Slashdot Mirror


Cause of LED Efficiency Droop Finally Revealed

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in collaboration with colleagues at the École Polytechnique in France, have been able to prove the theory behind LED 'droop.' LED droop is the term for how LEDs emit less light when the amount of current being pushed through them goes above a certain level. 'The cost per lumen of LEDs has held the technology back as a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs for all-purpose commercial and residential lighting.' Now that we understand what causes this, we should start to see research go into technology to circumvent LED Droop. 'LEDs have enormous potential for providing long-lived high quality efficient sources of lighting for residential and commercial applications. The U.S. Department of Energy recently estimated that the widespread replacement of incandescent and fluorescent lights by LEDs in the U.S. could save electricity equal to the total output of fifty 1 GW power plants.'" A pre-print of the team's paper is available at the arXiv.

222 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Or toxins, or radio waves, or autism that LEDs cause?

    1. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by ThePeices · · Score: 3, Informative

      but won't somebody think of the Mercury? Or toxins, or radio waves, or autism that LEDs cause?

      What mercury? Ain't none in LED's.
      LED's don't emit radio waves. The power supply might ( but utterly harmless levels ), but not LED's
      LED's don't cause autism.

      LED's don't do anything, except emit light and get a bit warm.

      OP: Education. Get one.

    2. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by immaterial · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whoosh. Sense of humor. Get one.

    3. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 2

      ...autism that LEDs cause?

      You forgot to mention the idiotism that it provokes.

    4. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 5, Funny

      LED's don't emit radio waves.

      Then you should take them back to the store for a refund.

    5. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      but won't somebody think of the Mercury?

      Good ol' Freddy, we still miss him

    6. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Or get two and loan one out on demand. They're cheap.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by alostpacket · · Score: 4, Funny

      LED's do not emit a sense of humor.
      LED's don't emit a 'whooshing' sound (unless you catapult them or use a trebuchet)

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    8. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Horses and dogs are mammals, but dogs aren't horses. Light and radio waves are EMF, but light isn't radio waves.

    9. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Cancer causes LEDs!

      I'm sure there was an xkcd with the proof...

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      EMF? Electromotive force? Electromagnetic field?

      Light and radio waves are EM radiation (EMR).

      Boom! Pedantry blowback.

    11. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by mtpaley · · Score: 1

      Very high frequency radio waves.

    12. Re:but won't somebody think of the Mercury? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      That must be a very large LED!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. multiply by Randle_Revar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >the total output of fifty 1 GW power plants

    Soooo... 50 GW?

    1. Re:multiply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Witch!

      Don't you come in here and git all European-like and start a-quotin' your Systeme Internationale at me. I likes my units in New Imperial, and thats how's they're gonna stay if I done have anything to done say abouts it.

    2. Re: multiply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great Scott!!! 50 Jiggawatts!?!

    3. Re:multiply by conorpeterson · · Score: 5, Funny

      >the total output of fifty 1 GW power plants

      Soooo... 50 GW?

      Or by my own calculation, 41.32 lightning bolts! Great Scott!

    4. Re:multiply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      50 1GW plants do not equal 50GW as the output is not continuously at their maximum. It also doesn't equal one 50GW plant in the fact that one central plant would need a lot of infrastructure to distribute the power around the whole country. Since the economy would be very spread and not localized, it means 50 1GW plants distributed across the network.

    5. Re:multiply by chrismcb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, they say that like everyone knows what a "1 GW power plant" is... Is that a typical plant? Is it a small one? Is that the one you might see that powers a university, or one that powers a big city? Or is that about the size of the Manitoba Hydro Limestone hydroelectric generating station?
      Ohh look Mr. Wiki claims that 55 GW is about the peak daily consumption of Great Britain in 2008. Wouldn't that have been more meaningful to say?

    6. Re:multiply by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Funny

      In much the same way that 50 inane AC responses does equal the coherency of the parent.
      Invariably, like a game of "telephone", the subject switches to cars. -reading at -1 is the only true freedom. Moderation is an oxymoron.

    7. Re:multiply by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Yeah that is true but it is a weird way to say it. Just give us the actual estimated GW savings. Or if you want a comparison, say "equal to 50 large nuclear power plants" (or medium or coal plants or whatever is accurate).

    8. Re:multiply by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      or,

      50 states? 1 GW each? Stupid summary. Now I'll never know!

    9. Re:multiply by luke923 · · Score: 1

      Or, 41.32 Mr. Fusions.

      --
      "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
    10. Re:multiply by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Only one lightning bolt actually. The power output of a lightning bolt is in the terawatt to tens of terawatts range.

    11. Re:multiply by guttentag · · Score: 1

      >the total output of fifty 1 GW power plants

      Soooo... 50 GW?

      "What the hell is a GW?!" Looks around, confused. "What?! I thought "jigawatt" was abbreviated JW? Isn't it easier to say 'almost fifty pre-Fukushima Fukushimas?'"

    12. Re:multiply by TempestRose · · Score: 2

      Card Revoked.
      Back to the future? Buehler?

    13. Re:multiply by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I get the BTF reference. My point was only that you wouldn't need 50 lightning bolts to get 50GW, since even a single lightning bolt has on the order of a terawatt or more of power (so you could get 1.21GW from a single lightning bolt as well).

    14. Re:multiply by camperdave · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is that a lightning bolt that struck, say, a clock tower, would have enough energy to fuse the clock and still have enough power to drive a circuit needing a smidge over 1200 MegaWatts - if it were timed right.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:multiply by antdude · · Score: 1

      "This is heavy." ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    16. Re:multiply by shaitand · · Score: 1

      These are strange and unintuitive comparisons. How many libraries of congress would that power?

    17. Re:multiply by technos · · Score: 1

      So what do you think about fitting power brakes to a MG TD?

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    18. Re:multiply by xelah · · Score: 1

      slashdot....where multiplication is +5 insightful. The point, of course, is to tell readers who may not know that 1GW might be a reasonable size for a power plant. That way, journalists can copy-paste the press release instead of having to do any actual work, so it's more likely to end up in news publications. I think they fail, however, for sticking two photos together on the right, and writing the captions in to the images. Presumably, if it makes the general news, it'll be illustrated with a generic light-bulb picture, possible with an unreasonably attractive somewhere in the background.

    19. Re:multiply by eennaarbrak · · Score: 1

      Well, I think more people can relate with the image of 50 power stations than the abstract number of 50 GW. I know this, because I am one of them.

    20. Re:multiply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Having just built two CCGT power stations, I can say a power station generating 2GW is a large power station. The two are rated at 1600MW and 2000MW. Each turbine will generate about 400MW.

      As of two minutes ago, in the UK, the following was being generated:

      Aberthaw 1319MW (Coal)
      Pembroke 1943MW (Gas)
      Staythorpe 1666MW (Gas)
      Tilbury 713MW (Biomass)

      Seven other power stations I know about are generating zero. There are many more I don't have access to, but no doubt Twitter can fill in the blanks.

    21. Re:multiply by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      How many libraries of congress would that power?

      Depends on whether they have switched to LED lights yet :)

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    22. Re:multiply by sulimma · · Score: 1

      Almost everywhere in the world this would be 50 GW. But the US use strange units. I don't know. Maybe:
      67 Million Horsepowers?
      47 M BTU / second?
      7E12 kilocalories / week?
      1.6E25 ergs / year?
      2.2 Tera foot pounds per minute?

    23. Re:multiply by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a total of 51 GW power plants.

    24. Re:multiply by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Careful not to release the smoke when you mess with that wiring harness.

    25. Re:multiply by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they say that like everyone knows what a "1 GW power plant" is

      Everyone who gives a damn about energy - where it comes from, how much it costs, how we use it and how we can use less - damn well better know how much 1 GW, and how large a 1 GW power plant is. On slashdot, it should be assumed that everyone knows the answer to that question. I would even expect a lot of the general, unwashed masses to know the answer to that, just as I would expect them to know what mileage their car gets, what the cost of a gasoline/diesel is, how many kWh of electricity their home consumed last month, and what they paid for that.

