Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

Posted by Soulskill on from the double-as-a-minature-space-elevator dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A light bulb made from graphene — said by its UK developers to be the first commercially viable consumer product using the super-strong carbon — is to go on sale later this year. The dimmable LED bulb with a graphene-coated filament was designed at Manchester University, where the material was discovered in 2004. It is said to cut energy use by 10% and last longer owing to its conductivity. It is expected to be priced lower than current LED bulbs, which cost about £15 (~$22) each.

109 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. LED ... filament? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Huh?

    1. Re:LED ... filament? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      It's new.

    2. Re:LED ... filament? by itzly · · Score: 4, Informative

      But that's not what they are talking about here. Those "filament" lamps are nothing but a row of LEDs on a strip.

      They're probably talking about this, which has nothing to do with filaments: http://optics.org/news/6/2/6

    3. Re:LED ... filament? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2

      I've got 2 of them. I think I saw the first ones about a year ago here: http://www.prolys.dk/da/produc...

      and now you can even get them in some hardware stores: http://www.bauhaus.dk/led-paer...

    4. Re:LED ... filament? by NoNeeeed · · Score: 1

      "filament-shaped LED coated in graphene"

      Filament-shaped, not a filament.

      I assume that just means the LED is a strand, rather than a square or circle as they often are at the moment.

      --
      Paul Leader
  2. What they are probably meaning: by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://optics.org/news/6/2/6
    http://www.nature.com/nmat/jou...

    The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

    It is riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's meaningless.
    '10%' - yes - 10% is mentioned ' Our first devices already exhibit an extrinsic quantum efficiency of nearly 10% and the emission can be tuned over a wide range of frequencies by appropriately choosing and combining 2D semiconductors'
    But going from that to LED efficiency is ridiculous.

    It is comedically ridiculous to claim that it's going to result in products this year.

    It's worth noting that the best existing 'warm white' LEDs bulbs can already produce about twice as much light per watt as compact florescent.
    (if they are made with around double the normal number of LEDs and a more efficient power supply).

    1. Re:What they are probably meaning: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It is riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's meaningless.

      You mean like LED bulbs costing $22 each? I bought a pack of 10 last month for $20, or $2 each.

    2. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled. ...
      It is comedically ridiculous to claim that it's going to result in products this year.

      That at least seems to not have come from the article writer. The University of Manchester's twitter feed is repeating it, and retweeting people who make the claim, so I assume it originated with them.

    3. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

      I know this is the internet and all, but at least try to temper your reaction a wee bit. if everything is an extreme then there is no nuance.

    4. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard that the reason Democrats pushed for CFLs was because they're reptilian and the UV light emitted is good for them, but now that they're getting phased out for LEDs they're all panicking.

    5. Re:What they are probably meaning: by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty harsh! What are you going on?

      I got the impression that the article was written after interviewing someone from the company in person. Like you, I don't have anything concrete to go on, but that seems the likeliest explanation for the "go to market" date.And I'm sure the rep from the company had earlier been involved in fundraising and as part of that would have had to tell investors his expectations of energy efficiency.

      BBC news articles about scientific papers, by contrast, invariably have the words "scientists say" and usually mention the paper's publication...

    6. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

      Ah, Slashdot. "I don't like what this guy said! Kill him!" (Applause and upmods)

      Good grief. Any normal person would recognise it's more likely that the OP was indulging in deliberate hyperbole to indicate his displeasure with the writer, rather than a psychopath who genuinely meant it literally. Especially given the repetition of "shot"(!)

      Either you have some form of autistic spectrum disorder (in which case, no offence, but that did need explained to you), you're stupid or you're just a would-be-smartass trying to score argumentative points by feigning misunderstanding and offence anyway.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:What they are probably meaning: by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

      Hanged.

      The writer may very well have twelve inches, but that's not important here. What's important is the past tense of "to hang" (in the sense of putting a man on the end of a rope) is "hanged"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:What they are probably meaning: by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You know, most people here are somehow related to computers.

      They only understand 0 and 1 ... sad.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:What they are probably meaning: by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually if you would look into a dictionary, or if you where a native english speaker you knew: it is 'hang, hung, hanged'.
      So your parent was right.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:What they are probably meaning: by paiute · · Score: 2

      I've been buying Philips SlimStyle LED bulbs for standard sockets at Home Depot lately. They are often on sale for less than $5 and put out a nice light.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    11. Re: What they are probably meaning: by kelleher · · Score: 1

      Coffee just shot out of my nose... That was brilliant.

    12. Re:What they are probably meaning: by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      I wondered about the physical design of the "bulb", but I've been extremely happy with them. I worried that they wouldn't be omidirectional, but they look great to me.

    13. Re:What they are probably meaning: by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
      From grammarist.com:

      "Hung is the past tense and past participle of hang in most of that verb’s senses .... The exception comes where hang means to put to death by hanging. The past tense and past participle of hang in this sense, and only in this sense, is hanged." [emphasis mine]

    14. Re: What they are probably meaning: by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I have some Cree's (60W equiv) that have been in sealed fixtures for a year, they cost me $9 each in bulk. They're still going

    15. Re:What they are probably meaning: by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      in ye olden days we just flogged each other on irc with dead trouts. well, an occasssional /me stabs $friend

      but it was all in good fun

    16. Re:What they are probably meaning: by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      before or after the article was published?

      publicists just take the best stuff from articles and retweet the fuck out of it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:What they are probably meaning: by prestwich · · Score: 1

      Thank you for finding this; I'd been trying to find any explanation of what they were actually offering.
      As for the 'on sale later this year' it sounds highly speculative. The only detail I can found out
      about the company they mention is that the company registration documents still show it as
      based in the University buildings, so it seems unlikely they've got anywhere near commercial
      production yet.

    18. Re:What they are probably meaning: by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, an exception lie that makes no sense at all.
      Is that a trick grammar rule so kids in school make more mistakes?
      Who is supposed to know stuff like this except a grammar professor? That is even worth than german writing/spelling rules :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Good gravy. You'd better not watch any Monty Python or cartoons. The mental overload from taking seriously all of that intentional silliness might cause your brain to BSOD.

    20. Re:What they are probably meaning: by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
      I'm speculating, but looking into it a bit, I see that:

      To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a statutory penalty in England for men convicted of high treason, although the ritual was first recorded during the reigns of King Henry III (1216–1272) and his successor, Edward I (1272–1307). [source: Wikipedia]

      so perhaps "hanged" is an anachronism that never got regularized due to being ensconced in early English law.

    21. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      $20 is an exaggeration. But the really low prices that a lot of us are seeing (under $5/bulb) include some hidden subsidies from utility companies. So do CFL prices, so this is nothing new.

    22. Re:What they are probably meaning: by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The SlimStyle bulbs won't fit in some fixtures, but they are a good choice if they fit. The original Cree bulbs (the ones with the big heat sink at the collar) also sometimes won't fit. The new Cree bulbs (the 4Flow design) are great for most applications but are a poor choice for theater-style fixtures where the top of the bulb is facing toward the user, because the holes at the top mean that the undiffused light is coming straight at you. I also have some Sylvania LED bulbs from BJ's that seem OK but they are not dimmable.

      The first LED bulb I bought was one of the weird Philips ones with the external yellow phosphor. That one is still going strong but I haven't bought any more of them; they never got cheap and the look of them is odd if the bulb is going to be visible.

      I did have one Cree bulb fail recently. Now I get to find out if the warranty is actually worth anything.

    23. Re:What they are probably meaning: by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, which ones are you talking about? Not 60W equivalents?

  3. How much do LED bulbs cost? by jordanjay29 · · Score: 2

    It is expected to be priced lower than current LED bulbs, which cost about £15 (~$22) each.

    And yet I just saw a pack of 4 at Menards for $7.95 today.

    1. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What does a pirate say after you kick him in the balls?

      Ow! Me nards!"

    2. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Are dimmable ones more expensive? Are they all dimmable?

      Probably more expensive. Up here in Canadaland non-dimmable you can get really good quality LED bulbs for $7-9 each, cheap ones from your local dollar store for $3 plus tax, and cheap 4 packs for about $12. Dimmables are between 25-70% more than the non.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by russotto · · Score: 1

      I just got a couple of Cree dimmable 60W equivalents for just under $10 a piece, and this is in NJ. So they're getting cheap. Still not happy with the light quality, but this is for a place that doesn't matter so much (and is replacing some crappy CFLs the previous owner had... one of which is burned out, which of course isn't supposed to happen)

    4. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Try the Cree TW series bulbs (a few more bucks per bulb, and a few more watts). They're still not perfect, but they're much better.

    5. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here you go, you irritating character.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Here you go, you irritating character.

      I know what CRI is, you pedantic twit. This doesn't address my comment at all, which was in reference to GP's vague statement about "light quality".

      If GP had written CRI, then I (and everybody else) would have known what he meant.

    7. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by sjames · · Score: 1

      CRI is one factor. Color temperature is another. Flicker/strobing is yet another.

      Add in dimming and some people don't like that the color temperature doesn't go down with the brightness like incandescents do. Others like that.

      So it's back to what aspect of the light was unacceptable.

    8. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Still even without the subsidies dimmable led bulbs are nowhere near 22 at your local costco.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    9. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Where are you shopping? CT Costco with the subsidies still about 3 a bulb.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    10. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Gotta give a shout-out to the Cree dimmable. Got one going for more than a year in awful conditions: outside, exposed to direct sun in the day, freezing weather at night, and (most impressive) connected to a really cheap photodiode for automatically switching on at night. The latter killed several CFLs because, at dusk and dawn, the lousy photodiode passes some flickering sub-voltage mess for a minute or two before finally switching off/on. The Cree has put up with this like a champ.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    11. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      Come to Connecticut. With subsidies, they cost under a dollar.

      Subsidies cost all the taxpayers of Connecticut. Government money isn't magic.

      I'm glad someone brought up the fact government money isn't magic. But with subsidies, the cost of the bulb is still under a dollar no matter how you try to spin your political ideology. If you want to add in transportation costs to and from the store, tax liability, energy cost versus other bulbs and intrinsic value lost or gained, then your political crap might apply. I buy a gallon of milk for $1.83 and it's quite easy to pull out 2 non-magical $1 bills to pay for it. Never had cashier ever charge me the government subsidy price. Have you?

    12. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      Never had cashier ever charge me the government subsidy price. Have you?

      You've missed the point. The cashier doesn't charge you the price of the subsidy. The tax man does. With milk, a subsidy might make sense since every person pretty much uses the same amount, except for lactose intolerant people, and occasional rich people with milk baths. But of the tax-paying set, the rich have a lot more light bulbs than the middle class per person. This means that the rich get a bigger tax break, funded by the middle class. Some people in the lower class might pay the tax for the subsidy and not even buy any light bulbs if they're sharing living space or their apartment pays for light fixtures.

      I didn't miss the point at all. When having a conversation about what I pay for a light bulb or any item I want to make my life better such as milk, subsidies would only enter that equation if I wanted to spam my political ideology. Call me shallow but my life doesn't work that way. I'm happy you consider things like that as it greatly alleviates those types of stressors when I shop. Carry on.

    13. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

      So when your employer withholds 30% of your salary for various taxes and you get 5% of it back on April 20th, do you proclaim "Whoopie! Free Money!"

      No, but it appears you're quite bitter about taxes and have troubles separating a light bulb purchase from your tax rates. Ulcer much?

    14. Re:How much do LED bulbs cost? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Wait, do you really pay $1.83/gallon for milk? The best sale price I see (store brand) is low $3s.. I knew there was a special CA milk pricing thing, but this article says that CA milk is _cheaper_ than other states, so that makes it even more mysterious.. (http://www.agweb.com/article/californias-dairies-finally-headed-to-a-fair-milk-price--NAA-catherine-merlo/)

  4. Re:okay, but LED bulbs are nowhere near $22/ea by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've got a few of the Cree bulbs bought from local big box stores - they work GREAT and the bright white is really white while the warm white looks a great deal like an older incandescent. So happy Cree finally got into the market!

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  5. Cut energy use by WHAT? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    Is that 10% better than LED? And longer lasting than LED?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Cut energy use by WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that 10% better than LED?
      And longer lasting than LED?

      Please refer to
      http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2004/01/terminology-led-efficiency.html

      Current crop of commercial LED bulbs have IQE (Internal quantum efficiency) of roughly 3% - which translate to the device giving out one photon on the average of having 30 electrons flowing through, although there was a report back in 1999 (see http://www.ece.lehigh.edu/~tansu/journals/Journal_90.pdf ) of a whopping 31% IQE

      The device brought up by TFA is noted to have a roughly EQE (External Quantum Efficiency) of more or less 10%

    2. Re:Cut energy use by WHAT? by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      Err - no.
      Look at the URL, there is a clue why you're spectacularly wrong.

      Current LEDs (blue ones, which white is based on) exceed 50% quantum efficiency.

      http://www.digikey.com/product... - for example - does 48% electricity to light.

    3. Re:Cut energy use by WHAT? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Err - no.

      That number on the Digikey page isn't lumens per watt (I've no idea what unit mw/W is supposed to be).

      If you look at the datasheet that LED is a max of 139 lumens with a forward voltage drop of 2.9 at 350 mA, or slightly less than 140 lumens per watt (under ideal conditions).

      By definition there are 683 lumens per watt of radiant power at a wavelength of 555 nm.

      The highest announced efficiency LED to date is "only" 303 lumens per watt - http://cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases/2014/March/300LPW-LED-barrier
      303/683 = 0.44 or 44%

      The best LED I can actually buy is still under 200 lumens per watt, less than 30%

      The 4flow, which is pretty close to the best consumer LED light bulb you can get is only 85 lumens per watt.
      http://www.homedepot.com/p/Cree-60W-Equivalent-Soft-White-2700K-A19-Dimmable-LED-Light-Bulb-with-4Flow-Filament-Design-BA19-08027OMF-12DE26-3U100/205597078

      All much better (efficacy) than a CFL or incandescent, but no where near 48%

    4. Re:Cut energy use by WHAT? by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      mW= 1/1000th of a watt.
      mW=W = parts per 1000 efficiency.

      480mW/W = 0.48W of light out for every watt of electricity in.
      This is a deep blue LED.
      It is very bad if you measure it in lumens per watt because the eye is quite insensitive to blue light.

      Whatever the answer - 30%/44% (and you can't do it that way, you've got to integrate over the spectral response of the eye and see if you actually care about colour - green light at 600lm/W is not a functional white light) - is still vastly higher than 10%.

      You cannot get the highest efficiency per watt LED bulbs, simply because they would require more LEDs than are absolutely required, and cost more, for no consumer visible benefit other than the watts.

  6. The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by wisnoskij · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ya, they are totally going to release a cheaper product that outperforms the competition in all areas and has added features. That is totally how Capitalism works.
    This is the first ever light bulb of this type. It will probably suck ass and cost $80 per bulb.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Capitalism or not, this isn't Star Trek. We can't build perfect technologies right out of the gate, first try.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Ya, they are totally going to release a cheaper product that outperforms the competition in all areas and has added features. That is totally how Capitalism works.

      Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What if we reverse the polarity of the graphene coating?

    4. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      What if we reverse the polarity of the graphene coating?

      It reverts to an incandescent bulb with an average lifetime of about 500ms.

    5. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You missed the point he was making - very rarely is a new product released that is better in *all* existing areas, and has *new* features, and is *cheaper* than the competition.

      Generally if it's better in all areas it'll cost more, price premium for a premium product. The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.

    6. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.

      That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      What if we reverse the polarity of the graphene coating?

      It sucks all the light out of other nearby fixtures.

    8. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.

      Deflation often leads to price reductions due to reduction in demand due to reduction in ability to pay as debt servicing becomes more onerous.

      Deflation is not a feature of a healthy market for goods as it is not a feature of a market for goods at all, but rather an feature of an unhealthy market for money. You really don't want deflation.

    9. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by sjames · · Score: 1

      Careful, the verteron flux might break down the subspace barrier.

      Trust me, you do NOT want to mess with that!

    10. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Reduction in prices is not deflation. Deflation is reduction in the money supply.

      You are getting your contexts confused. Not my fault.

      A market -- which is to say, the market for a particular good -- can be considered aside from the markets for other goods.

      Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.

      And in fact, all deflation can be measured by price point. Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger. So ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.

    11. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by mrbester · · Score: 1

      So... an electric dark bulb?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    12. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That would really suck wouldn't it?

      But think of the money the electric company would have to pay you, if you used enough of them.

    13. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by sjames · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't happen in one step even if the economics would support it. It starts more expensive and hopes to sell on features and performance. The price slowly drops to a new plateau as the early adopters slow down but remains more expensive. As others me too the features (assuming a patent sueball and/or collusion doesn't work), the price slowly drops.

    14. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Let me put it a different way: inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand... in this case the supply and demand of money. Its direct (if delayed) effects include the market value of goods to be exchanged for that money. This is expressed as prices of those goods.

      It can always be measured in price. They are not independent.

    15. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, for the same price, not for cheaper.

    16. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, for the same price, not for cheaper.

      And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by itzly · · Score: 1

      Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time

      They aren't talking about a product, or a group of products getting cheaper due to improvements in efficiency. That's not a problem. On the contrary, that's very good.

      The problem is when everything is dropping in price, including paychecks, and when interest rates are at 0% and still too high.

    18. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Government economic advisers have been harping about the "dangers" of deflation for a long time... yet the money supply was never in any danger.

      Ah, the unending optimism of the naive. Um, sorry - let me back off a bit here. Would you care to specify more clearly which measure of money supply are you basing that statement on? In the US and EU the rate of growth for the M2 money supply dropped quite a bit after the crisis started. And the M3 value (not rate of growth, the actual M3 value) took a hell of a plunge. So, to quote a wise ancestor post, ask yourself why. I already gave you all the hints you need.

      Within that market, "money supply" is mostly meaningless because money is considered to be a universal commodity. So deflation is measured by price point.

      No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation) - think of it, if you will, as money being available from a 'statistical reservoir' where fluctuations are typically much lower. You do not define deflation in a potatoes market, just as you do not define inflation in that. OTOH, the aggregate supply of goods can be thought of as comparable (statistically speaking) to the aggregate supply of money. As in/de-flation are statistical measures, stability (in terms of fluctuations) is paramount in even having a meaningful definition. So deflation, since this is where it started, is a case where a nominal unit of aggregate money increases in value compared to a nominal unit of aggregate goods - meaning people would be more likely to hold money than, on average, goods. (of course, some goods might still get into bubble valuations with 'investors' piling into them, but on the aggregate goods go down in value)

      I would suggest that you ask yourself why falling for simple soundbites is so easy sometimes.

    19. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That is a false comparison. The new model is basically identicle. They put like 1 MB more RAM in stick an incremented number on the model and ship. A better comparison is the very first digital camera ever released. in 1990 it was the Dycam Model 1; Which was black and white, low in resolution, and cost nearly $2,000 in inflated dollars. You don't get new products for cheaper.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    21. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...

      Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by sjames · · Score: 1

      I didn't claim markets can't work, just that you won't find new technology with significantly better features coming out cheaper. It does eventually happen.

      All of those tablets out there are significantly more expensive even now than would be suggested by the marginal cost of production. They haven't reached the endpoint by far.The vast majority of them will be long gone before they do reach that endpoint.

    23. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No. Within a narrowly defined market, money is just another type of 'goods' of which there's a vastly larger supply (and hence, a relatively stabler valuation)

      You're not contradicting me here. You're reinforcing what I said.

      GP confused inflation and deflation within a specific market, with how it is measured. My comment was about price point as an indicator. I did not mean that it was, by itself, inflation or deflation. I wasn't trying to "define" deflation.

      In this context, M2 and M3 have very little relevance.

    24. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Hae? What nonsense do you write? Like everyone else I have to earn my money with work ...

      Point is your argument was either wrong or bad expressed. Now trying to insult me makes no sense.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No. Pretending that market pressures don't drive companies updating their products and their pricing is ridiculous. You have to know that. So what are you trying say, by pretending that it's otherwise? My "argument" isn't wrong: companies continue to improve their products and adjust their pricing because markets require that. It's very reasonable to wonder about someone's experience and awareness of economics and business realities when they say otherwise.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:okay, but LED bulbs are nowhere near $22/ea by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    First Cree bulb I bought when they became available in Canada was ~3 years ago, and the bulb died a couple of weeks ago. They flat out refused to cover the warranty on it, home depot refused to cover the warranty on it as well. So that will make it the last time they will get business from me. I switched to the philips flat LED, which are rather nice. I just wish more stores carried the 5000-6000k bulbs, I hate the muddy brown 'warm' colour.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  8. led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    The best 3 bulbs out there are Cree and then Philips. Cree has the BEST LED by far, along with the best electronics including the driver. That is why they warranty their bulbs for 10 years. OTOH, Philips does 2,3 and a few for 5. Then you have the cheap chinese junk for 1-3 years, which will not last 12 months and the warranties are worthless.

    However, the Crees 65 w A19 bulb goes for $6.97 at Home Depot. These will last decades, unless you burn then 24x7.

    And this new graphene LED bulbs will compete HOW?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:led costs $22????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, the Crees 65 w A19 bulb goes for $6.97 at Home Depot. These will last decades, unless you burn then 24x7.

      Do you even own any of these? I have had to exchange 6 Cree A19's already for reasons ranging from literally falling apart to flickering constantly. ...not to mention their website doesn't list any 65W A19's.

      BTW, check their warranty. You need the receipt *and* the UPC from the package in order to get an RMA to spend the $5 to mail the dead bulb to them. Ever wonder how many warranty claims they pay out on? My guess is close to zero.

    2. Re:led costs $22????? by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just made another post about this, but I have about about 15-16 cree bulbs in my house. I take a picture of the receipt and the packaging at the time of every purchase.

      I've had trouble with two--both 40W TW series bulbs. These bulbs flickered--they would turn off and if I adjusted--or even tapped on the bulb--the bulb would come back on for a time. The problem got worse until they barely worked anymore. I thought it was the fixture until I tried one of the bad bulbs in a desk lamp and had the same issue.

      Anyway, I emailed Cree tech support with the photo of the receipt and packaging and had 3 new bulbs fedexed to me two days later.

      I'm annoyed by the quality lapse (less than a year), but I don't have any problems with their response.

    3. Re:led costs $22????? by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      And this new graphene LED bulbs will compete HOW?

      I was recently reminded that LEDs are not just good for consumer and business fixture applications.

      At the trainstop by my work, they just replaced all the old lights (constantly broken and dark) with these super bright LED panels. Ceilings in the station are so high that you need a scissor lift to get to the bulbs, it was a big multi-day production to put them in. You can imagine how any improvements in consistency, efficiency, and duty cycle would be very welcome.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    4. Re:led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First off, we switched our 3300 sq ft house to these over a year ago (I have less than 12 bulbs in the house that are not LEDs, but can not justify these economically since they do not burn a great deal). Have not lost a 1. They are holding up GREAT. In addition, we have seen our electric costs PLUMMET (which xcell hates since we have solar city ).

      In addition, I know for a fact that these rarely come back to Home Depot. I have asked at several THD and what I found out was that the ones that fail are in much older homes (from 50s and before), or very cheap ones from before the 90s.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:led costs $22????? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I own a dozen of them, and I gave six more to relatives to use outside as porch and garage lights. They're all more than a year old (Christmas 2013) and none of them blown out yet. I even have two in large (6x the volume of the bulb) enclosed fixtures over my head right now

      Maybe you're a troll.

    6. Re:led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yeah, I email the receipt (without spam) to my account and have them automatically sent to a folder and marked as read. As to the UPC, write it on the base, along with the date, with a sharpie.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, these are NOT subsidized. In fact, while the GOP (along with the dems) subsidize LOADS of things, they would not subsidize LED bulbs, esp. ones produced in America. The GOP and the tea baggers would rather send manufacturing out of the nation, unless it is 100% on their terms (no taxes, no regulations, no corporate responsibilities).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      exactly right. I have not changed a burned out bulb in over a year. As I wrote elsewhere, we have less than 12 bulbs that are NOT LEDs and these are not changed due to economics (not on long enough / week to justify it). I will replace them down the road when they burn out.

      But for a business, the costs of replacing bulbs can be ENORMOUS. In fact, higher than the costs of the bulbs. But by going to DECENT LEDs, you will get at least a decade. Even the cheap ones (pretty much everything that does not have a Cree or Philip LED) will normally last 2-3 years.

      I will say that I bought 1 from Lights of America and another from GE about 5 years ago. Both burned out in less than 1 year. I was NOT impressed. In addition, both burned me on the warrenties. Not impressed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:led costs $22????? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      why? What does it matter how big my house is? The house that I grew up in for about a decade was 7000 sq feet, that we built back in early 70s. In addition, it was built such that the specs still remain above what is called for today.
      And at my current house, we have 43 solar panels so that we generate not just our electricity, but for others.
      So, what the fuck do you care since I am obviously more of an environmentalist than you are?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. Still too dim by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Just about every LED bulb is rated for 60 watts (equiv) which is too dim for my living room. You can get 100 watt but they cost triple the price! I could buy two 60 watters and a Y adapter and it would still cost less.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Still too dim by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      That's what I'm really hopeful for--a dimmable, high-CRI, 100W equivalent LED.

    2. Re:Still too dim by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      In your case I'd consider getting away from 'bulbs' and going with a new fixture. That's what I've been doing lately. Rather than toss 2-3 'bulbs' into a fixture meant for incandescent, I've been replacing it with a fixture with the LEDs integrated. No cooling problems when you can scatter the emitters throughout the fixture's light emitting surface.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Still too dim by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

      You mean like any of these? http://www.cnet.com/products/p...

      ~~

    4. Re:Still too dim by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      No fixtures, just an ordinary table lamp.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    5. Re:Still too dim by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Those look to have ~80 CRI. Having used LEDs with 80 CRI and ~93/94 CRI, I can absolutely tell a difference. I would prefer 90+ CRI, but those don't really seem to exist yet.

    6. Re:Still too dim by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think my point still applies - get a lamp that's designed for LEDs and comes with them as standard, as opposed to paying even more money for 'adapting' bulbs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  10. Re:okay, but LED bulbs are nowhere near $22/ea by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmmm, interesting. I've upgraded almost my entire house to Cree bulbs over the last two years. I had one fixture that had three 40W TW (high CRI) bulbs--the only 40W crees I've used--that were all bought at the same time. Two of the bulbs died within a week of each other--they flicker off and if you tap them will turn back on. I'm assuming some solder or some other connection has weakened. I'm going to try to fix them, but that's neither here nor there.

    I emailed Cree support with a picture of my receipt and a picture of the original packaging (taken at the time I purchased them). Cree immediately offered to Fedex me three new bulbs (including a replacement for the third bulb) and did not even ask for me to send the old bulbs back. I had new bulbs two days later.

    I'm disappointed that the bulbs didn't last that long, but I couldn't ask for any better response out of Cree's support.

  11. Re:Err... by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

    Your post doesn't give enough information to explain why you think $10 is a better price point. I'm assuming you're talking about 60 Watt bulbs, so $22 would be high. For the new 100 Watt bulbs, that is about average. For the new Bright White, omnidirectional, dimmable 100 Watt bulbs, $22 is a little low.

    ~~

  12. Too much! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    What crazy upside down world pays $22 for a light blub?

    1. Re:Too much! by DamonHD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One that saves more than that in electricity within a year or two, and avoids high replacement maintenance costs on top in commercial settings.

      What crazy world has people continuing to complain about the cost of petrol relative to hay while whining that the motorways seem so unfriendly for their horse and cart?

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Too much! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Or you could pick up them for 3 bucks at costco and see a savings in a few months.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Too much! by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      60W GLS incandescent bulb left on for a year costs ~£60 in UK prices or £20 if used 8h/d, which is > $22.

      That's why we should stop using them.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  13. Brighter ones available from Philips (in Germany) by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    Recently I discovered slightly oversize LED bulbs from Philips at my preferred hardware store, rated at 75 watts (equiv) or 100 watts. Cheap enough too, the 75 watts equivalent cost around 10 Euro, the 100 watts equivalent around 13 Euro.

    I've already tried out the 75 watts equivalent in one of my lamps, and subjectively it is as bright as the 100 watt bulb in the identical lamp beside it. This may have to do with the fact that they emit their light over a hemisphere, part of the light that goes into the rear half of the lamp is lost with the incandescent bulbs. The LEDs mostly avoid that. Still, I find it pretty impressive.

    The 100 watts equivalent has almost 50% more flux in its specs. In my little apartment, I expect it to come across like a floodlight.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  14. LED bulbs don't cost £15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They pulled that number out of their ass. I bought an LED bulb from Asda two weeks ago for about £5.00.

  15. Fact Check! by EagleRider70 · · Score: 1

    LED Daylight bulbs for $5.97 ea. http://www.homedepot.com/p/Phi...

    1. Re:Fact Check! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Which Homedepot is that, here in Virginia they are $8.97

      I go to the link, and I see $9.97.

      I wonder if the original poster is getting local power company/state subsidies baked into the Home Depot price (maybe Home Depot can get the subsidy based on their sales). I know I can get $8/bulb subsidy for a couple of them (and yes, I realize that is just other people's money).

  16. 10% lower compared to WHAT? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Neither the headline, nor the original article say.

  17. Lie to word ratio approaching 1:1 by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    "A light bulb made from graphene"

    It is not made from graphene.

    "said by its UK developers to be the first commercially viable consumer product using the super-strong carbon"

    There are a wide variety of consumer products that *clime* to use graphene. http://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-products

    "Manchester University, where the material was discovered in 2004":

    Ok, they got this right.

    "It is said to cut energy use by 10% and last longer owing to its conductivity."

    LED bulbs die when their electrocaps fry. Improving the conductivity of the LED (and I can't imagine how it would do this) would not change this.

    "It is expected to be priced lower than current LED bulbs, which cost about £15 (~$22) each."

    Current LED bulbs are widely available in the UK for £5 to 10. http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/shelves/Light_Bulbs_in_Tesco.html

  18. $22? That's high by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Here in the states, LED bulbs are down to $11 to $13.

    Still... good to hear 10% less energy usage.

    As long as they 3100-3200K light and not that wierd 2900K stuff I might try one.

    And they better give an honest 850-900 lumens for the "60 watt" variety!

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  19. cut 10%? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    Cut 10% compared to what? to current LED bulbs or the 'old' bulbs.. that's a big difference..

  20. Only 10% lower? by pebear · · Score: 1

    The 60 Watt equivalent bulbs I bought at Home Cheapo say they burn at 5 to 10 watts. So are the Graphene bulbs 10% more efficient than the current LED Bulbs? Or only 10% more efficient than incandescent bulbs? If the later is true than it's not worth the price...

    --
    Paul E. Bahre