Slashdot Mirror


Breakthrough In LED Construction Increases Efficiency By 57 Percent

Zothecula writes: With LEDs being the preferred long-lasting, low-energy method for replacing less efficient forms of lighting, their uptake has dramatically increased over the past few years. However, despite their luminous outputs having increased steadily over that time, they still fall behind more conventional forms of lighting in terms of brightness. Researchers at Princeton University claim to have come up with a way to change all that by using nanotechnology to increase the output of organic LEDs by 57 percent.

40 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. You know what this means by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your equipment will now have 57% brighter indicator LEDs on the front to burn your retinas at night!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:You know what this means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Easily fixed with a piece of electrical tape - to hold your eyes shut.

    2. Re:You know what this means by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your equipment will now have 57% brighter indicator LEDs on the front

      LOL ... must ... not ... make ... joke ... about ... "equipment".

      Suddenly I'm thinking of the neon lights under cars, and wondering if this won't be the next big thing in body modification.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:You know what this means by Jim3535 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a company that makes lightdims, which are like tinting stickers that you can put over LEDs to dim them (block some of the light). They come in different strengths, even blackout.

      I use them on the computers and other electronics in my bedroom since the LEDs collectively put out so much light it's hard to sleep.

    4. Re:You know what this means by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Low light environments you really need red LED's
      Sure Red LEDs are old. But for low lights your eyes don't adjust as much to red lights.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:You know what this means by peter.kingsbury · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of a scene I saw as a kid watching America's Funniest Home Videos, where Bob Saget "fixed" the omnipresent VCR clock which invariably flashes "12:00", by sticking a piece of masking tape over it.

    6. Re:You know what this means by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why the hell did the industry move away from using red LEDs for power indicators?

      Because people wanted to be "trendy" and "futuristic" and thus started putting blue LEDs (which only came out two decades ago) in their equipment. Red was dull and boring (being done way back in the 60s) as was yellow. Green as we know it today (rather than a sickly yellow-puke-green) was a mid-90's invention. Blue LEDs came out in the mid-late 90s.

      So since they were so recent and popular, people stuck them on everything to show they were progressive.

    7. Re:You know what this means by chaosdivine69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is quite funny. Though refrained taping my eyes shut (and I'm not a vampire), I did just last night, go around my room and put pieces of black electrical tape over every LED light I could find sans the clock (which dims in the darkness thank goodness). It's amazing just how sensitive your eyes are to light pollution at night. Every power bar I have has a glowing light of some kind. One even has two. I have a wireless extender that has several LEDs on it. Then there's the TV, the TV cable box, a heater...everything got the electrical tape band aid treatment. I even put a black screen wipe over my cell phone in it's charger cradle that likes to let me know it's charged by beaming me in the face with green light. Tablets get charged with their cases closed and the laptop charger goes face down into the carpet. When I charge my electric shaver or toothbrush, they get turned upside down to shine their light into themselves. Made a HUGE difference to the point where I have to feel my way around if I shut off the lights too soon.

      I've had to get obsessive compulsive about this just so I can get a decent sleep...but it's worth it!

    8. Re:You know what this means by plover · · Score: 2

      the "Power" indicator on my mixing board is an ungodly bright blue light.

      I don't know about ungodly. God did kind of ask for it with "Let there be light!". Maybe he should have been more specific.

      God obviously did not create 440 nm blinding blue light. That had to be the work of the devil.

      --
      John
    9. Re:You know what this means by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really what you're getting at is that red light doesn't destroy scotopic vision (ie night adapted vision) because the rod cells respond very little to red light. Notice I said respond very little, a bright enough red light will still have an impact. Using somewhat dim red light allows you to see things yet still retain your night vision. Even a brief moment of other light colors (ie white, blue, etc) will result in losing the night adapted vision which can take up to 30 minutes to fully recover.

    10. Re: You know what this means by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Informative

      That might qualify for the only time I didn't find Bob Saget infuriatingly annoying.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    11. Re:You know what this means by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't be surprised if blue at night were murderous if our eyes are indeed compenssting by adjusting towards higher blue sensitivity near dawn or dusk when there's not much blue in the incident light.

      If you came to that conclusion on your own, I'd congratulate you on (possibly) being extremely perceptive, but also surprised that you weren't aware that it's already been widely reported in the past few years that, yes, blue light is apparently very bad news from the point of view of being sleep-inhibiting:-

      Example story

      Blue light presumably being far more of an issue in recent years due to (a) the increase in use of electronics and (b) the blue LED fad. (*)

      I've seen an alarm clock with blue numbers- presumably because blue LEDs are cool!!!!!!11111- which struck me as an absolutely horrible idea. As did a ******* blue-coloured baby nightlight (because even baby deserves to be kept awake by fashionable blue LEDs. Sheesh.)

      (*) FWIW, the blue LED fad seems to have died down in the past couple of years, and white LEDs are the new hotness. Which is a good thing from an aesthetic point of view (**) but I suspect those white LEDs still contain a lot of blue. Especially the more bluish-white ones which may well just be blue ones with phosphor coating (as some "white" LEDs apparently are).

      (**) Nothing against blue LEDs as a concept, it's great that they were invented. What I hate is their gratuitous use- or rather, misuse- in consumer goods, both because they're overused and the novelty wore off long ago, but also because they're far more distracting in context than red ones ever were.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    12. Re:You know what this means by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      Red-Yellow-Green is bad human factors practice because of red-green color blindness. For people of western European decent, about 1 in 10 males are red-green color blind. Other populations have different statistics. Only 1% of Eskimo males are color blind. Approximately 2.9% of boys from Saudi Arabia and 3.7% from India were found to have deficient color vision.

      Web designers almost never take this into account. For data display, red-yellow-green is common, as is the "spectrum" blue-cyan-green-yellow-red ramp. The spectrum is a very poor choice, because not only is it bad for color blind people, but it induces a color banding perception of the data that can obscure real data features.

      If you have a choice, don't use the spectrum or RYG for anything.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    13. Re:You know what this means by Mars+Saxman · · Score: 2

      Not just some - all. White LEDs *are* blue LEDs with a phosphor coating; the amount of phosphor determines whether it is a "cool white" or "warm white" style LED.

      You can also make "white" light by running all three components of an RGB LED at max, but nobody does that because it is way more expensive in terms of dollars and in terms of lumens-per-watt.

    14. Re:You know what this means by Nethead · · Score: 2

      And the ladies will get "landing lights" down their legs. Just remember, no means no, and no touch and go allowed. Circle the strip until you get clearance, or find another field.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  2. The diode itself is unchanged by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

    All they've changed is how they contain it to limit the amount of light lose to absorption. I mean, to the user of LEDs the distinction is pretty irrelevant, but if you were wondering how you could improve on such a fundamental electrical component, that's how.

  3. OLEDs not generic LEDs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just saying.

    The main barrier to large scale consumer and commercial adoption of LEDs is cost per unit.

    That said, good news!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:OLEDs not generic LEDs by afidel · · Score: 2

      I don't mind paying $20 for a light bulb I'll probably never have to replace again
      OLED's are nowhere near that, OLEDs are expensive to manufacture, and the most common current chemistry results in a blue half life of 15-20k hours, or 5-7 years at 8 hours per day. With traditional LEDs the bulb lifespan isn't dominated by the LEDs themselves, but rather by the heat sensitive electrolytic capacitor (this is why in the real world LED bulbs have no advantage over CFLs, they both fail due to capacitor failure).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:OLEDs not generic LEDs by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      Which is why when installing screw in LEDs or CFLs, I only put them in open, base down (or sideways if I must) fixtures. It's amazing how few ceiling fixtures there are that meet these criteria. With CFLs I've had very few premature failures, where the people that complain about them lasting less than an incandescent I assume put them in the worst applications possible (enclosed, base up, on a dimmer when not rated, short cycled).

      Ideal for LED is an entire replacement fixture, where thermal management can be integral. I like the Lithonia Versi Lite. It's attractive, dimmable (with a cheap $3 Leviton Trimatron dimmer), and cheap at $35 (if building new you need to buy a fixture anyways), the downside is I notice 120Hz flicker on them, so they are only really suited to hallways, closets, and utility rooms.

  4. Woo hoo!! by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't wait for my 57% brighter Christmas tree.

    You'll see that sucker from space.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Woo hoo!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have the offending brain removed. You'll feel much better.

    2. Re:Woo hoo!! by drainbramage · · Score: 3, Informative

      A friend wanted to replace his landscape bulbs with LEDs, the flicker was horrible.
      We added a bridge rectifier and the 120 hz flicker was less offensive.
      So, we added a capacitor, the flicker was gone and the LEDs were much brighter.
      I noticed they were also becoming warm so I measured the voltage which was now over 18vdc.
      I suddenly recalled that a load resistor was always added when I used to make linear power supplies, a few years ago.
      Can't remember the formula I used to use but google found a nice article about this:
      http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/...

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    3. Re:Woo hoo!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope.

      (Note: I use electronics and data processing terms as an analogy.)

      The way your optic nerve pre-processes images before sending the signal onward to the brain causes you to see things at about 13 FPS, per object, asynchronously, with interpolation. What that means is that your optic nerve pre-processes "objects", typically by high-contrast divisions (this is the mechanism that camo tricks). After that, it updates "fields" corresponding to those objects projected against the optic nerve at a rate of ~13 times per second. It does this on a ~6.8 Hz clock (doubled, so 13.6 FPS, actually) embedded into the cells of the optic nerve itself. It polls the retina per field-clock, asynchronously, updating field assignments as it processes each result (different-contrast areas are pruned around the edges of fields and lumped into adjacent fields). Then the object data bundles are forwarded to the brain's optic processing center as they're completed.

      Once in the brain, interpolated data is invented based on balance and motion data from other sensors. Thus, "motion blur". This is not the same as persistence of vision, which is essentially "burn-in" on the retinal cells.

      The reason you see flickering is entirely different. The eye doesn't just sit there and gather light. It actively scans across things laterally. This scanning is done on that same ~6.8Hz clock. So the "frames" observed are frame-left and frame-right, alternating. This also feeds into the interpolation calculations.

      Since LED's are tiny pinpoint light sources with a very high contrast gradient to anything around them, they can "escape" the interpolation post-processing done by the brain by falling outside of the re-fielding threshold during the object pre-processing done in the optic nerve. But, in order for re-fielding to work, it has to have something to compare to. That's going to be the burnt-in image from the previous frame. Re-fielding compares the fading burn-in with the current active signal. If your eyes have poor persistence, then you're going to have more re-fielding threshold misses, and thus more flickering problems.

      The reason this doesn't happen to everyone all the time is because 1) everyone's eyes are a little different, especially the thresholds and timings used in re-fielding, and 2) LED's are engineered to work without visible flicker for most people.

  5. The 57% in the title is misleading. by Steve+Newall · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article explains that the light extraction is increased from 3% to 60%. This is a factor of 20 increase in light output. So compared to a "normal" LED, this new technology is actually 2000% more efficient.

    1. Re:The 57% in the title is misleading. by tomhath · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 57% improvement was on top of existing improvements like adding a reflector. This brought it up from something like 38% to 60%.

  6. The summary title is an outright lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a big difference between "LEDs" and "Organic LEDs". To the best of my knowledge, organic LEDs aren't used for "lighting".

    1. Re:The summary title is an outright lie by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      ...yet.

      An OLED is an LED, so the title isn't a lie. It's vague.

  7. too damn bright by Pro923 · · Score: 2

    ya know I loved it when they first invented this whole new bright LED technology back 5 or so years ago... I was so impressed by the street lights, and anything else that used them - I could easily tell the new LEDs from the old ones. But when my old clock radio died, i went to wal mart and bought a cheapo 20 buck LED lit digital alarm clock with cool looking blue light. But the fucking thing is Soooo bright that at night it's like having the sun in my bedroom with me. I was thinking about sticking some semi transparent plastic over it, but I couldn't really find anything suitable. so, i just throw clothes on top of it and it becomes useless unless i care enough about the time to dig it up.

  8. Coverage from IEEE Spectrum by necro81 · · Score: 2

    IEEE Spectrum also has coverage, along with an excellent technical explanation.

  9. The industry will screw you anyway... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...because it doesn't pay very well to sell you something that'll last forever, whether it's an Oled screen or LED bulb.

    It's no coincidence that the CFLs die off after 1-2 years albeit they're supposed to last 10-20 years with normal usage. My first Philips 11w CFLs that I bought 20 years ago, still glows like mad and simply refuse to die. That is back when the CFLs was new, and cost like 40 bucks just for ONE bulb, but hey...it's actually worth the money, it still is my best bulb.