      I'm not being a snob or an elitist: I just expect people to know stuff.

    26. Re:multiply by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      There are very few plants on that scale. Hoover dam outputs just over 2GW (peak) and you could probably count the number of plants on that scale in the U.S. on both hands. Honestly, 1GW is the peak power consumption for my entire desert county in summer (population ~140,000, with AC's cranking). That's a pretty huge setup.

    27. Re:multiply by dknight · · Score: 2

      while I mostly agree with you, I couldnt tell you how many kWh of electricity my home consumed last month. I could tell you what I paid for it, but no idea the actual consumption numbers - the cost is what is relevant to me, so I never feel any particular need to know the kWh. I'm sure plenty of other folks are the same way.

    28. Re:multiply by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I want to know if it can shrink a manhole cover. Many people have used large capacitors to shrink coins before, but none I know of have shrunk larger metal discs. The power requirements would be silly, but a lightning strike may be enough.

    29. Re:multiply by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >slashdot....where multiplication is +5 insightful.

      I know, right?

    30. Re:multiply by Reece400 · · Score: 1

      I'd think that since manhole covers are generally cast iron they'd crack before they shrunk or flexed in any noticeable way?

    31. Re:multiply by hr+raattgift · · Score: 1

      The \mu characters above were eaten. Thanks, slashdot. :-(

      The various time terms should be 30 microseconds or 10 microseconds.

      1 TW * 30 microsecond = 30 MJ

      30 MJ / 30 microsecond = 1 TW
      30 MJ / 10 microsecond = 3 TW

    32. Re:multiply by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      If there were only a way to capture and effectively store all that energy. 1-10 TW of DC voltage is huge. A few lightning bolts would be enough to power an entire city for awhile.

      Energy can't be created or destroyed. Lightning energy is stored in the Earth. Billions and billions of terawatts of power accumulated over the eons.

      All you need to be able to extract it is a suitable grounding point to connect the other end of your circuit to.

      --
      No sig today...
    33. Re:multiply by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The word 'cast' in your own 'argument' should tell you that iron has a liquid state. All you need to do is heat it up and it will sag and drop down into the sewer under gravity.

      --
      No sig today...
    34. Re:multiply by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      It would, as long as you don't start talking to yourself while connecting the whole thing.

    35. Re:multiply by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      You're off by a couple orders of magnitude on nuclear power plant power production. From wikipedia:

      8.21 GW – tech: capacity of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, the world's largest nuclear power plant.

    36. Re:multiply by operagost · · Score: 1

      I know we like a good joke, but first you must be relevant before you can be funny. There's no "imperial" measure involved here, so grandpa Simpson can't tell us how his power plant gets 40 gigarods to the hogshead.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    37. Re:multiply by operagost · · Score: 1

      Because then the Libyans might shoot you first?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    38. Re:multiply by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The way metals behave normal conditions may not indicate the way in which they behave under the extreme forces of such a process. The only way to be sure is to try it.

      I'm part of a Mad Science group, but we've not gotten up to coin shrinking yet. We do have a can-crusher. Four kilovolts, 100uf. Enough to cut a can in two, but not enough energy to shrink a coin. Not even close.

    39. Re: multiply by rpresser · · Score: 1

      If you're on your fourth dementia already, your brain probably has enough holes in it to carry current and function as its own LED.

    40. Re:multiply by rpresser · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about enormous aboveground supercapacitors? We could call it .. cloud storage.

    41. Re:multiply by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Built them with your own bare hands, did you?

    42. Re:multiply by rpresser · · Score: 1

      I prefer the open bar.

    43. Re:multiply by rpresser · · Score: 1

      or 5 billion inane Slashdot comments per hour.

    44. Re:multiply by yabos · · Score: 1

      Yes but only if the lightning bolt moves across the wire at a speed that the human eye/brain can detect.

    45. Re:multiply by sulimma · · Score: 1

      That would be 36kJoule per inane slashdot comment.

      This is a bit to high. The real numbers are closer to a thousand joules per comment:
      http://www.transitionnetwork.org/blogs/ed-mitchell/2010-04/how-much-energy-do-we-use-web

    46. Re:multiply by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Horsepower.
      British Thermal Units per hour.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    47. Re:multiply by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The plural of horsepower is horsepower.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    48. Re:multiply by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm just saying that you can get a whole lot more than 1.21gw out of a single lightning bolt.

      Okay, maybe I'm humor impaired. Sorry. I took the original comment as meaning that the poster figured that if BTF was any indication, 1.21gw was about all the power you could usefully get out of a lightning bolt. This doesn't consider the possibility that the bolt of lightning in BTF actually had far more kick than that, the car only needing 1.21gw of it.

      Call me morbidly curious, but what sort of worse things could happen?

    49. Re:multiply by Kizul+Emeraldfire · · Score: 2

      Hey, I'm just saying that you can get a whole lot more than 1.21gw out of a single lightning bolt.

      Okay, maybe I'm humor impaired. Sorry. I took the original comment as meaning that the poster figured that if BTF was any indication, 1.21gw was about all the power you could usefully get out of a lightning bolt. This doesn't consider the possibility that the bolt of lightning in BTF actually had far more kick than that, the car only needing 1.21gw of it.

      Call me morbidly curious, but what sort of worse things could happen?

      I must admit, I'm curious: assuming that the average lightning bolt contained, say, ten terawatts of energy -- and, just to be generous, assuming that the lightning bolt in Back to the Future contained only a mere five to seven-and-a-half terawatts — wouldn't the time circuits've been blown up due to the immense power surge?

      Of course, realistically-speaking: even if you calculated everything absolutely correctly down to a thousandth (or millionth, even) of a second, the probability of managing to time the connection of the hook to the wire just as the lightning bolt struck the clock tower is phenomenally slim. Marty was very lucky to've managed to pull it off, but if he had been just a fraction of a second too early, the hook would've ended up getting pulled out of the time circuits before they'd gotten enough juice, and Marty would've ended up having to wait around in 1955 while Doc formulated a new plan; and if he'd been just a fraction of a second too late, it seems to me unlikely that there would be enough power left on/in the wire for the time circuits to activate upon the hook's connection with it.

      This is additionally assuming that not only do the time circuits activate instantaneously with the introduction of the lightning bolt's energy, but that the time jump also occurs at the exact same time, and that the time jump consumes enough of the lightning bolt's energy quickly enough that the time circuits somehow don't overload before they are, via the time jump, abruptly disconnected from the conductor (the hook and wire).

      I may be completely off-base, however. I have no idea; I'm not Randall Monroe. I don't think I know quite all of the intricacies of this stuff, either. I do apologize for this effectively-off-the-topic-of-the-article comment, though; this is just something that's been bugging me for a while.

    50. Re:multiply by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I would speculate that the system that Doc Brown had rigged up to deliver the energy to the car in the first movie probably already limited the power delivery, since in the sequel, the car was directly struck by lightning and that event *did* fuse the time circuits.

    51. Re:multiply by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That was a lower bound for Mr. Fusion, no mention was given for upper bound. Mr. Fusion could be 50 GW, or 1.21 TW.

    52. Re:multiply by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The issue is that 50 GW is meaningless. How many houses is that? How many regular-sized power plants? How many cellphones?

    53. Re:multiply by Occams · · Score: 1

      Thats 50 football fields in American units.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    54. Re:multiply by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Or 500 million light bulbs!

  3. Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by eksith · · Score: 1

    Well, at least after I replace them the first time.

    Brain wandering time: If these are the kinds of lights we'll be putting in long duration spacecraft, it would make sense that they last at least a few decades, since it's cost prohibitive to bring supplies and, if we're talking about Mars, that's potentially a permanent installation (precluding "lunar module" style landers meant to take off later).

    --
    If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
    1. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is why LEDs are already used in traffic lights. If you look at the cost of sending out a crew, putting up cones, flagging traffic around the workers, etc., the cost of replacing a bulb can run into kilobucks. Even if the bulb itself is more expensive, it is far more cost effective to use LED traffic lights to avoid the traffic problems, labor costs, and safety problems of burnt out incandescents.

    2. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But but those new-fangled LEDs get frozen with the snow, so they're utterly and completely unsuited to use to replace the precious Edison bulbs which serve to show how exceptional America is.

      Never mind that a simple electric resistor could be added to the design, or a guy with a blower could do it, it's all about patriotism.

    3. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't even need a resistor, just a smarter hood.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Why don't lights in the US have these covers anyway? We don't have much snow at all around here in Australia, but we still put the hoods on to stop glare from the sun making it difficult to see what the light signal is (as shown in the big image here.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      In Australia the pattern seems to indicate that it depends how many incandescents the council has in supply before they replace them.
      They will also replace all the lights at once rather just one blown one.

      If bulbs haven't blown they won't pro actively replace them.

    6. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Talk to Milwaulke folks about using them in traffic lights. Problem is LED lights generate very little heat, so when winter blows snow into the light fixture, it just sticks there and doesn't melt off. Great for traffic snarls.

    7. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Shit, here in the USA we have waveguides installed on many street lights so you can't see the actual light color until you're almost on top of it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lights in the US do have hoods. Its just that snow can build up inside the hood when it is swept by wind. The hoods detailed have a design with no bottom and an air vent that prevents snow from building up. Those hood you have installed would be great for trapping snow if it ever snowed there.

    9. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by dbIII · · Score: 2

      So, blaming the LED for the bad design of the cover? Didn't think too much before posting did you?

    10. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The problem is some clown decided to replace just one part instead of doing a proper design that lets the snow fall out the bottom.

    11. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm, okay. The way that I was reading it, they have only started putting hoods on the lights now.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    12. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by macraig · · Score: 1

      Roundabouts don't consume any power at all or require maintenance. Isn't that greener? Maybe we should be skipping the lights altogether and retrofitting roundabouts? Maybe next we can get rid of all the ubiquitous street lights, which are scarcely a longer blip in human history than automobiles and consume far more power than traffic signals?

    13. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Shark · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have to be a pretty bad driver to end up on top of a traffic light though.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    14. Re: Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone from Canada... You guys must have done something wrong.

    15. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Have you seen Los Angeles or Memphis drivers?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Animats · · Score: 2

      If only they lasted. We've had LED traffic lights in areas of Silicon Valley for most of a decade, and many of them are failing, one section of LEDs at a time. There's a huge bin of partially failed traffic light round LED panels at Weird Stuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale. Mostly red and green; the yellows aren't on as much.

      The problem is outright failure, not dimming. That's an indication of a manufacturing problem, like a joint that fails under thermal cycling. Many pre-2004 LEDs are prone to this problem

    17. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      everyone in tennessee believes they are a professional driver on a closed course

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    18. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Khyber · · Score: 1

      ESPECIALLY when it's only barely raining and they act as if it's acid rain (well, to be fair....)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how the article blames the lack of hoods for the accidents. Any time a signal light isn't working... It is a stop sign. Bad driving caused those accidents.

    20. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The magical never dimming and never failing LED is a myth or maybe a theoretical concept. Real ones fail and dim.

    21. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Are they ones on top of the traffic lights waiting to pounce down on top of my car as I drive by? Those ppl are SOOO weird, hanging around on top of those lights.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by macraig · · Score: 1

      Why? Let the immigrants hoist a flag and declare circular autonomy. What were you doing in that little patch that was so important? Are you afraid they'll charge a toll for safe passage around their curvy kingdom?

    23. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      We still don't have a "whoosh" mod, unfortunately.

    24. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by gemtech · · Score: 1

      and why airport runway lighting is moving to LEDs. It is very expensive to shut down a runway at a busy airport.

      --
      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
    25. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      That sounds like a challenge to me...

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    26. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by operagost · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to karma-whore with the ignorant European mods, don't forget to login first.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're the kind of guy whose only tool is a hammer.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    28. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Seen widespread manufacturing defects with LED crosswalk signals in New York City, too. The most common mode of failure is that the walk signal would stay lit when the don't walk signal turned on. Some would flicker, instead.

      I just assumed the city ordered RoHS-compliant gear that ended up suffering from tin whiskers, but since they all failed in similar ways it was probably something much more banal.

    29. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by macraig · · Score: 1

      At least a deadlocked roundabout isn't sucking power in the process. Another thought: probably don't need anything like red-light and speeding cams installed at roundabouts, either. Those suck power, have a not-insignificant backend manpower drain, and probably require more recurring maintenance than even the traffic signals and posts (which have to be painted, etc.).

      Any other problems with roundabouts and efficiency and/or safety are a matter of re-education and re-training. Notice I didn't say "simple matter"; re-educating people is NEVER a simple matter and is often nearly impossible unless done at a mass cultural scale and great expense.

    30. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by Polo · · Score: 1

      Even if there are failures, I suspect the cost savings is still great (both in power use and maintenance costs). Also the lights have a warranty.

    31. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by shaitand · · Score: 1

      All true.

    32. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Roundabouts use more land space, and thus are less green, as you must pave more land for a roundabout.

    33. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by macraig · · Score: 1

      No. The energy wasted on full-stop intersections, both by the devices mounted around them and by the vehicles passing through them from the acceleration from a full stop, makes them much less green than the TRIVIAL amount of extra land required for them. Further, that extra land required IS ALREADY USED as part of whatever home or business occupied it - unless you're a developer building a new gated community out in the bush - and therefore wasn't green to begin with. Even in that latter case, the land will still not be green even if intersections are used instead, because somebody still will own that land and will have developed it, be it a corner home or a strip mall or whatever.

      I wondered how long it would take someone to trot out the specious extra-land argument.

    34. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The energy wasted on full-stop intersections, both by the devices mounted around them and by the vehicles passing through them from the acceleration from a full stop, makes them much less green than the TRIVIAL amount of extra land required for them.

      Wait, are you talking "full stop" intersections (which use zero electricity) or light-controlled intersections, which pass through a majority of traffic without "full stop" required (and in areas of good timing, very few cars stop at them)?

      you seem to be picking and choosing what you don't like, rather than sticking with a consistent premise.

      Further, that extra land required IS ALREADY USED as part of whatever home or business occupied it - unless you're a developer building a new gated community out in the bush - and therefore wasn't green to begin with.

      So when they dug up an acre of trees to put in a roundabout near me (in the US), it was OK because they bought the vacant land from an investor who later paved over the remainder, and would have paved that intersection anyway?

    35. Re:Looking forward to replacing a bulb... never by macraig · · Score: 1

      Intersections and traffic signals suck just as bad past about that same point. Roundabouts might work marginally worse only because there's no forced cooperation (via the signals). With roundabouts the cooperation is all voluntary, and it's specifically in the heaviest traffic that people revert to animals and become competitive. That's why I said what I said about re-education earlier; people can be trained to cooperate and value cooperating enough to keep doing it even when the chips are down, but it's fighting against animal instinct. That, however, is entirely what "being human(e)" is: a fight against animal instinct; prescriptive versus descriptive behavior. The way people drive needs to be more prescriptive.

  4. But i like to dim my lights by uberbrainchild · · Score: 2

    Over here in sweden it's hard to find a good old light bulb that will dim. But I guess I can live with the non dimming led bulbs for now

    --
    Anveto
    1. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's trivially easy to dim an LED, either reduce the voltage/current or pulse the DC

    2. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are dimming LED Light Bulbs.

    3. Re:But i like to dim my lights by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I know. I bought a bunch of them from different stores/makers. They all flicker when powered in their listed range (0-12W dimmable DC). But the box clearly states "dimmable".

    4. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      PWM is less efficient and stressful on the LEDs. It's simpler and easier to just use a potentiometer on the DC side of a constant-current driver to regulate current.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:But i like to dim my lights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      When people say 'dim' they usually mean 'are compatible with my AC dimmer hardware designed to dim incandescents'. Given that any LED lamp designed to drop into an AC socket will need a reasonably sophisticated power supply(at least if it wants to actually be efficient, not catch fire, and not make the UL cry...), so the marginal cost of a slightly more sophisticated power supply that watches the AC side for 'dimming' behaviors and PWMs the DC side probably wouldn't be huge. However, such units are indeed less common, much as with CCFLs, which can be made to be dimmable with legacy AC dimmer gear; but cannot be relied upon to necessarily be dimmable, unless they specifically say so and aren't lying about it.

    6. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      most AC dimmers already pwm so its not that big of a deal for many

    7. Re:But i like to dim my lights by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's frustrating.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      the main problem with household LED lighting is they are made as stupid cheap as possible. I popped one apart and it was an LED, slug of god knows what metal and a big ass power resistor, nothing else

      so you are using the diode part to block the negative ac waveform, already your LED is on only "50%" of the time, so directly out of the box its flickering at 30Hz, mess with that with a dimmer and it gets worse.

    9. Re:But i like to dim my lights by tftp · · Score: 1

      I know. I bought a bunch of them from different stores/makers. They all flicker when powered in their listed range

      I have two dimmable 120V AC LED light bulbs. They do flicker at most levels. If you want a steady light, and not what one sees in horror movies, you have to set that dimmer to 100%.

    10. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      30 Hz? Your 60 Hz sinus waves only have 30 tops?

    11. Re:But i like to dim my lights by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I often think that westerners know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Quality LED bulbs cost fractions of a Euro/Dollar more but last longer and work much better. THis is something you use to illuminate your house, where you live, every single day. Why skimp on it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:But i like to dim my lights by jkflying · · Score: 1

      PWM + LC filter = current drive

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    13. Re:But i like to dim my lights by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they dim using a triac instead of PWM. There's a big difference, particularly if you want to PWM faster than the AC frequency.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    14. Re:But i like to dim my lights by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Somebody please mod this up...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    15. Re:But i like to dim my lights by LizardKing · · Score: 1

      I recently replaced ten halogen GU10 type bulbs in my house with LED ones, and the website I bought them from stocked dimmable ones. They even had replacements for the twelve G9 bulbs that we have in one room, which is great as the non-LED ones blow at a rate of roughly one a month and are very inefficient. We have an energy meter, and our daily consumption of electricity has roughly halved since replacing all the old incandescent and halogen bulbs.

    16. Re:But i like to dim my lights by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I've been dimming LEDs (with a new-fangled power-efficient dimmer with vacancy sensor) for a couple years now with no flicker whatsoever. Works fantastically.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:But i like to dim my lights by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Westerners? In my experience, all the cheap crap that doesn't work or breaks immediately is made in Asia (except cars, we make the broken, cheap ones here when it comes to cars).

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    18. Re:But i like to dim my lights by necro81 · · Score: 1

      the main problem with household LED lighting is they are made as stupid cheap as possible

      Simple solution: don't buy cheap shit. There is good, quality consumer LED products out there; it isn't hard to find them. Stick to products from reputable vendors, have extensive reviews, test results, and certifications. Yes, you'll pay perhaps 2x per bulb. But those bulbs will be far more efficient and will last much longer. Spend the money, then stop worrying for the next decade or two.

    19. Re:But i like to dim my lights by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      most AC dimmers already pwm so its not that big of a deal for many

      The trouble is that the PWM frequencies that work just fine on an electrically-heated-more-or-less-black-body with nontrivial thermal mass aren't likely to be nearly as pleasing on an LED with nearly instantaneous on/off(plus, the LED never actually sees the AC, or it'd be a friode in seconds, so PWM just means that the power supply gets a nastier input to deal with).

      Hardly insurmountable, with an appropriate AC PSU; but not automatic.

    20. Re:But i like to dim my lights by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

      Or just soak a rag in a coloured fluid like diesel oil and drape it over the bulb. A lot simpler than hacking the bulb.

    21. Re:But i like to dim my lights by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Made in Asia... then shipped to the West to meet the demands of Western capitalists. Wal*Mart would never sell you the $0.78-production-cost item for $1.59 when they could sell you the (significantly inferior but cosmetically identical) $0.73-production-cost item for $1.59, and pocket the $0.05*(zillions of sales) difference for their shareholders.

    22. Re:But i like to dim my lights by operagost · · Score: 1

      Here in what Europe believes is the backward republic of the USA, I can go to any major home store and get a dimmable LED. They do cost $30-40 for an R30 flood that would normally be $2-3, though.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    23. Re: But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You can use a potentiometer two ways, and the simpler way regulates current (since diodes have a fixed voltage drop, therefore regulating current does EXACTLY THAT, dim the LED.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    24. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You'll still get flickering and ghosting issues. Plants won't care, humans will.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:But i like to dim my lights by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      I dim my lights with a Variac, you insensitive clod!

      (I'll have to make my own custom solution)

    26. Re: But i like to dim my lights by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      What part of constant current do you not understand?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:But i like to dim my lights by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      160 V to handle peaks, 200 V or more to handle surges with some small measure of safety. Assume a 7 ms hold time and allow 20 V droop. A 10 watt fixture will be pulling 67 mA average off the average 150 V.
      0.067 * 0.007 / 20 = 24e-6. 24 microFarad

      Such capacitors are 10mm diameter, 20mm long (0.4" by 0.8") and cost 70 cents from DigiKey in quantity of one.

      Calculations are different if a controller for a good power factor is used, but the net size won't change much.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      it was already 11 bucks just to take out of the package and break to see whats in it, hate to see what the good ones cost for the exact same crap, ohh they use a cap's esr instead of a resistor.

      I have yet to see a quality one, and I have worked in lighting for about a decade now

    29. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I have torn apart many of these things, and there is not much difference between the 11$ bulb with chi-co printed on the package, and the 22$ bulb with GE printed on the package as they are often only separated in the packaging stage of the same factory.

    30. Re: But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      What part of potentiometer do you not understand? Once you put the potentiometer on the DC side, the LED dims as resistance is changed.

      This is how it's done in EVERY SINGLE LED PANEL I'VE MADE AND DISTRIBUTED that included dimming capability.

      Go ask any Chinese, Japanese, or Korean manufacturer (hint: you'll find tons of them on Alibaba.com) about their dimmable power drivers for LED. The ones not using PWM use a potentiometer at the DC side to regulate current.

      A potentiometer is a variable resistor or rheostat, when you only connect one end and the wiper. Voltage remains relatively the same, current gets regulated. Same way electric track cars work, the trigger/gun control being essentially a linear potentiometer - a wiper hooked to a long resistive spring.

      What part of basic electronic design do you not understand? I've got a potentiometer and tons of LEDs and power supplies, and a nice high-definition video camera. Want to see how wrong you are?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    31. Re: But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Hell I went ahead and recorded the video. There you go, prepare to be proven wrong.

      My only flaw in this video was not using a larger potentiometer with a helical structure for more fine-grained current control, and using 200K Ohm instead of at least 500K ohm potentiometer. But I just snatched a pot right off a busted aquarium air pump just to show you that you're wrong.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    32. Re: But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "A "constant current" power supply does exactly what the name implies. It is a regulated supply which tries to hold output current constant, varying the voltage across its output terminals as required to keep it constant."

      Not in any of the ones I'm holding right here, out of several of my LED panels. They voltage clamp depending upon the LEDs total series voltage drop, and it LOCKS there. And several of these are the exact same power supply in my non-dimmable panels, just with a pot thrown in (exact same components + one potentiometer.)

      "So: what you actually said (in electrical engineering-ese) is that you can dim a LED driven by a constant current supply by attaching the pot to the supply's output, presumably in series with the LED. Which is total nonsense, because that circuit really would just heat up the pot without actually dimming the LED. It took me quite a while (and some googling of LED lighting power supplies) to figure out exactly what you were talking about."

      Except I just posted a video that proves you wrong, as a reply to the OP I was replying to. If I had a potentiometer with a helical structure instead of a typical spring, I would have had much finer control of the dimming.

      "Without any other qualifiers, the phrase "constant current supply" implies a basic 3- or 4-terminal non-adjustable current regulator. AC or DC goes in, constant DC current comes out."

      Ever hear of a wall wart? You know, those two conductor (terminal) plugs that take AC and output DC at constant current? You know, the things that have been around for... 40+ years, possibly longer?

      "Stop calling other people idiots and making dumb youtube videos to crow about how right you are. You're all correct, more or less, but you're the one whose poor grasp of electronics technology and terminology created the misunderstanding."

      Yep, such a poor understanding of tech and terminology that I build fully-equipped research and production centers, FROM SCRATCH. Such a poor understanding that I have Chinese companies begging me to let them in on my latest advances that they can utilize in their new products (and get paid for having such a poor understanding, I get paid a great deal.) Then my understanding is so poor that US-based thermal companies are coming to me for testing and approving of their thermal solutions.

      I'm not entirely sure who's the one with the poor understanding here. I've been dimming LEDs on constant current and regular battery power for over half a decade, using potentiometers, PWM, raw AC current + high-resistance diode + LED + Potentiometer to act as a half-wave rectifier (with the resulting nasty 30Hz flicker) and other non-obvious methods.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re:But i like to dim my lights by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that simply isn't true. How do you think they make constant-current drivers that operate at high efficiency? PWM and an LC filter and possibly a diode to control the kick on the L. If you want to make the inductor and capacitor nice and small just do the PWM at high frequency. You can do lower frequencies without any flickering easily enough, but you need big L and C, which gets bulky and expensive.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    34. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "How do you think they make constant-current drivers that operate at high efficiency?"

      Tantalum charge capacitors, carbon resistors, transformer, decoupling capacitors on the DC output, looking at all 20,000+ led drivers that are STANDARD in my panels and I designed. 90+ rating, NO FUCKING PWM, ripple is on par with that of server power supplies, and easily adjustable with a trim pot either before or after the LED in series.

      "You can do lower frequencies without any flickering easily enough,"

      I have the PWM drivers sitting right here. Even high frequencies cause visual distortion effects similar like keeping your hand in front of an active CRT and waving it around. Same thing with induction ballasts (and those are operating in 250K+Hz range typically.) Same thing with HFT5HO lighting and HID lighting. Same thing with CFL and CCFL lighting. If you want PWM that won't flicker, you're going to have to keep the cycle duty constantly cycling between 75-100% and never letting it drop. Those drivers don't last very long. Five years designing LED systems that can be dimmed, and everything everyone around here has said has been tested and dismissed as too short lifespan-wise. A regular potentiometer using just the wiper and one side is perfectly fine and much more reliable, your only real problem is picking the right resistance (trivial with one simple equation, but do it wrong and your only settings are minimum and maximum with practically no in-between) and thermal dissipation for dimming (not a problem with a large enough pot, or a large 1 Ohm resistor in-line before the potentiometer to handle it.)

      Even better, use a large multi-turn potentiometer for that fine-grained control that PWM and Digipots can't really give you.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    35. Re:But i like to dim my lights by jkflying · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help having a 90+% efficiency current driver if you are then sticking a big power-dissipating resistor in series with your LED. If you want high-efficiency current drivers look at standard switch-mode power supplies, something like this at a high frequency, possibly with another capacitor across the power supply; it will give you efficient, smooth PWM-based current control. Note, the LED doesn't see any PWM, but the regulator is PWM based, ie. a switch-mode power supply.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    36. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't help having a 90+% efficiency current driver if you are then sticking a big power-dissipating resistor in series with your LED."

      That's WITH the resistor included according to the circuit design software I use. Without it (single-power no-dim option on my LED panels) it's 95+% efficiency on a power factor of 0.97.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Polo · · Score: 1

      I have noticed that virtually all the new LED light bulbs that replace normal incandescent bulbs are dimmable.
      (This is true for the bulbs I've seen on sale).

      This is not true for Compact Fluorescent bulbs. You need to buy special and expensive dimmable bulbs
      (that frequently whine when dimming).

    38. Re:But i like to dim my lights by Polo · · Score: 1

      I have some of these bulbs and they are fine for me. I have noticed they don't dim all the way down though.

      I mean that if you were to move the dimmer from 100 to 0, the bulb would dim down to 30 and shut off below that.
      But basically it works fine, you just have to move the dimmer from 30-100 instead of from 0-100.

    39. Re:But i like to dim my lights by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Mine don't dim at all. At 90, they are full power, at 80, they flicker noticeably. But yes, at 30 they also generally go completely dark.

    40. Re: But i like to dim my lights by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Speaking of which, if the supply truly did "clamp" or "lock" to a constant voltage, it would be a pretty awful LED driver."

      That pretty much proves you know nothing. We lock at voltages to avoid excessive dissipated heat across a given combined voltage drop of series-wired LEDs, in both the driver and the LED itself.

      And that's basic physics and EE right there. You lose, good day, nameless coward.

      I'm just going to ignore everything else you've said, you very obviously have never spent years of your time figuring out the nuances of LED and the challenges associated with the technology.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  5. The other reason for LED 'droop' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yo, genius, you misread the resistor markings when you wired up your Arduino circuit.

  6. Answer not in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's because of Auger recombination. Basically, you stick in too many electrons, and they all mill around talking with each other instead of getting any work done. This is also known as the 'Water Cooler Effect'.

    1. Re:Answer not in summary by NoAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      It's more like... uhm... OK, you know the... uh... Sorry. I had it for a minute, but it's gone now.

    2. Re:Answer not in summary by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that instead of an electron falling into a hole causing a photon to be given off, the electrons are all huddled together elsewhere talking about the last episode of Big Bang Theory?

    3. Re:Answer not in summary by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      the electrons are all huddled together elsewhere talking about the last episode of Big Bang Theory?

      Yes, they're talking about how the ridiculous audience laughter makes it unwatchable.

    4. Re:Answer not in summary by N+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, you're saying that instead of an electron falling into a hole causing a photon to be given off, the electrons are all huddled together elsewhere talking about the last episode of Big Bang Theory?

      No. They'd be discussing "Quantum Leap"

    5. Re:Answer not in summary by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It's because of Auger recombination

      You knew that! You should have told the University of California and France'X, they've been searching desperately for years.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Answer not in summary by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that instead of an electron falling into a hole causing a photon to be given off, the electrons are all huddled together elsewhere talking about the last episode of Big Bang Theory?

      And forming Cooper pairs.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    7. Re:Answer not in summary by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      One unfortunate choice the linked press release makes is the phrasing: "Until now, scientists had only theorized the cause behind the phenomenon known as LED “droop” ". This just plays into the hands of people who complain that the Theory of Gravity and Theory of Evolution are "only" theories".

      Correct phrasing: "Until now, scientists had only hypothesized the cause..."

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    8. Re:Answer not in summary by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      or "the soccer mom effect"

    9. Re:Answer not in summary by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if they could form Cooper pairs, to the point where it becomes superconductive, it would be f&%$ing awesome!

    10. Re:Answer not in summary by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      I know. I was just trying to make a joke out of Sheldon's last name.

      But really, superconducting LEDs. I hope my first flying car will come with them as an option.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    11. Re:Answer not in summary by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Not really, since in all 3 of these "theories" we pretty much agree that the phenomenon is real, we just haven't quite figured out how it works exactly.

      Besides, folks that argue against evolution tend to not overly involve themselves with actual arguments anyway...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    12. Re:Answer not in summary by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Bwahahahaha!

  7. Re:Darn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course we would. We all have time machines.

  8. Re:BlaBla .. Blub!! - GaN excitation AUGER process by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

    It links to an .edu, ieee, and arxiv. It is not an advertisement, troll

  9. 100 year life light bulbs is old tech by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The ability of marketers to convince people to overpay for absolute garbage, is eclipsed only by people willing to work for peanuts in the middle of the night when they should be sleeping.

    1. Re:100 year life light bulbs is old tech by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      And "grades don't matter outside school" is what they tell dumb people while they are fitting them for work boots.

  10. DOE Energy Frontier Research Center by james.sneed.aglife.c · · Score: 2

    Leave to our government to have a Department of Energy Energy Frontier Research Center. This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department we can reduce half the E from the DOE EFRC using LED's to become LEED certified says the CEEM.

  11. Try the little blue ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The little blue LEDs help me when I start to droop. Call your doctor if you don't stop drooping for more than two hours.

  12. The Color...Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or is the output color of household LED bulbs disgusting.
    I've seen many different ones, and for some reason or another, to me they seem harsh on my eyes.
    The incandescent ones seem warmer and friendlier to me.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm no luddite. I'm all for saving energy, the environment, and stopping the flow of money to a55h0le muslim countries.
    Does anyone else feel this way?

    -HasHie @ irc.trypnet.net

    1. Re:The Color...Ugh by Arkh89 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The white led are in fact blue LEDs with a phosphor layer which "shifts" the emission spectrum towards green and red. Thus, white LEDs looks bluer or "colder" (associated with ice). The bulbs can be considered as black bodies radiators and thus have their spectrum "coming from" the red part of the spectrum (in fact most of the energy is wasted in the IR as heat dissipation). Their color are more yellowish (centered on green, 550nm) just like the Sun and seems warmer (like a camp fire). Now you can combine few color LEDs to reproduce the the D65 illuminant (Black body at 6500K, like our Sun) by balancing the amount of current in them. Other trick : you reprogram your mind to follow "correctly" Wien's displacement law : blue color is for warmer black bodies compared to yellowish and reddish black bodies (thermal emission). To make sure of that : think of a metallic part you heat up, it will start as black (as in not-emitting) then go to red, then yellowish and then bluish (but you will see it white-blue at this point). So, white LEDs should appear "warmer" when considering true physics...

    2. Re:The Color...Ugh by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      The white led are in fact blue LEDs with a phosphor layer which "shifts" the emission spectrum towards green and red. Thus, white LEDs looks bluer or "colder" (associated with ice).

      White LEDs are actually ultraviolet LEDs with a phosphor layer. You can get a wide variety of emission spectra - for example, I just got a 2800K LED bulb which is somewhere between a normal tungsten bulb (~2600K) and a halogen (~3000K). And of course you can go to the "colder" side - there are 5000K and 6000K bulbs available.

    3. Re:The Color...Ugh by Arkh89 · · Score: 2
    4. Re:The Color...Ugh by gravious · · Score: 1

      > [...] and stopping the flow of money to a55h0le muslim countries.
      > Does anyone else feel this way?

      Why yes; yes they do. All of the other ignorant bigots.

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    5. Re:The Color...Ugh by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So it's the highly educated gentle Mohammedans who are setting off all those shrapnel bombs and maiming people?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  13. Since my comment is in the other less-popular post by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pay very close attention to LEDs. Now that we've identified the root cause of one of our biggest problems, in a few years, we'll find ways to work around those problems and extend the lifespan of an LED (and output at higher drive currents) with a minimal loss of light.

    This is EXCITING news, as the uses for this across the entire electronics industry are MASSIVE. Higher-efficiency, longer-lasting LEDs means better optical devices and such, as this same tech can be applied down into solid-state laser diodes.

    I'm literally about to piss myself from this news. The sheer implications of this knowledge are astounding.

    I hope thermal pad and PCB makers are paying attention and prepare, because very soon we'll be pushing a LOT more power through these tiny LEDs, and we'll need the local cooling to compensate.

    I only wonder just how far they can defeat or mitigate this effect, and how. Thicker well walls might be an idea, or perhaps a nano-wire-like growth pattern, like we've seen with the recent development of microwires on graphite sheets, can increase the surface area and reduce the available recombination area, thus forcing electron transport.

    Something to either attract, guide, or force more electrons across the gap seems to be what is needed.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  14. Another crap "summary" by oldhack · · Score: 2

    Basically, past a threshold current, it starts to emit electrons instead of more photons (look up "auger effect").

    Thanks again to "editors", illiterate both in English and science.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Another crap "summary" by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Basically, past a threshold current, it starts to emit electrons instead of more photons (look up "auger effect").

      Thanks again to "editors", illiterate both in English and science.

      Actually, you need to look for Auger recombination - a bit different than Auger effect.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  15. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm literally about to piss myself from this news.

    That's great, this is why I come here. What other site can you visit where people are more excited about a group of electrons than cute cats?

    I'll bet right now you'd rather experiment with electrons than with sex.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  16. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    I got to play with some on the market now ceramic heatsinks that went though a reflow oven (~260c) and was able to be handled no problem the second it comes out (something you usually want to wear gloves for)

  17. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It's ok, you don't need to brag about it.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It might include a crate.........

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Khyber · · Score: 2

    That 'ceramic' is still aluminum. Aluminum nitride and alumina mix, to be more precise

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. Where are these cute cats of which you speak? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Please be specific.

  21. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

    Do both - The Polecats - Make a circuit with me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfNjozD1BQ

  22. Cause of LED Efficiency Droop Finally Revealed... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    "We were just stepping out to grab a bite to eat," said one LED, who asked that he remain anonymous. "We didn't realize anybody could see a difference. Terribly sorry."

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  23. Cost Per Lumen? BS! by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The cost per lumen of LEDs has held the technology back as a viable replacement for incandescent bulbs for all-purpose commercial and residential lighting.

    Really? CREE started distributing LED bulbs a month or two ago through Home Depot for less than $10 each. I own two of them.

    450 lumens for $9.97 is 0.0222 per lumen. It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use.

    Let's compare that to an "equivalent" (the cree is a 40-watt equivalent bulb) incandescent bulb. $8.77 for a pack of 6 is $1.46 per bulb.

    300 lumens for $1.46 is $0.0049 per lumen. But it's only rated to last 0.9 years. That's $0.0544 per lumen per year of use. It's more than 54 times more expensive than the CREE. That's before you look at the electricity you'll be saving (6 watts to get more light than you would out of a 40 watt incandescent).

    Home Depot is also selling CREE's 60-watt equivalent:

    800 lumens for $12.97 is 0.0162 per lumen.It's rated to last 22.8 years. That's $0.0007 per lumen per year of use. The incandescent is 77 times more expensive.

    As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

    800 lumens for $13.99 is $0.0175 per lumen. Rated to last 18.3 years. That's $0.0010 per lumen per year of use. If I'm going to spent the next two decades with a bulb, I'll spend the extra three hundredths of a cent per lumen on something I really like. Still less than one fiftieth the cost of an incandescent per lumen.

    The only things I see holding back LED bulbs are misinformation and lack of availability (Home Depot is the only major brick and mortar store I've found that carries them). That, and some freaky designs that don't look like light bulbs... I bought one of these out of curiosity, and its appearance, on or off, just irritates me for some reason... if I was redesigning my living room to look like Quark's, I'd go with these all the way, but since I'm not "that guy" it's in a lamp that I almost never use. Which means it will probably outlive me. It may even survive to the 24th century and end up in Quark's.

    1. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only things I see holding back LED bulbs are misinformation and lack of availability (Home Depot is the only major brick and mortar store I've found that carries them).

      I agree, except for replacing "misinformation" with "confusing information", and the manufacturers are responsible for this. Take for example the following photo:
      https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/11607_10151447644678611_203176319_n.jpg

      We can see here, 2 GU10 bulbs. The one on the left is a 28W halogen, the one on the right is a 4.5W LED bulb (they both have a similar beam angle - 36 degrees for the halogen, 35 degrees for the LED). Both claim to be "equivalent" to a 35W "conventional" (by which I assume they mean tungsten) bulb. However, look at the light output - the halogen claims to output 600 lumen whilst the LED bulb says 200 lumen. So clearly different manufacturers use different criteria for what "equivalent" means - the halogen appears to be saying that its total light output is equivalent to a 35W tungsten, whilst the LED bulb appears to be saying that its brightness is equivalent to a (presumably unshaded) 35W tungsten. By the criteria used for the LED bulb, you could manufacture a tungsten bulb that is labelled as being "more efficient" than a tungsten bulb, simply by narrowing the beam angle with a reflector!

      Some of the bigger brands put even less information on their packaging - on the same shelves were Phillips 5W LED GU10 bulbs that simply gave an "equivalent to" figure - no information about how many lumens or candela they output, no information about beam angle.

      Also, people shopping for bulbs are almost certainly going to be doing like-for-like replacement: if I'm buying a GU10 bulb then the chances are I'm replacing an existing GU10 bulb, which is almost certainly going to be a halogen (since traditionally GU10s are halogen), not an unshaded tungsten bulb with an almost isotropic radiant flux. So telling me what "conventional" bulb it is equivalent to (whether thats done by comparing lumens or candela) is pretty much useless. Instead, I'm most likely to want to know what wattage of halogen its going to replace - if I've got a 50W halogen GU10 already and I'm buying an LED bulb, I want to know which LED bulb will give me the same results as the bulb I'm replacing.

      How is anyone supposed to make a decision when the information provided is either nonexistent or unstandardised and misleading?

      What I needed is for a standardisation of the information provided:
      1. The actual wattage of the bulb - i.e. how much power it is going to draw.
      2. The total light output in lumens.
      3. The brightness in candela. Especially important for bulbs that are traditionally used unshaded, such as GU10s.
      4. The beam angle. Again, important for bulbs that are usually unshaded.
      5. Colour temperature.
      6. What standard bulb this is equivalent to for a like-for-like replacement (i.e. if you're replacing a conventional ~isotropic tungsten bulb then it should be compared against that, if you're replacing a halogen GU10 then that bulb should be the comparison instead). Obviously this becomes problematic where the beam angles are different (e.g. I just bought a LED GU10 with a 120 degree beam - far wider than you'll get from a standard halogen GU10).
      7. The life expectancy of the bulb.

      And this information should be printed on *all* bulbs, even the conventional ones, so that someone in a shop can pick up any 2 bulbs and compare the information between them.

      I was under the impression that the EU had, several years ago, made some of this information (such as the lumen output) mandatory, but there are still a lot of bulbs on the shelves that don't include any of this data.

    2. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Inda · · Score: 1

      The price stil holds them back, espeicially for the poorer citizens. You and I can see why buying a bulb for $10 that'll last 20 year is a good thing but when you're down to your last few bucks and you need a bulb, a $0.50 CFL is what you buy... and then you buy another one six months later. Maths doesn't come into it.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I bought one of these out of curiosity, and its appearance, on or off, just irritates me for some reason...

      They're really neat. That fluorescent orange plastic acts as a diffuser, and changes the color temp by converting some of the blue LED light into orange.

      If you pulled off the orange plastic bits, you'd see clusters of blue LEDs and possibly damage your eyes if you looked at the unshielded LEDs when the bulb is on.

      A rare, insightful quote from Youtube:

      The intent behind this design is to increase the optical efficiency of the LED system. These use a remote yttrium aluminum garnet phosphor (the yellow stuff that you see in 'white' LEDs, which are actually blue) instead of sticking a blob of it in the LED die cup in order to reduce phosphor heating and the resultant reduction in efficiency. They also underdrive the LEDs in order to increase their efficiency. -by randacnam7321

    4. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My nearest Home Despot (Ukiah, CA) has zero Cree-branded LED lamps.

      I'd really like to be able to just walk into a store and buy these things, but their availability is a myth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Spoke · · Score: 1

      As much as I love CREE LEDs in general, I prefer Philips 10.5-watt bulb. The bulb itself it more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) and it diffuses the light better (the CREE focuses all the bulbs in one area and its very apparent from the very bright spot in the middle). I own six of them. Home Depot sells them for $27.97 for a two pack.

      Are we talking about the same CREE LED bulbs?

      I bought two of the new CREE bulbs, a 40W and 60W equivalent and the light distribution is very even, though if you look at the bulb it is slightly dim at the top. While I haven't tried the 10.5W Philips bulb you linked to, it looks like it would be darker than normal at the bottom of the bulb.

      Now the Philips L-Prize bulb is awesome in performance - even more efficient than the other bulbs mentioned above industry leading CRI and light distribution - but it's even funnier looking at the funny looking Philips bulb you linked to above. The L-Prize bulb initially sold for $35-45 each. The price has been cut to $15 now at Home Depot, but they generally have very low quantities of these now, it's very apparent that the normal looking Cree at a lower price is killing it in sales.

    6. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Spoke · · Score: 1

      My nearest Home Despot (Ukiah, CA) has zero Cree-branded LED lamps.

      I'd really like to be able to just walk into a store and buy these things, but their availability is a myth.

      I just checked Home Depot online and the site says that the Ukiah has 155 of the 9.5W / 60W equivalent Cree LED bulbs, 90 of the 40W equivalent bulbs... So you can just go in and buy one. You can even pay for it online and they'll pick it off the shelf for you and have it ready for you when you get there.

    7. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      We just bought a home and had to do some major renovations. I have replaced most of the bulbs in the house with Cree (9W, 800L) and Phillips (10.5W, 800L; 7W, 600L; 4W, 320L), and have to agree that the Phillips 10.5W and 4W models have a more natural feeling light to them compared to the Cree 9W and the Phillips 7W.

      My biggest complaint with the Phillips LEDs (the 7 and 4W versions at least, since I didn't read the packaging on the 10.5W bulbs), is that they have a 1-year warranty at 3 hours of use daily, compared to the 10-year warranty at 6 hours of daily use for the Cree. Further, the Phillips packaging warns not to use the product in a sealed enclosure, which most light fixtures are, in my experience. Cree's included product literature inspires way more confidence in the technology, besides having the edge on efficiency.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    8. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      Should have mentioned that the Cree are explicitly dimmable, while the Phillips explicitly are not.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    9. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      I've used many CFL bulbs under many brands, and found none typically last longer than 2-4 years. We'll see how LEDs do by comparison, but they're already more efficient if you are choosy about which ones you buy, have no warm up time, and don't contain mercury.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    10. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I think that is part of the reason for lack of LED uptake. Everyone has been burned with CFLs that never lasted as long as advertised. Since LEDs cost more and put out less light for same cost, and use roughly the same amount of electricity as CFLs, people are wary. I know I am. I don't want to spend a ton on LED bulbs that will last a year.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    11. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Spoke · · Score: 1

      I went down every aisle with light bulbs on it and didn't find them, so if they can pick it off the shelf, they'll be doing quite well.

      I found in the last two Home Depots I visited the CREE bulbs were not with the rest of the bulbs. They were in their own display in front of one of the rows not far from the rest of the bulbs.

      It's crazy - they ought to keep at least a few with the rest of the bulbs because people looking specifically for bulbs expect to find them there, not in a special display designed to catch the eye of people not looking for bulbs.

    12. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by yabos · · Score: 1

      Nice to see that we get ripped off in Canada on these bulbs too compared to the USA...
      http://www.homedepot.ca/product/95-watt-60w-warm-white-led-light-bulb-1-pack/827146
      http://www.homedepot.ca/product/6-watt-40w-warm-white-led-light-bulb-1-pack/827152
      I bought 2 of the 60w equivalents and they look pretty good. I'm not a fan of the bluish ones, but the yellowish ones looks great. I like that they rate it to a comparable incandescent. Most LEDs seem to give you a lumens output value but for most people, that requires some research into what that is in equivalent incandescent bulb.

    13. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That is certainly a factor, but I'd also be concerned about how reliable the figures are.

      I just bought a $50 LED floodlight. On paper it is going to save me a heap of money over the next 20 years. However, if the thing burns out in a year I'll have wasted a LOT of money on it. Break-even would be a few years, so I won't even know if I've broken even for quite a while.

      People are going to be naturally skeptical of 20-year lifetimes on a product that came out a few years ago.

    14. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You're a guy, right? You didn't ask for directions.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:Cost Per Lumen? BS! by atamido · · Score: 1

      The only things I see holding back LED bulbs are misinformation and lack of availability

      Not true. You only give lifetime values for current prices. If the price of an LED bulb will be a quarter of the current cost in five years (a likely scenario), you could keep using incandescents for the next five years and then switch to LED. Your total cost will still be half of what it would have been if you had purchased LED bulbs now.

      For me, it makes far more sense to replace heavily used bulbs with CFL now, and then switch to LED once they drop to a reasonable price.

  24. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    For some a lot of fun can be had in combined experiments with electrons and sex, but that falls in the category SM.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  25. We'll save so much energy, except... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

    ...that we won't.

    From the summary: "The U.S. Department of Energy recently estimated that the widespread replacement of incandescent and fluorescent lights by LEDs in the U.S. could save electricity equal to the total output of fifty 1 GW power plants."

    Now, raise your hands, everybody who thinks we'll save energy. Nobody? OK, now raise your hands if you think what we'll actually do is use this as an excuse to leave the lights on 24/7, thereby expending the same or greater amount of energy, AND increasing light pollution as a handy bonus. Great, thanks. You can all put your hands down now.

    Ever paid attention to how many businesses around you leave much or all of their outdoor lighting and signage on, all night? Multiply that nationally or globally, and you've almost certainly located a lot more energy waste than 50 measly power plants. And as a double win, you can get rid of all that waste without creating even more landfill-fodder in the process. Just persuade everybody to switch their lights off when their business is closed, by removing incentives for leaving them on (insurance), and adding incentives for turning them off (fines for closed businesses with the lights on, perhaps.)

    The whole "criminals avoid your business when the lights are on" thing might hold true when only a few businesses leave their lights on, but when we all do... that's a theory that no longer holds true. It's just a waste of resources, and a major source of light pollution.

    /rant off

    1. Re:We'll save so much energy, except... by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      What? Did you just suggest that the only reason people don't leave their lights on 24/7 is because it's too expensive? Are you scared of the dark or something?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    2. Re:We'll save so much energy, except... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      The only reason? No. One reason? Yes.

      Go look at the typical business near you and see how much light pollution they're already producing all night long, lighting a car park nobody's using, signs nobody is reading, and quite often the store itself when nobody -- not even stocktakers -- is in it.

      Now imagine how much they'll waste when it's even cheaper to do so. They won't even bother with light switches, they'll just wire the place to be floodlit 24/7/365 in the hopes of reducing insurance and maybe attracting one extra customer.

  26. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet right now you'd rather experiment with electrons than with sex.

    I think that field has been thoroughly explored, with each discovery being meticulously documented and repeated and sold on DVD to other scientists for careful study.

    Despite the poor prospects for making an original contribution I hear it is still a popular undergraduate course though.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by am+2k · · Score: 1

    very soon we'll be pushing a LOT more power through these tiny LEDs, and we'll need the local cooling to compensate.

    Are you sure? Better efficiency also means that you need less cooling, as more power is emitted via visible light rather than heat.

  28. Correction Re:Another crap "summary" by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Looks like my summary is crap, too.

    TFS is a typical empty PR gibberish, but I went overboard dumping on soulskill. My bad, soulskill.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  29. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... BMW's next year's models will be available with even more bizarre headlighting options.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:In related news ... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      None of which will be an option in the USA because US laws are backwards-thinking and ban any headlight tech that's in any way modern.

    2. Re:In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of the style fads auto manufacturers like to implement with fancy LEDs. Not the useful stuff like pixel light.

      The fashion stuff is quite common here in the USofA. Sadly, not the useful stuff. My H4s are still technically illegal here.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  30. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by hyfe · · Score: 1

    I'm literally about to piss myself from this news.

    I would have been more comfortable if that sentence was at the end of your post, rather than at the start.. it now leads to two possible conclusions:
    1. You don't know what literal means, or
    2. You now smell funny.

    --
    "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  31. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Good post, but I thought the main problem with getting decent LED light bulbs (for example) popular was the cost and that increasing the light produced too much heat. I for one would rather not see a fan-assisted bulb because of noise pollution. Do you think this discovery will help reduce heat to any degree for a given amount of lumens?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  32. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    I think you're on to something there. An improved Cathode might help the flow of electrons to the n-side. We just need a more attractive Cat.

  33. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    I don't think phantomfive was being facetious or in any way sarcastic with his comment. Just us guys love technology/science so much that these things can *sometimes* become more exciting than some of our more carnal desires.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  34. 22.8 year lifespan, BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you believe that LED bulbs will really last 22.8 years, then there is a bridge I'd like to sell to you. The LED bulbs are only as good as the capacitors inside of them, and current electrolytics will not last 22.8 years at the 140 degF and higher temperatures LED bulbs run at. I seriously doubt that most LEDs would make it to the 7 year mark with regular use.

    Where's your cost comparison with 75 watt or 100 watt equivalent replacements? You conveniently left those out as those are typically twice as expensive as 60 watt equivalent replacements. These higher wattage lamps are also pushing the thermal limits even more, so lifespan will be even shorter.

    Only pay extra for LEDs if you want increased light quality, but a 22.8 year investment it is not As it stands now, I'd expect a lifespan only slightly higher than that of a CFL.

    1. Re:22.8 year lifespan, BS! by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      The Cree bulbs include a 10-year warranty at 6 hours of typical use daily. If they last that long they will be well worth the price I paid for them ($16 CDN).

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
  35. Re:BlaBla .. Blub!! - GaN excitation AUGER process by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    .edu's put out press releases all the time as a form of advertisement.
    Public relations and marketing isn't just about selling the product, it's about creating the demand.

    So they may not be trying to sell you something, but they're definitely trying to drum up prestige
    and, if they're lucky, they'll get funding for more research or good press for licenseable technology.

    The world of academics is money driven, just like any other industry.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  36. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Khyber · · Score: 1

    This has little to do with efficiency. This has to deal with output versus input, and a barrier that's present whenever current gets too high, causing drastic loss of light and lifespan of the LED.

    This might push higher efficiency but the issue we're solving RIGHT NOW is why we suddenly lose a ton of light output once we hit a certain threshold.

    That still doesn't change the fact these LEDs get very hot locally (and in high-power packages, like the MK-R or XP-G) without that thermal consideration, your diodes are dead in a couple of days. The thermal cooling required will increase as power levels increase.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  37. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Spoken like a true ignorant AC.

    Best CCFL is ~80 lumens per watt, 6500K CCT.

    Best LED is 200+ lumens per watt, and it cost me NOTHING to get several of them, with mounting boards, in my hands.

    Or, I just buy them from China, where a 4w GU-10 using Epistar 130+ lumen per watt LEDs costs me 4 bucks and has lasted me several years already.

    Go home with your ignorant tripe.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  38. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "I thought the main problem with getting decent LED light bulbs (for example) popular was the cost and that increasing the light produced too much heat."

    The only issue with cost comes from name-brand companies that foolishly spent a lot of money patenting something OBVIOUS. In the meanwhile, China pumps out obvious, unpatentable designs, and sells them for cheap. And they're quality. Out of thousands of bought and used LED panels, light bulbs, laser diodes, only a couple total have failed on me, and the ones that did fail were EASILY repairable by the end-user. Increasing power always means increasing heat, that's just thermodynamics.

    "I for one would rather not see a fan-assisted bulb because of noise pollution"

    Given the requirement to fit certain form factors, we're not left with much of a choice. 12w passive LED has a heat sink roughly the size of a PAR30 floodlight. With a fan actively cooling, you can fit it inside a standard ceiling fan socket. I prefer active cooling anyways, as if you have bad airflow in your house, you're going to likely kill the LEDs with heat since the passive radiator isn't getting proper airflow.

    "Do you think this discovery will help reduce heat to any degree for a given amount of lumens?"

    At higher drive currents, yes. At our typical lower drive currents, likely not, as the efficiency there lies mostly in the composition and physical structure of the wafer/substrate.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  39. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

    I'll bet right now you'd rather experiment with electrons than with sex.

    Why not both?

  40. Re:Since my comment is in the other less-popular p by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Better efficiency at higher current means that the tradeoffs involved in LED fixture design are optimized with a smaller number of LEDs. Price will go down, waste heat might go down.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  41. Re:BlaBla .. Blub!! - GaN excitation AUGER process by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Cree's profit margin is below 5% and its officers are not extravagantly paid. I've seen no evidence that they're not an honorable company.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  42. Re:BlaBla .. Blub!! - GaN excitation AUGER process by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The world of academics is money driven, just like any other industry.

    So THAT'S why colleges have such a left wing bias.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate