.

    4. Re:Dumb question by dadioflex · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's impossible. Lights have to be in a bulb shape, because that's how they've always been, and people don't like change.

      I suspect in a lot of households, one half doesn't care what their "light bulbs" look like so long as they save them money, and one half doesn't care how much they cost to run so long as they look right in their decorative light fixtures. Typically the "it has to look right" half wins the buying decision.

  4. Though not a problem for blue by Trogre · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you increase the current enough for them to light a room like an old-fashioned incandescent bulb, their vaunted efficiency nosedives.

    Apparently this droop issue is only a problem for non-blue wavelengths. At least if my subwoofer, PC and external HDD are anything to go by...

    My eyes hurt.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Re:Clarify this for me by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Typically a "green" produced by GaN is fairly easy to manufacture and fairly efficient, but it is physically a very *hard* material. In contrast, the "blue-green" produced by InGaN (an alloy of a little bit of InN and base of GaN) isn't as efficient as it tends to have lots crystal defects and these defect cause brittle-ness and results in some electron-hole recombinations to be non-radiative (generating heat and not band-gap light emissions).

    Regardless of this manufacturability issue, many white LEDs use an InGaN band-gap devices and create the "warmer" parts of the spectrum using phosphors. This makes most of the output light more blue-ish, but only the phosphor re-radiated (stoke's shifted) part in the warmer part of the spectrum where you pay the efficiency cost. For "cool" devices, less of the output is down-converted, so you have less efficiency loss. For "warmer" devices, more of the light is down converted and you pay for more conversion efficiency loss. Some warm devices actually have multiple LEDs (say a red, green, and blue), but color stability is generally hard to maintain over time and temperature, so these devices are generally less efficient and more expensive.

    In any case, the effect that was described is that the currently "cheap" way of growing GaN base crystals for LEDs results in a polar orientation which is bad for high-current operation as it tends to generate a back field. This is described in more detail in this other site:

    Most of the commercial GaN devices are grown along the [0001] direction, so-called “polar” or “c-plane” structures. However, there is an internal electric field perpendicular to the active regions in the c-plane devices as the c-axis is polar. This will result in band bending and a poor overlap of electron and hole wave-functions (the Quantum confined Stark effect, or QCSE), which reduces the radiative recombination efficiency and affects the device performance. In order to avoid (or reduce the effects of) the QCSE, GaN can be grown in “non-polar”, or “semi-polar”, orientations, in which there is no, or much less, internal polarization fields along the growth direction. In theory, this should increase the efficiency of light emitting structures. The high density of structural defects (such as basal plane stacking faults and partial dislocations) in heteroepitaxially grown non-polar and semi-polar GaN results in low internal quantum efficiency and output power of the devices, as reported in the literature.

    Of course the answer is to just grow low-defect GaN in a non-polar or semi-polar orientation, but that's currently hard to do. These UCSB researchers aren't the only group working on this problem, but they apparently have done some cooperation with people doing actual manufacturing (Mitsubishi Chemical).