    With LED's, it's a walk in the park for the industry to make them last less, all you need to do for your LED to last less than specified, is to OVERDRIVE them just a little, a little higher current and the LED's will die rapidly, they should be able to make the new LED lamps last just out the warranty period (that in most countries AFAIK is around 3-6 months), or cheap enough to avoid the warranty altogether.

    There is nothing wrong with the LED's themselves, (we're talking the components...DIODES...not the whole circuit with drivers and all), I ordered strong RGB leds from China many MANY years ago, they're still glowing on my homemade alarm-systems so strong that I can use them as night-lights, yes...4 years later 24H day use...they still glow enough to lit up an entire room. And I just used Ohms law + 1% resistor values to calculate the right resistor value for my circuits. You can pretty much BET the manufacturers will "miscalculate" these values, or make the drivers for the stronger LED's last MUCH less in order to keep pumping out new ones for the consumers to waste and waste.

    I'd rather pay a proper price for my LED lamps - and keep our environment safe from this mad overproduction that now has escalated totally out of hands. :(

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:The industry will screw you anyway... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...because it doesn't pay very well to sell you something that'll last forever, whether it's an Oled screen or LED bulb.

      With LED's, it's a walk in the park for the industry to make them last less, all you need to do for your LED to last less than specified, is to OVERDRIVE them just a little, a little higher current and the LED's will die rapidly, they should be able to make the new LED lamps last just out the warranty period (that in most countries AFAIK is around 3-6 months), or cheap enough to avoid the warranty altogether.

      There is nothing wrong with the LED's themselves, (we're talking the components...DIODES...not the whole circuit with drivers and all), I ordered strong RGB leds from China many MANY years ago, they're still glowing on my homemade alarm-systems so strong that I can use them as night-lights, yes...4 years later 24H day use...they still glow enough to lit up an entire room. And I just used Ohms law + 1% resistor values to calculate the right resistor value for my circuits. You can pretty much BET the manufacturers will "miscalculate" these values, or make the drivers for the stronger LED's last MUCH less in order to keep pumping out new ones for the consumers to waste and waste.

      I'd rather pay a proper price for my LED lamps - and keep our environment safe from this mad overproduction that now has escalated totally out of hands. :(

      Buy Crees. I work in LED driver design, and Cree, who I don't work for but I work with, seem to do a good job of making sure their LED's don't get associated with junk. Philips similarly, to a lesser extent.
      So, from the inside, it's not that manufacturers generally scrimp on bulbs to make them fail faster so they can sell more. The economics of light bulbs don't support that business model. It's that people are crazy reluctant to pay $15 for a lightbulb when an incandescent costs under $1. So manufacturers engage in heavy-duty Muntzing until the bulb will just barely run, and they've cut the BOM by $1.45... and then it dies quickly. It's called value engineering, which as far as I'm concerned means removing all the value. They use cheap input filter caps, and scrimp on those, and they use cheap heatsinking which is poorly thermally coupled to the LED's, so the LED's operate at a high junction temperature and don't live very long.
      Incandescents have visual inertia, for lack of a better term: if you pour a 30 hz square wave into one, it'll still look pretty good. LED's react in nanoseconds. Crappy dirty line power combined with dimming makes for a really demanding design, and designers and apps engineers have to work with a huge variation in dimmer designs. Consumers don't see any of that: all they see is "no way I'm paying $25 for a lightbulb" so they buy the crap ones and then get infuriated with them because they're visibly flickering and only last five times as long as an incandescent. I can't really blame them, either. There are really good lightbulbs out there. They're expensive. They should last 50,000 hours. But it's hard to tell what you're getting if you're not in on the design.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    2. Re:The industry will screw you anyway... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      But yeah, we really DO get what we pay for. So dear consumers who are reading this, please protest by not settling for the crappy stuff. Buy quality and prove to the world that's what we want! I've been 30+ years into electronics (many as a service tech). We've got a heck of a job in front of us, but I honestly believe the public will tire of the crappy products, hopefully NOT before it's too late.

      The big open question for our time: how do we tell if stuff is quality?
      Stuff that has the same manufacturer's SKU number, you open it up and it has all different guts than last year's because they've changed subcontractors.
      They come out with a new version every four months, so by the time reviews are up on one you can't buy that model anymore.
      Manufacturers have adopted influenza's tactic: change so fast that the system can't keep up with you and fight your badness.
      Since us consumers need to buy stuff, we have no choice but to buy what's being offered, with only lemon metrics for judging.
      Cree is an exception to this (in my experience), and I hope like mad that they stay that way.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    3. Re:The industry will screw you anyway... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      Buy Crees. I work in LED driver design, and Cree, who I don't work for but I work with, seem to do a good job of making sure their LED's don't get associated with junk. Philips similarly, to a lesser extent.

      Weird. My experience has been the opposite. I've tried the Cree bulbs from Home Depot and they suck because they strobe at 120 Hz (verified on a scope). That's not usually noticeable except when you move your eyes quickly (like reading), or if something moves quickly like your kid swinging a baton. The strobe effect really bothers me. I also have 15 of the Philips L-prize bulbs that they discontinued after collecting their prize money, and those do not have any sort of strobe effect and they are more efficient than the Cree bulbs.

      Strobing is a huge problem, and the easiest way to fix it is add big output caps to the switcher... which costs money.
      It's sad to hear they did that. I will chat with someone who gets to make these decisions for them at the end of the month.
      Strobing's even worse with car taillights because that's when people have the highest saccade rates and cars are moving quickly, so surprisingly high frequencies are clearly visible as strobe flashes.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:The industry will screw you anyway... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      Buy Crees. I work in LED driver design, and Cree, who I don't work for but I work with, seem to do a good job of making sure their LED's don't get associated with junk. Philips similarly, to a lesser extent.

      Weird. My experience has been the opposite. I've tried the Cree bulbs from Home Depot and they suck because they strobe at 120 Hz (verified on a scope). That's not usually noticeable except when you move your eyes quickly (like reading), or if something moves quickly like your kid swinging a baton. The strobe effect really bothers me. I also have 15 of the Philips L-prize bulbs that they discontinued after collecting their prize money, and those do not have any sort of strobe effect and they are more efficient than the Cree bulbs.

      Cree is a world leader in making the actual LED elements themselves. These are found in products made by other manufacturers. They only recently stepped into the consumer space by designing and packaging a 120V screw in LED bulb, which I agree has a noticeable 120Hz flicker, but that's a result of their driver design, not the LEDs themselves. I was also similarly disappointed with Phillips A-line slim. It also had a noticeable flicker. Both bulbs do an excellent job of 2700K colour temperature, and price, but the flicker is too noticeable for me (though it's not 100% unfiltered, I've seen a lot worse bulbs).

  10. The real breakthrough - no more electrolytic caps by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    The real breakthrough in LED lighting is getting rid of electrolytic capacitors in the power supply. Those are currently the components with the shortest life. See "Elimination of an Electrolytic Capacitor in AC/DC Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Driver With High Input Power Factor and Constant Output Current" Variations on that technology are now going into production LED lighting units. This should push unit lifetimes up from 20,000 hours to that of the LEDs, 40,000 or so. (Provided the quality of the LEDs doesn't slip.)

  11. Less battery drain and clearer screens by pupsocket · · Score: 2

    The immediate commercial demand is in the displays of portable electronics, where this technology will decrease power consumption and deliver better contrast, especially in daylight.

  12. Nah, its battery life and/or light output by paziek · · Score: 2

    I think that most people would rather have 2x battery life or 2x brighter light in their flashlight, rather than it lasting twice as long, considering that I'm yet to see IC of flashlight to die on me.

  13. Re:The real breakthrough - no more electrolytic ca by EmperorArthur · · Score: 3, Informative

    While it seems like a good idea to have a low voltage circuit, there some unfortunate realities that have to be taken into consideration. Mainly you need much thicker wiring to keep your resistive losses low. It's actually cheaper to have a transformer in the light fixture itself than it is to run heavy guage wire everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  14. Same here by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    I just purchased a new alarm clock and it bright enough that I could read by it's light. Since I keep it close to my bed I had to put two layers of tinted plastic over the display in order to sleep with it on the lowest setting. now it's almost impossible to read the time during the day.

  15. Re:The real breakthrough - no more electrolytic ca by Twinbee · · Score: 2

    How can I tell whether a given LED bulb from the shop has this tech? What companies currently use this tech?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc